Today's school stabbings: on the lethality of knives vs. guns

[kwassa]

A student at Franklin Regional Senior High School in Murrysville, PA stabbed 24 people in his school today.

They are wounded, but alive. If this student had shot 24 people, many would be dead.

On the day of the Newtown shootings, a man in Japan stabbed 21 people in a school. They also did not die.

Guns deserve to be more highly regulated due to their more lethal nature.

[Ecumenist]

1. AMEN, Kwassa.....

EOM

[Threedifferentones]

95. Guns will never be banned in America, which is not to say I'm totally convinced they should not be..

But mass murders, while always well covered by the press and public, are actually so rare that they don't really register in the stats for violent crime.

If we did ban guns the biggest difference BY FAR would be in the suicide rate. Every year IIRC over 60% of gun deaths are suicide, about 20k out of 30k.

Of the remaining 10k or so, the vast majority are accidents and deliberate, personal homicides. Even in the decades post-Columbine, when these tragedies seem to have become much more common, mass murders don't account for even a single percent of homicides.

Suicide and murder would definitely become more difficult without guns, which means the rates would go down, because they are generally acts of passion that people decide not to carry out if they have a little time to cool off.

It is a bit troublesome to think that anyone who gets irritated at me on the road may decide to pull out a pistol and blow me away. But I worry about mass shootings about as much as I worry about terrorists sneaking box cutters on to planes. Sure its awful when it happens, but from a cold, statistical point of view they are actually irrelevant.

[tolkien90]

143. Japan has a suicide rate almost twice that of the US

Also, please explain how New Hampshire has a murder rate lower than many European countries.

I believe D.C.'s murder rate is almost twenty times that of New Hampshire.

[Threedifferentones]

178. It's hard to take those questions seriously, the cultural answers seem pretty obvious.

What you have obviously done is taken a couple exceptions to my statement and imply they invalidate my point.

Well, to start, taking DC as an example of a gun-free place is ridiculous. Yes guns are banned there, but the city is tiny compared to the nation in which they are legal, so they are not difficult to obtain, unlike a nation which has full gun control.

Now, why are urban people murdering each other at a higher rate than people who are less densely populated? That one seems really obvious, although the details take books and books to sort through with enough nuance. Drug markets, anger, desperation, over crowding. That's a fair summary of an obvious answer: when people are crowded together, murders go up some, and I think that has a lot to do with how in cities the poorer, more desperate people are typically crammed in to one part of town, and Europe, for all its welfare states, is no exception there.

Now Japan I don't know much about, admittedly, but the standard explanation is that the culture there tends to have rigid expectations, little sympathy and a long tradition of "honorable" suicides from men who fail in a struggle or lose a conflict. Makes sense to me, but I've never even been there. Why are so many young Japanese men locking themselves away from the entire world? Fuck if I know, but I do know that it has little to do with gun control.

The logic of my argument is illustrated quite strongly by this article:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html

For instance:

Bizarrely, the entire gun debate tends to completely ignore two-thirds of the deaths: Gun suicides are almost twice as common as homicides in America (19,392 to 11,078 in 2010). You wouldn't know it, since every murder gets reported on the local news and suicides don't, even though they dwarf murders by a wide margin (maybe even more than the stats say, since loved ones have motivation to cover up suicides). The reasonable person will reply, "But that's not saying anything about guns, Cracked -- if depressed people want to kill themselves, they'll just find another way!"

Actually ... no, they won't. Whether guns are legal or not, whether you believe in gun control or not, here's the most important reason you'll ever hear for not keeping one in your home. It has to do with ovens.

In the first half of the 20th century, ovens in England used to burn coal gas, which happened to be completely lethal in concentrated doses and was thus the preferred way to commit suicide. By the late 1950s, sticking your head in the oven accounted for nearly half of all suicides committed in England. By the early 1970s, these ovens had been phased out, so nobody was surprised to see coal gas fall out of the top ten British suicide methods (one of Cracked.com's least popular recurring articles). So what did all of those suicidal people do instead? In a startling number of cases, they just went right on living. The suicide rate dropped by a third, and it never went back up.

There is more evidence of smaller scale studies done with cities erecting new barriers to tall bridges, and it is quite convincing.

[ManiacJoe]

2. Sometimes the knife is more lethal, sometimes the gun.

Your two samples do not represent proof in either direction.

[awoke_in_2003]

3. Yes, but a gun makes it easier....

to kill multiple people before someone jumps you. You think Sandy Hook could have happened with a knife?

[MillennialDem]

9. Given most of the victims were children, yes easily.

[dsc]

14. that is absurd on its face

there were multiple adults who were also shot and I have major doubts they could have all been stabbed.

[awoke_in_2003]

35. Yep. With a knife...

the chance of a teacher, or multiple, going up against him would have increased. With a gun, the thought is to get the kids out of view. If they can be seen they can be shot. With a knife, you have a better chance of stopping an attacker from getting to the children.

[Separation]

80. Not quite true

Check out the link. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

29 killed 140 wounded, lots of adults in those numbers. When a panic starts one doesn't think straight.

[Crunchy Frog]

166. Yes, quite true.

The Kunming attack was perpetrated by eight highly trained and coordinated knife weilding terrorists. One single attacker would not be able to inflict that level of damage.

[gratuitous]

43. 28-0

I don't call that a draw.

[ManiacJoe]

45. Congratulations.

Unfortunately, anecdotes don't count as data either.

[gratuitous]

70. Newtown was anecdotal?

Gee, I thought it was pretty well established that there were 28 confirmed gun deaths from that little episode in Newtown. I haven't heard that any of the Franklin Regional High School victims has died.

But maybe one world's reality is another world's anecdote.

[ManiacJoe]

71. By your use, yes, it is anecdotal.

However, that does not make it any less true or real. It just makes it one example.

[gratuitous]

73. Uh huh

Well, if you find any anecdotes where a knife-wielding attacker beat out Newtown's body count, then kudos, I guess. But as far as consistently lethal results go, guns have it all over knives, and not just sometimes. 28-0.

[Crunchy Frog]

165. But more often the gun.

Unless you've got statistics that show otherwise, taking into account the difference between the number of guns in circulation, and the number of knives.

[femmocrat]

4. He stabbed 21 people.

Two students were injured but not stabbed. One adult had a medical condition, but was not stabbed. So 24 were injured.

[Mrdrboi]

5. Depends on the person with the knife and what kind of knife and where the wound is.

Had he knicked someones major artery or hit someone in the heart chances are they might not make it. Both Knives and Guns are equally lethal.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Those stabbed were close to the one stabbing, you don't have to be close to shoot and kill someone.

[kwassa]

8. Nonsense. One has much greater opportunity to defend against a knife attack.

A gun can be fired from far enough away that no defense is possible for the victim. Knives have to work up close, and are relatively slow, by comparison.

