Grooveriding
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2008
- 9,147
- 1,329
- 126
Very true.
I tried that same argument long ago. They responded with that cars kill people too. I have never seen someone rob a bank while threatening to drive into the bank...
Guns are designed to kill people. And nothing will ever change that. Unless bullets are developed that increase in size on impact, deforming in such a way that only a bruise and a lot of pain will be present. And the amount of gun powder should be set to a maximum (potential energy) since that is also vital in the amount of kinetic energy a bullet has after being fired.
Rubber bullets will not do ,though. Then a gun would be a proper non lethal deterrent. Unless someone is saturated with painkillers of course.
But such bullets do not exist... :|
edit:
Only the police should have real bullets.
There is always the old Chris Rock joke of raising the price of ammunition to a sky high point. Put a tax on ammunition to the point that a bullet costs $1000 to all but the military or law enforcement and then require a permit to produce ammunition and criminalize the production of ammunition without a permit.
Someone will have to take out a second mortgage to go on a shooting rampage
I think a reassessment of the second amendment and the idea that it is still some sort of reasonable and sound notion would probably be worth doing. The idea that it is some sort of sacrosanct edict doesn't make sense. It is an archaic notion from a time when people were living in what was essentially the wild west. That in the year 2015 it should still amount to the right to unrestricted access to all sorts of firearms doesn't add up.
I mean, the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments have all largely been thrown out by the NSA, Patriot Act and secret courts. So why is the 2nd escaping a similar gutting ?