sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
What's the point of gun control if it's not about controlling death. It doesn't seem to have great effect. Didn't do much for England either.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Debating mental illness and gun violence
- Thread starter Epic Beard Man
- Start date
Oooh. That's brilliant. Also, alive is alive. Determining causes of death isn't to help the dead (obviously) but to try and reduce deaths in the future.
What are you talking about? It links to the US government definition used previously is 4, but there is no strict definition.
Who can control death?
Who claimed they could?
We have pool fence laws, but people still drown. But it's less than it was before the pool fence laws.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
And gun control doesn't seem to help. People murder their kids with knives instead. Much more humane.
Cairns Child Killing, Australia: 8 dead by a knife.
Last edited:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Gun death is usually by murder. Mass murders are not significantly reduced by gun control laws.
Why do you really want to control guns then?
Wounded people are not 'massacred' are they? And one of the reasons for regulating guns is so the would-be murderer with a gun is more likely to have lower kill numbers.
Did you know the shooter in the case you're quoting used handguns?
It's a great pro-gun control argument, unless you decide to count 'number of massacres' whilst ignoring death counts, and act like wounded and killed are the same.
Not that anyone taking the issue remotely seriously and investing thought would do that.
Gun control increased, death's by both murder and suicide dropped.
People still have guns.
People still murder.
People still suicide.
For the same reason you want to control hand-held surface to air missiles.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Just keep ignoring my posts.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You're redefining murder now. I gave you the numbers. Crusade on though.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I want some shoulder fired missles.
What was your reason for wanting gun control?
Last edited:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You got your panties in a wad over the term massacre, which I defined for you in another post you must have ignored. Yet all I care about is whether gun control stops the death toll. Doesn't seem to have much effect on you Aussies. You just kill in other ways.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Which case was that?
I'm not. By all means, point out what I've ignored and I'll address it. I don't play those sort of games.
How so?
Murders dropped. Not just gun murders.
Suicides dropped. Not just gun suicides.
Pretty simple, no redefinition required.
You think people should have unregulated access to shoulder fired missiles?
Gun control worked here. You guys can do whatever you like, I jumped into this thread because of an assertion made (not by you) that gun control overseas had not worked.
That's not true in our case.
1) I don't wear panties, but I guess I'd still be capable of rational thought if I did.
2) I must have missed the definition of massacre, so I apologise. Rest assured it was oversight, not deliveberate. Can you link/repeat?
3) Murders dropped. Suicides dropped. People still die.
Point 3 seems important.
The Monash shootings.
2 dead, 5 wounded, listed as a massacre on the Wikipedia page you referenced.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
It sounds like the shooter just couldn't shoot straight. I still counted it in the death toll you wrongly assumed I ignored.