Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AR-15s were used in Parkland, San Bernardino, Sutherland, Newton, Las Vegas and Aurora. How long does the list have to get?
Focusing on specific weapon type isn't helpful. There is a very long list of weapons other than AR-15's that could have been used with the exact same results.
Yes, evil will find a way. How many people can you kill by throwing bleach on them? Yes, you could blind and maim a few...you're not going to kill 20. Same with a knife....same with a pistol. Limit the lethality...limit the damage. Yeah...give him a pointy stick instead a semi automatic.
Plenty of mass killings have been perpetrated by using a knife or a pistol.
Plenty of mass killings have been perpetrated by using a knife or a pistol.
yes, yes - doesn't everyone already know this?...it doesn't matter what specific is given there is always something that won't "fit"...because there is not a perfect correlation with any SINGLE factor or, in this case, weapon.
If we wait for the perfect solution it will never happen - which is a great strategy to hold the conservative status quo but I'm not falling for it - perhaps that's exactly what you're going for but I am not.
I don't give a crap what specific weapon(s) is outlawed - I want it based on the potential lethality.
After you've reviewed the information, please report back on how there aren't any. Pleeeeze.
The entire first page of google hits shows only two mass killings with knives. Yes, they were tragic, but they don't at all compare to the potential deaths from a killer with a gun.
The incident in China, where 29 were killed by knives, was done by TEN men. What might the death toll have been if those ten men had guns?
The incident in Japan, 19 dead, was carried out in a facility for disabled people while they were sleeping. Very sad that they were such a very easy target. (I don't know what was in place for security at the building.) No single person would normally be able to kill 19 people with a knife.
I don't understand the "logic" in opposing gun control laws that would reduce many deaths, just because occasionally a person is killed with something less dangerous, like a toaster or piece of broken glass.
The entire first page of google hits shows only two mass killings with knives. Yes, they were tragic, but they don't at all compare to the potential deaths from a killer with a gun.
The second hit from that Google search is a Wikipedia article detailing out 51 incidents. Not two.
I understand that it doesn't fit in with your narrative, but having a little bit of intellectual honesty would help you out in your argument, regardless of how morally bankrupt that argument is.
Quote:
The incident in China, where 29 were killed by knives, was done by TEN men. What might the death toll have been if those ten men had guns?
What might the death toll had been if armed citizens neutralized the attackers at the start of the incident?
Quote:
The incident in Japan, 19 dead, was carried out in a facility for disabled people while they were sleeping. Very sad that they were such a very easy target. (I don't know what was in place for security at the building.) No single person would normally be able to kill 19 people with a knife.
How many kindergarten children in a classroom could a man with a knife kill? Who would stop him? The teacher, by wielding a stern look?
Quote:
I don't understand the "logic" in opposing gun control laws that would reduce many deaths, just because occasionally a person is killed with something less dangerous, like a toaster or piece of broken glass.
Every time one of these incidents occurs, and the internet is flooded with cries for more gun regulations, the question is always asked - What new piece of gun legislation would have prevented the incident from occurring? And the answer is always the same - no new legislation would have prevented it.
Originally Posted by charlygal
So what is the benefit of the armed staff? They may reduce the number killed but they cannot totally prevent the carnage.
Thoughts?
Is your blind hatred of the NRA and gun owners so strong that you would actually prefer more children are killed, rather that implementing a system that can reduce that number? Really??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