[MillennialDem]

10. There is no unarmed defense against a knife other than your feet (running)

[dsc]

15. that is baldly false

one can use books, which tend to abound in schools, desks which also tend to abound in schools both of which would stop knives neither guns.

[MillennialDem]

16. That is just delaying the inevitable. If someone is determined to kill you with a knife a book is

not going to cut it (pun not intended).

[blue neen]

18. The knife attack lasted approximately 5 minutes.

Twenty one people were stabbed. The number of people who could be shot in 5 minutes would exceed, by the multitudes, twenty one.

[dsc]

20. it doesn't take much time for a resource officer to arrive on the scene

[oneofthe99]

48. There's a lot of things you can use in a school setting

A chair , fire extinguisher

If it's a surprise attack then there's not a whole lot most people can do
because most people never see the knife or even realize they have been cut.
It happens rather quickly in most cases , it's certainly not like the movies where two people square off
glaring at each other first.

But to even compare a knife in a mass attack to a semi auto fire arm is a bit silly.
There is no comparing in lethality of numbers a firearm can produce.

What was the saying in the movie the Untouchables

"Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"

[pangaia]

33. You might try a little Aikido.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

64. Don't be silly...

Sure, they're cute. But they're hardly a weapon.

[pangaia]

65. That's how I look in the morning, also.

[Thor_MN]

44. The major artery? Funny, I don't remember that one from anatomy classes.

Getting to someone's heart with a kitchen knife isn't all that easy. With a gun, pretty simple.

[DrDan]

75. that is just silly - the gun will kill from across the room/campus

a knife will work as far away as the attackers arm

get real

[HERVEPA]

112. Total bullshit

[AcertainLiz]

6. When knives can fire bullets, then yes we can treat knives the same.

Why do some try to seriously claim guns are just as dangerous as knives and that without guns, people could wreck the same havoc easily?

[MillennialDem]

12. A single knife strike can be lethal and multiple gunshot wounds can be survivable

depends on the caliber of the bullet (or size of the knife), skill of the user, and most of all - PLACEMENT! A pocket knife to the heart or brain can be fatal whereas a 50 caliber in the arm or leg can easily be survived.

[AcertainLiz]

13. How likely is a mass stabbing going to kill 20 people

as opposed to a mass shooting?

Clearly guns are far more dangerous and need to be restricted when it comes to public safety.

[MillennialDem]

17. Said nothing about their efficiency in a MASS killing, just that many people here have

a misconception about the damage the guns can cause (overestimate) and underestimate the damage a knife can do.

[AcertainLiz]

19. Well, if I have an AR-15 and use it on a crowd

It's a safe bet it's going to be more effective than a knife. That's the key. Yes, knives CAN kill, but guns are better at killing, and easier to use to kill mass numbers of people.

[MillennialDem]

21. Again, not talking about what is better at killing MORE people quickly - just talking

about the damage of 1 stab wound versus 1 gunshot wound.

One stab wound can QUITE oftenly cause MORE damage to the human body.

Don't know of any guns that can cut a head off (outside of anti materiel guns, but who the hell uses artillery in a mass shooting?)

Many people here think a single stab is no big deal and any gunshot wound will cut the person in 8 pieces.

[AcertainLiz]

24. Yeah but if you're careful enough you can manage to kill one person with anything

That's kind of a stupid measure to use to determine regulations on weapons though.

[MillennialDem]

27. When did I say determing regulations? I think guns should be heavily regulated and knives well -

kind of hard to regulate something so widely available AND easily made or improvised (pair of scissors = knife, sharp screwdriver = knife etc)

[AcertainLiz]

28. I'm not sure what your contention is then?

[MillennialDem]

32. I said so already

People here (mostly extreme anti gunners, though I am an anti gunner) think a gun is a disintegration ray that destroys 90% of the human body and a knife is a pissant weapon that one can just shrug off like nothing happened.

[AcertainLiz]

37. That actually is true

In most situations a gun is more deadly than a knife. I'd rather be stabbed than shot.

[MillennialDem]

39. Not really - mostly about placement (followed by skill of user and size of weapon)

Sure you'd rather be randomly shot by a .22 by a drunk shooter than randomly stabbed by a 12 inch bowie knife wielded by a martial artist?

[AcertainLiz]

40. Being that most people aren't trained martial artist

And the kind of weapons available to the average citizen allow people with little to no training to kill scores of people quickly, I think your hypothetical is a tad silly, no?

[oneofthe99]

49. I agree what you're saying that many can underestimate the damage it can do but

we are talking more about a mass knife attack which happened today.

In this case and the one in China I believe it was .

The reason everyone survived is because in a attack like this where the attacker is
most often mentally disturbed , not trained in using edged weapons .

All he does is slash and moves on to the next person unless he hit's an artery
the person will survive as is evidence by todays attack.

I'm in no way down playing how lethal a knife is but it becomes less lethal when the attacker
is trying to kill multiple people . If this was a gun today .I think the news would have turned out differently
if he had 5 minute shooting spree inside a school.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. Oh, for fuck's sake...

How many countries send their soldiers into combat armed only with knives? Which country would be so mindlessly fucking stupid as to believe that their army could fight just as effectively armed only with straight blades as opposed to firearms?

Jesus Christ on a cracker...

[MillennialDem]

38. Strawman.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. How so?

If blades can be just as deadly as firearms, it would only be natural to assume that every military in the world and certainly every police department in the United States would be armed with knives.

They are not. Because it would be absurd to believe that a person armed with a knife can be -- all things being equal -- just as deadly as a person armed with ANY type of firearm.

Among homicides in the United States, you are twice as likely to be shot as to die from ALL OTHER FORMS of homicide combined. There were more mass shootings (defined as four or more fatalities) in 2013 that there have been mass stabbings all of U.S. history.

You're on a fool's errand.

[AcertainLiz]

62. Agreed.

Just compare rampages done with knives to rampages done with guns.

[Crunchy Frog]

167. Cancer can be survivable and you can die from a cold.

But the converse is vastly more likely.

[sakabatou]

22. Well, there are ballistic knives

[AcertainLiz]

25. They don't fire bullets though.

I doubt you'll see rampage killers using ballistic knives to kill 29 people quickly.

[sakabatou]

26. That's true

[The Straight Story]

11. Question is - should we blame the knife for the crime?

Did owning a knife cause the person to do this?

Knife injuries in the home account for a lot of hospital visits - from kids to adults. How many and what type of knives should you and I allow others to own? Who needs a sword? No one. But some people own them. Bowie knife? Should we limit knife ownership to one per adult and only steak and butter knives?

If we did all of the above it might have stopped this person. How easy was it for them to get a knife? Can we blame that?

