Man slashes 22 children near China school

[Flagrant 2]

[QUOTE]
By John Hannon

December 14, 2012, 1:47 a.m.
BEIJING -- A man with a knife slashed 22 children and one adult outside an elementary school in Henan province Friday morning, China's worst such incident in more than a year.

The attack was reminiscent of a spate of knife attacks on schoolchildren that took place across China in 2010. In most cases, the attackers were unemployed middle-aged men, leading to speculation that the assaults stemmed from economic and social discontent.

Friday's attack occurred at about 7:40 a.m. as children were arriving outside the gate of Chenpeng Village

[-p.tiddy-]

yeah, and this one doesn't help the people claiming guns are the issue

heard this brought up several times today

[sunsfan1357]

yeah, and this one doesn't help the people claiming guns are the issue

heard this brought up several times today
Considering (last I checked) that no one died people are going to take something from it.

[Loneshot]

I'm pretty sure some Chinese ISH's OTC board is going batshit over this.
:oldlol:

[-p.tiddy-]

Considering (last I checked) that no one died people are going to take something from it.
oh did not know...I assumed some died

[-p.tiddy-]

In 2010, nearly 20 children were killed and 50 wounded in a string of copycat incidents around central China. China has strict gun control laws, so knives are the weapon of choice in violent crimes.

:wtf:


Chinese are more fcked up than Americans are...god damn

[Loneshot]

Rediculous topic. Lets not pretend that this would go down on a regular basis in the US. Dude would have been tackled or jumped to death. I can't count how many videos i've seen in China where a child is getting ran over by a dozen cars or some other brutal attack and the asian people just carry on with their day.

Americans may have depression issues, but we don't let shit like that go down. So take this topic and shove it, Flagrant.

[Cangri]

Imagine if the guy had possession of some assault rifles, no one is saying that people will stop killing other people if you take guns away. Killing is part of humanity, but it's harder to kill other people with knifes than it is with guns.

[Droid101]

Imagine if the guy had possession of some assault rifles, no one is saying that people will stop killing other people if you take guns away. Killing is part of humanity, but it's harder to kill other people with knifes than it is with guns.
Bingo.

[Blue&Orange]

yeah, and this one doesn't help the people claiming guns are the issue

heard this brought up several times today
a wacko with a gun killed more in a couple of minutes than several wackos knifes during a full year.

yes it does.

And guns aren't the issue but banning them will save lives, period.

[Flagrant 2]

Americans may have depression issues, but we don't let shit like that go down. So take this topic and shove it, Flagrant.
:wtf: What did I do?

[nathanjizzle]

yup, the world is ending.

[Loneshot]

:wtf: What did I do?

You didn't make this topic because its a tragedy with this man did, but to combat any arguments about more gun control. Children woke up this morning expecting to get out of school and go watch The Hobbit this weekend and all some people care to do is defend their political stance.

[ace23]

You didn't make this topic because its a tragedy with this man did, but to combat any arguments about more gun control. Children woke up this morning expecting to get out of school and go watch The Hobbit this weekend and all some people care to do is defend their political stance.
And you know this how?

[boozehound]

yeah, and this one doesn't help the people claiming guns are the issue

heard this brought up several times today
how doesnt it help. 22 injured kids. vs dead kids. a gun allows a psychopath to create a much larger swath of destruction. If the guy in Conn had a knife, how many lives would be lost? Obviously its bigger than gun control, but the fact that I can buy a 30 round assault rifle (only intent is to kill people) off walmart.com allows them a much more deadly avenue for their psychosis.

As others have pointed out, every other country has had something like this. The difference is, it generally creates a change in law. We allow it to happen again and again. The list of mass shootings since 2005 is over 62 pages long. We dont even remember the mass shootings before columbine anymore. If you think this has nothing to do with the ease of access for anyone to get their hands on a gun whose sole purpose is taking the life of another human, there is something wrong with you.

[boozehound]

Rediculous topic. Lets not pretend that this would go down on a regular basis in the US. Dude would have been tackled or jumped to death. I can't count how many videos i've seen in China where a child is getting ran over by a dozen cars or some other brutal attack and the asian people just carry on with their day.

Americans may have depression issues, but we don't let shit like that go down. So take this topic and shove it, Flagrant.
you really dont have a leg to stand on. Remember the guy on the bus in Canada? People get beat and raped while others ignore their cries for help all the time in this country.

[bmulls]

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

Similar incident, 8 kids killed with a knife, 13 others wounded

[Flagrant 2]

You didn't make this topic because its a tragedy with this man did, but to combat any arguments about more gun control. Children woke up this morning expecting to get out of school and go watch The Hobbit this weekend and all some people care to do is defend their political stance.
Wow, interesting mind you have there. Sorry to burst your bubble but none of that crossed my mind, just felt like sharing a crazy story in the OTC.

Like this thread: http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=284384

[d.bball.guy]

:( Extremely sad on how these mass murders and violent rampages happen more often now

And also shows how a ban for guns won't solve the problem.

[dajadeed]

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

Similar incident, 8 kids killed with a knife, 13 others wounded

Are you stupid? The incident you linked to was in 2001.

How many mass shootings have we had here since 2001.

I'll wait for you to google it..

[Graviton]

I don't know, we seem to get massive killing sprees once or twice a year. Other countries seem to have these kinds of news once every 5 years. But then again we don't always hear news from overseas everyday unless it's something really big.

One thing you can say, most of the these senseless mass murderers are white and to a lesser degree Asians.
And most of the gang related shooters are black or latino. There are stupid, crazy people in every race.

White psychos are implosive, they hold all that anger inside then go on a rampage. Blacks/latinos are more explosive, let frustrations out more often and shoot each other for colors.

Though they are all just mentally damaged teenagers and young adults lashing out. They got nothing on some of those ruthless monsters in Mexico, Africa or Russia that behead/dismember people on daily basis and just live a savage life.

[Scholar]

Yeah, passive-aggressive behavior seems to fit more associated with whites and Asians. I think some of the social stereotype behavior fit it too. i.e. blacks are stereotyped as loud, confrontational, extroverted, while Asians are more quite, shy, kept-to-self, and whites are a mixture of both.

It's an interesting correlation, I think. It'd make a good research paper.

Any psychologist, doctor, or scientist who even starts a rough draft of such paper would lose all credibility in the United States. I won't debate this point. If you disagree, just try to see how many credible men/women have written reports and the like about character differences in races, then come back and post your findings. And by credible, I mean someone who people will take seriously. Also, don't look for people from the racist past. I'm talking about recent professionals in the field. People of the past 3 generations or so.


Anyway, I hate debating about gun control, but yesterday's tragic event has changed my stance completely. I used to believe guns should be accessible to everyone who feels they need it for their protection, but that's just idiotic. Why are we allowed to purchase assault rifles, uzis, etc.? These guns can let off dozens of shots in a matter of seconds, killing or severely wounding anyone they make contact with.

If this Chinese incident tells us anything, it's this:
If the guy in Connecticut had a knife, 18 little kids wouldn't be dead today.

Guns don't kill people, people do, right? No gun demands a man to pull the trigger, but people do it all too often. And because there are so many psychopaths in the world, and it's hard to figure out which of the 7 billion of us are ready to snap and go on a shooting spree at any given second, I think it'd be wise for guns to be outlawed entirely. Only those with real jobs requiring a gun for protection should have one, e.g. cops, military, armed guards, etc.

[kNicKz]

Gun control: because murderers follow the law



Controlling alcohol during prohibition made it nearly impossible to get drunk

Marijuana being illegal= so hard to find weed. Especiallyyyy in the suburbs, kids have like 0 connections out there :rolleyes:


In England there are STRICT gun laws. They still had the cumbria shooting, hungerford massacre. Did it stop the Dunblane school massacre? Where 16 little kids were killed? No. People making an agenda out of this are annoying as hell. Mental Health is the serious issue here and the meds they give out, not guns.

