It really isn't, because a crime comitted with a knife has far less chance of going wrong and ending life than a crime comitted with a gun.

Would you rather be assaulted with a fist or a gun? I know I'll take the former.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on May 6 2022 12:46pm

Or how about instead of asking stupid, pointless questions like how would you prefer to be victimized in a crime, we ask how we can reduce overall crimes?

Reducing the intensity of crime is just as important as reducing the amount of crime.

It's only stupid and pointless to those who are themselves stupid and pointless.

But you seem to focus on reducing intensity to the exclusion of the rest. Seriously, when have you gun-grabbers ever proposed anything or even talked about reducing overall crimes? All you do is screech about is how guns are bad and how banning them will reduce "intensity" (LOL) of crimes like it should be a goal to strive for.

Seriously, ask yourself. Ask yourself honestly: "have I ever thought about how to reduce overall crimes, or am I only focused on taking guns away?"



I give you a 3 out of 10 for this effort.

"I'll take a fist" - Thor, 2022.

Reducing crime my reforming the prison system to focus on rehabilitation and removing discrimination against minority communities are central tenants of the "gun grabbers"

I'm not gay but 20fg is 20fg

That's good, I suppose.

Anyway, wanting to reduce intensity of crimes due to guns doesn't make any intellectual sense. It's kind of like saying we should manufacture cars so that they become much slower. This is so that when people do get into car-related accidents, it won't be nearly as serious. This is retarded. You are blaming guns for being very good at what they are designed to do, aka, to kill people.

There's literally zero reason any car should go over 75 MPH that citizens buy. i am not in favor of making cars max out, but it seems you accidentally made thors point with a terrible analogy.