Guns in the wrong hands is something we all have an interest in preventing. Blaming guns themselves and the 99 percent of them who own them responsibly for what a few do does not solve anything or help at all.

Since it is the very few in our population causing the problems (with guns/knives/etc) maybe, instead of trying ways to restrict more and the more the responsible people, we should be working on getting to the root issues.

We didn't like profiling of Muslims after 9/11 - the rw's view was that they judge the many based on the few. Why do we judge all gun owners based on the very few? Calling people names (nuts/etc), some wanting to remove all guns except for those in power and the wealthy who can afford armed guards, others insisting that if you not fully on their side and methods you are not a progressive but a shill, etc and so on.

[AcertainLiz]

29. Guns are not sentient beings that can be blamed for what they're used for

Still not a reason not to heavily regulate them.

[The Straight Story]

31. Ok, so what new regulations would you like to add (nt)

[AcertainLiz]

36. Well first of all

Banning semi-auto guns and heavily restricting who can buy guns. It'd probably take a whole new thread to detail all my views on what to do with guns however.

[Shemp Howard]

46. I've seen many a bloody fight started with words.

And perhaps you also have seen a violent fight or two started with words. So let's heavily regulate free speech. I'm not advocating getting rid of free speech, mind you. Let's just heavily regulate it.

Sure, guns and knives do much more damage than words do. But words do their fair share of damage. Heavy regulation, that's the answer. After all, it worked so well during Prohibition.

(Please excuse my heavy-handedness. But I really wanted to make a point here. More laws are not the answer. A smarter, more aware society is the answer.)

[AcertainLiz]

52. The problem with what you're saying is

If civilians didn't have such easy access to powerful weaponry, these fights wouldn't be so dangerous. I think it's telling that in Europe, for one example, these kind of weapons are a no-no for civilians.

I'm joining the military, so I'm sure I'll see a lot of fights. What I don't want to see is civilians mowing each other down with assault weapons...

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Your point failed to get delivered, because you put up a ridiculous strawman

Ignoring the strawman:

"More laws are not the answer"

Why not? Is there something wrong with laws? We could have a law requiring a background check for gun sales at shows, for instance.

"A smarter, more aware society is the answer"

A smarter, more aware society is more desirable, yes. But it takes decades to achieve that, and people will be killed while that happens. A law to register all guns and their sales would help decrease the murders.

[Hip_Flask]

98. "A law to register all guns and their sales would help decrease the murders."

How will that work exactly?

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. By cutting down the supply of guns to those who are not allowed to have them

If people have to account for the guns they have, fewer will leak from the legal-gun-holding to the illegal community.

[Hip_Flask]

114. So...

They're willing to commit murder but could be restrained by a bit of paperwork?

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. No, the people who sell them guns will be restrained by having to show they still have the guns

If you make everyone who legally owns a gun register it, and produce it at regular intervals, then it's not so easy for criminals to get hold of the guns - eg through trade show or private sales. It won't eliminate all the illegally-held guns, of course, but it would be a start. This is the kind of thing many liberal countries do.

[Hip_Flask]

121. Ohhh... That's an entirely different animal right there...

You said registration which implies a one time Gun X to Guy Z database...

What you are talking about is, as usual, is two steps ahead with the requirement to produce them for inspection.

I should have to take my weapons/papers to the police station regularly for them to inspect? I should be mandated to regularly allow police access into my home?

Lemme guess... If I don't have anything to hide, then why would I care?...

[muriel_volestrangler]

135. Yes - the idea would be implement the 'well-regulated' part of the 2nd amendment

If gun owners consider themselves part of a militia, then they should be regulated - with the state knowing who has what gun (hey, they could even keep on record a ballistic test, so you have a better chance on knowing which gun was used in a crime), and, yes, regular presentation of the weapon at a police station, or at the house (perhaps a requirement to have safe storage would be needed too - but that could be a one-off thing). You can give the choice of 'at home' or 'at a station' to the gun owner.

As for the rolling eyes about "nothing to hide" - car owners have to present their car for regular inspection, and all cars must be registered with the state. Do you regard that as a problem?

[Hip_Flask]

136. I don't think you understand the meaning of 'well regulated '

It is well established in case law and certainly does not entitle anyone to enact onerous or excessive requirements such as you suggest.

Can you imagine applying the same thing to speech requirements ?

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. So you think the requirements about cars are 'onerous' or 'excessive' too, I take it

There's nothing onerous or excessive about objects that are designed to kill being registered with the state, and the owners having to take basic care of them. It's required for items that aren't designed to be deadly.

'Speech' is a red herring.

[Hip_Flask]

140. Just to be clear...

Firearms to cars is a direct A to B for you but 1st amendment to the 2nd is just a step too far?

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. Yes (nt)

[Hip_Flask]

142. That's quite a leap...

... And likely deserves more of an explanation than nt.

I suspect there isn't one though...

[beevul]

144. Nonsense. Pure unadulterated nonsense.

"As for the rolling eyes about "nothing to hide" - car owners have to present their car for regular inspection, and all cars must be registered with the state. Do you regard that as a problem?"

People who wish to use their cars in public may have to present them for regular inspection, but no such thing is required to simply own one.

Cars have to be registered with the state ONLY if they're going to be used in public. Keep them on private property outside the cities with the ridiculous rules, and none of what you say reflects reality.


You, like so many before you, are conflating public usage with simple ownership.

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. The point of a gun is to use it to kill another member of the public

or threaten to use it (or on an animal). Therefore some basic safety measures for the rest of the public are appropriate. If someone intends to never take it off their property, then the police need to know that gun is never going to move from that property (if I have a car, and it's not insured or fit for use on the roads, I still have to register it as being on a specific private property).

I really cannot see why anyone who is not an extreme libertarian would object to the police knowing who has weapons to kill people.

[beevul]

156. Thats your opinion.

"The point of a gun is to use it to kill another member of the public or threaten to use it (or on an animal)."

That's your opinion. It is not empirical fact. It does not register to you, apparently, that people enjoy shooting firearms without any killing.

"If someone intends to never take it off their property, then the police need to know that gun is never going to move from that property"

Again, that's your opinion. My opinion, is that the police should have nothing to say or do with someone until or unless that person breaks a law, or is suspected of a serious crime, and that nothing short of a serious criminal conviction should be an exception to that rule.

Quaint notions to some, due process and proper behavior and deployment of law enforcement.

"if I have a car, and it's not insured or fit for use on the roads, I still have to register it as being on a specific private property"

Assuming its not because of an HOA which you signed in agreement of when you bought your residence, I'd like you to cite for me the statue that says this. Somehow, I doubt it exists, unless you live in DC. In any case, an exception does not eliminate the rule.

"I really cannot see why anyone who is not an extreme libertarian would object to the police knowing who has weapons to kill people."