[kNicKz]

I think it'd be wise for guns to be outlawed entirely.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gCfK9N6JF6Y/UAWIcET4toI/AAAAAAAAEj8/ul55ZYyR6os/s1600/ben20franklin20on20liberty20and20security200518200 9.jpg

[boozehound]

Gun control: because murderers follow the law



Controlling alcohol during prohibition made it nearly impossible to get drunk

Marijuana being illegal= so hard to find weed. Especiallyyyy in the suburbs, kids have like 0 connections out there :rolleyes:


In England there are STRICT gun laws. They still had the cumbria shooting, hungerford massacre. Did it stop the Dunblane school massacre? Where 16 little kids were killed? No. People making an agenda out of this are annoying as hell. Mental Health is the serious issue here and the meds they give out, not guns.
this argument doesnt really work when you look at the world. Look at gun-associated crimes in canada or england or Australia (after the school shooting in tasmania) or anywhere else. It clearly reduces gun violence.


Why should you be able to buy an assault rifle (a weapon with the sole purpose of killing other people) at walmart? Or at a gun show with no waiting period? I am a gun owner, and I support the restriction of assault rifle sales.

[boozehound]

I don't know, we seem to get massive killing sprees once or twice a year. Other countries seem to have these kinds of news once every 5 years. But then again we don't always hear news from overseas everyday unless it's something really big.

One thing you can say, most of the these senseless mass murderers are white and to a lesser degree Asians.
actually, very few countries other than china (which are mostly knifings and we know how ****ed china is in regard to citizen support - I assume the same to be true for mental health uissues) have more than one of these events.

[kNicKz]

this argument doesnt really work when you look at the world. Look at gun-associated crimes in canada or england or Australia (after the school shooting in tasmania) or anywhere else. It clearly reduces gun violence.


Why should you be able to buy an assault rifle (a weapon with the sole purpose of killing other people) at walmart? Or at a gun show with no waiting period? I am a gun owner, and I support the restriction of assault rifle sales.

I don't even own a gun, but I believe in the freedom to defend yourself from the government and other people. America was built on this. And this argument really doesn't work when you look at the world? 2011 Norway massacre? The multiple British shootings posted? Tasmania school shooting? Shit happens, people are sick. Murders will still happen and assault rifles will still be used by sickos, legally obtained or not. So when a sicko illegal obtains an assault rifle and comes at me, it's illegal for me to own something to hit him back with? ****outtahere

[boozehound]

I don't even own a gun, but I believe in the freedom to defend yourself from the government and other people. America was built on this. And this argument really doesn't work when you look at the world? 2011 Norway massacre? The multiple British shootings posted? Tasmania school shooting? Shit happens, people are sick. Murders will still happen and assault rifles will still be used by sickos, legally obtained or not. So when a sicko illegal obtains an assault rifle and comes at me, it's illegal for me to own something to hit him back with? ****outtahere
gotta love how you use the tasmania shooting that I reference. Thats the point. The tasmania shooting caused a massive national change in Australia. How many mass shootings have they had subsequently? Exactly.

Meanwhile, the Bradley foundation has a list of mass shootings since 2005 (expiration of the assault rifle ban) that is 62 pages long. No other country has this problem.

[ripthekik]

Seriously, just do some research on countries where there is 100% control on guns, meaning you can't get them no matter what, and it is strict liability- as soon as you are found with a gun, you are arrested.

In such countries, I've NEVER really heard of any gun massacres, or any massacre at all. If they do, it's like once every few years.

Just look at Japan. I don't remember any gun massacre killing there at all, even though they probably have a black market. Whereas for the U.S. I can NAME the cases off my head.

For Japan, I basically found 2 massacre's since 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

Both were done with knifes. But look at the deaths. One massacre event from the U.S. trumps the death already. And we're just looking at one gun massacre event from the U.S., compared to the 13 year total in Japan.

[bmulls]

Seriously, just do some research on countries where there is 100% control on guns, meaning you can't get them no matter what, and it is strict liability- as soon as you are found with a gun, you are arrested.

In such countries, I've NEVER really heard of any gun massacres, or any massacre at all. If they do, it's like once every few years.

Just look at Japan. I don't remember any gun massacre killing there at all, even though they probably have a black market. Whereas for the U.S. I can NAME the cases off my head.

For Japan, I basically found 2 massacre's since 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

Both were done with knifes. But look at the deaths. One massacre event from the U.S. trumps the death already. And we're just looking at one gun massacre event from the U.S., compared to the 13 year total in Japan.

Mexico has completely banned guns for civilians. They have a higher gun murder rate than the US. Your point is null.

[kNicKz]

The problem isn't the instruments used to kill, those will be available no matter what. The problem is the people that commit these crimes...and I don't know what the answer is to that. We need God

[ripthekik]

Mexico has completely banned guns for civilians. They have a higher gun murder rate than the US. Your point is null.
That's pretty much the only country, and you should know why. Their culture, the drug cartel, poverty, and all that. Their government do not really, or actually, cannot enforce those rules.

Way to compare with the other modern countries I am bringing up with to compare with the U.S. Bringing up Mexico as a point, seriously? That just showed me you basically have nothing left to argue. Moot.

[Kblaze8855]

ridiculous how many people ignore that the more powerful the weapon the easier it is for maniacs to kill a large number of people......

you people bringing up knife attacks are not stupid you just choose to ignore the obvious over politics which is ridiculous.

a guy with the knife and the guy with access to a rocket launcher can both kill people yes..... the guy with the more powerful and longer distance weapon can kill people more easily.

therefore I would rather the maniac have access to knives than rocket launchers.

this is not a difficult concept to grasp

[bmulls]

Guys, look at the statistics! Except when they don't support my argument. Then they don't matter.

:lebronamazed:

[ripthekik]

:lebronamazed:
lmao. you're grasping right now.

Help me a bit here.
Let's take a look at massacre's in these countries:

France
Japan
China
Spain
Korea
Australia
Canada

Countries with comparable economics and development, not comparing a rural poverty country filled with drug cartels and mafia. Is it not obvious enough, if you don't have easy access to guns, a crazy person can't simply go grab it off the shelf and shoot over 30 people?

Are you really happier knowing that tomorrow on your way to work, some kid can steal a gun from his uncle's car and shoot you?

[bmulls]

lmao. you're grasping right now.

Help me a bit here.
Let's take a look at massacre's in these countries:

France
Japan
China
Spain
Korea
Australia
Canada

Countries with comparable economics and development, not comparing a rural poverty country filled with drug cartels and mafia. Is it not obvious enough, if you don't have easy access to guns, a crazy person can't simply go grab it off the shelf and shoot over 30 people?

Are you really happier knowing that tomorrow on your way to work, some kid can steal a gun from his uncle's car and shoot you?

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun murders in the US. Gang related shootings account for more than 80%.

Assuming you aren't in a gang, when you leave the house it is 15000% more likely you will be killed by a drunk driver than a mass shooter.

You are making these statements based on your emotions, not logic.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

[boozehound]

Mexico has completely banned guns for civilians. They have a higher gun murder rate than the US. Your point is null.
smfh at you. Where are 90% of the confiscated guns from? Legally purchased in the US. It helps that they have an incredibly porous border with a country whose policies push the violence into mexico.

[Turkododo]

i know the weapon used was a knife and no one was killed, but you don't f with the Chinese government. this mf'er is going on the electric chair in no time. heck you get your fingers cut for stealing in China.

[bmulls]

smfh at you. Where are 90% of the confiscated guns from? Legally purchased in the US. It helps that they have an incredibly porous border with a country whose policies push the violence into mexico.

So wait...you're telling me that it isn't hard for criminals to get guns if they want them? And that even banning gun ownership outright doesn't work?

:lebronamazed:

ISH liberals never cease to amaze me

[boozehound]

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun murders in the US. Gang related shootings account for more than 80%.

Assuming you aren't in a gang, when you leave the house it is 15000% more likely you will be killed by a drunk driver than a mass shooter.

You are making these statements based on your emotions, not logic.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
the % isnt the issue. More poeple were killed by smoking on 9/11 than died at all three sites. So what?

