Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.) I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons. Supporting evidence: the following skit: What's your reason? Setting: A gun shop, modern day. A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please." The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?" The Customer says "I need one for personal protection." The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell." The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!" The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left. Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun." Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks. The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting." The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy. The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states. The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff. Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says. The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot! The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet. The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!" The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves. Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says. The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other". "Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly. The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer. "Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows. "Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
I'm still waiting for a response to the follow as well:
And that's the difference. There were no deaths. I'm surprised at the number of people who were injured, but the severity of injury was magnitudes lower.
Try comparing the fatality rate and tell me again that the choice of weapon is irrelevant.
The real solution is awareness/treatment of mental health. People undermine the severity/implications of bullying, ignore depression, stigmatize illnesses, and have no way to get help. If we want school violence to stop, we need to stop blaming the victims, because then they become the aggressors.
You can continue to talk to Fish about the conspiracy thing. I have no interest in it. Even if it was faked (which it wasn't) school shootings are not the only reason for gun control and there have been plenty of others. Conspiracy theories are kind of amusing in that the only way they could be possible is if the government is either all powerful and malevolent, or so incredibly stupid that any armchair paranoid maniac can out them.
There's clearly a difference between a mass stabbing and a mass shooting. It's also worth noting that the security officer was literally no help at all, even against someone with a knife instead of a gun. Maybe you want to argue that if all of the teachers had guns, the kid wouldn't have been able to stab as many?
Your doubt of the validity of an event is not grounds to dismiss nor evidence to disprove details relating to the aforementioned event.
It doesn't need to be. There is no evidence of your claim in the video you linked to. There are only unfounded assertions and dubious media clips. If you would answer my questions, I can answer yours.
As to the footage of Robert Parker, did you notice the number of times the scene was cut?
I must also question your motive for introducing this to the discussion in the first place. You give an example of a real stabbing and compare it to...what? An elabourate charade? That seems to be what you are suggesting. Why would you make such a comparison? Should I counter by comparing real shootings to slasher movies?
Unfortunately, this shows that even if guns ARE removed from the equation, school bloodshed can and will continue happening.
Probably, but that doesn't realy amount to much in this discussion, because the discussion is about gun control and not the perpetuation of violence in schools.
On the other hand, who's to say the stabbing wasn't all staged as part of a diabolical scheme?
So you see, the issue is not that, thanks to gun control, people aren't being shot. The issue is that, even without guns, people are willing to go into a school and attack students.
Yes, the root issue is that there is violence. However, that's not an easy thing to fix and it will never be completely eliminated. Instead, a measure which will make a large difference is limiting the ability of those who would cause harm by restricting and regulating certain weapons.
What you're arguing is the same as saying because house fires are a problem, getting rid of explosive materials inside the house is not a solution because houses will still burn down. Even if you do get rid of the explosive materials, there are other things which burn. I expect you can see how this line of reasoning fails.
Unfortunately, this shows that even if guns ARE removed from the equation, school bloodshed can and will continue happening.
If reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of bloodshed, then the answer is pretty obvious. Reduce the amount of guns.
But think about it. A knife attack is silent, it doesn't give away your position and blood does not come flying out of the wound (unlike every movie ever).
Silent except for the screams anyways. I think a larger part of the reason so many were stabbed (or slashed) is because the fire alarm was pulled. It put a bunch of people who had no idea what was happening into the hallways, where a person with a silent weapon could attack. No one was expecting an assailant. If anything, all this shows is that even completely unprepared, a knifing is far less lethal than a shooting.
If normal lockdown procedures had been followed, there would have been less victims. I'm not blaming the kid who pulled the fire alarm - no one knew what was happening and he probably helped because it got everyone out of the way - but the response on the school's end was insufficient.
Anywho, going back to gun control at large - less guns being used = less gunshot deaths = less deaths. Other weapons are not as lethal or straightforward to use.
Well, Sandy Hook was classified as such because "The government wants to take away guns." If this was a hoax, what would it be trying to accomplish? "The government wants to take away knives," or "We should have guns again?"
Who knows? Just give it to a fearmonger and he'll make a conspiracy out of it.
he probably helped because it got everyone out of the way
Oh how I would love an edit function. Sometimes words just don't sound the way you intended them to. Revision: he probably helped because it got everyone out of the school and alerted emergency response teams.
You do realize that by doing so, the criminals would be pushed to find alternative, and possibly more lethal weapons?
Let's say that Bill makes a living delivering pizzas, but he's a very irresponsible driver and has killed one person out of negligence. If you take away his car, he will have no option but to hijack a sherman tank. Many more people will die as a result. Does this sound like a reasonable causality to you?
There is a reason criminals don't generally have more lethal weapons. That reason is not the mere presence of less lethal weapons.
Switch to knives and bows/crossbows. None of those? Switch to blunt objects, and it goes on and on and on.
All of which are less lethal than guns.
The thing is, the fires don't originate from those explosive materials. The death however originates from the person, and to some extent their gun. Also, murder is intentional, while fires can be caused by anything from faulty wiring to leaving the stove on.
That doesn't make it any more relevant to the discussion, however.
Except it doesn't reduce the amount of bloodshed. Many school murders happen with explosives as well as other weapons.
