Gun Control Debate thread

[CheeseForSteeze]

Originally Posted by Donutz

Cheeze, you can claim this until you're blue in the face, and no-one is going to swallow it. YES, you could become good enough with a sword if you took the time and had the discipline and could find a good instructor. YES, you could kill people with a kitchen knife. YES, you could kill people with a bow as in that link I posted a while back in this thread. But you ARE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT THESE ARE LIKELY TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS A GUN! Don't insult my intelligence. Don't insult the intelligence of the other people on this forum. With a gun you can stand at the doorway and shoot people like fish in a barrel. Even with a trained swordsman, all everyone has to do is stand at the other end of the room and look at you. Anyway, explain to me how a couple of kids managed Columbine if it requires so much training. Mark Lepine, with virtually NO training, kept an entire room hostage and started killing women one at a time by the simple tactic of staying far enough back that he couldn't be rushed.

Sorry, no sale.

That's because no one resisted. A bunch of kids at Sandy Hook managed to run past the gunman while he was standing in the door trying to clear a malfunction and reload. If you honestly think shooting people who are actively trying to run away and avoid being shot is easy, you're incredibly uninformed. Trying to paint a picture of "standing in a doorway while shooting fish in a barrel" makes this quite evident. Yes, you can shoot AT people. Connecting while they run around and hoping someone doesn't come up behind you, charge you or otherwise engage you while you are reloading, have a malfunction, run out of ammunition etc. is an entirely different matter.

Many of the students killed by Klebold and Harris @ Columbine were shot point blank while they sat there and didn't resist. Go read the accounts of how the event actually unfolded. A knife or bludgeon is easily lethal against non-resisting victims, as well. So if you want an explanation, there it is. Would you mind explaining how in many of these mass murders, the gunman only manages to kill a fraction of the people in the area despite possessing a weapon of "mass killing potential"?

What you're completely dismissing is lack of ease it takes to kill a resisting victim. You're also inventing a scenario which essentially amounts to a no true scottsman fallacy. Saying "all someone has to do is X" to avoid dying at the hands of a man with a melee weapon is ludicrous. The very idea of mass murderers is that they plan their attack based on the weapons available to them. Am I saying their tactics are going to change based upon the weapons they have? No, of course not. But it's been proven that any device lethally employed with equal effectiveness commensurate with the skills, preparation and determination of the murderer.

[CheeseForSteeze]

Originally Posted by Noreaster

Pure and simple casuistry. You're choosing one highly irregular example and applying it as a general rule.

Really? Because there are numerous occurrences of mass stabbings. They happen frequently every year but aren't reported on that often.

Here's one from this year that was luckily stopped before it became worse than it did: Gun Carrying Man Stops Stabbing Spree in Utah - Leah Barkoukis

The point isn't how rare mass shootings or stabbings occur or how likely they are to occur given the commonality of various types of skills sets to use various weapons. Of course fewer people practice kenjutsu than marksmanship. The point is to demonstrate that if a determined killer wants to train with a type of weapon, there are systems of skills that have manifested around essentially anything that can be used to kill people and can be effectively implemented with the correct game plan and determination. The most common element in all these mass murders that have higher body counts is that they managed to pick a place where people are either unable or unwilling to resist. That is the single most important variable.

[cc898]

Campaign for Armed Self-defence - a no-compromise pro gun UK forum - Index

Here is one link the unhappy Brits.

Lots of them say its due to mainstream median and making it a social taboo to even talk about the "wrong things" in Engalnd........

When they worked their way from banning handguns, to starting to ban rifles, and them to shotguns, I would say that is slippery slope to me.

Its all over if you are willing to look, and not just accept what the "mainstream media" puts in you face. There is always more to a story than whats in the news.

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by poutanen

They only flaw in your theory is that gun violence isn't the largest scale killing device in recent US history:

Oklahoma city bomb made from fertilizer and diesel... killed/injured hundreds. Should fertilizer, diesel, and rental trucks be outlawed?

First, that's a different animal. That was a political statement, however moronic. Secondly, they aren't OUTLAWED, they are CONTROLLED.
And this thread isn't about OUTLAWING guns, it's about the degree of CONTROL. But the pro-gun people keep trying to turn this into a debate about ban/no ban because that's much easier, more hotbutton argument.