[ripthekik]

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun murders in the US. Gang related shootings account for more than 80%.

Assuming you aren't in a gang, when you leave the house it is 15000% more likely you will be killed by a drunk driver than a mass shooter.

You are making these statements based on your emotions, not logic.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
Doesn't that help my argument even more? Gun laws in the U.S. makes is easy EVEN for gang shootings. Not only does it not stop crazy people from getting guns, it also makes these gang related shootings easy. Why do they have to go through the trouble of black market

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html
Where did these kids in the gangs buy their guns from? Oh wait.. they bought it LEGALLY.

But the truth is most guns recovered in crimes here were originally bought in Illinois.

More specifically, in Cook County.

And the No. 1 supplier of those weapons is just a short drive from Chicago, Chuck’s Gun Store in south suburban Riverdale.

From 2008 to March 2012, the police successfully traced the ownership of 1,375 guns recovered in crimes in Chicago within a year of their purchase.

Of those guns, 268 were bought at Chuck’s — nearly one in five.


"Prior to May 1999, a single gun store sold more than half of the guns recovered from criminals in Milwaukee, WI, shortly following retail sale."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438583/


And back to the issue just now, you know what, you say I'm not accepting statistics when it doesn't suit me? Fine, I'll take Mexico. I'll take the one outlier statistic Mexico, and not take into considerable its gang/crime/drug cartels.

Countries that have banned guns and still have a high rate of death:
Mexico

Countries that have banned guns and do not have constant massacre or high rate of death:
Pretty much the rest of the world. I can pull more than 50 countries in here.

Do you really think the statistics are in your favor? Pro-gun advocates always point to Sweden and Mexico for their case. Well guess what, that's 2 country out of the 100 in the world we have. Countless other countries around the world ban guns, and do not have to deal with mass killing on a daily basis.

For them, it happens once every few years, and impacts the society deeply. Here in the U.S.? Oh, another gun killing. We've already forgotten the 2, or 3 mass killing cases that happened last month. :facepalm

[bmulls]

Doesn't that help my argument even more? Gun laws in the U.S. makes is easy EVEN for gang shootings. Not only does it not stop crazy people from getting guns, it also makes these gang related shootings easy. Why do they have to go through the trouble of black market

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html
Where did these kids in the gangs buy their guns from? Oh wait.. they bought it LEGALLY.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438583/


And back to the issue just now, you know what, you say I'm not accepting statistics when it doesn't suit me? Fine, I'll take Mexico. I'll take the one outlier statistic Mexico, and not take into considerable its gang/crime/drug cartels.

Countries that have banned guns and still have a high rate of death:
Mexico

Countries that have banned guns and do not have constant massacre or high rate of death:
Pretty much the rest of the world. I can pull more than 50 countries in here.

Do you really think the statistics are in your favor? Pro-gun advocates always point to Sweden and Mexico for their case. Well guess what, that's 2 country out of the 100 in the world we have. Countless other countries around the world ban guns, and do not have to deal with mass killing on a daily basis.

For them, it happens once every few years, and impacts the society deeply. Here in the U.S.? Oh, another gun killing. We've already forgotten the 2, or 3 mass killing cases that happened last month. :facepalm

The rest of these awesome countries you love so much aren't the size of the US, they don't have the same poverty level as the US, they don't have the same wealth disparity as the US. Your average European country is the same size/population as fcking Ohio.

You do realize the US has higher crime rates for all crimes, not just gun murder right?

If the other crime rates were relatively equal but America had a massive disparity in gun violence then your statistics might be relevant. But that isn't the case. We have more of EVERY TYPE of crime.

There isn't a country in the world you can compare the US too in terms of racial homogenity, wealthy disparity, poverty etc.

[kNicKz]

"The shooter broke the law by transporting the guns.
He broke the law by carrying the guns.
He broke the law by bringing them into a school.
He broke the law by firing a weapon within city limits
He broke the law by committing murder, attempted murder, causing bodily injury, assault....
If he didn't legally own the gun then he broke the law by stealing it and another law by possessing stolen property."



http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/gun-control-college-liberal.jpg

[boozehound]

So wait...you're telling me that it isn't hard for criminals to get guns if they want them? And that even banning gun ownership outright doesn't work?

:lebronamazed:

ISH liberals never cease to amaze me
With a porous border with the most massively armed country in the world and a criminal element turned into billionaires by demand in that country for drugs? How about you look at canada instead. Oh wait, it doesnt support your weak argument, so you ignore it.


Go look at the gun-associated crime rates in countries with stronger gun laws. come back with some actual facts, instead of picking and choosing anecdotes. Using mexico as an example is an embarrassment, particularly since the violence there is driven by policy in our own country. You should be better than that.

[bmulls]

With a porous border with the most massively armed country in the world and a criminal element turned into billionaires by demand in that country for drugs? How about you look at canada instead. Oh wait, it doesnt support your weak argument, so you ignore it.


Go look at the gun-associated crime rates in countries with stronger gun laws. come back with some actual facts, instead of picking and choosing anecdotes. Using mexico as an example is an embarrassment, particularly since the violence there is driven by policy in our own country. You should be better than that.

So countries that ban guns have less gun crimes? Big fcking shocker. What you fail to realize is that criminals are going to commit crimes regardless if they have guns or not. Banning guns has not had a significant effect on TOTAL crime rate.

The rate of knife violence in the UK is more than twice as high as it is in the US. Should the UK ban knives? Does it matter if a person is shot to death or stabbed to death? Is the stabbed person any more dead than the shot person?

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

^^ sources for stats linked at the bottom of that blog

[ripthekik]

The rest of these awesome countries you love so much aren't the size of the US, they don't have the same poverty level as the US, they don't have the same wealth disparity as the US. Your average European country is the same size/population as fcking Ohio.

You do realize the US has higher crime rates for all crimes, not just gun murder right?

If the other crime rates were relatively equal but America had a massive disparity in gun violence then your statistics might be relevant. But that isn't the case. We have more of EVERY TYPE of crime.

There isn't a country in the world you can compare the US too in terms of racial homogenity, wealthy disparity, poverty etc.
Now that the statistics doesn't stack in your favor, "oh but it doesn't matter, U.S. is unique" :lol


Guys, look at the statistics! Except when they don't support my argument. Then they don't matter.
lmao

[ripthekik]

So countries that ban guns have less gun crimes? Big fcking shocker. What you fail to realize is that criminals are going to commit crimes regardless if they have guns or not. Banning guns has not had a significant effect on TOTAL crime rate.

The rate of knife violence in the UK is more than twice as high as it is in the US. Should the UK ban knives? Does it matter if a person is shot to death or stabbed to death? Is the stabbed person any more dead than the shot person?

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

^^ sources for stats linked at the bottom of that blog
So how many people died from knife-related attacks a year?
I would be willing to put money, having done no research, that it is less than 1 month of gun-related deaths in the states.

[bmulls]

Now that the statistics doesn't stack in your favor, "oh but it doesn't matter, U.S. is unique" :lol


lmao

I used Mexico to show how your use of stats are flawed. I never attempted to compare the US to another country.

[bmulls]

So how many people died from knife-related attacks a year?
I would be willing to put money, having done no research, that it is less than 1 month of gun-related deaths in the states.

And you prove again that you don't understand statistics. Aggregate totals don't mean anything. The UK has a smaller population than the US and a smaller total crime rate. The # of deaths is completely meaningless in this discussion, what matters is the rates as a proportion of the total population.

Did you even graduate high school son?

[ripthekik]

And you prove again that you don't understand statistics. Aggregate totals don't mean anything. The UK has a smaller population than the US and a smaller total crime rate. The # of deaths is completely meaningless in this discussion, what matters is the rates as a proportion of the total population.

Did you even graduate high school son?
I think you're the one who needs to go back to school. The facts and situation is in your face and yet you refuse to face it.

How about using death rates? What is the death rate caused by knifes in the U.K? Show me what is the death rate caused by knifes compared to death rate by guns in the U.S.? :oldlol:

Next month when another gunner goes happy, think about what you did to prevent it. You did absolutely NOTHING. The problem is in front of you, but you're willing to just let it happen, day after day, incident after incident.

