Banning guns, bows and arrows, knives, bats, crowbars, hammers, etc. etc. will not solve the problem of mass killings.

Banning mass killers will solve the problem.

How do we do that?  We can't.  Because we won't know until they start killing.

Solution?  Armed law-abiding citizens who won't hesitate to cap their f**kn asses as soon as they act up.

It isn't a fail proof solution but it sure beats what's going on now.

Old saying, it's about shot placement. There is more to it than that but that's an important one.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

I agree with you that shot placement is important.  Correct shot placement is even more important.  2 to the chest is better than 1 in the arm and 1 in the leg.  However, hitting the target is much better than not hitting the target at all. 

Going back to the Original Topic.  Although I would not want anyone to die from an arrow or bullet, getting hit by an arrow seems like a very slow, painful death.  But then again I guess with an arrow, there could be time for the medics to stabilize and rush to the emergency room.  1 bullets to the chest would most likely kill you whereas 1 arrow to the chest, you would have a better chance to live.  I am pretty sure that once "they" ban firearms, they will go after the other weapons of mass destruction.  i.e. Kitchen Knifes, Screw Drivers, Nail Guns, Staple Guns, Lumber, Pipes, etc.

I think your point is missed because regardless of what you use a tool is nothing but a tool.  A plane,  truck, explosives and countless other tools would kill more than an ar15. 

There is only one root problem.   The person.

You are correct of course but do you think all tools are equally dangerous?

And of he had a nuke it be even worse.  The tool isn't the issue its the loony who uses it.

swooooooosh

I think your point is missed because regardless of what you use a tool is nothing but a tool.  A plane,  truck, explosives and countless other tools would kill more than an ar15. 

There is only one root problem.   The person.

swoooooosh

You are correct of course but do you think all tools are equally dangerous?

No but that should not be used as an excuse to limit tool usage for the majority.  You can't ban all the tools, it will never end.  Try going after the true cause.  The loony who uses them for bad.

You are correct of course but do you think all tools are equally dangerous?

There are too many variables to definitively conclude that a firearm -- ANY firearm -- is going to cause more casualties than using something else.  Using the "all things being equal" approach doesn't address the individual involved, the skills they possess, and the planning they did prior.  As you said, the gun is a tool.  Not everyone is as skilled at using a given tool as the next guy.

Case in point:  Bows don't make the noise firearms do.  You could do a lot of damage with a bow from concealment before anyone knows what is happening.  Any police or security guard response would be delayed, as would their ability to locate you.  The crowd would also be less likely to panic, flee and take cover without the sound of a firearm alerting them to danger.

In a controlled environment, firearms are more accurate, have more range, and can be brought to bear more quickly than most weapons.  But, that doesn't make firearms the most effective weapon in all circumstances.  Playing COD should have taught you that!   

There are too many variables to definitively conclude that a firearm -- ANY firearm -- is going to cause more casualties than using something else.  Using the "all things being equal" approach doesn't address the individual involved, the skills they possess, and the planning they did prior.  As you said, the gun is a tool.  Not everyone is as skilled at using a given tool as the next guy.

Case in point:  Bows don't make the noise firearms do.  You could do a lot of damage with a bow from concealment before anyone knows what is happening.  Any police or security guard response would be delayed, as would their ability to locate you.  The crowd would also be less likely to panic, flee and take cover without the sound of a firearm alerting them to danger.

In a controlled environment, firearms are more accurate, have more range, and can be brought to bear more quickly than most weapons.  But, that doesn't make firearms the most effective weapon in all circumstances.  Playing COD should have taught you that!   

They will now pass a law where all bows need to been hooked to a loud speaker and  go "twwwaaanggggg" when released. Joking, but not joking. Look at england not selling single knives, but instead in sets only. Or stop and frisk papers given by cops that you can give to your employer if late to work due to being randomly stopped.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

No but that should not be used as an excuse to limit tool usage for the majority.  You can't ban all the tools, it will never end.  Try going after the true cause.  The loony who uses them for bad.

Bingo! That is how we defeat their argument, not ignoring that the ar-15 is much more efficient than a lot of other weapons available.

I admit to gun control activists that the AR15 does allow a killer to take more victims rapidly and concede that it is a terrible fact but then counter with a number of different arguments including the one you posted. Private gun ownership is a bit of a double edged sword but I won't give it up because part of the sword can have negative consequences. This is a fact with nearly any right we have, there are pros and cons of ever right but the pros outweigh the cons.