29 dead in Chinese mass stabbing

Page 3 of 5 [ 76 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

08 Mar 2014, 11:17 am

We will only be allowed plastic sporks.

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Mar 2014, 1:03 pm

LKL wrote:

So tell me, why didn't these five (or possibly more) knife-wielding terrorists use guns or bombs instead of knives? Were they not really terrorists, and deliberately limited their own capacity to cause harm? Or could they, maybe, not get access to guns? Hmmmm....

That’s China. Access is not, nor will it ever be an issue in the US, regardless of whatever laws are passed. We've been over this before.

khaoz wrote:

Again, " taking away the ability for law abiding citizens to carry weapons" is not the primary objective of gun regulation advocates. " Taking away the ability for law abiding citizens to carry weapons " is the propaganda line of the gun lobby and NRA to scare gun owners into taking their side and buy more and more guns. No one is trying to take away your right to defend yourself. That is blowing things out of proportion. There may be a few individuals who feel that way, but it is not the intent of the LIberal agenda to take away your right to defend yourself.

Gun regulation advocates has been on the bandwagon against anything having to do with private gun ownership for decades. Attacking one specific type of firearm as in “assault weapons” or high capacity magazines is a step on the road to abolition. There’s no such thing as “common sense gun laws”.

khaoz wrote:

What is needed is to curb this gun fetishism and paranoia that is driven by the propagandists who care less about your right to defend yourself with a gun than they do about their ability to sell as many guns and pieces of gun related gadgetry as possible. It is not about your right to defend yourself. Its about the gun industry getting rich by spreading fear, and making people feel threatened to go out in public.

If it is a fetish then the fetish itself is harmless. The gun industry like any other producer and/or marketer of commodities is in the business of making money. I see everything but guns and gun related accessories being advertised on TV to entice the viewer to buy them.

khaoz wrote:

The number of AR15 sales in the past two years have nothing to do with self defense. It has to do with the scare tactics and lies (brainwashing tactics) the gun lobby and NRA are feeding our society with their continuous stream of propaganda, which I find revolting. These people care little to nothing about making America a safer place to live. The people who manage the NRA and gun lobby are more mentally unstable and dangerous to the safety of American society than any group of "bad men with guns."

AR-15, AK-47/AK-74, magazine, and ammo, etc. sales in the past five years (since Obama’s inauguration and re-lit again after Sandyhook) has been driven by people’s mistrust of government. I’m part of the firearms culture so I’ve seen the trend and what has driven it. In closing (for now), we have had countless gun control debates here over the years and the anti-gun side has yet to logically validate their arguments.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

08 Mar 2014, 1:31 pm

I'm not about to hand over my set of Old Hickory knives.They can take them from my cold dead hands. :lol:

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

08 Mar 2014, 5:16 pm

Jaden wrote:

LKL wrote:

It proves nothing of the sort. Do you think that 5 men opening up with semi-automatic guns in a crowded public transport would have been limited to 29 dead? Seriously?
The military arms its soldiers with guns because guns make it very easy to kill people. They don't limit their soldiers to swords or knives any more.

besides which, the post I was responding to was entirely about access, claiming that 'bad guys' will have access to guns while 'good guys' will not.

1. We aren't talking about 5 men, we're talking about 1 guy.

repeating myself...
No. Read the OP article.

Quote:

2. Less people have died from semi-auto fire on separate occasions than this, largely because guns make noise, knives do not.

People being stabbed to death generally make a lot of noise, and the people around them run away, providing directionality.

Quote:

3. Criminals don't care where they get the weapons, nor what weapons are used, they'll take advantage of any situation where they can do the most damage and nothing you do can ever change that, short of isolating everyone in separate places to minimize casualties. The method is irrelevant, how many lives are lost is, and since this guy pulled it off with a f*ing knife, it's blatantly obvious that it can be done without the help of a firearm or explosive, since it just happened.

Criminals want the best tools for accomplishing their goals. If their goal is 'kill as many people as possible and spread fear,' then guns are a better tool than knives are.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

08 Mar 2014, 5:19 pm

Raptor wrote:

LKL wrote:

That’s China. Access is not, nor will it ever be an issue in the US, regardless of whatever laws are passed. We've been over this before.

Uh, yeah, because the article is about China.

Quote:

There’s no such thing as “common sense gun laws”.

The people of China might disagree right now.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Mar 2014, 6:09 pm

LKL wrote:

The people of China might disagree right now.

Because they were unable to defend themselves against assailants using primitive weapons? I'm sure the Tutsis of Rawanda have a similar opinion on gun control.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

08 Mar 2014, 6:44 pm

I am uncomfortable with the extent to which the government wants to domesticate us. We're not supposed to be able to protect ourselves. The public should have guns, because we should not regard ourselves, or be regarded as prey. But, if you live in a peaceful suburban town, with low crime rates, and you still feel the need to carry a loaded firearm around all day, then I think that demonstrates some unhealthy attitudes, and you ought to leave your firearms at home.

The U.S.A is full of animals, and I don't judge people for being vigilant there; some exceptions being infowarriors, christian militias, Ron Paul supporters, and other groups who are deliberately misdirected into being vigilant (paranoid) about things like secularism, and healthcare reform. Ya'll should probably find ways to marginalise those guys, because they are liable to shoot innocent people.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Mar 2014, 8:37 pm

LKL wrote:

Raptor wrote:

LKL wrote:

That’s China. Access is not, nor will it ever be an issue in the US, regardless of whatever laws are passed. We've been over this before.

Uh, yeah, because the article is about China.