[boozehound]

So countries that ban guns have less gun crimes? Big fcking shocker. What you fail to realize is that criminals are going to commit crimes regardless if they have guns or not. Banning guns has not had a significant effect on TOTAL crime rate.

The rate of knife violence in the UK is more than twice as high as it is in the US. Should the UK ban knives? Does it matter if a person is shot to death or stabbed to death? Is the stabbed person any more dead than the shot person?

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

^^ sources for stats linked at the bottom of that blog
what is the combined rate of gun and knife violence (or an overall deadly weapon type rate) in the US compared to UK? Again, you are purposefully presented distorted arguments.

[ripthekik]

what is the combined rate of gun and knife violence (or an overall deadly weapon type rate) in the US compared to UK? Again, you are purposefully presented distorted arguments.
I really think this guy is trolling. He uses Mexico, and banning knifes as his arguments. Would any intelligent person take this guy's argument seriously? :facepalm

[tpols]

So countries that ban guns have less gun crimes? Big fcking shocker. What you fail to realize is that criminals are going to commit crimes regardless if they have guns or not.
The guys aren't criminals that do this you idiot.

Aurora wasn't a criminal. Columbine dudes weren't criminals. This dude wasn't a criminal. These guys are depressed friendless white guys with zero connections to anything trapped inside their own heads til they explode. They don't know a Juan who can get them some aks for cheap. They don't know anybody.. This guy took from his mom. They wouldn't be able to get shit illegally so your just bullshit ing.

[RaininThrees]

So countries that ban guns have less gun crimes? Big fcking shocker. What you fail to realize is that criminals are going to commit crimes regardless if they have guns or not. Banning guns has not had a significant effect on TOTAL crime rate.

The rate of knife violence in the UK is more than twice as high as it is in the US. Should the UK ban knives? Does it matter if a person is shot to death or stabbed to death? Is the stabbed person any more dead than the shot person?

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

^^ sources for stats linked at the bottom of that blog

How many mass killings are committed by knife? Just curious.

No one is saying (I think) that banning hand guns and automatic weapons will stop gun crimes form happening. It will decrease its incidence, though... and that's the point.

Here's what I know. Mass killings in the United States since 2006:

October 2006 - Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania 5 dead
April 2007 - Blacksburg, Virginia, 32 dead
August 2007 - Delaware State University, 3 dead
December 2007 - Omaha, Nebraska, 9 dead
December 2007 - Carnation, Washington, 6 dead
February 2008

[bmulls]

I think you're the one who needs to go back to school. The facts and situation is in your face and yet you refuse to face it.

How about using death rates? What is the death rate caused by knifes in the U.K? Show me what is the death rate caused by knifes compared to death rate by guns in the U.S.? :oldlol:

Next month when another gunner goes happy, think about what you did to prevent it. You did absolutely NOTHING. The problem is in front of you, but you're willing to just let it happen, day after day, incident after incident.

35% of the murders committed in the UK were by knife. Knife murders in the US account for 14.1% of the murder rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2287360/Murder-rate-increasing-amid-epidemic-of-knife-and-gun-crime.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

[RaininThrees]

35% of the murders committed in the UK were by knife. Knife murders in the US account for 14.1% of the murder rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2287360/Murder-rate-increasing-amid-epidemic-of-knife-and-gun-crime.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

So what are you saying, exactly?

What's the point of this?

That knife murder rates will increase? Is that your argument?

[bmulls]

[QUOTE=RaininThrees]How many mass killings are committed by knife? Just curious.

No one is saying (I think) that banning hand guns and automatic weapons will stop gun crimes form happening. It will decrease its incidence, though... and that's the point.

Here's what I know. Mass killings in the United States since 2006:

October 2006 - Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania 5 dead
April 2007 - Blacksburg, Virginia, 32 dead
August 2007 - Delaware State University, 3 dead
December 2007 - Omaha, Nebraska, 9 dead
December 2007 - Carnation, Washington, 6 dead
February 2008

[Rasheed1]

I am going to get negged because it's going to sound like I'm marginalizing these tragedies, but the fact is these mass killings are a drop in the bucket as far as total murders in the US. The vast majority (over 80%) of gun murders are gang related.

Legislating gun control to prevent mass killings is like planning your entire defense around stopping the fast break highlight reel dunk meanwhile you've been getting dominated in the half court all game.


I dont understand why you keep referring to gang-related gun deaths as if they would fall under a different category..

its still gun murders in the US

[boozehound]

35% of the murders committed in the UK were by knife. Knife murders in the US account for 14.1% of the murder rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2287360/Murder-rate-increasing-amid-epidemic-of-knife-and-gun-crime.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
and? Thats because the only people with guns in england are extremely specialized police units (like the one my cousin is in). Of course the % of murders committed with knives is higher. What is the ratio of murders to population there? Or just the ratio of knife murders to population between US and england? I guarantee more knife murders/population are committed in the US.

[RaininThrees]

I am going to get negged because it's going to sound like I'm marginalizing these tragedies, but the fact is these mass killings are a drop in the bucket as far as total murders in the US. The vast majority (over 80%) of gun murders are gang related.

Legislating gun control to prevent mass killings is like planning your entire defense around stopping the fast break highlight reel dunk meanwhile you've been getting dominated in the half court all game.

So what you're saying is that as a society, America should be OK with this sort of thing happening on a fairly regular basis because it's just too hard to deal with.

Gotcha.

[bmulls]

So what are you saying, exactly?

What's the point of this?

That knife murder rates will increase? Is that your argument?

My point is that comparing the gun crime rate across countries are meaningless without the context of demographics, wealthy distribution and disparity, poverty levels, racial homogenity and a million other factors.

If you took that stat at face value like most in this thread want to do with gun statistics you would have to conclude that the UK has a knife problem.

The fact is that even if you subtract every gun murder in the US from the total murder count there are still roughly 6000 murders committed in the US vs roughly 500 in the UK.

This points to a much larger socio-economic/cultural issue. Guns are not the problem, Americans are the problem.

[LJJ]

Of course guns are available anywhere on the planet to someone willing to jump through the hoops to get one, but anyone saying criminals will always be able to get their hands on a gun is misunderstanding the situation completely.

The difference is the degree of availability. In countries with strict gun control it's still possible to get a gun, but generally it's not possible or really difficult and rare to be able to do so on a whim. Not in America. In America anyone can impulsively get their hands on a number of guns within minutes of them desiring a gun, someone can undergo a violent psychosis and basically get their hand on a gun within minutes.

Anyone arguing that this is not a contributing factor at all to the occurance and following severity of these type of random massacres, like bmulls, is a complete and total idiot. Now, there are good arguments for the right to bear arms and you can have a debate whether the benefits are more important than the negative aspects of lax gun control, but you can't have a serious debate like that with frothing at the mouth retards like bmulls.

[RaininThrees]

This points to a much larger socio-economic/cultural issue. Guns are not the problem, Americans are the problem.

Don't disagree, necessarily.

And if these "Americans with issues" have easy access to guns, relative to other countries? What happens?

[bmulls]

I dont understand why you keep referring to gang-related gun deaths as if they would fall under a different category..

its still gun murders in the US

Because the vast majority of gang related murders are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

Banning guns would punish responsible law abiding citizens who enjoy hunting and target shooting while doing little to stop the majority of gun murders.

Yes, I acknowledge that these mass shootings are often committed by young white middle class males with legal firearms. However in the grand scheme of things these murders account for a tiny fraction of the total murder rate. They are just the ones we see about. "17 year old black killed shot in Baltimore" doesn't make the news because it happens all day every day. White kid on a shooting spree makes the news.

[ripthekik]

This points to a much larger socio-economic/cultural issue. Guns are not the problem, Americans are the problem.
Americans are the only ones in the world facing problems now? As someone in the other thread posted, people all over the world have problems and pressure. Kids in asia(japan, korea, china) go through tremondous pressure in HS, competing with thousands of other kids for 1 seat in an university. But what can they do? They don't have access to guns. The U.S. isn't the only country with people that have psychological problems, or face stress/pressure. People all over the world do. They just don't have access to guns.

