So, what gun control being pushed by the left, would have prevented SC killings?

[Christians4LessGvt]

So, you go to church to have a fighting chance?

No I go to church to hear the Good Word
but I put on my seat belt on my way...just in case.
I lock my SUV doors when I get out at church....just in case.
Yesterday I took my umbrella into church....just in case. (yes it rained again in Texas yesterday)
and I find comfort in knowing law abiding citizens with concealed/carry are in church with me...just in case
a bad guy were to appear in church with a gun... the bad guy would not be the only one with a gun

[sirs]

So, you go to church to have a fighting chance?

As it relates to entering the Kindom of God, perhaps.  Otherwise, for me, its simply safer to be armed, where ever I go, be it church, or anywhere for the matter.  The issue is having it if its ever needed vs not having it, if such an unfortunate situation did present itself

So, I guess its safe to assume you drive without wearing your seatbelt, correct?  I mean, why would you, considering the odds of you ever being in an accident are pretty slim, right?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Wearing my seat belt is simply wise.

I will not be forced to strangle anyone with it to save my life.

My seat belt is not a lethal weapon, unlike your gun.

Besides, there is a law requiring me to wear a seat belt, and my car is so old it has no airbag.

[sirs]

Wearing my seat belt is simply wise.

Why?  Because.......lemme guess.....it might save your life, right??

My seat belt is not a lethal weapon, unlike your gun.

Your car could be a lethal weapon, which of course, isn't the point.  My gun can also be used to save a life.  And statistically speaking, that's what the gun has been doing in this country....saving far more lives than they take.  In the hands of one of us good gun nuts, they are just as safe and wise as your seatbelt.  More so in fact

Besides, there is a law requiring me to wear a seat belt, and my car is so old it has no airbag.

So, you're saying you wouldn't wear your seatbelt, if there wasn't a law.  Is that what you're saying, that it's only the law that's making you comply in wearing a seatbelt??

[sirs]

(and before professor literal starts to decry "so how many lives have you saved?", I made it clear that STATISTICALLY speaking, not personally speaking, more lives are saved with the use of a firearm, then taken.  At least in this country.  Personally, I've not yet saved or taken a life, despite having had a CCW for just over 2 decades now.  Never even had to pull my firearm out.  My goal is that the situation never arises either, but if it ever did, like Cu4 was referring, I and my loved ones, will at least have a fighting chance)

[Plane]

Again. guns should be registered in a national gun registry.

I don't understand what sort of crime this would prevent.

Certainly not the church shooting that provokes this discussion.

[sirs]

Well deduced Plane.  It really doesn't prevent anything.  It may be able to solve some cases, after the fact....but at what cost?  More control to turn over to the Government.  It's precisely why the founders put in place the very Bill of Rights.  The amount of attrition it would take to start to degrade the #'s of firearms, by banning them, leaving any excess in the hands of the bad gun nuts and black market, would take perhaps a generation.  And in the meantime, the people put at far greater risk is again, the law abiding, as they reluctantly adhere to the law

It's stunning to think that there are those who really believe that more gun laws and banning, will somehow dissuade the bad gun nut from still aquiring his/her weapons illegally     

[Plane]

There is the experience of Canada when they tried to have a gun registry.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

......reported that the project was running vastly above initial cost estimates.

Yes , in Canada the registration of Guns turned out to be more difficult and much more expensive than estimated.

There are still Canadians who support the measure, but most Canadians have noticed that the system is enormously expensive and that the benefits are difficult to demonstrate.

So the Canadian experience with registration is not a real success , not yet anyway, perhaps after they have spent a few billion more.

Now when we start registering guns in the USA it won't be so expensive or troublesome , because Americans are so much more co-operative than Canadians .

But even if it could be done for free, what sort of crime would it prevent?



Anyhow , it seems that the Canadians are just about to give up on it.

Upon passage of Bill C-19, the Province of Quebec moved for a motion to prevent the destruction of the Quebec portion of the records. A temporary injunction was granted on April 5, 2012 which will leave enough time for proper legal arguments to be heard.[5] On March 27, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled against Quebec, allowing the destruction of the records.[39]

On September 8, 2014 an appeal by the Barbra Schlifer Clinic to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to rule that the withdrawal of the Long Gun Registry was unconstitutional was denied. The applicants sought to show that the removal of the Registry denied women their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to: "life, liberty and security of the person". In its judgment the court ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the Registry had been of any measurable benefit to women and that statistically rates of firearms-related violence had been following a trend downward before the Registry and had not changed after the Registry had been withdrawn.[40]

[Xavier_Onassis]

I bought a seatbelt and installed it in my 49 Studebaker. I have been wearing a seatbelt since 1963.
But a seatbelt is not a lethal weapon.
My seatbelt cannot be used to kill me if stolen.

Seatbelts and guns are entirely different things.

[sirs]

And no one claimed your seatbelt is a lethal weapon either, Dr Deflection.  That'd be your car.  The issue is you chose to use your seat belt it for safety reasons.  To potentially save your life in fact.  It's the same reason 99% of those who have a CCW use their firearm, for safety reasons, and to potentially save one's life, if not someone else's. 

It's the use, that makes them the same

[Xavier_Onassis]

You defend yourself with a seatbelt in a passive way. It keeps you from being thrown out of the car.

No one uses their seatbelt to threaten anyone with death.
No one kills other bad drivers with a seatbelt.

Seatbelts and guns are entirely different in the way they might protect you, or don't.

No one will take your seatbelt out of the glove box and threaten you with it, as they could do with a gun.

This is an invalid comparison. Seatbelts are not the same as guns.

[sirs]

Defending yourself is defending yourself, regardless.  Shall we list all the articles and stories of people being threatened, if not actually killed with an auto??

[Xavier_Onassis]

Seatbelts do not make cars more likely to have accidents.

Your argument is totally spurious.

[sirs]

And no one claimed seatbelts create more accidents Dr Deflection.  They're merely a choice a person uses to better protect themselves from the potential of injury, or even death

Same use as a firearm in the hands of a responsible law abiding gun owner

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no comparison between seat belts and guns.