Like the oxygen you breath, just because you can not see it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

159. It's called a Statutory Off Road Notification

https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/car-tax-discs

"My opinion, is that the police should have nothing to say or do with someone until or unless that person breaks a law" - and if the law requires regulation of dangerous articles, whether cars or guns, then you interact with the police about them. This is just a non-libertarian view.

[DanTex]

118. Your error here is assuming that everyone who kills someone is hell-bent on committing murder.

This is simply not the case. Most gun murders arise as a result of an escalating argument, or else during the commission of another crime. If not for the guns, most of those murders simply wouldn't occur, instead they would be non-lethal assaults.

This is why the rest of the developed world has comparable rates of violent crime compared to the US, but we have far more actual murders.

[Hip_Flask]

119. We are talking about registration...

If the goal is to just register (i.e. Springfield .45 XDM S/N 2346666 to Mr Bob Jones) then how would that prevent any deaths as a result of escalating argument?

If it's used during the commission of another crime then that is a pretty solid indicator that the "give a shit about the law" is most likely lacking.

[DanTex]

123. Registration would reduce irresponsible gun ownership and cut down

on trafficking of illegal guns.

Also, the idea that would-be criminals don't respond to incentives (i.e. don't give a shit about the law) is completely mistaken. If you make it more different for them to acquire guns, you end up with less guns in the hands of criminals. Just look at what happens in, say, Canada or the UK. Sure, some people get in touch with international gun traffickers, but for most people, even those who want to commit crimes, the effort and risk just aren't worth it.

[Crunchy Frog]

168. It is regulated. Have you never heard of the "fighting words doctrine"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

[beevul]

53. You're proposing banning 100 year old technology...

You're proposing banning 100 year old technology, which constitutes the bulk of privately owned firearms.

Any politician that proposed such a thing, would be signing a death warrant for his/her own career.

[AcertainLiz]

54. I wasn't aware that semi-automatic assault rifles were 100 years old...

And if they were, so what?

Yeah, because the gun lobby would kill that politician's career, big surprise...

[beevul]

56. I do get so tired of hearing "gun lobby"...

I do get so tired of hearing "gun lobby".

The so called "gun lobby" is made up of tens of million people.

And they vote.

Presumably you approve of them voting.

"I wasn't aware that semi-automatic assault rifles were 100 years old"

You said you'd ban all semi-automatic weapons.

Semi-automatic technology is over 100 years old.

[AcertainLiz]

57. The NRA and arms manufacturers are not empowered by voters

They're empowered by $$$. So yeah, of course money wins out over the public's interest yet again. Big surprise.

Also, AK-47's and AR-15s are not that old, not that it would matter, being that civilians have no business owning such weapons.

Banning all semi-auto weapons works in the rest of the world.

[beevul]

58. The rest of the world is not us...

"They're empowered by $$$. So yeah, of course money wins out over the public's interest yet again. Big surprise."

Its the voters that vote people out of office. See Colorado where the nra was outspent 5 to 1 by Bloomberg, yet the recall was successful in a solid blue district.

"Also, AK-47's and AR-15s are not that old, not that it would matter, being that civilians have no business owning such weapons."

That's your opinion. Good luck forcing anyone other than yourself to live according to it.

"Banning all semi-auto weapons works in the rest of the world."

The rest of the world is not us, and tens of millions of people do not want to be "the rest of the world" in that context, many of whom are Democrats. Again, see Colorado.

[AcertainLiz]

59. We should be like the rest of the world (sometimes)

"Its the voters that vote people out of office. See Colorado where the nra was outspent 5 to 1 by Bloomberg, yet the recall was successful in a solid blue district. "

Most people don't vote, and votes are based on how much money you have, this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court over and over again. Arms dealers and corporations make a killing selling these weapons to American citizens.

"That's your opinion. Good luck forcing anyone other than yourself to live according to it. "

So we can't ban people from having grenades and suitcase nukes I guess...

"The rest of the world is not us, and tens of millions of people do not want to be "the rest of the world" in that context, many of whom are Democrats. Again, see Colorado. "

Colorado is a state that has recently passed really strict gun control laws, so what's your point there? That only backs me up.

[beevul]

60. It isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be.

"Most people don't vote, and votes are based on how much money you have, this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court over and over again. Arms dealers and corporations make a killing selling these weapons to American citizens."

Have you ever been asked how much money you had when voting, or been prevented from voting the way you want at the polls because you didn't have enough money? Me neither.

Does money determine for you which way you vote? Me neither.

"So we can't ban people from having grenades and suitcase nukes I guess..."

The nuclear strawman...no discussion of guns is complete without it. People DO own grenades by the way. They're regulated under the national firearms act of 1934, but they are not banned.

Furthermore, any party that tries on the national stage to add semi-automatic weapons to the national firearms act would lose every branch of government for a lifetime, and quite possibly permanently. In addition, the ATF would be responsible , not just for the 50 thousand NFA type weapons on their rolls now which they have trouble keeping strait, but 150 million more on top of that, which would take a staggering amount of resources to manage. Grow the ATF by a factor of ten, and they couldn't even begin to scratch the surface.

"Colorado is a state that has recently passed really strict gun control laws, so what's your point there? That only backs me up."

I guessed you missed it. The recalls were a result of that gun control passing, and they were successful in spite of the nra being outspent 5 to 1 by Bloomberg.

The reason being, that the majority of voters disagreed with it being passed. Money did not decide the outcome.

Those are all facts. They knock the pins out from your entire argument whether you realize it or not.

[AcertainLiz]

61. $$$

"Have you ever been asked how much money you had when voting, or been prevented from voting the way you want at the polls because you didn't have enough money? Me neither.

Does money determine for you which way you vote? Me neither. "

The candidate with the most money wins, and in this case, the one with the most money is bought off from arms lobbyist. Do most Americans really care that much about guns? I don't think so, not in my experience. Hell, my family are Republicans and they don't even want people walking around with AR-15s...

"The nuclear strawman...no discussion of guns is complete without it. People DO own grenades by the way. They're regulated under the national firearms act of 1934, but they are not banned. "

So I can go into Wal-Mart and buy grenades? News to me. There's a reason grenades are not being used in mass murders and rampage killings...

"Furthermore, any party that tries on the national stage to add semi-automatic weapons to the national firearms act would lose every branch of government for a lifetime, and quite possibly permanently. In addition, the ATF would be responsible , not just for the 50 thousand NFA type weapons on their rolls now which they have trouble keeping strait, but 150 million more on top of that, which would take a staggering amount of resources to manage. Grow the ATF by a factor of ten, and they couldn't even begin to scratch the surface. "

Again, I do know its political unfeasible at this time in no small part due to powerful lobbyist.

"I guessed you missed it. The recalls were a result of that gun control passing, and they were successful in spite of the nra being outspent 5 to 1 by Bloomberg."

