Gun Issues page 50

2293 posts

Flag Post

If I may Ung, I will give you a couple of links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932012%29

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/the_chinese_lanza_had_a_knife_all_22_schoolkids_survived/

As you may know, firearms are illegal in China and yet these attack with knives have become the norm even with the absence of firearms. This would show that if someone is bent on a massacre, he will commit the crime, regardless of the availability of firearms.

 
Flag Post

source1
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in China is 40,000,000
The rate of private gun ownership in China is 4.92 firearms per 100 people
In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, China ranked at No. 3
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, China ranked at No. 102
The number of registered guns in China is reported to be 680,000
The rate of registered firearms per 100 people in China is 0.053

source2

What do you know, guns aren’t banned in China… as a civillian you just need to have a reason (and approval) to have one… the same way it’s done in several countries.

Article 6 The following units may be equipped with guns for civilian use:

(1) Sports units that are set up with the approval of the physical culture and sports administration department of the people’s government at the provincial level to engage specially in target shooting competitions and profit-making shooting ranges that are set up with the approval of the public security organ of the people’s government at the provincial level may be equipped with sports guns;

(2) Hunting grounds that are built with the approval of the forestry administration department of the people’s government at or above the provincial level may be equipped with hunting guns; and

(3) Units for protecting and raising wild animals and for conducting scientific research of such animals may, due to need of the work, be equipped with hunting guns and narcotic injection guns.

Hunters in hunting zones and herdsmen in pastoral areas may apply for equipment with guns. Hunting zones and pastoral areas shall be delineated by the people’s governments at the provincial level.

Specific measures for equipment with guns for civilian use shall, in adherence to the principle of strict control, be formulated by the public security department under the State Council and submitted to the State Council for approval before enforcement.

And thanks for the knife links… you’ll have noticed the recurring theme throughout most of those reports? “All of the victims survived”… and even in those reports where there were fatalities they were, generally, very low numbers with yet more survivors. So yeah, while it’s not impossible to kill or wound a group of people with a knife (axe, spear, sword, car, whatever) it’s a whole lot easier to do so with a gun (particularly one with a large magazine capacity and high rate of fire)…

e.g. walk up to the school gates and start wildly slashing and you’ll get some people before you’re subdued in 5? mins (as per one of the china stories).. you may even kill a few. Take an AR-15 with a 90 round drum magazine, for example, 10-12 rounds per minute (if you don’t want to overheat the barrel and jam/cook off a round)… in the same 5mins you could, potentially, pick off 60 targets from distance, truth be told, with range and concealment on your side, you’d probably have a lot longer than 5mins shooting time, no help for the wounded while the area is locked down, etc.

Is the gun inherently bad? no, of course not… it’s the asshole behind the trigger… so how do you stop the asshole from getting his hands, legally, on such a firearm??? I can only see two options… stricter controls on guns themselves (i.e. if they don’t exist, you can’t get them) or more intrusive checks and controls on the people allowed to own them (though would, personally, prefer a balanced approach between the two)

 
Flag Post

There is a third option, Don, and that is be more aggressive about checking for firearms attempting to gain entry to places where they are not suppoed to be. Far more aggressive if need-be. I’m leaning more and more towards that option, as I consider more and more the relative ease of obtaining equipment capable of making one, bypassing the requirement for a lisence.

 
Flag Post

Yes, but I’d consider that as part of option 2… measures (controls) to stop ‘assholes having access’ especially in places where they’ve no business taking a firearm (be that in a courtroom, office building, theatre, schoolyard, etc)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932012%29

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/the_chinese_lanza_had_a_knife_all_22_schoolkids_survived/

Yeah, I don’t know if you noticed but he wanted links of mass murders with knives, not mass survivable injuries with knives.

As you may know, firearms are illegal in China and yet these attack with knives have become the norm even with the absence of firearms.

If this is how badly violent and deadly school attacks are without guns, I’ll take the gashes.

This would show that if someone is bent on a massacre, he will commit the crime, regardless of the availability of firearms.

