Another shooting rampage in the US

POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Monday, April 9, 2012 03:40
VIEWED: 7258
PAGE 3 of 7

Well, for my part, I'm happy when the Alliance are on the right side of things, for a change.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Wulf,

I always lament it when I find myself on the same side of an issue as you.

I know it makes me look bad to have such allies.

---

Don't worry Anthony, there are plenty of stand up people on the wrong side of this one!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=36135

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35995544/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/stud
ents-killed-china-knife-attack/

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/kindergarten-shanghai-killi
ng-taixing-children-34455.html

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/europe/2011/08/16/313539/6-p
eople.htm

Hello,

It's really not about the gun. A gun is just the tool of murder this man had. You can murder, even mass murder, with other tools.

---

I think you've been saving those links for a special occasion...

Ok, let's examine them, the single Oakland attacker killed 7 with his gun:

1. 9 attackers killed 13 with knives

2. 1 attacker kills 8 with a knife

3. 1 kills 4 with a knife

4. number of attackers unknown at this time (we'll say 1) killed 6 with a knife

12 attackers with knives killed 31 people
12 attackers with guns would kill 84

The gun IS better!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hello,

I actually grabbed those links on the fly. Took me 5 minutes. Ever since I did some research on a Monk being hired as a bodyguard in China, I became aware of the fact that mass murder with knives is becoming disturbingly routine there. Google China Knife Attack.

England also has a few bad knife attacks, on account of there being fewer guns there. So when people have some crazy killing to do, they use what they have.

Quote:

---

12 attackers with guns would kill 84

---

LOL! Would they? Well, I guess you can say so. Why not?

A handful of guys with box-cutters killed thousands on September 11th.

Honestly, a mass-murder is not a good reason to strip my rights away. Why do some people remember this when dealing with terrorists, but forget it when dealing with other types of criminals?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Damn threat ate my post.

I agree with pizmo. Guns have been invented and improved upon to make them more effective weapons. That is why you don't get modern armies that only use knives. Of course people can kill others in many ways. They can use their bare hands if nothing else is available, but the gun will make it easier and that is its purpose. To make killing easier.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Damn threat ate my post.

I agree with pizmo. Guns have been invented and improved upon to make them more effective weapons. That is why you don't get modern armies that only use knives. Of course people can kill others in many ways. They can use their bare hands if nothing else is available, but the gun will make it easier and that is its purpose. To make killing easier.

---

Hello,

Obviously. As tool using humans, we have built killing machines that exceed the capacity of the knife. But since there is more than one way to skin a cat, we should broaden our gaze.

As a child, I used to get 'homework notices' for failing to do my homework. These were slips of paper explaining my naughtiness to my parents. If my parents saw these slips, I would be punished. So I used to hide them, destroy them, throw them away. To my child mind, this seemed like an adequate solution to the problem.

As it turned out, there were other methods for the teacher to reach out to my parents, and I was eventually punished anyway. The respite was temporary, and the tranquility was an illusion.

I do not mean to say that killings and homework have anything in common.

But the thought process that says removing the homework notices will solve the problem has a lot in common with the mentality that says removing the guns will solve the problem. Not to mention that once established, "Remove the tool" can go on to reach ludicrous levels. After guns, then knives, then anything that can possibly be a weapon. Till all law abiding citizens are empty handed.

Removing guns is a crutch that serves only to place the weak at the mercy of the strong. This is a good arrangement for the strong. Not so much for the rest of us.

In my opinion.

--Anthony





_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

---

Of course, as Anthony so effectively pointed out, this wasn't about guns, it was about some seriously disturbed dude going banco - and he woulda done that with regardless of the selected weapon.
I looked into this, a bit, and like a lot of these incidents there was a very long conga-line-trauma leadup to it which became progressively more obvious, but it seems as always no one wanted to get involved or intervene...
I don't mean that in a legal sense, mind you - the LAST thing I want is the predators pretending to be our protectors having more excuses, I mean it in a personal sense, in that nobody personally stepped in and tried to head off the ever more obvious and inevitable, maybe they didn't feel it was their problem, maybe they didn't wanna put in the time and hassle, maybe they just didn't care, wha

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I notice, as usual, this becomes an "all=or-nothing" argument. Does anyone here really want to take away people's guns? I sure don't.

Can anyone debate this on the middle ground, like say, maybe people shouldn't have semi-automatic weapons with thirty-round clips or something? I know Wulf can't, his NRA-sodden mind sees any attempt to put ANY limitation on guns as a horrendous infringement on EVERYONE's gun rights, so I'm not addressing him. I'm talking about the semi-reasonable people here, and I ask: Is there not a middle ground?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME