Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I expect that the numbers are not as one-sided as you surmise, given that there are huge number of gun incidents involving the police that never generate the same kind of media attention, and which we subsequently never hear about.
Maybe it was just a poor choice of words, but a "fair trade off"?!
|
By trade off, I mean what do supporters of relaxed gun control laws think is acceptable collateral damage for their right to obtain and carry assault weapons. Obviously they think that some innocents killed is an acceptable price. I just want to know how big does it have to get before they would consider at least trying to see if changing the laws would help.
Also, I should take police out of the equation since their right to bear arms is on a completely different level. So just based on civilian casualties, would you still say the numbers are likely not that one-sided?