Recall of what? What are you referring to?

Anyway, I'm not totally opposed to citizens having such heavy weaponry, if we had some sort of mandatory military training/service like in Switzerland (which I'd be for in any case), but since that's a no-no to Americans, the only sane thing to do is to not have untrained people having such weapons they don't need.

[beevul]

68. And yet it isn't.

The candidate with the most money wins, and in this case, the one with the most money is bought off from arms lobbyist. Do most Americans really care that much about guns? I don't think so, not in my experience. Hell, my family are Republicans and they don't even want people walking around with AR-15s...

Now you're moving the goalposts from ownership of firearms to carry of firearms.

"So I can go into Wal-Mart and buy grenades? News to me. There's a reason grenades are not being used in mass murders and rampage killings..."

And yet if people want something of that destructive magnitude, they just build it. Or had you forgotten columbine, and boston?

"Again, I do know its political unfeasible at this time in no small part due to powerful lobbyist."

It seems you wish to ignore the fact that when it comes to the gun issue, its the people driving the lobbyists, not the other way around.

"Recall of what? What are you referring to?"

The recall elections in CO. In a solid blue district. In a race where Bloombergs out of state money was spent at a ratio of 5 to 1 against what the nra spent. And the big money still lost at the expense of a Democrat that voted for gun control in a place where enough people were against it to have them recalled for doing so.

Contrary to your multiple assertions that "$$$ wins".

And in this case, you'd have been on the side of the "$$$" right? You support Democrats right? You support strict gun control right? Then you also support Bloombergs big "$$$" in spite of your rants.

So you're against "$$$" except when you're for it.

[AcertainLiz]

69. Why do you need an assault weapon?

"And yet if people want something of that destructive magnitude, they just build it. Or had you forgotten columbine, and boston? "

The Boston Bombing killed five people. A legally owned AR-15 killed 28 in Sandy Hook. Columbine was done with legal firearms.

"Now you're moving the goalposts from ownership of firearms to carry of firearms. "

I mean people shouldn't have assault weapons

"It seems you wish to ignore the fact that when it comes to the gun issue, its the people driving the lobbyists, not the other way around. "

Present the facts.

"The recall elections in CO. In a solid blue district. In a race where Bloombergs out of state money was spent at a ratio of 5 to 1 against what the nra spent. And the big money still lost at the expense of a Democrat that voted for gun control in a place where enough people were against it to have them recalled for doing so. "

Link on this?

[beevul]

76. Did I say I needed one?

Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2014, 11:34 PM - Edit history (2)

Did I say I needed one? In addition, there is no "department of needs" in this country, to determine who does or does not need this or that. And I'm glad that's the case. For what its worth, I own a single handgun, and three rimfire rifles that are 22 caliber or smaller.

All of them "traditional" looking firearms. When I defend gun rights, its not because I'm afraid I'll lose something I have, or afraid that I wont be able to get something I want in the future.

Its because I stand on principle.

"The Boston Bombing killed five people. A legally owned AR-15 killed 28 in Sandy Hook. Columbine was done with legal firearms."

How many laws were broken leading up to and in the commission of sandy hook, why did they fail to stop the shooter, and what makes you think another one will when the others didn't? Oh, and I left out the Oklahoma city bombing. My bad. And you forgot about the IEDs at columbine. They were there whether you remember them or not.

"Present the facts."

I've been presenting you with the facts, but you just ignore them.

Link on this?

The horses mouth good enough for you?

Recall campaigns amassed about $3.5 million, according to a Sept. 9 Denver Post report that examined 10 issue committees involved in both races. Opponents outraised election backers, collecting nearly $3 million, about five times more than the $540,000 raised by Second Amendment advocates, the newspaper found.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-11/colorado-senate-president-loses-seat-in-nra-backed-recall.html

Additionally:

Tuesday Night’s recall elections in Colorado were a victory for the NRA and supporters of relaxing gun laws, and a stinging defeat for Democrats as two Colorado lawmakers, State Senate President John Morse and Pueblo State Senator Angela Giron were recalled. Morse went down by a narrow 51-49 margin in a Colorado Springs district while Giron fell 56-44 in blue collar Pueblo. First of all, Democrats must admit there is no positive way to spin these results. Giron’s district went 58-38 for Obama over Romney in 2012 and Morse’s district delivered for Obama 57-37.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/13/colorado-voters-support-background-checks-recall-lawmakers-background-checks-bill.html


There you have it. Big money lost. People are serious about their rights where firearms are concerned.

Serious as a recall election.

[AcertainLiz]

84. So if I want a fully automatic machine gun, should I be able to get one if I'm so inclined?

"Did I say I needed one? In addition, there is no "department of needs" in this country, to determine who does or does not need this or that. And I'm glad that's the case. For what its worth, I own a single handgun, and three rimfire rifles that are 22 caliber or smaller.

All of them "traditional" looking firearms. When I defend gun rights, its not because I'm afraid I'll lose something I have, or afraid that I wont be able to get something I want in the future.

Its because I stand on principle. "

So the freedom to have weapons of high power outweighs public safety?

"How many laws were broken leading up to and in the commission of sandy hook, why did they fail to stop the shooter, and what makes you think another one will when the others didn't? Oh, and I left out the Oklahoma city bombing. My bad. And you forgot about the IEDs at columbine. They were there whether you remember them or not. "

Well, first of all, how many Americans die in mass bombings? How many rampage killers have used grenades and explosives? Compare that to all the mass shootings and gun deaths in this country, and you'll see my point.

Are you actually telling me that if Adam Lanza couldn't legally get his hands on an assault weapon, he'd been able to get one anyway and do what they did as easily? Oh please.

"I've been presenting you with the facts, but you just ignore them. "

No you havent, all you've said is people kill each other without guns. What's your point with that?

"The horses mouth good enough for you? "

If you're suggesting I take your word for it, well, no, why can't you just link me to what you're talking about?

And you link me to two state legislatures who were recalled in a massive NRA and arms lobby campaign in the state. How is this "big money" losing? Notice also that the governor and others haven't faced a recall, and that butthurt Coloradans are apparently even considering to secede from the state to preserve their gun rights....

[beevul]

86. You can, actually, yes.

So if I want a fully automatic machine gun, should I be able to get one if I'm so inclined?

You can, legally, in most states, own such things, if you're willing to pay the artificially inflated price, wait the time that the in depth NFA background check takes.

However, just to be clear, that would be a fully automatic weapon, rather than a so-called assault weapon which is semi-automatic. Big difference. 5 years minimum in club fed if you don't dot your Is and cross your Ts just right to be exact. I wouldn't mind giving one a try at a gun range, but it isn't something I would ever want to own, or be able to afford to feed. I don't see a problem with people owning them though.

If you're saying people shouldn't be able to, heres your chance to say why, beyond the fact that you dislike what you perceive as "high power" weapons.

"So the freedom to have weapons of high power outweighs public safety?

I don't see the freedom to own firearms of power high or otherwise, as being in conflict with public safety. In addition, theres the second amendment. Before you ramble on about "militia", consider this:

Heller and Mcdonald are settled law, and affirm that the second amendment protects an individual right, and that it is applicable against the States. Whether you agree or not, it is settled law, and binding in this country.

"Well, first of all, how many Americans die in mass bombings? How many rampage killers have used grenades and explosives? Compare that to all the mass shootings and gun deaths in this country, and you'll see my point."

You didn't answer my questions. Must have missed them. An oversight surely. Here they are again for your convenience:

How many laws were broken leading up to and in the commission of sandy hook, why did they fail to stop the shooter, and what makes you think another one will when the others didn't?

Don't expect me to answer yours if you wont answer mine.

"Are you actually telling me that if Adam Lanza couldn't legally get his hands on an assault weapon, he'd been able to get one anyway and do what they did as easily? Oh please."

Couldn't? Couldn't?? He DIDN'T. Is it lost on you that he committed the murder of his own mother to gain possession of the rifle he used at sandy hook? Kindly explain how that constitutes "legally getting his hands on an assault weapon", which incidentally, wasn't classified as an "assault weapion" under the CT assault weapon ban, which mirrors the original federal assault weapon ban.

If you're suggesting I take your word for it, well, no, why can't you just link me to what you're talking about? And you link me to two state legislatures who were recalled in a massive NRA and arms lobby campaign in the state. How is this "big money" losing? Notice also that the governor and others haven't faced a recall, and that butthurt Coloradans are apparently even considering to secede from the state to preserve their gun rights....

I did link you to what I was talking about, but apparently you didn't bother to read them thoroughly. Here, let me put in bold for you, the pertinent parts, which you seem to have missed. Refutation of the below quote incoming:

"And you link me to two state legislatures who were recalled in a massive NRA and arms lobby campaign in the state. How is this "big money" losing?"

From my first link:

Recall campaigns amassed about $3.5 million, according to a Sept. 9 Denver Post report that examined 10 issue committees involved in both races. Opponents outraised election backers, collecting nearly $3 million, about five times more than the $540,000 raised by Second Amendment advocates, the newspaper found.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-11/colorado-senate-president-loses-seat-in-nra-backed-recall.html

Do you understand what that says?

That says that second amendment advocates raised around 540,000 dollars, while people who opposed the recall amassed roughly 3 million.

The side that raised 540 thousand WON. The side that raised 3 million LOST. You understand that 3 million is between 5 and 6 times as much as 540,000 right? Ok, good.

Now, you tell me, how isn't that big money losing?

"massive NRA and arms lobby campaign"

Riddle me this:

How massive is a "NRA and arms lobby campaign" if it is outspent by its opponents at a rate of 5 to 1, and how could it possibly win if its outspent 5 to 1, if what you say about big money is true?

I already told you the answer to the second half of the question. People are serious about their rights where firearms are concerned. Serious as a recall election.

What say you, now, about the first part?

[AcertainLiz]

87. Auto weapons

You can, legally, in most states, own such things, if you're willing to pay the artificially inflated price, wait the time that the in depth NFA background check takes.

However, just to be clear, that would be a fully automatic weapon, rather than a so-called assault weapon which is semi-automatic. Big difference. 5 years minimum in club fed if you don't dot your Is and cross your Ts just right to be exact. I wouldn't mind giving one a try at a gun range, but it isn't something I would ever want to own, or be able to afford to feed. I don't see a problem with people owning them though.

If you're saying people shouldn't be able to, heres your chance to say why, beyond the fact that you dislike what you perceive as "high power" weapons.

So fully automated weapons are highly regulated to the point the average citizen can't get them. And that's why I guess they're not used in mass murders here. See my point?

I don't see the freedom to own firearms of power high or otherwise, as being in conflict with public safety. In addition, theres the second amendment. Before you ramble on about "militia", consider this:

Heller and Mcdonald are settled law, and affirm that the second amendment protects an individual right, and that it is applicable against the States. Whether you agree or not, it is settled law, and binding in this country.

Activist judges misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment, as usual:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/articles/2004/05/time-reconsider-jeffersons-call-universal-service

And yeah, I think we should reform the military along these lines, and have universal service, but I know it will never happen, partially because most Americans would have an emotional fit over it. I don't see any other context with assault weapons and military grade equipment being safe...

You didn't answer my questions. Must have missed them. An oversight surely. Here they are again for your convenience:

How many laws were broken leading up to and in the commission of sandy hook, why did they fail to stop the shooter, and what makes you think another one will when the others didn't?

Don't expect me to answer yours if you wont answer mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Background

What failed is someone was legally allowed to have deadly weapons near a mentally deranged person...

Couldn't? Couldn't?? He DIDN'T. Is it lost on you that he committed the murder of his own mother to gain possession of the rifle he used at sandy hook? Kindly explain how that constitutes "legally getting his hands on an assault weapon", which incidentally, wasn't classified as an "assault weapion" under the CT assault weapon ban, which mirrors the original federal assault weapon ban.

So the fact that his mother was allowed to train him with these weapons and keep them near him so he could access them, and gave him these weapons means it wasn't allowed? His mother, and over 20 children paid tragically with their lives due to our failure to keep our society safe.

Do you understand what that says?

So all you're saying is there was competing moneyed interests. Are you denying there's not a lot of money in arms sales and in arms lobbyist? I can provide sources if you so wish.

How massive is a "NRA and arms lobby campaign" if it is outspent by its opponents at a rate of 5 to 1, and how could it possibly win if its outspent 5 to 1, if what you say about big money is true?

Er, they're outspent by their opponents everywhere? It just seems gun nuts are such whores for the arms industry.

[beevul]

137. And like I said...

"So fully automated weapons are highly regulated to the point the average citizen can't get them. And that's why I guess they're not used in mass murders here. See my point?"

And like I said, anyone who tried to put semi-automatic weapons under the nfa would be destroying their career and the party they belong to for a good long time. Possibly permanently.

Here is where you should chime in and assert that its because of money, and completely ignore what happened in Colorado.

"Activist judges misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment, as usual..."

Yeah, everyone is wrong except you:

President Obama was wrong when he said ""the 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right"

Stevens in his dissent was wrong when he said "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right..."

Justice Jackson was wrong when he penned:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

The American people are wrong, when a full 75 percent of them support the second amendment.

But they're all wrong unless they believe as you do, right?

Like I said, I'll answer yours right after you answer mine:

How many laws were broken leading up to and in the commission of sandy hook?

Why did they fail to stop the shooter?

What makes you think another one will when the others didn't?