[bmulls]

Don't disagree, necessarily.

And if these "Americans with issues" have easy access to guns, relative to other countries? What happens?

We need to address the problem, not the tool used.

- Compile a more comprehensive registry of people with any sort of mental issues. The Connecticut kid had autism, the Aurora shooter was seeing a psychiatrist, the VA Tech shooter was deemed mentally ill by a court before the shooting, etc etc. Make it illegal for anyone with mental issues to own a firearm.

- Make people liable for the crimes committed with their firearms. This kid never should have had access to his mother's guns.

- Longer waiting periods.

[bmulls]

Americans are the only ones in the world facing problems now? As someone in the other thread posted, people all over the world have problems and pressure. Kids in asia(japan, korea, china) go through tremondous pressure in HS, competing with thousands of other kids for 1 seat in an university. But what can they do? They don't have access to guns. The U.S. isn't the only country with people that have psychological problems, or face stress/pressure. People all over the world do. They just don't have access to guns.

Even if you subtract every gun murder there were still 7000 people killed in the US in 2005. The average murder rate in the UK is about 500 people. We have a problem with violence in general, not necessarily gun violence.

[MMM]

Because the vast majority of gang related murders are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

Banning guns would punish responsible law abiding citizens who enjoy hunting and target shooting while doing little to stop the majority of gun murders.

Yes, I acknowledge that these mass shootings are often committed by young white middle class males with legal firearms. However in the grand scheme of things these murders account for a tiny fraction of the total murder rate. They are just the ones we see about. "17 year old black killed shot in Baltimore" doesn't make the news because it happens all day every day. White kid on a shooting spree makes the news.

I'm not sure many are advocating that, what I personally want to see is tighter regulations. The actual details of tighter regulations might be acceptable but it is going to take serious debate among lawmakers. Additionally the overall gun culture and guns as personal protection has to stop, the sentiment that it produces is overall negative to society.

[Rasheed1]

Because the vast majority of gang related murders are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

Banning guns would punish responsible law abiding citizens who enjoy hunting and target shooting while doing little to stop the majority of gun murders.

I see... I dont think we are talking about banning guns. I think we are talking about banning high powered weapons and large magazine clips.




Yes, I acknowledge that these mass shootings are often committed by young white middle class males with legal firearms. However in the grand scheme of things these murders account for a tiny fraction of the total murder rate. They are just the ones we see about. "17 year old black killed shot in Baltimore" doesn't make the news because it happens all day every day. White kid on a shooting spree makes the news.

^this point makes it worse in my opinion..

seems like Americans thinks it is acceptable to have the high level of violence as long as it is in minority neighborhoods. As long as it isnt little white kids getting blown away? there isnt really a problem.

I think alot of people of color see it this way. If people looked at the black community/minority community and took the issues serious? we would be able to head off alot of problems before they hit mainstream white America.

I shake my head when I see people on TV saying they are shocked and "this doesnt happen in my town".... "I figured we were safe here" :facepalm

[RaininThrees]

We need to address the problem, not the tool used.

- Compile a more comprehensive registry of people with any sort of mental issues. The Connecticut kid had autism, the Aurora shooter was seeing a psychiatrist, the VA Tech shooter was deemed mentally ill by a court before the shooting, etc etc. Make it illegal for anyone with mental issues to own a firearm.

- Make people liable for the crimes committed with their firearms. This kid never should have had access to his mother's guns.

- Longer waiting periods.

Wow, that almost sounds like gun control legislation right there.

[bmulls]

Wow, that almost sounds like gun control legislation right there.

I don't have a problem with reasonable and effective gun control, I have a problem with retards like ripthekik saying we should ban guns outright.

[ripthekik]

I don't have a problem with reasonable and effective gun control, I have a problem with retards like ripthekik saying we should ban guns outright.
Are you *****ing retarded? Show me a post where I said that? In my post yesterday, I advocated gun-restriction, because banning guns is impossible in the U.S. and it will never be achieved, hence the talk is useless.

You're retarded for thinking that restricting guns won't help decrease the rate of deaths in the US. You think it'd make no difference, because they'd just use knifes to stab people instead. :facepalm This sums up your entire view point.

[bmulls]

I see... I dont think we are talking about banning guns. I think we are talking about banning high powered weapons and large magazine clips.


Less than 4% of gun murders are committed with rifles (including AR style rifles). The vast majority, over 75%, are committed with handguns.

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

[RaininThrees]

I don't have a problem with reasonable and effective gun control, I have a problem with retards like ripthekik saying we should ban guns outright.

I personally think that gun control can include a weapons ban on specific types of weapons. I'm on the fence with Hand guns, but at the minimum they should be extremely, extremely, extremely hard to buy.

I live in Canada, am in my 30s, but I currently have absolutely no idea where I would have to go to buy a hand gun. No clue.

Automatic weapons should be banned outright in my mind. There is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon. None. There is no arguing this point.

[Rasheed1]

Less than 4% of gun murders are committed with rifles (including AR style rifles). The vast majority, over 75%, are committed with handguns.

High powered weapons should be banned




Are you *****ing retarded? Show me a post where I said that? In my post yesterday, I advocated gun-restriction, because banning guns is impossible in the U.S. and it will never be achieved, hence the talk is useless.

You're retarded for thinking that restricting guns won't help decrease the rate of deaths in the US. You think it'd make no difference, because they'd just use knifes to stab people instead. :facepalm This sums up your entire view point.




I think he's arguing just for the sake of it. His points are pretty incoherent and all over the place.

[RaininThrees]

Insane rampages are, sadly, not confined to the United States. One happened this very day in China, where a cruel madman attacked a group of children at school.

Here's the difference:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2012/12/ChinaKnife2-thumb-620x233-108366.png


Twenty-two children injured. Versus, at current count, 20 little children and eight other people shot dead. That's the difference between a knife and a gun.

Guns don't attack children; psychopaths and sadists do. But guns uniquely allow a psychopath to wreak death and devastation on such a large scale so quickly and easily. America is the only country in which this happens again -- and again and again. You can look it up (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/the-certainty-of-more-shootings/260133/).

No one has been killed on American soil through what we define as an act of "terrorism" in more than a decade, but countless elements of our life are still shaped and warped by the open-ended "war on terror." (Or, if you count the Ft. Hood shooting as "terrorism," 13 people have been killed.)

Thousands of people die every year from gun violence, an unspeakable number at schools, and -- we mourn and "move on." "Nothing to be done."

For parents, siblings, and families whose lives have been forever changed (or ended), deepest sympathies. For us as a nation .... I don't know what to say.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/american-exceptionalism-the-shootings-will-go-on/266293/

[bmulls]

Are you *****ing retarded? Show me a post where I said that? In my post yesterday, I advocated gun-restriction, because banning guns is impossible in the U.S. and it will never be achieved, hence the talk is useless.

You're retarded for thinking that restricting guns won't help decrease the rate of deaths in the US. You think it'd make no difference, because they'd just use knifes to stab people instead. :facepalm This sums up your entire view point.

Your idea of "restrictions" are ridiculous and virtually the same thing as banning them.

[bmulls]

High powered weapons should be banned


I think he's arguing just for the sake of it. His points are pretty incoherent and all over the place.

Yeah okay. I'm the only person in this thread posting real statistics with sources. The rest of you are making emotional judgements out of your ass.

[ripthekik]

I think he's arguing just for the sake of it. His points are pretty incoherent and all over the place.
Yes, I think I'll stop arguing with him now. I'd continue to argue if there were a lot more guys thinking like him, but it seems the majority of ISH are pretty clear-headed and know what they're talking about. It's not worth it to convince 1 idiot.



Twenty-two children injured. Versus, at current count, 20 little children and eight other people shot dead. That's the difference between a knife and a gun.

That's right. That's the difference gun access makes, and guys like bmull refuse to face. You can't get rid of crazy people, or crime altogether. They will find a way. But restricting guns make it a hell lot harder. This guy here couldn't find a gun, he got a knife. Did he cause 20 deaths like bmull would have predicted? No, he caused 0.

That's the difference.

[MMM]

On screening for mental illness, isn't that a potential violation of medical privacy??? Would something like that even be allowed???

[RaininThrees]

On screening for mental illness, isn't that a potential violation of medical privacy??? Would something like that even be allowed???


I doubt it, but you can lower barriers for treatment and try and lower the stigma associated with metal disease.

Maybe more people get help, rather than retreat into themselves.

[Kblaze8855]

Because the vast majority of gang related murders are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

Banning guns would punish responsible law abiding citizens who enjoy hunting and target shooting while doing little to stop the majority of gun murders.

Yes, I acknowledge that these mass shootings are often committed by young white middle class males with legal firearms. However in the grand scheme of things these murders account for a tiny fraction of the total murder rate. They are just the ones we see about. "17 year old black killed shot in Baltimore" doesn't make the news because it happens all day every day. White kid on a shooting spree makes the news.


Serious question.......is the enjoyment of killing animals and target shooting worth it if even one child is more likely to die?

[bmulls]

Serious question.......is the enjoyment of killing animals and target shooting worth it if even one child is more likely to die?

That is a loaded question, it assumes I have some sort of responsibility for what other people do with their guns.

I'm sure you have a few drinks every now and then. Are you by proxy responsible for every innocent person killed by a drunk driver?

[ZenMaster]

That is a loaded question, it assumes I have some sort of responsibility for what other people do with their guns.

I'm sure you have a few drinks every now and then. Are you by proxy responsible for every innocent person killed by a drunk driver?

It's not about responsibility for other people.

People in the US do mass shootings with guns relatively often - fact.

People in other countries where guns are banned don't have mass shootings with guns relatively often - fact.

It's about realising that easy acces to guns for the broad population isn't smart or safe, at least not for a country like the US, the proof is in the dead bodies.

[RaininThrees]

Serious question.......is the enjoyment of killing animals and target shooting worth it if even one child is more likely to die?

You can do target shooting with a non-lethal airgun, and killing animals does not require an automatic weapon.

[red1]

now imagine if this fool walked in with an ar15. would've been a much different story

[bmulls]

You can do target shooting with a non-lethal airgun, and killing animals does not require an automatic weapon.

Nobody needs a car that goes faster than 70mph either. We should put a built in speed limit on all cars, right?

I am all for gun control measures designed to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Better mental health care, a more comprehensive background check which precludes people with mental health issues from purchasing guns, closing the "gun show loophole" whereby people can purchase guns from each other with little to no documentation, requiring all firearms to be locked up at all times, holding people accountable for crimes committed with firearms registered to them.

^^ These are all things I would support.

However I will never support further limiting the types of firearms that responsible law abiding citizens can own. I own an AR15 and I enjoy shooting it at the range. It is not fair or just to trample on my rights because other people abuse them.

[Just2McFly]

I personally think that gun control can include a weapons ban on specific types of weapons. I'm on the fence with Hand guns, but at the minimum they should be extremely, extremely, extremely hard to buy.

I live in Canada, am in my 30s, but I currently have absolutely no idea where I would have to go to buy a hand gun. No clue.

Automatic weapons should be banned outright in my mind. There is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon. None. There is no arguing this point.
Detroit or Buffalo, which ever is closest.:oldlol:

[bmulls]

You can do target shooting with a non-lethal airgun, and killing animals does not require an automatic weapon.

Also, just FYI, none of these shooters used automatic weapons. Those have been banned for a long time now. To legally own a pre-ban automatic you would need an expensive permit, the personal endorsement of your local police chief and upwards of $20k.

[boozehound]

Here is a view that I think is quite reasonable. and that is the last Ill say.

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html

[Kblaze8855]

That is a loaded question, it assumes I have some sort of responsibility for what other people do with their guns.

I'm sure you have a few drinks every now and then. Are you by proxy responsible for every innocent person killed by a drunk driver?


I didn't say you are responsible. I asked if something like killing animals and target practice is worth risking the lives of innocents.

I had a young family member killed by a drunk driver. I've attended a funeral with a tiny casket i could barely look at.

You ask me if a beer is worth the life of a bunch of kids....the answer is no. I don't need to deflect.

Small part of my life.

You said taking all guns is punishing the innocent. I'm asking if that speck of "punishment" is worth the lives of the people put in far more danger than they would be if these nuts had no firearms.

Always has been and will be violence. People kill people. Guns just make it easier. Why make it easier?

So someone can shoot a deer or a target?

At least tell me tell me you want to protect your family. **** hunting and target practice.

Lives being lost here.

I'm watching a guy talk about his dead daughter on CBS....

[RaininThrees]

Also, just FYI, none of these shooters used automatic weapons. Those have been banned for a long time now. To legally own a pre-ban automatic you would need an expensive permit, the personal endorsement of your local police chief and upwards of $20k.

This shooter had an assault rifle in his care.

James Holmes used one of these:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/27/74/1343054164_6138_ar15.jpg

sorry, I just don't see any need at all to own a weapon like that. I understand it's a semi, but what's the point? Honestly?

[bmulls]

This shooter had an assault rifle in his care.

James Holmes used one of these:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/27/74/1343054164_6138_ar15.jpg

sorry, I just don't see any need at all to own a weapon like that. I understand it's a semi, but what's the point? Honestly?

I have the exact same gun as the Aurora shooter. I love shooting it at the range and I carry it while I'm at the lease to shoot coyotes and hogs. I also have a .22 variant of the same gun which I use for varmints and other small game. Also .22 ammo is much cheaper than .223.

What exactly about that gun is so objectionable to you? What special functions do you think it performs that a magazine fed hunting rifle does not?

[bmulls]

I didn't say you are responsible. I asked if something like killing animals and target practice is worth risking the lives of innocents.

I had a young family member killed by a drunk driver. I've attended a funeral with a tiny casket i could barely look at.

You ask me if a beer is worth the life of a bunch of kids....the answer is no. I don't need to deflect.

Small part of my life.

You said taking all guns is punishing the innocent. I'm asking if that speck of "punishment" is worth the lives of the people put in far more danger than they would be if these nuts had no firearms.

Always has been and will be violence. People kill people. Guns just make it easier. Why make it easier?

So someone can shoot a deer or a target?

At least tell me tell me you want to protect your family. **** hunting and target practice.

Lives being lost here.

I'm watching a guy talk about his dead daughter on CBS....

A lot of things kill people. Fast food, cigarrettes, alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars, boats, swimming pools, skydiving, airplanes, etc etc etc. Why don't we ban all those things too? I'm not trying to be a dick but your response here is 100% emotional. There's no substance for me to even debate you on.

[RaininThrees]

I have the exact same gun as the Aurora shooter. I love shooting it at the range and I carry it while I'm at the lease to shoot coyotes and hogs. I also have a .22 variant of the same gun which I use for varmints and other small game. Also .22 ammo is much cheaper than .223.

What exactly about that gun is so objectionable to you? What special functions do you think it performs that a magazine fed hunting rifle does not?

I don't see the point for anything that's magazine fed, frankly.

We won't see eye to eye on this, obviously. It's not that I'm against guns in general, its just that I personally don't see any point in owning something like that. I've gone hunting and got plenty of enjoyment out of it while loading shells when needed.

I mean lawn darts are banned because they're too dangerous.

[Kblaze8855]

you compare guns to skydiving and say I'm the emotional one?

people like you are exactly why you going to lose long term. and so many of you seem to know it. always worried about the government coming for your guns because eventually.....they will.

They have to with the way some of you cling to weapons and sound less and less reasonable. Some nut shoots 30 people seems like 3 times a year and some guy with a gun he values more than human lives gets on the internet to do anti gun damage control talking about fast food?