Or in this case try to, but instead get charged with a few dozen attempted homicides and reckless endangerment. Or however you do it in China, I don’t actually know that much about their legal system, for all I know they still use the guillotine whenever someone tries to rise to power.

No wait, that’s France.

 
Flag Post

mass murders committed by use of knives hmmmmm 9/11 comes to mind

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkninja210:

mass murders committed by use of knives hmmmmm 9/11 comes to mind

… What?

Okay, I know I’m not the end-all, be-all expert on what happen on 9/11, but I don’t remember hearing that it was only knives used. Even if they were, though, the terrorists used the plane to kill most of the people, it’s comparable to saying that a drunk driver used alcohol to kill whatever number of people it takes to constitute a mass murder when s/he ran into whatever held said people.

And yes, I did just compare 9/11 to drunk driving, I still think that in this case the comparison works with what I’m arguing. Though, I don’t know at what point one would be able to say that it was murder and not manslaughter, but then again it all come down to intent, if the drunk purposefully did it or if it was just severe negligence, but I’m also over-thinking this.

 
Flag Post

darkninja’s claiming that the terrorists on board the planes used knives to take control. I think he’s trying to make the argument that if we allowed passengers to carry guns on the plane, that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

That simple logic ignores the fact that if we allowed such, then the terrorists would have had guns as well, and that any shootout on a commercial airliner mid-flight, is going to bring the plane down and likely kill everyone regardless. We’re greatly increasing the risks of flight, and greatly increasing the casualty figures and number of planes lost each year, just for the peace of mind of knowing you can bring your favorite weapon with you through the terminal and onto the plane.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

darkninja’s claiming that the terrorists on board the planes used knives to take control. I think he’s trying to make the argument that if we allowed passengers to carry guns on the plane, that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

That simple logic ignores the fact that if we allowed such, then the terrorists would have had guns as well, and that any shootout on a commercial airliner mid-flight, is going to bring the plane down and likely kill everyone regardless. We’re greatly increasing the risks of flight, and greatly increasing the casualty figures and number of planes lost each year, just for the peace of mind of knowing you can bring your favorite weapon with you through the terminal and onto the plane.

NO! darkninja is pointing out that knives have caused mass murders to occur. Where you pull this “I think” shit from, darkninja has no idea; because by your comment darkninja thinks you meant to demonstrate how stupid you can be.

BTW did you see you can bring small knives on to planes again. oh how about a precious source go find it yourself lemmings.


Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

 
Flag Post

I was trying to work out what possible context you could have, so the “I think” was my trying to extrapolate based on your previous positions, exactly what you could mean.

Using knives and bladed weapons on an aircraft is an extremely limited application of such force that does not translate to outside of aircraft. Besides that is easily remidied by forbidding metal items in carry-on luggage. It gets more complex when prosthesis are involved, but it solves the issue nicely if nothing sharper than a butterknife is permitted. Boarding an aircraft is one of the few places where security checks thorough enough to eliminate the possibility can actually be carried out.

None of your later ‘sprees’ are anywhere as intense as a gun spree. We need evidence of multiple people killed as they were running away from the knife-wielder who went on to kill 20 or 30 people in the same incident. That puts it on par with a mad gunman, and proves a knife is every bit as powerful as a gun.

Please provide such an example.

 
Flag Post

your glass house seems awful fragile. What grants security?
No darkninja doesnt dance like a monkey for the likes of anyone. Your moving of goal posts here doesnt work.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkninja210:

NO! darkninja is pointing out that knives have caused mass murders to occur.

Like those times in China where no-one actually died?

Also, I think you’re missing a big point people are making here.

Where you pull this “I think” shit from darkninja has no idea,

Well you posted a single sentence presenting a statement with nothing else that didn’t make much sense. I’m more surprised you’re surprised someone tried to elaborate on your point.

because by your comment darkninja thinks you meant to demonstrate how stupid you can be.

Oh boy, here we go again, someone starts thinking about a post someone made and thinking of their point because there was barely anything actually clarifying the person’s original point, and then because the first person’s point actually wasn’t that (not that anyone could know because it wasn’t clarified, or in some cases even mentioned) they get all pissy because they don’t want to admit a mistake and starts lashing out, and then a third party comments on the process and makes a run-on sentence.

BTW did you see you can bring small knives on to planes again.

That makes me think what constitutes a “small knife.”

EDIT: (From an edit and a new post of his)

oh how about a precious source go find it yourself lemmings.

Yeah, you don’t seem to know how the process should work here, first, you don’t act like an arrogant ass if you want to be taken seriously, then you actually do provide sources to be considered truthful.

Originally posted by darkninja210:
No darkninja doesnt dance like a monkey for the likes of anyone. Your moving of goal posts here doesnt work.

Pro-tip: acting like this makes you look bad and make people think you’re being a troll or at least trying to antagonize people.

EDIT2: Oh yeah, and there’s something about making posts that make sense when read in English, that goes in there somewhere.

 
Flag Post

Comparing knives to guns is a misnomer that only gives firearm opponents fuel. I still think vehicles are the most astute comparison, especially because liberal minded people won’t usually acknowledge that they aren’t necessary, or cause more preventable deaths per year than firearms. It’s also astute because people think that intentional firearm murders are somehow skyrocketing, when the biggest problem with guns is improper storage and failed background checks. You know, like improperly driving, and being permitted to drive unnecessarily.

Yes, if killing sprees are your target, banning firearms all together will drastically lower the number of people killed in them. The number of people who go on killing sprees, and the usefulness of particular firearms for enacting killing sprees is a very important number that would determine if targeting killing sprees should even be the goal: It isn’t. Target accidental firearm deaths. The only reason this is about killing sprees is because we’ve had one recently.

Unless you can somehow statistically relate, and then prove that access to firearms, or firearms of a particular kind is what causes more mass deaths to occur, you’d have my attention. Instead it’s pretty obvious to anyone who thinks for more than a minute that the problem with Sandy Hook isn’t clip sizes, or even firearms. The response by many republicans to “arm the teachers” shows they’re making the exact same misnomer. The real problem with young people taking the lives of others into their own hands is far more pervasive and important than any firearm ban.

Reactionary politics are a waste of energy and time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

The biggest problem with guns is improper storage and failed background checks. You know, like improperly driving, and being permitted to drive unnecessarily.

The problem comes when you try to get those who are pro-gun to realise this point. They’re usually too busy defending their precious firearms, to acknowledge that people who don’t store them properly, or who have failed checks but still have aquired a firearm, even exist.

I also agree with the comparison to cars. Like with guns, we need to get cars out of human control as soon as it is practical to do so. They’ll be a hell of a lot safer when the cars are driving themselves, and not relying on the driver to be paying attention to the road rather than using the phone, playing with the radio, reading a book/paper, boozing up, or nodding off to sleep. The car only has concerns related to how and where it is driving. None of those other things have any meaning to it, and it will not flinch in its concentration.

 
Flag Post

I know this is going to get quoted a million times because it’s shorter than my post above, but at this point who gives a fuck on these forums, right?

Anyway, one of the biggest things I keep hearing lately is “Why do people need fully automatic weapons? That’s scary.” Why do teenagers need vehicles? That is scary. And I am not being the least bit hyperbolic here. The teenage mind is literally, specifically, and unequivocally bad at making split second decisions. Their inhibition is, in contrast to adults, literally 0.

This isn’t a joke, or my opinion, but scientific fact. I am terrified that every year hundreds of thousands of kids in my very own state are given 2-3 thousand pounds to throw around. Guess what else scares me? That half of the people in this country get to raise their own children without any prerequisites whatsoever. Scariness and lack of necessity are not grounds for banning things. Safety absolutely is, but guess what? Clip size and firearm types do not effect the number of deaths. Background checks, waiting periods (which I personally think are silly but actually have statistic value) and steep fines and punishment for improperly stored firearms that are used in a robbery, murder, or accidental shooting all do improve safety. You might not like guns, but I don’t like most of you driving.

(What’s funny is I can actually show that people under the age of 19 are statistically awful drivers that kill people in orders of magnitude higher than even the elderly, so my own comparison is a little broken because cars are actually significantly worse than assault rifles.)

 
Flag Post

And of course, when seeking to defend themselves, most people automatically reach for their car.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

And of course, when seeking to defend themselves, most people automatically reach for their car.

A’www…c’mon, vika.
What’s your point here?
Ya’re truly mixing apples & bowling balls.
BSG is NOT talking about defense….AT ALL.
He is talking about risk assessment.

The risk of bodily harm//death as a result of a “tool” being in the hands of those NOT qualified to use it.

Everything he said correlates completely w/ my stances…..EVERYTHING.
Just in case anyone hasn’t been paying attention.

It is pure foolishness to focus on ONLY ONE ISSUE (like any of the “slaughters”),,,
and make much more of it than it actually is….WHEN COMPARED TO THE ENTIRE PANORAMA OF LIFE.

Does this mean I saying that nothing can be done or that we shouldn’t CONSTANTLY be trying to find ways to mitigate ANY & ALL misfortunes of life?
FUCK NO.

Do I really need to bring into this discussion the abortion debate_?
Talk about “children” being slaughtered….._EN MASS
.

 
Flag Post

If I may Ung, I will give you a couple of links.

Not to be snippy, but there are some significant deviations. If you look at the examples, most of them are committed against literal children. As a grown man, particularly a group of them, are capable of defending them self against a knife attack. The number of fatalities are also quite low, knives do not commit the same level of damage as guns – so we have less people receiving fatal wounds, or wounds that prove fatal before medical care arrives.

Yes, knives are a dangerous weapon. But not nearly as much so as guns. Yes, people will continue to go crazy and hurt a bunch of people with knives. But, there is a limit to what they are capable of due to the tools available.

Removing guns will not remove crazy and violent people. It does limit how much damage they can spontaneously inflict. As a personal anecdote, more then once there were knife fights at my school and the surrounding area. Nobody ever died, no one uninvolved was harmed. I re imagine these scenario’s with firearms in hand and I feel far less certain about the same outcome.

The idea that a knife is an inferior killing tool to a gun cannot possibly be really up for debate. Common sense and history is overwhelming.

… little belated overall. I agree with BSG that we should be giving value to quantity-killers, statistical problems rather then emotional ones.

 
Flag Post

You liberals just boggle the mind. You could see hundreds of murders caused by bombs, knives, clubs, cars, etc. and still come away degrading gun-owners. Why? I would imagine it is because you have found another way to lash out at the American people in some fashion. No logic is required. But let’s not look too deep in other forms of mass murdering as that would water down your arguments. How about this one though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

But hey that was just a bomb. They aren’t near as dangerous as “firearms”! Here are a few from other countries. Keep in mind only America has murderers…..or do they?

— Sept. 23, 2008: Matti Saari, 22, walks into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and opens fire, killing 10 people and burning their bodies with firebombs before shooting himself fatally in the head.

— April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and policeman, before committing suicide.

— March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and then kills himself

— April 28, 1996: Martin Bryant, 29, bursts into cafeteria in seaside resort of Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia, shooting 20 people to death. Driving away, he kills 15 others. He was captured and imprisoned.

— Dec. 6, 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, bursts into Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique college, shooting at women he encounters, killing nine and then himself.

— Aug. 19, 1987: Michael Ryan, 27, kills 16 people in small market town of Hungerford, England, and then shoots himself dead after being cornered by police.

—July 22, 2011: Confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 in Norway in twin attacks: a bombing in downtown Oslo and a shooting massacre at a youth camp outside the capital. The self-styled anti-Muslim militant admitted both attacks.

—April 30, 2009: Farda Gadyrov, 29, enters the prestigious Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in the capital, Baku, armed with an automatic pistol and clips. He kills 12 people before killing himself as police close in.

Of course, we must not muddy the arguments of liberals with facts. These are just a few of the mass murders in “other countries”. Yet somehow these are overlooked, even though some of these countries have extremely strict firearms laws. But hey, just because they didn’t work in those countries doesn’t mean they won’t work, if tried again, in this country. Come on people, drop the emotion and use just a little common sense. If a person is bent on mass murder, he will commit it unless he is stopped. The problem is, with all mass murderers, we don’t know how to know who they are. Guns are just an easy target for the anti-gun crowd.

And for the last time, unless you are blessed with a really large portfolio, you do not have access to full auto firearms. Geesh!

 
Flag Post
That makes me think what constitutes a “small knife.”

2 inches or less and no locking mechanism Tenco.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

The biggest problem with guns is improper storage and failed background checks. You know, like improperly driving, and being permitted to drive unnecessarily.

The problem comes when you try to get those who are pro-gun to realise this point. They’re usually too busy defending their precious firearms, to acknowledge that people who don’t store them properly, or who have failed checks but still have aquired a firearm, even exist.

I also agree with the comparison to cars. Like with guns, we need to get cars out of human control as soon as it is practical to do so. They’ll be a hell of a lot safer when the cars are driving themselves, and not relying on the driver to be paying attention to the road rather than using the phone, playing with the radio, reading a book/paper, boozing up, or nodding off to sleep. The car only has concerns related to how and where it is driving. None of those other things have any meaning to it, and it will not flinch in its concentration.

And Vika, don’t forget that pesky 2nd Amendment. Oh that’s right, you don’t like Americans having rights. Never mind.

And please try to stay in the real world. Cars may or may not ever have the ability to drive themselves. Remember how the journalists of the 50’s thought we would all have hovercraft by now?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

And Vika, don’t forget that pesky 2nd Amendment. Oh that’s right, you don’t like Americans having rights. Never mind.

Oh, fuck you.

This is why I don’t bother trying to read all of your posts anymore, you still manage to somehow live in this fixed point in time and never actually change your thoughts about someone when they defend their point and call you out on your regressive BS. Again. If I’m counting this correctly, this is at least the third time I’ve said how you don’t change, how you don’t try to even consider the possibility to learn from your mistakes (and yes, they are mistakes).

Drawing a reference to myself (as I am the epitome of behavior and conduct in the SD forum): it should be obvious that I am basically the liberal issendorf (I don’t know why it took me this long to say it) and as per the incredibly hard science of human psychology when dealing with the political left and right, conservatives tend to stay in the same place and have old(er)-fashion values with the idea of “don’t fix what isn’t broken” thus they conserve the status quo. Liberals try to seek change or in some cases improvement, which can lead to disasters if not handled well or done impulsively. Trying to stay on the same train of though, this should translate to conservatives (you) not changing and liberals (me) do, in this case you’ve, as said before, somehow managed to be able to revert to a fixed point in time and have a default response to X person, where as I at least try to admit if I’ve made a mistake and try to refer back to past information. Obviously, I fail sometimes and either man up and accept it, try to make it seem like it wasn’t really my fault, or try to assert that I’m not actually wrong. (Standard internet fair, really.)

And please try to stay in the real world.

Ironic since she’s repeatedly shown a better knowledge of scientific advancement than you. Including here.

Cars may or may not ever have the ability to drive themselves.

Hey, you know that thing called GPS? Yeah, it seems that it’s feasible to instead of speaking, make it programmed to use a machine to drive the car. Obviously, this doesn’t account for other cars and general traffic, but we’ve managed to make computerized stoplights work (for the most part) so it shouldn’t be too much more of a hurdle.

And this is just me talking out of my ass.

Remember how the journalists of the 50’s thought we would all have hovercraft by now?

And we can and do use hovercraft, it’s not commercially viable because the technology we use now (and that can exist) is balls for hovercraft. If we were to try anti-gravity (as of now I think the consensus is that’s impossible)/floating it would have to involve magnets, rails, or magnetized rails a la those fast as tit-mice trains.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

You liberals just boggle the mind. You could see hundreds of murders caused by bombs, knives, clubs, cars, etc. and still come away degrading gun-owners. Why? I would imagine it is because you have found another way to lash out at the American people in some fashion. No logic is required. But let’s not look too deep in other forms of mass murdering as that would water down your arguments. How about this one though.

Oooooppppps.
YOU have been most adamant at calling ME a faaaarrrr leftist.
Yet, I have stated just above how I DO NOT possess such a viewpoint.
So: hypocrisy much?
Originally posted by jhco50:

And Vika, don’t forget that pesky 2nd Amendment. Oh that’s right, you don’t like Americans having rights. Never mind

.

Wow….just WOW.
YOU are now getting even weirder in how ya “hear” what other ppl present as their ideology.
Ya’re now able to combine hyperbole & “inch-into-a-mile” strategies
Just because someone has issue w/ ONLY A PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION,,,,doesn’t mean s/he is totally against it. How fucked up is THAT kind of bullshit thinking?
And please try to stay in the real world. Cars may or may not ever have the ability to drive themselves. Remember how the journalists of the 50’s thought we would all have hovercraft by now?

“Journalists” have “predicted” a lot of things from “back then”. Some of them have materialized, some not, some have gone well beyond those expectations. If that “logic” about predictions is YOUR “go to” for a point…..well….NEVER MIND.

BTW, we now have cars that can PARALLEL park themselves….have sensors that can detect other cars in your “blind zones”….have sensors that will apply brakes should it unsafely approach an object.

There has long been talk about strips laid IN (limited access?) highways that would “drive” the car. Now that greatly improved sensors now exist, I well imagine this is becoming more feasible by the day.

We now have cameras at intersections. Why can’t we soon have controls at them that will calculate the speed of a vehicle and determine just how much of the “caution light” can be used (if at all) and send out a signal that will automatically safely stop the car from entering the intersection….esp. if another car is already there—legally or not.

Tenco is right, “real” conservatives can “only” look backwards and say such is what is “best”….
it works, don’t mess w/ it. Never mind that IMPROVEMENTS can be PROGRESSIVE and be of tremendous help in our daily lives.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

You liberals just boggle the mind. You could see hundreds of murders caused by bombs, knives, clubs, cars, etc. and still come away degrading gun-owners. Why? I would imagine it is because you have found another way to lash out at the American people in some fashion. No logic is required. But let’s not look too deep in other forms of mass murdering as that would water down your arguments. How about this one though.

Unwillingly amusing :). Just have to imagine the BS coming from a political pundit like Steven Colbert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

But hey that was just a bomb. They aren’t near as dangerous as “firearms”!

They are and are not as dangerous. While their potential Damage is higher their inflicted damage is in average much lower, because most Bombs fail to go off or the People planing to use them are caught before they can set them off or the bombs actually go off before the intended time, sometimes killing the Planers.
For example even though more than 3 Islamic terror attacks using bombs have been planed in Germany since 9/11, they failed because the Bombs did not explode or because the bombs where found and brought to explosion by specialists.

— Sept. 23, 2008: Matti Saari, 22, walks into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and opens fire, killing 10 people and burning their bodies with firebombs before shooting himself fatally in the head.

— April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and policeman, before committing suicide.

— March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and then kills himself

— April 28, 1996: Martin Bryant, 29, bursts into cafeteria in seaside resort of Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia, shooting 20 people to death. Driving away, he kills 15 others. He was captured and imprisoned.

— Dec. 6, 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, bursts into Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique college, shooting at women he encounters, killing nine and then himself.

— Aug. 19, 1987: Michael Ryan, 27, kills 16 people in small market town of Hungerford, England, and then shoots himself dead after being cornered by police.

—July 22, 2011: Confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 in Norway in twin attacks: a bombing in downtown Oslo and a shooting massacre at a youth camp outside the capital. The self-styled anti-Muslim militant admitted both attacks.

—April 30, 2009: Farda Gadyrov, 29, enters the prestigious Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in the capital, Baku, armed with an automatic pistol and clips. He kills 12 people before killing himself as police close in.

Of course, we must not muddy the arguments of liberals with facts. These are just a few of the mass murders in “other countries”. Yet somehow these are overlooked, even though some of these countries have extremely strict firearms laws. But hey, just because they didn’t work in those countries doesn’t mean they won’t work, if tried again, in this country.

