Banning all Muslims vs. Banning all guns: an examination (Israel, cost, examples)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...In virtually all mass killings in the United States the weapon used has been a firearm. Some contend other weapons can be used, and to a limited extent, things like hatchets and knives make up a small percentage of mass killing weapons. But they tend not to be as efficient as firearms and therefore are usually serve as a second choice....
Rarely have I seen a statement so totally and obviously WRONG. Bombs, chemical and biological agents, fire, building or bridge collapse, and and big machines like airplanes, are all FAR more effective and efficient at killing than firearms are. Just think of the biggest mass murders of my lifetime:
--In 1995, the Oklahoma City bomber blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and killed 168 people, using explosives in a truck that was parked in front of the building, and over 680 others were injured.
--In 2001, the 9/11 terrorist attacks killed over 3,000 Americans using airplanes full of jet fuel, which were taken over using box cutters.
--In 2013, the Tsarnaev brothers killed 4 people and injured 264 more at the Boston Marathon, using pressure cooker bombs.
Even going back to a time when America was more of a frontier (1927), explosives were used to murder 44 young children at the Bath, Michigan School Massacre--a number equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined.
The point is, when psychos use guns to commit mass murder, they generally kill far fewer people than if they had chosen more "macro" weapons like bombs, airplanes, poison gas (Sarin gas attack in Japan), biological agents (anthrax), or taking down buildiings via fire, explosives, or structural sabotage.
WHY? Because a gun requires targeting one victim at a time, and actually shooting the victim before they flee or find cover--which, as hunters know, is far more difficult than it looks. Even if the victim is shot, chances are that he/she will survive anyway: "Gunshot: 80-95% chance of survival, according to Dr. Vincent J.M. DiMaio. He found that 80%t of the targets on the body are not fatal places to be shot. And if you're shot and you get to a hospital with your heart still beating, there's a 95% chance of survival." 11 Things We Think are Fatal That Actually Have Great Survival Odds - 11 Points
The psycho must then move on to the next potential victim, who must also be targeted and brought down individually--in the chaos of everybody running for the exits and hiding. When the psycho is trying for impressive numbers of victims, it's pretty hard to get out of single digits when using guns.
The worst cases are when the psycho shooter is wandering around a designated "gun free zone" and stalking helpless victims with all the time in the world, while the police wait outside (standard procedure; see Columbine and Virginia Tech). Since the victims are law-abiding, they aren't allowed to carry guns to defend themselves; Big Government has created a "shooting fish in a barrel" scenario. Without such idiocy, we'd likely have members of the military, hunters and skilled target shooters in the building, either returning fire or ambushing the psycho if he tried to stalk anyone. Innocent victims would be minimized, and hopefully the psycho would not survive the encounter.
It's already illegal for civilians to possess bombs. Good lord.
Yes that was the point. The Washington Post graphic that I posted showed that 51% of terrorist attacks in the United States from 1970 to 2011 used bombs, vs 8% that used guns.
You are arguing that banning guns will reduce terrorist attacks. I was making the point that most terrorist attacks use bombs, and bombs are already banned, so it stands to reason that banning guns probably won't help much. Logically.
Rarely have I seen a statement so totally and obviously WRONG. Bombs, chemical and biological agents, fire, building or bridge collapse, and and big machines like airplanes, are all FAR more effective and efficient at killing than firearms are. Just think of the biggest mass murders of my lifetime:
--In 1995, the Oklahoma City bomber blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and killed 168 people, using explosives in a truck that was parked in front of the building, and over 680 others were injured.
--In 2001, the 9/11 terrorist attacks killed over 3,000 Americans using airplanes full of jet fuel, which were taken over using box cutters.
--In 2013, the Tsarnaev brothers killed 4 people and injured 264 more at the Boston Marathon, using pressure cooker bombs.
Even going back to a time when America was more of a frontier (1927), explosives were used to murder 44 young children at the Bath, Michigan School Massacre--a number equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined.
The point is, when psychos use guns to commit mass murder, they generally kill far fewer people than if they had chosen more "macro" weapons like bombs, airplanes, poison gas (Sarin gas attack in Japan), biological agents (anthrax), or taking down buildiings via fire, explosives, or structural sabotage.
WHY? Because a gun requires targeting one victim at a time, and actually shooting the victim before they flee or find cover--which, as hunters know, is far more difficult than it looks. Even if the victim is shot, chances are that he/she will survive anyway: "Gunshot: 80-95% chance of survival, according to Dr. Vincent J.M. DiMaio. He found that 80%t of the targets on the body are not fatal places to be shot. And if you're shot and you get to a hospital with your heart still beating, there's a 95% chance of survival." 11 Things We Think are Fatal That Actually Have Great Survival Odds - 11 Points
The psycho must then move on to the next potential victim, who must also be targeted and brought down individually--in the chaos of everybody running for the exits and hiding. When the psycho is trying for impressive numbers of victims, it's pretty hard to get out of single digits when using guns.