[CheeseForSteeze]

Originally Posted by cc898

Its all over if you are willing to look, and not just accept what the "mainstream media" puts in you face. There is always more to a story than whats in the news.

This. Everyone should be doing this. No one is denying firearms are an effective weapon but the media has created this idea that they like He Man's sword or something.

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze

That's because no one resisted. A bunch of kids at Sandy Hook managed to run past the gunman while he was standing in the door trying to clear a malfunction and reload. If you honestly think shooting people who are actively trying to run away and avoid being shot is easy, you're incredibly uninformed. Trying to paint a picture of "standing in a doorway while shooting fish in a barrel" makes this quite evident. Yes, you can shoot AT people. Connecting while they run around and hoping someone doesn't come up behind you, charge you or otherwise engage you while you are reloading, have a malfunction, run out of ammunition etc. is an entirely different matter.

And you are trying to paint a picture where a guy with a gun is less dangerous than a guy with a knife. Oh, you're not actually coming out and SAYING it, because it would sound moronic and rightfully so. But you'll happily point out that killing running people with a gun isn't easy, while ignoring the fact that killing running people with a knife is even harder. You'll talk about the chance to run while a guy is dealing with a jammed gun while ignoring the fact that the moment a guy sticks a knife in a person he has a very good chance of having his arm grabbed. You point out that Lepine killed more people because they didn't resist while ignoring the gaping fact that the reason they didn't resist was because he had a gun. If he'd had a knife they would have just scattered. And you happily ignore the greatest single flaw in your dance -- the fact that every nutcase who wants to go out and kill a bunch of people for whatever reason these lunatics do so, does it with guns. Why? Is he saying "I'll do this with a harder weapon to give my victims a sporting chance" ? Of course not. He's grabbing guns because he knows, just as well as you know and I know and anyone with an ounce of sense knows, that he will be able to kill more people more thoroughly more easily with guns. Period. Apparently the lunatics agree with me, not with you.

Tell you what. You amass a set of statistics showing that on average more people get killed per knifing incident than per shooting incident, and we'll talk some more. Untill then, I really am tired of belabouring the obvious.

[2hipp4u]

Originally Posted by Donutz

First, that's a different animal. That was a political statement, however moronic. Secondly, they aren't OUTLAWED, they are CONTROLLED.
And this thread isn't about OUTLAWING guns, it's about the degree of CONTROL. But the pro-gun people keep trying to turn this into a debate about ban/no ban because that's much easier, more hotbutton argument.

Lets be honest here, the ultimate goal of most who favor gun control is the outright ban of all firearms for citizens and only the elite and government shall have the right to have them.

[KIRKRIDER]

I see simply an addiction problem here. Addiction to an idea. And to an object
Very good marketing operation. Promote fear, people will buy your product. Works perfectly.

[Noreaster]

Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze

The point is to demonstrate that if a determined killer wants to train with a type of weapon, there are systems of skills that have manifested around essentially anything that can be used to kill people and can be effectively implemented with the correct game plan and determination.

Yeah, given enough time, patience and determination you can probably train a pet monkey to kill in large numbers by expertly using a slingshot.

And how many mass murderers determined enough to invest years of specialized training and costs associated with it have we witnessed so far? Aside, of course, from 9/11 hijackers who incidentally used neither a knife nor a gun but an entirely new method.

Point is there's no available tool other than a gun that is as easily operated by an untrained individual, able to inflict the greatest amount of destruction in the shortest period of time and allows a perpetrator physical distance from his(her) victims maximizing his chances at staying alive and thus, bringing more carnage. Comparing a possible scope of damage imposed by a firearm usage to that of a blade is a specious argument. By the way, BJS agrees - there have been roughly 11,000 -12,000 firearm related murders yearly for the past decade. And only about 1000 murders by stabbing.

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by 2hipp4u

Lets be honest here, the ultimate goal of most who favor gun control is the outright ban of all firearms for citizens and only the elite and government shall have the right to have them.

Let's be honest here, that's total horseshit. We don't even have an outright ban in Canada.

Once again, the right wing gun nuts try to turn ANY discussion at all into a shreiking, freaking, OH MY GOD THEY'RE GOING TO BAN OUR GUNS!!!!!! OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!