> Because the right to bear arms pertains to anything from a sword to a rifle. Anything and everything can be used as a weapon to kill and to inflict massive harm. A good example is a car that was recently driven into a parade killing 6 and injuring more than 50.

Agreed. Just about anything can be used to kill - even a bag of cotton balls if shoved into someone's throat to the point where their airway is blocked and they suffocate. But that's not the point.

You can not seriously argue that it's not far easier to kill using a gun, particularly a semi-automatic and from a distance to boot. A lunatic wielding a sword may be able to kill several people before being overpowered but put an AR-15 with 30 rounds of ammunition into the same lunatic hands, and the potential death rate goes up tenfold.

I take your point about the recent tragedy where an idiot drove a car through a parade and killed people in America, but that's not comparable to gun-related crime year after year.

If nothing changes and the second amendment isn't revised to suit modern times and living conditions, then when or how can gun-related violence end?

Making guns even more readily available than they already are so that people can defend themselves only exacerbates the problem, so simple logic dictates that the removal of guns from the streets and regulating to force people to have to show justification for obtaining (and continue keeping) firearms makes perfect sense. Wouldn't you say that would be a massive step in the right direction?

In other words, revisit the second amendment and bring it back into line with 21st Century living.

> My son or daughter could easily take a knife to school to inflict pain or use a pair of readily available scissors to kill students that have bullied them.

No doubt, but their opportunity to kill multiple kids instead of just injuring a few would be severely restricted, and that's the whole point. A knife or a pair of scissors can kill, yes. So can a fork, but none of those things are designed for that purpose.

A gun, on the other hand, is specifically designed for that purpose. To kill and maim as quickly and efficiently as possible. It makes sense to have strict laws about how available they are, not just to kids but also to the American population in general. Guns have no logical place in society.

> People are the cause not the second amendment.

But that's only half the story, Dan.

Of course it's people that pull the trigger, but it's the second amendment that gives them the means to obtain deadly weapons in the first place. It's a vicious circle and given that you can't police people who will harm 24/7, it logically follows that the ease of gun availability has to be addressed. How to start doing that? By revisiting the need and value of the second amendment.

That amendment is well overdue to be revised or cut out of the American constitution entirely in my opinion. Remove and severely restrict the ability for people to obtain guns and the people problem (relating to guns) takes care of itself. At a minimum, the people who slaughter others through yearly mass shootings no longer have easy access to the weapons they need to cause the carnage you guys must live with every year.

> The anarchist cook book protected by the first amendment details how to make a simple pipe bomb. Also don't forget that in chemistry classes one can learn how to make a simple bomb.

Sure, the info can be found on the Internet as well. But how often have you heard of kids being slaughtered at school because someone made use of a pipe bomb? Now, how many times have you heard of mass shootings resulting in slaughtered kids?

> So your argument is very moot with regards to guns killing people.

On the contrary, I've just shown you why it's your argument that fails the logic test and is moot.

> So what is worse guns or obesity?

Guns. Because an obese person primarily harms himself through his own choice. A gun, on the other hand, harms others. But you're just trying to deflect from the real issue again.

This discussion isn't about how many Americans die and from what. It's about the value and worth of an outdated second amendment that has a direct cause and effect on the number of yearly gun-related deaths in America. Remove that second amendment protection and gun availability is immediately curtailed. Combine that with a buy-back scheme to get guns back off the streets, and America could finally start making some headway in putting a stop to mass shootings.

It's logic that can't be argued, and countries (just like Australia) have already shown that such steps are both effective and doable.

Edited by achzone, 27 November 2021 - 12:53 AM.

Link:

Is the US 2nd Amendment a major contributor to US Mass Shootings? - The Speak Easy - BleepingComputer