The worst cases are when the psycho shooter is wandering around a designated "gun free zone" and stalking helpless victims with all the time in the world, while the police wait outside (standard procedure; see Columbine and Virginia Tech). Since the victims are law-abiding, they aren't allowed to carry guns to defend themselves; Big Government has created a "shooting fish in a barrel" scenario. Without such idiocy, we'd likely have members of the military, hunters and skilled target shooters in the building, either returning fire or ambushing the psycho if he tried to stalk anyone. Innocent victims would be minimized, and hopefully the psycho would not survive the encounter.
And how many 9/11's and OK City's have we seen compared to mass killings by gun?
Yes but you are all forgetting that the Right Wing wants to ban Muslims and points to the latest shooting in Orlando as a reason.
Get it now? The Right is saying these shootings are grounds to ban Muslims. If they are going to point to shootings as an excuse to ban anything, let them take into account the gun variable, which is the more dominant variable.
If RPG's could be bought legally you would see more RPG's used in domestic mass killings. But they can't, so we don't.
In other words, "it's the weapon that counts, not the ideology of the perpetrator."
And you're exaggerating. The right wing isn't saying "let's ban all Muslims" any more than the left wing is saying "let's ban all guns".
The right wing is saying "let's require more thorough scrutinization for Muslims attempting to immigrate into the country" and the left wing is saying "let's require more thorough scrutinization for people attempting to buy assault weapons and other similar firearms". Neither of which are really bad ideas.
And you are trying to muddy the waters because you want your side to "WIN!!!" like a da** football fan, regardless of what other people are trying to do every day day-in and day-out to actually keep this country safe. You don't care about keeping this country safe. You care that your side wins. Rah rah rah sis boom bah.
This is not freaking football. This is people's lives.
Yes that was the point. The Washington Post graphic that I posted showed that 51% of terrorist attacks in the United States from 1970 to 2011 used bombs, vs 8% that used guns.
You are arguing that banning guns will reduce terrorist attacks. I was making the point that most terrorist attacks use bombs, and bombs are already banned, so it stands to reason that banning guns probably won't help much. Logically.
Then that graph has cooked the numbers.
I'm not talking about just terrorist mass killings. The thread is about mass killings.
If that graph is only counting terrorist mass killings then it is excluding a vast number of domestic, non-terrorist mass killings.
It's excluding events like columbine, Newtown, VAtech, and who knows how many more. More than can be counted, no doubt.
And you're exaggerating. The right wing isn't saying "let's ban all Muslims" any more than the left wing is saying "let's ban all guns".
The right wing is saying "let's require more thorough scrutinization for Muslims attempting to immigrate into the country" and the left wing is saying "let's require more thorough scrutinization for people attempting to buy assault weapons and other similar firearms". Neither of which are really bad ideas.
And you are trying to muddy the waters because you want your side to "WIN!!!" like a da** football fan, regardless of what other people are trying to do every day day-in and day-out to actually keep this country safe. You don't care about keeping this country safe. You care that your side wins. Rah rah rah sis boom bah.
This is not freaking football. This is people's lives.
It doesn't matter what they're saying about Muslims. The point is they are focused on the wrong variable. The predominant variable in domestic mass killings is guns, not Muslims.
No, you are trying to muddy the waters. The waters are crystal clear with me.
Yep, spend your time learning the Smith System instead. If you are afraid of an ISIS inspired attack ISIS has already beaten you. Personally, I'm gonna lose 30 pounds.
We could save a lot of lives by banning sodomy. From the CDC.
While I neither own a gun or take it up the ass I respect the rights of gun owners and sodomites. I would never propose we ban either gun rights or ass entering rights. I do propose that this nation should restrict immigration. In a welfare state you have to.
And you're exaggerating. The right wing isn't saying "let's ban all Muslims" any more than the left wing is saying "let's ban all guns".
The right wing is saying "let's require more thorough scrutinization for Muslims attempting to immigrate into the country" and the left wing is saying "let's require more thorough scrutinization for people attempting to buy assault weapons and other similar firearms". Neither of which are really bad ideas.
And you are trying to muddy the waters because you want your side to "WIN!!!" like a da** football fan, regardless of what other people are trying to do every day day-in and day-out to actually keep this country safe. You don't care about keeping this country safe. You care that your side wins. Rah rah rah sis boom bah.
This is not freaking football. This is people's lives.
It doesn't matter what they're saying about Muslims. The point is they are focused on the wrong variable. The predominant variable in domestic mass killings is guns, not Muslims.
No, you are trying to muddy the waters. The waters are crystal clear with me.
It does matter what they're saying about Muslims. It also matters what they're saying about guns. They are both variables. They both need to be looked at. And if you can't admit that, then you are lying to yourself for the sake of winning the political football game, lives be d****.
There's another variable that hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread too. And that's the fact that our biggest weapon against terrorism (and "mass killing") is accurate and timely intelligence. It's not coincidental that the worst attack since 9/11 comes shortly after the effects of the Snowden debacle. Just sayin.
It's the classic quandary of safety vs freedom. Restricting guns, immigration, and increasing surveillance all increase security but decrease freedom. It's a fine line to balance.
And that's what you do. You balance it. You don't jump off one side of the thing to your death shouting "you're wrong I win!!!!!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.