Knives Vs Guns
-
David Frum, to Cysko's point:
A maniac with violent fantasies attacks a Texas college, but with a knife, not a gun. He stabs 14 people. And … nobody was killed.
Twelve of the injured people were taken to the hospital and two refused treatment. Of the dozen in the hospital, two are in critical condition and four are in fair condition, according to Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia.
Happily, the two victims in critical condition have since been upgraded to "good condition."
The gun is the difference between a violent maniac and a homicidal maniac.
-
His intent wasn't to kill, that's all, or he could easily have done it with ease.
And it's a lot different in an attack on innocent, helpless children in grade school,
and an attack on young adults in college. The college attacker was tackled and stopped by another student.
Seems that it shouldn't have to be explained ......
-
David Frum, to Cysko's point:
A maniac with violent fantasies attacks a Texas college, but with a knife, not a gun. He stabs 14 people. And … nobody was killed.
Twelve of the injured people were taken to the hospital and two refused treatment. Of the dozen in the hospital, two are in critical condition and four are in fair condition, according to Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia.
Happily, the two victims in critical condition have since been upgraded to "good condition."
The gun is the difference between a violent maniac and a homicidal maniac.
David Frum, to Cysko's point:
A maniac with violent fantasies attacks a Texas college, but with a knife, not a gun. He stabs 14 people. And … nobody was killed.
Twelve of the injured people were taken to the hospital and two refused treatment. Of the dozen in the hospital, two are in critical condition and four are in fair condition, according to Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia.
Happily, the two victims in critical condition have since been upgraded to "good condition."
The gun is the difference between a violent maniac and a homicidal maniac.
We're still doing the body count thing?
-
David Frum, to Cysko's point:
A maniac with violent fantasies attacks a Texas college, but with a knife, not a gun. He stabs 14 people. And … nobody was killed.
Twelve of the injured people were taken to the hospital and two refused treatment. Of the dozen in the hospital, two are in critical condition and four are in fair condition, according to Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia.
Happily, the two victims in critical condition have since been upgraded to "good condition."
The gun is the difference between a violent maniac and a homicidal maniac.
We're still doing the body count thing?
We're still doing the body count thing?
Leg, I've specified I'm only comparing the results of a mass attack with a knife vs a mass attack with a gun as a way to combat the old "but people will still kill people with a knife/brick/pipe whatever" argument, so in this instance the body count is rather important. Like; the whole point. The point is a mass attack with a knife is considerably more likely to wind up with most or all of the victims surviving
-
Oh come on...
Everybody knows that stabbing people is against the law!
I can't imagine how this could have possibly happened.
WSS
-
You guys still don't get it at all. All you want to hear is total victory or total defeat. Think somewhere in the middle. If gun deaths could be lowered in the same way dui deaths have been lowered everyone would call that acceptable
You guys still don't get it at all. All you want to hear is total victory or total defeat. Think somewhere in the middle. If gun deaths could be lowered in the same way dui deaths have been lowered everyone would call that acceptable
YES, but I am not willing to sacrifice my freedoms for the sake of safety and protection. When you begin doing that it is a slippery slope where the government can ban anything "for safety's sake."
-
You guys still don't get it at all. All you want to hear is total victory or total defeat. Think somewhere in the middle. If gun deaths could be lowered in the same way dui deaths have been lowered everyone would call that acceptable
YES, but I am not willing to sacrifice my freedoms for the sake of safety and protection. When you begin doing that it is a slippery slope where the government can ban anything "for safety's sake."
YES, but I am not willing to sacrifice my freedoms for the sake of safety and protection. When you begin doing that it is a slippery slope where the government can ban anything "for safety's sake."
Well, baby bunker, many people feel the same way as you but ill bet any change in the status quo and you'd immediately be freaking out about "losing your freedoms" common sense gun control isn't Losing your freedom any more than mandating auto insurance was losing a freedom. I understand how you feel, but I don't agree with it.
-
YES, but I am not willing to sacrifice my freedoms for the sake of safety and protection. When you begin doing that it is a slippery slope where the government can ban anything "for safety's sake."
Well, baby bunker, many people feel the same way as you but ill bet any change in the status quo and you'd immediately be freaking out about "losing your freedoms" common sense gun control isn't Losing your freedom any more than mandating auto insurance was losing a freedom. I understand how you feel, but I don't agree with it.
Well, baby bunker, many people feel the same way as you but ill bet any change in the status quo and you'd immediately be freaking out about "losing your freedoms" common sense gun control isn't Losing your freedom any more than mandating auto insurance was losing a freedom. I understand how you feel, but I don't agree with it.