You people are fighting a losing battle that the nra and angry white guys in the woods can't keep back forever. almost like people against gay marriage. long term you have to know how this goes right?

some maniac will shoot up a bus load of nuns and orphans on Easter and before you can make a topic on how the driver could have killed them just as easily if he were on cough syrup laws will change. and it looks like half the Supreme Court might change in the next 10 years to deal with the resulting constitutional issues.

I suspect gay marriage will come first nationally...... but serious gun control won't be far behind. I just can't wait to get a laugh out of some pissed off white guy in Georgia the day it happens and no Civil War erupts as they are claiming now

[ripthekik]

you compare guns to skydiving and say I'm the emotional one?

people like you are exactly why you going to lose long term. and so many of you seem to know it. always worried about the government coming for your guns because eventually.....they will.

They have to with the way some of you cling to weapons and sound less and less reasonable. Some nut shoots 30 people seems like 3 times a year and some guy with a gun he values more than human lives gets on the internet to do anti gun damage control talking about fast food?

You people are fighting a losing battle that the nra and angry white guys in the woods can't keep back forever. almost like people against gay marriage. long term you have to know how this goes right?

some maniac will shoot up a bus load of nuns and orphans on Easter and before you can make a topic on how the driver could have killed them just as easily if he were on cough syrup laws will change. and it looks like half the Supreme Court might change in the next 10 years to deal with the resulting constitutional issues.

I suspect gay marriage will come first nationally...... but serious gun control won't be far behind. I just can't wait to get a laugh out of some pissed off white guy in Georgia the day it happens and no Civil War erupts as they are claiming now
Come on, he doesn't deserve a serious response like this when he uses fast food, cigarrettes, alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars, boats, swimming pools, skydiving, airplanes as examples. It's like a middle schooler using stupid arguments such as "I'm going to get dirty tomorrow, why should I take a shower today?" or "There's danger in sitting in any car, we should stop all cars" :facepalm

Just not worth it.

I enjoy seeing the part where you say serious gun control will come. I'd like that, but I disagree though. I don't think it'll come so easily. There's just too many stubborn people, and reasons of politics will stop it from crystalizing, the NRA, republicans, funds, etc. Obama now is in the best position to do something.. if someone like him who just got elected in his 2nd term won't, then I think there's really no hope in the next decade.

In 10 years, kids in HS will probably be bringing guns to school every single day, for 'protection'. People won't go out at night to buy food without being strapped. It's just going to deteriorate in my opinion. And all thanks to stupid opinions as we have seen. Right to protect myself... from other guns. Right to protect my property from the government... 2nd amendment... yea right.

[Graviton]

"some maniac will shoot up a bus load of nuns and orphans on Easter and before you can make a topic on how the driver could have killed them just as easily if he were on cough syrup "

Now that was unintentionally hilarious lol.

I support more restrictions as long as guys like bmulls can still get their guns through more paperwork, testing and background checks. Just no more people buying semi-automatics from Walmart without a permit, licence or any real effort. It will keep bmulls and other gun enthusiast happy, while all the "casuals" and their depressed kids will stay away.

[Kblaze8855]

the gun lobby and how many guns supporters will actually vote has held it back for a long time but I really don't see it working forever. eventually the death penalty gay marriage and gun control in America will look a lot more like the rest for the first World. I don't even agree with all of it.....but it's a when....not an if.

I don't see a judge dredd future.

it's just going to take longer than it should

[ripthekik]

the gun lobby and how many guns supporters will actually vote has held it back for a long time but I really don't see it working forever. eventually the death penalty gay marriage and gun control in America will look a lot more like the rest for the first World. I don't even agree with all of it.....but it's a when....not an if.

I don't see a judge dredd future.

it's just going to take longer than it should
I feel like we have to wait maybe 50 years for all the old school guys to die out, and for a new educated generation to come out in order for it to happen.

I think gay marriage will come much faster than this. Guns are just too deeply entrenched into the U.S.A. It's going to be a hell of a battle, and frankly.. I don't think the odds are good.

[Kblaze8855]

to tell the truth I'd be all for going back to swords.....

guns have turned ******* into real threats. I think it takes a lot less courage and conviction to pull a trigger than to go stab a bunch of people to death.

I remember fights. fights are kinda going extinct. Can't even teach my son to stand up for himself. Not that gun toting kids are new. I was in seventh grade first time i was made aware of kids in my school having guns.....at school.

if i have to die at least give me a chance like a man.

[Graviton]

If wars were still fought with medieval weapons, we would have a lot less of them, doubt many people in the current age would be willing to get dismembered, maimed and disfigured in a bloody battle. Shooting someone from 100+ feet away or bombing them from the safety of your own jet is much easier, and safer for your mental state. Hell we now have remote drones killing people like a video game, it all takes the emotional damage out of the equation. Soldiers are ****ed up from the current wars, imagine how many more would be damaged mentally after a bloody close combat duel.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't know the effect would have on wars. but a kid shot someone two streets from me days ago. I suspect he would think longer about pulling out a swordand having a fair fight than about pulling out a gun and shooting.

killing is entirely too easy for a coward these days

[RaininThrees]

If wars were still fought with medieval weapons, we would have a lot less of them, doubt many people in the current age would be willing to get dismembered, maimed and disfigured in a bloody battle. Shooting someone from 100+ feet away or bombing them from the safety of your own jet is much easier, and safer for your mental state. Hell we now have remote drones killing people like a video game, it all takes the emotional damage out of the equation. Soldiers are ****ed up from the current wars, imagine how many more would be damaged mentally after a bloody close combat duel.

What does war have to do with what we're talking about here, exactly?

[Graviton]

What does war have to do with what we're talking about here, exactly?
Nothing, just thought "going back to swords" was an allusion to the way wars were fought in the past. Before guns made it easier. I do agree that the closer you are to your victim, the more guts it takes to actually kill.

[kNicKz]

you compare guns to skydiving and say I'm the emotional one?

people like you are exactly why you going to lose long term. and so many of you seem to know it. always worried about the government coming for your guns because eventually.....they will.

They have to with the way some of you cling to weapons and sound less and less reasonable. Some nut shoots 30 people seems like 3 times a year and some guy with a gun he values more than human lives gets on the internet to do anti gun damage control talking about fast food?

You people are fighting a losing battle that the nra and angry white guys in the woods can't keep back forever. almost like people against gay marriage. long term you have to know how this goes right?

some maniac will shoot up a bus load of nuns and orphans on Easter and before you can make a topic on how the driver could have killed them just as easily if he were on cough syrup laws will change. and it looks like half the Supreme Court might change in the next 10 years to deal with the resulting constitutional issues.

I suspect gay marriage will come first nationally...... but serious gun control won't be far behind. I just can't wait to get a laugh out of some pissed off white guy in Georgia the day it happens and no Civil War erupts as they are claiming now

:biggums:

[Graviton]

:biggums:
He is obviously rather emotional, let him vent. Though this whole "you people", "us vs them" is just dividing the nation. Gotta be more rational instead of just pointing fingers.

[kNicKz]

To me, once stereotypes and insults enter a debate, the debate has ended and it's just bickering from there on. I like antihero's posts. I feel like what he touched upon is the true issue. Just making shit illegal has never worked in America (key word America. Not UK, not Australia, not Canada, etc. that's apples and oranges)

[Kblaze8855]

Stereotypes my ass. Let's not be PC to the point we disregard reality.

The extreme vast majority of people upset over possibly losing gun rights are white males.

I live in south Carolina. Have you any idea how many "I'll keep my god and my guns....you keep the change." Bumper stickers i see on pickup trucks?

literally yesterday I saw a grandfather and grandson in matching camouflage overalls. kid looks to be less than 3 years old and the grandfather said he had already been hunting. some girls were around him saying how cute it was that his overalls matched his jacket when he got hot and took the top layer off.

the demographics of the "not my gun "movement should not need research.

[Kblaze8855]

first thing I see when I turn on my TV ....Meet the Press. they were talking about how the NRA is slowly losing the power needed to hold back gun control. had on Mayor Bloomberg talking about how much money he was willing to spend to combat the nra.

they said they invited the 31 most pro gun control congressman to come give their opinion and not one would accept. nobody in Washington would show up on Meet the Press to defend gun rights.

