This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: ""

jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (5 posts)

Why when someone is stabbed it's the killers fault but when someone is shot it's

  1. georgepjr profile image72
    georgepjrposted 5 years ago

    Why when someone is stabbed it's the killers fault but when someone is shot it's the guns fault?

    I have always wondered this, I am pro gun but I think their should be some restrictions such as a better backround check but I do not feel any weapon should be banned.  I really just want to ask why are their people saying that guns are bad when they were the reason we are here.  No we are not barbarians but we are very diverse and also a country with a lot of angry hateful human beings that I would love to be able to protect my child and my wife from.

  2. Georgie Lowery profile image92
    Georgie Loweryposted 5 years ago

    I'm a firm believer in "guns don't kill people, people kill people." With that said, there are some pretty obvious weapons I don't think the general public should have, like rocket launchers and grenades.

    1. georgepjr profile image72
      georgepjrposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well said, I think most of us fell that there are things we shouldn't have but my biggest problem is the misinformation that really irritates me the most.

  3. lburmaster profile image83
    lburmasterposted 5 years ago

    Hahahaha! That's what I think every single time. I entirely agree with you on the better background check, also at gun shows more of them as well. It's nice to see I'm not the only one thinking this!

  4. junkseller profile image85
    junksellerposted 5 years ago

    The issue is one of efficacy: the capacity to produce an effect. If two possible drugs were on the market to treat a disease and one has a 25% success rate and the other a 90% success rate, would it make sense to prefer one over the other? Yes, of course, one is clearly more effective (higher efficacy).

    Guns also have a high efficacy. That's why people feel so strongly about having them as a tool for self-defense--they work really well for the purpose. But, it works the same in reverse. They are also very effective at killing. Look at mortality rates for different methods of suicides for instance and guns are up there at the top. Treating guns the same as all other tools and weapons is quite simply stupid. It'd be no different then a doctor saying both of those drugs, previously mentioned, are exactly the same.

    It makes sense to treat weapons/devices/tools which are particularly dangerous differently and we do it all the time. It takes much more training and licensing to drive a semi truck versus a car, for instance. And then again it takes even more if you transport flammable/hazardous materials. That makes sense doesn't it?

    That is the theory behind bans on assault weapons and large magazines. Both of those items have a higher efficacy when it comes to slaughtering fleshy creatures.