And anti-gunners are notorious for citing other countries laws and assuming they will work universally.

LKL wrote:

Raptor wrote:

There’s no such thing as “common sense gun laws”.

The people of China might disagree right now.

I doubt they gave it much thought.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Mar 2014, 8:55 pm

Stannis wrote:

You start off on the right track but then you reverse yourself.

Quote:

But, if you live in a peaceful suburban town, with low crime rates, and you still feel the need to carry a loaded firearm around all day, then I think that demonstrates some unhealthy attitudes, and you ought to leave your firearms at home.

Could it be that the reason the peaceful suburban town is peaceful due to a high number of people that lawfully carry firearms every day?
Could it be that lowlifes from other not so peaceful cities come to the peaceful suburban town and disrupt the peace with armed robberies, home burgaleries, rape, carjackings, muggings, ect?

Quote:

The U.S.A is full of animals, and I don't judge people for being vigilant.....

And here again you start off on the right track then jump off of it.

Quote:

......there; some exceptions being infowarriors, christian militias, Ron Paul supporters, and other groups who are deliberately misdirected into being vigilant (paranoid) about things like secularism, and healthcare reform. Ya'll should probably find ways to marginalise those guys, because they are liable to shoot innocent people.

Do those dangerous christian militias and Ron Paul supporters actually shoot people over secularism and health care reform, though?
How do you (and more importantly how can you constitutionally) weed them out?

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

08 Mar 2014, 9:47 pm

Jaden wrote:

1. We aren't talking about 5 men, we're talking about 1 guy..

Reports indiate there may ave been up to 10 individuals. Despite four of them getting shot the rest dispersed. I'm guessing 10 terrorists with AK-47s would have taken out 290 people in a crowded area rather 10 men with knives taking out 29. Still a good argument to ban guns in the general public.

Jaden wrote:

2. Less people have died from semi-auto fire on separate occasions than this, largely because guns make noise, knives do not..

I think one less way for civilians to die would be better than having the guns out there...no brainer

Jaden wrote:

A criminal can be more easily overpowered in a public area carrying a knife, blade or crowbar than if they were carrying a loaded semi-automatic weapon.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

09 Mar 2014, 12:23 am

Dox47 wrote:

LKL wrote:

The people of China might disagree right now.

Because they were unable to defend themselves against assailants using primitive weapons? I'm sure the Tutsis of Rawanda have a similar opinion on gun control.

The people had the same access to weapons that the terrorists had. If they wanted to, they could have been carrying knives 'to defend themselves against assailants.' If the people had access to guns, the terrorists would have too.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Mar 2014, 1:14 am

LKL wrote:

Access too sure, but are you up on the laws regarding carrying weapons and self defense in China? We also don't know what motivated the choice of knives, it's not like guns don't exist in China, perhaps the attackers had other reasons than availability for their weapon choice. Molotov cocktails would have been more deadly and easily available and have been used in Chinese mass casualty attacks before, so it's a valid question.

Also, note that all the really deadly single shooter events in the US have targeted disarmed populations, e.g. students, theaters with no guns policies, unarmed military members, office workers, etc. Think that's a coincidence.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

09 Mar 2014, 2:06 am

Dox47 wrote:

Also, note that all the really deadly single shooter events in the US have targeted disarmed populations, e.g. students, theaters with no guns policies, unarmed military members, office workers, etc. Think that's a coincidence.

The theater shooter targeted a Batman film because he thought he was the Joker. The Sandy Hook shooter targeted the school he went to because it was the school he went to and where his mother worked. The Giffords shooter targeted a mall because Giffords was there.

There have also been two significant shooters in the last five years who have targeted military installations. So, no, I don't think that these guys were thinking, "I'll look for a 'no guns zone to shoot up."

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Mar 2014, 3:07 am

LKL wrote:

What does their reasoning have to do with it? The point is that these attacks, whether using firearms or some other weapon, are far more effective when a disarmed population is targeted. All these claims of a firearms attack being more deadly have to be balanced against the greater odds of armed resistance when it is available to the victims, a calculation suspiciously missing from the anti gun analysis of these events.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

09 Mar 2014, 3:28 am

Dox47 wrote:

LKL wrote:

What does their reasoning have to do with it?

It has to do with your statment, "...all the really deadly single shooter events in the US have targeted disarmed populations..."
The word "targeted" implies that the terrorists in question were reasoning that they'd be able to kill more people if they went to "gun free" zones, when that patently was not the motivation for any of the recent, most deadly shooting rampages.

Quote:

The point is that these attacks, whether using firearms or some other weapon, are far more effective when a disarmed population is targeted. All these claims of a firearms attack being more deadly have to be balanced against the greater odds of armed resistance when it is available to the victims, a calculation suspiciously missing from the anti gun analysis of these events.

The best way to "protect yourself" from a random shooter lighting up in a crowd is to wear body armor all the time, not to carry your own gun. If someone shoots you by surprise in the back, you're going to be just as injured whether you're packing or not.

Personally, however, I do not want to live like Musashi.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Mar 2014, 3:54 pm

LKL wrote:

Or, you could just not worry about it because you're literally more likely to be struck by lightening, and carry a gun for protecting yourself from more common forms of violence, a purpose for which it's extremely well suited, and if you should happen to be in the worst place at the worst time, at least you have more of a chance than someone who is not armed. My every day gun is smaller than my cell phone and imposes no penalty on me for carrying it, there is no downside to carrying it at all and a lot of upsides.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Page 3 of 5 [ 76 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

29 dead in Chinese mass stabbing Post Reply New Topic

29 dead in Chinese mass stabbing