I suppose they see that the negative press isnt worth the love from the NRA and the Confederacy anymore.

[Rasheed1]

I don't know the effect would have on wars. but a kid shot someone two streets from me days ago. I suspect he would think longer about pulling out a swordand having a fair fight than about pulling out a gun and shooting.

killing is entirely too easy for a coward these days


I remember when kids starting packin back in the day. It was skinny little kids who said "f*ck fighting, Im bout to get hot".

Guns make the smallest coward a threat anyway because he can pull the gun out and kill people he wouldnt even dare confront without it

[dunksby]

I remember when kids starting packin back in the day. It was skinny little kids who said "f*ck fighting, Im bout to get hot".

Guns make the smallest coward a threat anyway because he can pull the gun out and kill people he wouldnt even dare confront without it
But people kill people, guns don't kill people!

most stupid argument ever presented.

[bmulls]

But people kill people, guns don't kill people!

most stupid argument ever presented.

Yeah!! Because some guys personal anecdote on the internet passes for hard statistics and peer reviewed study!!

[Kblaze8855]

Bombs don't kill people. Land mines don't kill people. Tanks don't kill people. But they....like guns....make it too easy for people to get it done. Which is why they are not given top the public. just a matter of where the line is.

as time goes on the line will be moved closer and closer to nobody needing a projectile weapon. problem is criminals already have them and they won't give them up if made illegal.

only legitimate point on that whole side really.

[boozehound]

Here is a view that I think is quite reasonable. and that is the last Ill say.

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html
No one bothered to click through the link? OK then.
originally written in 1992, then edited in 1998
[QUOTE]==Guns and the Insurrection Myth==

The issue of guns in America is intransigent. True believers on both sides hold fixed positions, portraying their opponents in the darkest possible terms. Enforcement of the Brady Law has thwarted thousands of ex-cons and criminals from acquiring arms without seriously inconveniencing legitimate gun buyers, but this hasn

[LJJ]

No one bothered to click through the link? OK then.
originally written in 1992, then edited in 1998

I clicked to through the link, but let's be honest here: Americans aren't so vehemently against gun control because they feel they need to protect themselves against a tyrant. Nobody buys a gun just in case the president is out to get them.

So the article discusses a nonexistent issue. I know technically what the 2nd amendment is for but it is not applicable at all to current reality.

[Kblaze8855]

Hearing people talk about the right to keep street sweepers is often hilarious.

even better when is someone who probably doesn't even know an amendment after the first 2.

[boozehound]

I clicked to through the link, but let's be honest here: Americans aren't so vehemently against gun control because they feel they need to protect themselves against a tyrant. Nobody buys a gun just in case the president is out to get them.

So the article discusses a nonexistent issue. I know technically what the 2nd amendment is for but it is not applicable at all to current reality.
actually, you are way off on this one. Look at the sales of guns after the first election of obama. Look at the sales of guns this black friday after his reelection. it overloaded the FBI computers 2 or 3 times that day.

You couldnt buy most types of ammo for nearly a year after obama was elected because they couldnt keep it on the shelf in many areas of the country.

There is a very large anti-centralized govt component in the US and they are some of the loudest gun rights advocates. Not just obama, but fear of the feds (mostly unwarranted) to the point where Utah has told the US govt that they are turning management of all public lands over to the state (yeah, right).

The point is that the fear of tyranny is alive and well in the US, however unfounded it may be.

[LJJ]

actually, you are way off on this one. Look at the sales of guns after the first election of obama. Look at the sales of guns this black friday after his reelection. it overloaded the FBI computers 2 or 3 times that day.

You couldnt buy most types of ammo for nearly a year after obama was elected because they couldnt keep it on the shelf in many areas of the country.

There is a very large anti-centralized govt component in the US and they are some of the loudest gun rights advocates. Not just obama, but fear of the feds (mostly unwarranted) to the point where Utah has told the US govt that they are turning management of all public lands over to the state (yeah, right).

The point is that the fear of tyranny is alive and well in the US, however unfounded it may be.

A large portion of Americans actually thinks it's a possibility the government turns into a tyranny, and that in such an event they would be able to overthrow the system and defeat the military if only they had access to small arms?

Only one reply is warranted to that: wat

[boozehound]

A large portion of Americans actually thinks it's a possibility the government turns into a tyranny, and that in such an event they would be able to overthrow the system and defeat the military if only they had access to small arms?

Only one reply is warranted to that: wat
yes. At least a very vocal minority. It may only 1% of the country who are actual extremists (michigan militia, montana freemen, etc), but it is a much larger proportion who are extremely distrustful of their government (while benefiting from it) and are prepared for open insurrection.

Unfortunate, but true. Many working class repubs fall into this category. I have known them from Michigan to Texas to Utah and almost everywhere in between.

[Graviton]

A large portion of Americans actually thinks it's a possibility the government turns into a tyranny, and that in such an event they would be able to overthrow the system and defeat the military if only they had access to small arms?

Only one reply is warranted to that: wat
I don't think you understand. Who is in the military? The sons and daughters of American citizens. If the government turns into a tyranny, those individuals won't just mindlessly turn on their own relatives, friends and family. If anything, large part of the military would join the people, while the rest wouldn't care and will continue following a corrupt institution.

[DonDadda59]

I clicked to through the link, but let's be honest here: Americans aren't so vehemently against gun control because they feel they need to protect themselves against a tyrant. Nobody buys a gun just in case the president is out to get them.

So the article discusses a nonexistent issue. I know technically what the 2nd amendment is for but it is not applicable at all to current reality.

You poor, naive soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5EYaW1HZhw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jxsiDnmYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGS44GlMjyw


^There's a LOT of people who believe this. As Boozehound pointed out, gun sales skyrocketed when Obama was first elected and then recently right after the election. A lot of gun toting nutcases are convinced they need their guns because it's the only thing stopping the communist Obama from imposing Martial Law and proclaiming himself king.

[LJJ]

I don't think you understand. Who is in the military? The sons and daughters of American citizens. If the government turns into a tyranny, those individuals won't just mindlessly turn on their own relatives, friends and family. If anything, large part of the military would join the people, while the rest wouldn't care and will continue following a corrupt institution.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. Just the idea that the military would turn on the vast majority of the US population is a ridiculous notion. But that is the only scenario in which a people's militia would be necessary.


But yes, I am shocked that apparently a lot of US citizens think this is viable. I already had you guys pegged as somewhat below average in terms of intelligence and sensibilities (as a population in general), but that is literally retarded.

[Graviton]

It's not really their fault. Most of those people grow up around that culture and are brainwashed to think government is evil and is against them. That allows private corporations to slowly milk them dry while the politicians break down every regulation put in place to actually help them. Fox news especially just uses fear and propaganda to appeal to the white masses and keep people from looking at real issues.

A simple google search will let you know who most of the Republicans are working for, it sure as hell isn't "the people.

[kNIOKAS]

I don't think you understand. Who is in the military? The sons and daughters of American citizens. If the government turns into a tyranny, those individuals won't just mindlessly turn on their own relatives, friends and family. If anything, large part of the military would join the people, while the rest wouldn't care and will continue following a corrupt institution.
Isn't that all of the military of a certain country have relatives in that certain country? Like, um, everywhere rest of the world?
Ever heard of a civil war?

[Simple Jack]

I don't understand what possible logical argument can be given for not wanting to ban guns.

No one is coming into a movie theatre with a baseball bat or even a knife and killing 10+ people...it's nearly impossible. Nothing will stop violence as a whole but when such tools of violence are so readily available that you can buy them at the same place you buy basketball hoops and shoes, shit like this will continue to happen.

It's remarkable that two of the biggest killers of people in the US have the biggest lobbyist groups supporting them. (Tobacco and Firearms).

**** outta here with the backwards ass "but, it's my 2nd amendment right" bullshit. The only people who should be able to carry guns are police officers; no one else.