Seems somebody at the Miami Herald wants you dead

[glatt]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That's speculation, of course. Even if it were possible, there's no reason to think that depriving a violent man of weapons makes him less violent, nor that they would "do less damage"...whatever that really means.

First off, I never said "Since prohibition doesn't work, the conclusion is obvious." I'll assume you inadvertently included that sentence with my quoted text.

I don't know what you mean by "a violent man." Does that mean "in the midst of a violent act" or "has violent thoughts that he wants to act upon?" If a person has violent thoughts, I think they are more likely to act on those thoughts if they are confident that they will be successful. If they are armed with a gun, they will be highly confident. If they are armed with a less effective weapon, they will be less confident. I think it's very obvious that guns embolden men with violent thoughts to act on those thoughts when they otherwise wouldn't. Not in every case. Not every time. But overall.

Is this speculation? Sure. But so is your position.

edit: And when I say "do less damage" I mean that a gun does more damage than a knife.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

I mean that a gun does more damage than a knife.

Well, that's petitio principi; (question-begging).

But it's also not true. Guns do have more range than knives, but a knife, depending on it's size and how it's wielded, can easily do more tissue damage than a bullet. And a bludgeon can deliver more kinetic energy.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Well, that's petitio principi; (question-begging).

But it's also not true. Guns do have more range than knives, but a knife, depending on it's size and how it's wielded, can easily do more tissue damage than a bullet. And a bludgeon can deliver more kinetic energy.

Yes. Yes. But the million dollar question is "what do you choose to carry, Maggie?"