Please define "common sense gun control" because that is a very vague statement. Harsher background checks are fine by me, but limiting which weapons you can buy and banning high capacity magazines is not.
-
Then you aren't listening to the likes of Feinstein, Biden and all. It's been clearly stated, that for
universal background checks to work, there must be a national registry of all guns and gun owners.
And that, is worse than dangerous to our freedoms. See any other country who has ever gone that far.
They only go that far for good reason, and it isn't "to prevent whackos from getting guns"....
-
Well, baby bunker, many people feel the same way as you but ill bet any change in the status quo and you'd immediately be freaking out about "losing your freedoms" common sense gun control isn't Losing your freedom any more than mandating auto insurance was losing a freedom. I understand how you feel, but I don't agree with it.
Please define "common sense gun control" because that is a very vague statement. Harsher background checks are fine by me, but limiting which weapons you can buy and banning high capacity magazines is not.
Please define "common sense gun control" because that is a very vague statement. Harsher background checks are fine by me, but limiting which weapons you can buy and banning high capacity magazines is not.
Well largely it would have to do with background checks and mental health. I'm not really on board with the clip size issue. Seung-hui cho only used pistols and 10-15 round clips and he killed 32. Adults I might add. I can't see where clip size makes a damn bit of difference.
-
Then you aren't listening to the likes of Feinstein, Biden and all. It's been clearly stated, that for
universal background checks to work, there must be a national registry of all guns and gun owners.
And that, is worse than dangerous to our freedoms. See any other country who has ever gone that far.
They only go that far for good reason, and it isn't "to prevent whackos from getting guns"....
Then you aren't listening to the likes of Feinstein, Biden and all. It's been clearly stated, that for
universal background checks to work, there must be a national registry of all guns and gun owners.
And that, is worse than dangerous to our freedoms. See any other country who has ever gone that far.
They only go that far for good reason, and it isn't "to prevent whackos from getting guns"....
Yeah yeah they're gonna put whitey in fema death camps. I've heard it all before and blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda. I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories at this time.
-
How about Obamao's corrupt cohorts illegally and secretly getting ccw licensee lists from the Highway Patrol in Missouri,
who weren't supposed to have it either? Publishing gun owners in NY.... now Missouri...
and we aren't supposed to figure that a national gun registry won't be used for evil purposes?
Seems like Obamao's "IRS" is turning into his own "civilian security force"
(this article does refer to "revenue" part of Obamao's regime)
-
"haha, yeah, Cal, the feds will go into a state, and illegally and secretly order that state's highway patrol to secretly and illegally get an entire electronic list of all
concealed carry licensees for secret nefarious reasons haha"
-
NY again.
Police misusing the information now. Misusing,....or just a practice run....for gun confiscations?
Not one of the police involved noticed a different freaking ADDRESS ? Middle initial, maybe? Different spouses' name.....
They can take their "universal background checks" and "gun registration" and shove it right up their swastika in NY.
And Missouri..
and..... Conn.
The gov wants the gun information on gun owners, so they have the power to USE it, and MISUSE it.
and worse. Biden and co. even admit it.
-
Yeah yeah they're gonna put whitey in fema death camps. I've heard it all before and blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda. I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories at this time. Cysko
************************
Nobody here is saying that. Your emotional, irrational outburst responses go noticed. And to think you alleged that you were "so tired" of the gun subject,
that you bailed on talking about it anymore right when I seriously took the time to write you some serious points and serious questions.
Yep, sure enough, you bailed. Then you waited a little bit, and came right back to it. Should I repost my serious questions AGAIN now that
you've had your pouty-pouty rest ?
-
Yeah yeah they're gonna put whitey in fema death camps. I've heard it all before and blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda. I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories at this time. Cysko
************************
Nobody here is saying that. Your emotional, irrational outburst responses go noticed. And to think you alleged that you were "so tired" of the gun subject,
that you bailed on talking about it anymore right when I seriously took the time to write you some serious points and serious questions.
Yep, sure enough, you bailed. Then you waited a little bit, and came right back to it. Should I repost my serious questions AGAIN now that
you've had your pouty-pouty rest ?
Yeah yeah they're gonna put whitey in fema death camps. I've heard it all before and blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda. I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories at this time. Cysko
************************
Nobody here is saying that. Your emotional, irrational outburst responses go noticed. And to think you alleged that you were "so tired" of the gun subject,
that you bailed on talking about it anymore right when I seriously took the time to write you some serious points and serious questions.
Yep, sure enough, you bailed. Then you waited a little bit, and came right back to it. Should I repost my serious questions AGAIN now that
you've had your pouty-pouty rest ?
I'll just go ahead and refer you to the post you quoted for an answer to this
-
That isn't much more than your "haha I give up" in so many words.
-
-
Saying that "violent psychopaths will kill people anyway so why bother even trying to stop them" makes no sense at all.
It's true that if someone nearby had a gun then they could have shot this guy and less people would have been stabbed. That would have been a favourable outcome in this case, I agree. However, there was really nothing stopping this guy from having a gun at all. By banning guns - either completely, or outside of gun ranges/hunting lodges or whatever - you reduce the amount of violent attacks that use a gun. At the moment, say 75% (just a pure guess) of attacks like this are with guns. If that figure goes down to just 74% by banning guns, then that's 1% of attacks with, in this example a knife, but it could equally be a crow bar or baseball bat, where people actually stand a chance of surviving, and isn't that something worth striving for?
I guess it comes down to whether you would rather have 10 people shot dead or 10,000 wounded in a knife attack. I know which I'd rather be.
And yes, your amendment gave you the right to bear arms. What's stopping you from amending that? People in America talk about the constitution and its amendments as if it's sacrosanct - but the original document was wrong, so it was amended.
just my 2 cents - tell me I'm an idiot, that I'm a British loser with bad teeth who knows nothing about America if you like. I just know that when I walk down the streets of London at night, on my own, in the dark, I'm worried I'll be mugged - not shot.
-
Saying that "violent psychopaths will kill people anyway so why bother even trying to stop them" makes no sense at all.
It's true that if someone nearby had a gun then they could have shot this guy and less people would have been stabbed. That would have been a favourable outcome in this case, I agree. However, there was really nothing stopping this guy from having a gun at all. By banning guns - either completely, or outside of gun ranges/hunting lodges or whatever - you reduce the amount of violent attacks that use a gun. At the moment, say 75% (just a pure guess) of attacks like this are with guns. If that figure goes down to just 74% by banning guns, then that's 1% of attacks with, in this example a knife, but it could equally be a crow bar or baseball bat, where people actually stand a chance of surviving, and isn't that something worth striving for?
I guess it comes down to whether you would rather have 10 people shot dead or 10,000 wounded in a knife attack. I know which I'd rather be.
And yes, your amendment gave you the right to bear arms. What's stopping you from amending that? People in America talk about the constitution and its amendments as if it's sacrosanct - but the original document was wrong, so it was amended.
just my 2 cents - tell me I'm an idiot, that I'm a British loser with bad teeth who knows nothing about America if you like. I just know that when I walk down the streets of London at night, on my own, in the dark, I'm worried I'll be mugged - not shot.
Saying that "violent psychopaths will kill people anyway so why bother even trying to stop them" makes no sense at all.
It's true that if someone nearby had a gun then they could have shot this guy and less people would have been stabbed. That would have been a favourable outcome in this case, I agree. However, there was really nothing stopping this guy from having a gun at all. By banning guns - either completely, or outside of gun ranges/hunting lodges or whatever - you reduce the amount of violent attacks that use a gun. At the moment, say 75% (just a pure guess) of attacks like this are with guns. If that figure goes down to just 74% by banning guns, then that's 1% of attacks with, in this example a knife, but it could equally be a crow bar or baseball bat, where people actually stand a chance of surviving, and isn't that something worth striving for?
I guess it comes down to whether you would rather have 10 people shot dead or 10,000 wounded in a knife attack. I know which I'd rather be.
And yes, your amendment gave you the right to bear arms. What's stopping you from amending that? People in America talk about the constitution and its amendments as if it's sacrosanct - but the original document was wrong, so it was amended.
just my 2 cents - tell me I'm an idiot, that I'm a British loser with bad teeth who knows nothing about America if you like. I just know that when I walk down the streets of London at night, on my own, in the dark, I'm worried I'll be mugged - not shot.
I have no idea how anyone living in The UK could possibly be satisfied with the state of affairs in their nation.
With the regular stories of people being jailed simply for defending themselves and their families in their own homes. And now that the guns have been taken away, people are now pushing to limit sharp knives. People mugged in the street getting more severe penalties for defending themselves than the criminals mugging them and initiating the violence in the first place.
How about something like this.
Or the farmer Tony Martin from Norfolk who shot and killed a burglar in his own home and was charged with murder. In the US we still believe it is our right to defend ourselves from the violent not just hope that they will have mercy on us and only take our possessions and not our lives.
I can walk down the streets of my city at night knowing that if someone came to do me harm I have an option to defend myself, not submit to their will and pray that they will do me no harm.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login