You're right. Maybe not 200, only 14. I guess you just have to hope and pray that you and your loved ones are numbers 15 and above. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/lone-star-stabbing-texas-community-college_n_3045991.html What a silly argument.
You guys continue to make our point for us. Thanks. 14 injured, 0 deaths. Can you find 1 example of a mass killing at the hand of a knife?
Holy shit, some of you guys are great at putting words in other people's mouths. No one is cool with violent crime. No one is saying that guns are the ONLY things that can be used as weapons. No one is saying that the world will be completely safe if only we could have gun control laws. It's this kind of distortion that makes your argument ring so hollow. You're having a fictional debate. Maybe if you could at least admit that you can answer a simple question and maybe the conversation can move forward: do you agree that it is easier to kill people with guns than with knives? Yes or no will do.
Absolutely not. There are inanimate objects that are deadly weapons, and inanimate objects that are not. Again it begs the question as to why you choose to focus your efforts on just that, an inanimate object.
I don't believe you're interested in having any debate, you seem more interested in asking people to concede obvious points. Obviously it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. It's also easier to protect yourself with a gun than a knife - which may be why violent crime occurs at a 3.5x higher rate in the UK.
If it's such an obvious point, why do you keep missing it and/or willfully ignoring it with these snarky comparisons? Usually people only do that when their real arguments fall apart in an actual debate. There are plenty if factors in play here. It's a complicated issue. Whether knives can also kill people or hurt people is a total red herring. The reason the focus is on GUN control is because of their primary purpose and the ease with which someone can kill someone else using one.
Wow. Just wow. Alright. I'll humor you for a moment. Against my better judgment. You are trying to equate two inanimate objects. With one of them, I could kill people from 50 feet away, never putting myself in harm's way. I can also kill dozens of people very quickly from this distance. With the other inanimate object, I need to be within arm's reach and the method of dealing injury requires my own muscles to provide the force. Yes, they are both inanimate. But let me put it this way: when you play a FPS, how many people stick with the pipe/knife/fists they give you on level one? Do you eschew the pistols and machine guns and plasma rifles you gain on later levels because they are all just inanimate objects? Or do you recognize the increased value offered by the new weapons? (Value being a relative term in this context, seeing that the goal of an FPS is usually to kill as many bad guys as possible.)
So what you're saying is that you're okay with your wife and kids walking down the street and getting shanked by a 14 inch ka-bar, because you like the odds of their survival. I'm finding it really difficult to take you seriously.
Yet again, you resort to an argument no one has made. I'd prefer my wife and kids to never have to deal with any violence. But if they ever were confronted with it, yes, I'd prefer it to be a situation with a higher likelihood of survival. Are you suggesting I should wish for them to be more likely to die? How is this difficult to understand?
Don't bother, he's either deliberately making a mockery of the discussion (likely) or he's too stupid to take part in it.
Both of you tried to minimize acts of violence by means other than firearms, did you not? The whole point of this entire discussion, which both of you geniuses seem to be having a hell of a hard time wrapping your heads around, is this: evil people will commit evil acts. Gun control does not change that simple fact. You can pass gun control legislation until the cows come home and even still, there will be shootings, stabbings, burglaries, rapes, car jackings etc etc etc. The only difference is, good law abiding citizens will have no means of defending themselves. All gun control does is take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow the law. I tried really hard to dumb this down for the two of you. If you still can't understand these simple concepts, then I suggest moving to Europe.
You're not going to like this response, but it depends on the person and their level of skill with the weapon. If the guy has never used a gun before, I'd bet on the knife expert to have an easier time killing because by the time the dude figures out how to load the weapon and put the safety off, and fire at moving targets he'd probably be stopped before much damage is done. If the guy is a marksman, sure, I'd go with him. Do you agree that it is easier to kill people with remote control bombs than with guns? Do you agree that it is easier to defend yourself and others from somebody wielding a gun, when you have a gun or when you do not have one? A simple yes or no will suffice Easy is irrelevant. I probably have 20 different situations EACH DAY where I could instantly end somebody's life if I really wanted to. The problem is I'm sane, and don't want to because it's morally reprehensible. See that? 'Easy to kill' doesn't excuse a somebody from being a piece of shit. Killing is never easy, even in Columbine, they only killed 13 people, despite being armed with several weapons and having a huge advantage over the defenseless students. Even in the worst mass shootings, the death toll is rarely above 30, despite there being hundreds of defenseless people there. People are exaggerating greatly when they infer that hundreds can easily die in a split second from a gun. It's not as simple as you guys are insinuating. It's impossible to make your argument without invoking double standards.