What makes you think, that the sort of person who would murder his own mother to get a gun, gives a tinkers damn about what additional laws you pass?

I get it. You don't want to touch any of that. You may as well start name calling and insults because that's all you have left.

"So all you're saying is there was competing moneyed interests."

Oh but what happened to "money wins"?

You were wrong. You've been wrong since you tried to argue with me about this, in just about everything you said in this little exchange.

That you think that everyone is wrong and you are right is now crystal clear, by your refusal to answer the simplest questions, by your deliberate ignorance of the obvious, and by your refusal to address fact.

I've been debating this issue since you were about 5 years old, if theres any truth to you claiming you are 19, and it might be a shock to you, but I've seen the tactics you use before. You aren't going to be winning any debates or adding much of any value to any discussions, using them.

[AcertainLiz]

160. GUNS GUNS GUNS

President Obama was wrong when he said ""the 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right"

Yes he was wrong. What's your point? So was everyone that said this. I really don't understand your point? You even mentioned the American people's feelings. Assuming this is true, is the majority always infallible? Are you suggesting this isn't debated and that the original intent of the amendment was for creation of well-regulated militias and not people to go into Wal-Mart and buy semi-automatic assault rifles? Are you so brainwashed by NRA propaganda pieces that you can't see what's right in front of you?

Here is where you should chime in and assert that its because of money, and completely ignore what happened in Colorado. Oh but what happened to "money wins"? You were wrong. You've been wrong since you tried to argue with me about this, in just about everything you said in this little exchange. That you think that everyone is wrong and you are right is now crystal clear, by your refusal to answer the simplest questions, by your deliberate ignorance of the obvious, and by your refusal to address fact. I've been debating this issue since you were about 5 years old, if theres any truth to you claiming you are 19, and it might be a shock to you, but I've seen the tactics you use before. You aren't going to be winning any debates or adding much of any value to any discussions, using them.

Oh please, arms manufacturers influence and power are well attested to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/05/01/12591/gun-lobbys-money-and-power-still-holds-sway-over-congress

I hate to break it to you, but your precious guns aren't protected by some well-organized citizen led effort, but by big money. Guns make a lot of money, so yeah, corporations making them lobby the government to protect their products, public health and safety be damned. They're just preying on your paranoia and your desire to feel like a badass and that you're on the same level as a soldier or swat cop. It just happens that thousands of Americans get murdered to feed your petty desires.

How many laws were broken leading up to and in the commission of sandy hook?

Why did they fail to stop the shooter?

What makes you think another one will when the others didn't?

What makes you think, that the sort of person who would murder his own mother to get a gun, gives a tinkers damn about what additional laws you pass?

I get it. You don't want to touch any of that. You may as well start name calling and insults because that's all you have left.

What are you going on about? Are you suggesting because laws may be broken, we shouldn't have laws? You're being totally ridiculous and probably not even serious here, just emotionally charged for your childish interest.

[Eleanors38]

78. Check out a Remington Model 8 in .35. Semi-auto from 1908.

[Crunchy Frog]

170. And largely funded by the Koch brothers and others of their ilk.

[hack89]

77. So they are 65 year old technology

Does it make that much of a difference?

[AcertainLiz]

83. No, they still need to be restricted.

[hack89]

88. Why?

It is not like they are a common murder weapon and the are hardly ever used in violent crimes.

[AcertainLiz]

89. Mass shootings with semi-auto weapons

Show we need to restrict them. Unless we want some sort of Swiss militia style system the 2nd amendment calls for, and obviously one can see Switzerland is far more peaceful despite their high ownership of guns, but that's basically it's in the context of a mandatory militia system...

[hack89]

90. So you are including handguns now?

Because the worse mass shooting used handguns.

[AcertainLiz]

91. Yeah, absolutely.

Untrained civilians have no business with semi-auto pistols and rifles. Neither do mentally ill people.

[hack89]

92. I am always amazed how out of touch with American cultural and political reality

so many gun gun control advocates are.

There are many other ways to reduce violence in America that actually have a chance of being implemented. Gun bans are not one of them.

[AcertainLiz]

99. Even if it won't ever happen, banning most guns would work.

But as you say, what's likely to work is out of touch with American cultural and political reality.

[hack89]

101. Most impractical fantasy "solutions" work - that's the beauty of not being constrained by reality.

nt

[AcertainLiz]

103. When the only workable solution won't happen, you have a problem.

Then again, some states are paving the way, so maybe not...

[hack89]

105. But it is not the only workable solution. It is the only ACCEPTABLE (to you) solution.

big difference

[AcertainLiz]

106. It's the only thing that would prevent these rampages and violent incidents

But we need to keep giving mentally ill people guns so they can kill themselves and other people I guess..what a great service to them...

[hack89]

107. Why don't we give mentally ill people real healthcare?

just a thought.

[AcertainLiz]

108. So you'd give a mentally ill person intreatment an AR-15?

If you had a mentally ill kid, you'd give them a gun?

[hack89]

110. Well, we can do what NY does and create a database of mentally ill people

so they cannot buy weapons. I would even support having their guns temporarily removed while undergoing treatment.

My kids never have unsupervised access to guns. If my child was mentally ill, I would not have guns in the house.

[AcertainLiz]

111. That would inringe too much on privacy I think

I say we just ban most guns period.

[hack89]

113. I thought New York was held up as a model state for gun control

as for banning guns - give it a shot and see how it works out.

[DanTex]

117. Well, banning handguns, or at least severely restricting access to them,

has worked out pretty darn well in every other first world nation that has done it. It's kind of like the "single payer" of gun policy. The US is too right-wing for it to have a political chance, but from the point of view of policy, there's not much to argue about.

[hack89]

122. Now we get back to my original comment on ignoring American political and cultural realities.

it is not going happen. You can't even get all Democrats to agree with you. Yours is a minority view that is not gaining in strength.

[DanTex]

124. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm ignoring them. I am in fact conceding them:

It's kind of like the "single payer" of gun policy. The US is too right-wing for it to have a political chance, but from the point of view of policy, there's not much to argue about.

Yes, a handgun ban, like single payer, is simply not going to happen given in the US any time soon, given the strength of the GOP and the gun lobby. And yes, like single payer, most Democratic congresspeople wouldn't even support it. So we have to look at other alternatives.

But from a pure policy perspective, it's hard to argue that thousands of lives would be saved if we did emulate the rest of the world on gun control.

[hack89]

126. True. nt

[AcertainLiz]

157. I think patients have a right to privacy

It's more important than the right to have an assault weapon, don't you think?

[hack89]

163. AWBs are feel good security theater

None of the proposed AWBs will make you safer. CT had one of the toughest AWBs in the country - Lanza's rifle was not an assault rifle in the eyes of the law.

In any case, the gun control capital of America appears to disagree with you.