Actually, it does. Many school murders still happen with guns.
Not if the killer, oh, I don't know, actually manages to kill them by stabbing them in the neck.
But this was not the case. There were no casualties, so there wasn't even a killer.
- less guns being used = less gunshot deaths = less deaths. Other weapons are not as lethal or straightforward to use.
More like Gun Control = less guns being used by responsible citizens = more deaths.
It doesn't matter. Both are illogical: Kasic made two hasty generalizations, and you made two non sequiters.
You do realize that by doing so, the criminals would be pushed to find alternative, and possibly more lethal weapons?
What, like bazookas? Death rays? Trained anacondas?
It will not make a large difference, because people are normally pretty determined if they're trying to kill someone.
And yet *gasp* some weapons aren't as dangerous/powerful as others! Who would have ever guessed!
Switch to knives and bows/crossbows. None of those? Switch to blunt objects, and it goes on and on and on.
Do you believe that knives are equal to guns, and that rocks are equal to knives?
Many school murders happen with explosives as well as other weapons. Here's an example:
"Many.* (Cites an example of a foiled attack that killed no one).
Not if the killer, oh, I don't know, actually manages to kill them by stabbing them in the neck.
Yes, knives can kill. You missed the point entirely.
More like Gun Control = less guns being used by responsible citizens = more deaths.
Just ... wow. So instituting measures to make sure that the only people with guns are the ones trained to use them somehow makes there be -less- "responsible" people with guns, which somehow leads to more deaths? Okay.
No, like poisons, and the guns that they didn't give to the government, because I really don't think a murderer is going to care about some petty gun law.
So they will use poisons because they have no access to loud, costly, bulky, easily traceable guns? Or they will use guns they don't have, because preventing them from accessing guns = giving them access to guns? Are you sure you're on the same page here?
No, you did. They said that the person would be screaming.
That's a different point, the irrelevance of which I apparrently have not emphasized enough.
Because murderers are definitely law-abiding citizens who will willingly hand out the tool they're planning to use to kill someone...
So, you're saying that because criminals don't obey laws...we shouldn't have them? That's...astoundingly insightful. I can't imagine why this point hasn't ever come up before, seeing as it's obviously very significant and not ridiculously irrational in any way whatsoever.
because I really don't think a murderer is going to care about some petty gun law.
Because murderers are definitely law-abiding citizens who will willingly hand out the tool they're planning to use to kill someone...
Exactly how many times is this argument going to be made? As Fish pointed out, and as it's been pointed out numerous times in the thread below, criminals don't follow laws, yet we still have laws. Because we want there to be less of it. Which is entirely the point behind gun control.
Anyway, in the right hands (or wrong hands, actually) yes.
They aren't. Especially if we use the broad term "knife" to mean everything ranging from a combat knife to a kitchen knife. Even if you want to call a sword a knife, a gun is more deadly. I think that's been known since the 14th century, so you're either extremely uninformed or suffering from delusion.
No, you did.
Twenty two injured. MAYBE one death (one student in critical condition). The rate of knife injury to death is magnitudes less than gun injury to death, because a gun is an entirely different beast. It has range, stopping power, and does not require physical strength. To kill with a knife is far harder than with a gun. That was the point.
An extra year at most isn't going to stop a person who would probably get life in prison.
This point might carry some weight if given some shred of context. As of yet, there's no clear indication of what crimes you claim have a strict 1 year difference in penalty. Or are you bringing this back to the "all crime is equal" nonsense you stated on page 5 of the NYC Administration Code thread?
Mainly because there are already too many guns in circulation to stop these criminals. Even if they're weren't, other countries have guns, and it's not that difficult to make or find a gun, at least for these people.
Right, so the problem is that there are too many guns in circulation. Your solution? Add more guns! Just keep cramming them in there until it all sorts itself out. Now that's what I call thinking outside the box! I'm just dying to hear your solutions to climate change, overpopulation, and the budget deficit.
[...] but the common murder is committed with a pistol.
Which is far more costly and hard to obtain than a knife, which, by your reasoning, seems to be just as deadly. So, who's been teaching these criminals how to hold a gun the right way, or smash a window without severing a major artery, or distinguish real cash from monopoly money? They're obviously far too stupid to figure it out on their own.
We don't need that law, because it's only causing more problems than not having it. It doesn't matter if we want there to be less of it. There won't be less of it. An extra year at most isn't going to stop a person who would probably get life in prison
What are you talking about? I never mentioned a certain law.
I'm not sure how I'm going to get this through to you, but they don't care how many laws we pass, it isn't going to thwart them. It's not all laws, it's just this law.
You could start by replying to me instead of ... whatever it is you're replying to.
Mainly because there are already too many guns in circulation to stop these criminals. Even if they're weren't, other countries have guns, and it's not that difficult to make or find a gun, at least for these people.
1) Removing guns from circulation would be a place to start. 2) It's not so easy for your "etty criminal" to obtain a gun from overseas. 3) The largest source of illegal guns are corrupt gun dealers and people giving others guns. 4) Making a gun isn't so easy.
Fish beat me to it, but the answer is not adding more guns. It's not ignoring the problem. Is it easy to fix? No. But it needs to be.