The fuck I did. And I do not even know where you would get this from. Hi. You might want to go back to the post of mine where I explicitly said the same thing. Thanks. Yeah, see, this is exactly what I mean when I say you are having a fictional debate. If you cannot even accurately state my position on the issue, then what the hell are we talking about? I agree with just about everything that you just said about how there will still be violence (and explicitly said so a few posts ago). What I do not agree with is: 1. The notion that any of the currently proposed gun control laws affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. 2. This false equivalence between guns and knives in terms of their ability to cause injury/harm. Especially when it is posed as this sarcastic idea that people who favor gun control should have the same concern about knives. There are differences between knives and guns, and the difference in concern lives in those differences, so please stop with this bullshit idea that knives are equally deadly as guns. Sure. You're not suggesting that we have remote-control bomb control laws though, are you, you fascist? We already have those? Oh. Yup. Never said otherwise. I'm not insinuating it's simple. In fact, I explicitly said it was complicated a couple of posts ago. And yes, I get what you are saying, but you are also pulling out extreme circumstances. Generally speaking, a gun is far more effective at causing injury and death. If it wasn't they'd send our soldiers into battle with a full Ginsu set instead of M16A2s. So let me sum this up and make this as clear as possible before this goes any further: - No one is saying that all violent crime will go away overnight if guns magically disappeared. - No one is saying that they want guns to magically disappear. - No one is saying that law-abiding citizens should not have the right to defend themselves or their family with guns. - Whether or not you agree with the effectiveness of such laws, there is a valid/logical reason why the focus is on gun control and not knife control. There is a difference in design and ability to cause harm. To ignore this (e.g. why don't you ban knives, too?!) is to be willfully obtuse at best. - I tend to think that most gun control laws in their current form are/will be ineffective. That does not mean I think the concept needs to go away completely. - Anyone who agrees that there can and should be some limitation on the rights of citizens to bear arms (e.g. we cannot own tanks) admits that the discussion should be about where the line is drawn and not just toss it out as unconstitutional from the get-go.
That is absolutely what you are doing when you make a comment essentially amounting to, "well, stabbings are bad but shootings are worse". Scroll back up to the wife/kids scenario a few posts above and re-read your response. This is like saying "We want to cut down on the number of intoxicated people. We're going to ban liquor but still allow beer." Guess what's going to happen? People who want to get drunk are still going to do so regardless of whether or not they have access to the hard stuff. Just like someone who already is in the twisted mindset that they want to commit rape, burglary, murder, [insert violent crime of your choice here] etc etc is going to do so regardless of whether or not they have access to a firearm. Once again, this is a people issue. Not an object issue. Do you really not see the problem with your logic?
Bullshit. Don't warp what I'm saying to fit your ideas of what you want me to say. Both are horrible. But you're lying if you don't see a difference between the fatality rates given the weapon type. Oh, I'm sorry... did my hypothetical response to your ridiculous/extreme question lead you to believe something other than what I meant? Give me a break. You asked a ridiculous either/or question that already assumed my wife/kids would be violently attacked. That's the textbook definition of a loaded question. Either situation is horrible, obviously. Saying that I would prefer the situation in which they were more likely to live is hardly minimizing one over the other. If I asked you whether you would prefer being repeatedly ass-raped by five large men or just once by a porcupine, I wouldn't take your answer and say you were minimizing the pain caused by porcupine rape in this country. I have more of a problem with you thinking you understand what logic is in the first place. 1. You keep thinking that I am making some argument other than what I am actually making. I do not know if this is due to a lack of reading comprehension skills or a burning desire to not see anything other than what you want to see, but it's somewhat irrelevant. Whatever the reason, you can't seem to show me that you even begin to comprehend what I've said. You only regurgitate things you want me to have said. 2. You clearly have a misguided view about a large portion of violent crime in this country. Not all - not even most - of it is pre-meditated. Now show me that you understood what I've said if you want this conversation to go any further.
Aren't there already restrictions on knives and the types of knives you can carry in America? Just like there are restrictions on guns currently? The title of this is purposely misconstruing a situation and taking something to the extreme. In general, in a crowded area, it is much easier to inflict the most damage with a gun than a knife. I don't think that can be argued. And it's probably easier to inflict more damage with a knife than a badminton racquet. And it's probably easier to inflict more damage with a tank than a gun. It's all about if drawing a line that will help and where should that line should be drawn, and well there are lines drawn for guns and knives currently.
Guess you didn't want the conversation to go any further. Incidentally, I always loved the "move to another country if you disagree with my position" argument. 'Murrica!