BS. Amoks in other countries have already been discussed on this Forum. Claiming their existence was or is overlooked is plain Bullshit.
Your claims that the supposedly stricter firearms laws did not work is likewise Bullshit. Though its understandable how a simple minded fellow like yourself could make such a mistake. You forgot that just because firearms laws in general may be stricter in some countries you mentioned, that does not mean that they where even made to prevent such acts. Claiming the laws did not work, even if the presentation of the presented cases was never intended is Bullshit. But even if the Laws were intended to prevent such cases your examples do not prove that the laws did not work in these Countries. Just they did not work in these specific cases. The Stupidity in claiming that laws did not or would not work is akin to me looking at how many Guns got confiscated and claiming the laws worked because they stopped X amoks(Insert number of Guns confiscated for X).
Its stupid nonsense because not all of those Guns (maybe even none) would have been used in such Amok.

Come on people, drop the emotion and use just a little common sense.

Oh, yes please.

If a person is bent on mass murder, he will commit it unless he is stopped.

Laws together with Law-Enforcement stop such people more often than self-defense. Hell even them failing on their own is more common than self-defense.

And for the last time, unless you are blessed with a really large portfolio, you do not have access to full auto firearms. Geesh!

The only reason full-auto capable firearms and extended magazines are being discussed in politics (there not an issue here in this forum as far as i can tell. At lest i don´t know of any non-troll advocating against them specifically), is they can be banned without addressing the real problems. Easy accesses to handguns and near non-existent record keeping.

 
Flag Post

Karma

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

And of course, when seeking to defend themselves, most people automatically reach for their car.

A’www…c’mon, vika.
What’s your point here?
Ya’re truly mixing apples & bowling balls.

I was trying to show that BSG was. Yes, cars are also a dangerous weapon, however they are a dangerous weapon that is used for a different purpose. BSG seems to be suggesting we ignore the gun issue and concentrate instead on the dangers of car drivership.

I’m simply trying to point out that both are poignant issues, and both need addressing. We can ignore neither, in favor of the other.


Tenco

Thank you for addressing Jhco’s posts. I would have missed any point he tried to make otherwise. Like you said, I’ve gotten in the habit of scrolling past his posts, because the arguments in them never change, no matter how often they are disproven. He always circles back round to the same arguments he started with. Won’t listen to others, won’t change his arguments.

So what’s the point of listening to him at all?

Regarding the car point, thank you for pointing out that as usual, he’s wrong, and yea, I’m rather more on the ball than him.

In the distant future (for Jhco) of the year 2007, the first self-driving car will win the DARPA urban challenge, the third such event, progressively more challenging, of self-driving car competitions, and finally be awarded a legal driving lisence. Source

In the further distant future (for Jhco) of 2011, the descendant of that winner, will achieve sufficient success for the State of Nevada to declare them to be legal on that state’s public roads – all of them. Source

That is of course discounting other countries work, such as the European prometheus and Citibus projects, that have been going on since the 1980s (still far future for Jhco?), and 2000s respectively. There have been other such attempts of notable success all over the place, including some notable attempts at automated convoys in Norway.

We need now, to accumulate data proving that self-drive cars are statistically safer than human-driven ones, with all the distractions humans are prone to. That data will prove invaluable in helping the insurance companies set insurance rates. Over time, the insurance rates for human-driven cars will if the data pans out, continue to skyrocket, whilst those for computer-controlled cars drop.

It will hopefully reach the point, where it may cost $10,000+ for a teenager to get insurance to drive their own car, versus say $50 for an automated one. Accordingly, a car accident involving a human driver, would be looked on more as assault with a deadly weapon than an accident, as the driver did have better alternatives than to drive themselves, that are statistically (by that point) proven to be orders of magnitude safer. Therefore far steeper penalties are enacted for those who choose to drive dangerously, and drive their own cars instead of letting the car drive itself.

Over time, the issue with dangerously driven cars will fade into memory, and eventually every car on the road will be computer-driven.