[AcertainLiz]

174. In other words, you just need tighter laws and regulations.

Like, duh.

[hack89]

177. No.

You need effective laws that also have the support of the voters.

[AcertainLiz]

181. You need laws that actually would be effective

And allowing anyone to buy AR-15s ain't one of them. I bet you'd defend people's right to buy ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons if that were allowed.

[hack89]

183. No again. That line was drawn in 1934 and I support it.

first off, not anyone can buy AR-15s. Secondly, making them disappear would not make you significantly safer. Lanza could have killed all those kids with the other weapons he had - remember what happened at Va Tech.

[AcertainLiz]

184. Most anyone can. Or else they wouldn't sell them at Wal-Marts :P

And don't give me the BS that these killers would be just as effective with less effective and less deadly weapons. Put a sock in it. (VA Tech was done with semi-auto weapons and hollow points, two things we need to ban).

Clearly the need to regulate and even ban a lot of these guns has come and we need to do it now.

[hack89]

186. So you want to ban handguns and rifles. OK

good luck with that.

[AcertainLiz]

187. I think we should ban semi auto assault rifles and handguns

Don't put words in my mouth and stop tarring anyone who disagrees with your ironically extreme position as an extremist.

That being said, I'm sure there's some compromise reasonable gun owners and gun control advocates could come to. You seem like someone who just takes an extreme position and refuses to relent.

[hack89]

188. You want to ban the most popular guns in America - guns that have been sold for decades.

the guns that have been sold at the same time we have seen a drastic drop in gun violence and gun deaths.

Pointing out basic facts like that do not make me an extremist.

You are the extremist - you are way out of the mainstream for gun control in America. I cannot think of any major gun control group or pro-gun control politician that shares your opinion.

[AcertainLiz]

189. We've seen a dramatic increase of mass shootings with these guns...

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/09/260980072/mass-shootings-across-u-s-are-on-the-rise

So no...

[hack89]

190. Other criminologists disagree

http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html

http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/12/top_10_myths_about_mass_shooti.html?camp=obinsite

So no, it is not clear what exactly is going on.

[AcertainLiz]

191. The study I give is more recent and in-depth

So, clearly the facts are more on my side. And even if it is hotly disputed, then it's wrong for you to say they're on the decline. Clearly mass shootings are a real problem, with some indication they're on the rise, so yeah, let's ban the guns already. Let's get the gun murder rate lower like in other countries and stop pretending like these guns give us anything but grief.

[hack89]

192. ok nt

[AcertainLiz]

193. So just try to moderate yourself once and awhile, okay?

[hack89]

194. Yes Mom

So when are you going to show me that list of gun control organizations and politicians that support your point of view?

[AcertainLiz]

197. Oh dear

Didn't we already deal with this?

[hack89]

198. Actually no - this is twice that you have dodged my question. nt

[DanTex]

120. I agree about the privacy thing.

You don't want people to not seek mental health care because they are afraid of ending up in some database, whether about guns or anything else. A better solution there would be making background check whitelist based rather than blacklist based. That is, rather than make a database of people unfit to own a gun, instead, make anyone who wants to own a gun go through a screening process which includes a mental health evaluation performed at the time they apply for a gun license.

Yes, banning most guns would drastically reduce gun violence, no doubt. Banning handguns would in fact do the trick -- handguns are by far the most frequently used in both murders and suicides. It's kind of like the "single payer" of gun policy -- yes, it would work, and it works great in a lot of other countries, but it's not politically feasible here.

A big step in the right direction would be having a licensing and registration system, where you can't just buy and sell any kind of gun you want on a whim. Registration would not only reduce irresponsible gun ownership, but it would also go a long way into cutting down on black market guns, since once a gun is registered to you, it's a lot harder to re-sell it to a criminal without getting caught.

The problem is, the NRA has so much political clout that even requiring universal background checks, which is supported by 90 plus percent of the population, didn't get through congress. The tiny minority of people who oppose common sense gun laws are extremely paranoid and vocal about it, whereas the rest of us don't usually prioritize the issue. It's particularly a problem since gun violence most affects minorities from low income urban areas, rather than wealthy people. As you've found out, even on DU, there is a small but very loud group of basically single issue posters who repeat the NRA's talking points over and over.

[hack89]

125. Requiring a fire arms owners identity card is a good idea

it would require a background check and mandate safety training.

A mental health check would be very problematic on several levels. How would such an exam be structured and what criteria would it use? The Adam Lanza's of the world are easy to pick out - but they are extremely rare. Suicides represent two thirds of all gun deaths - but short of someone saying "I want to kill myself" your scheme would not stop suicides simply for the fact that that suicidal thoughts are easy to hide if you want to hide them. Plus there is the more likely case that the person was not suicidal at the time of the exam. You could of course screen for suicide risk factors but then you get on really shaky ground - how can you determine if a person with a risk factor will actually kill themselves.

And there is ultimately the issue of due process. I can see temporarily removing someones right to own guns for mental health issues but a permanent loss will require a judge and the ability to challenge the ban. Removing constitutional rights should never be easy.

[DanTex]

127. Well, just picking out the Lanzas, Holmeses, and Loughners would be a pretty good start.

I don't think that screening for suicide risk would necessarily be a good idea or even work. Suicide risk is not mental illness. I do think, however, that a licensing system would reduce casual or irresponsible gun ownership, which would in turn reduce suicide risks. Most suicides aren't people who are hell-bent on committing suicide. It's more that they are troubled, and there's a gun sitting around.

Here's a thought. CCWers commit less gun crimes than gun owners without a CCW. So it would seem to me that requiring people to go through the same process to even own a handgun that you need to for a CCW would be a pretty good idea. Again, probably not feasible politically, at least not nationwide, but from a policy perspective, it could be an effective compromise.

Also, as you know, we disagree about the extent to which the constitution protects the right to own guns (and I concede that the Supreme Court's recent decisions support your view), so we don't need to go over that again.

[hack89]

128. Make the requirements for a Firearms Owner ID card the same as CCW

I have absolutely no problem with that.

[DanTex]

129. Wow! Agreement! Awesome!

Hey, maybe they should send us down to negotiate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict!

[oneshooter]

195. The requirements the same as which CCW law?

California may issue with no required training at all. Hawaii which has a ccw program but has never issued one? Texas, a required 10hours class and a 50rd shooting test?

If the requirements are national, would the permit replace the CHL and allow carry in all fifty states and territories?

Questions, questions, questions.

[hack89]

196. States are still able to set their own standards (adhering to Peruta of course)

national standards with national reciprocity is the better solution but I don't see that happening.

[AcertainLiz]

158. Yeah, exactly my point.

As you say, bans would be the most effective way to reduce violence in this regard, but it's politically infeasible, mainly because of strong gun lobbyist and their supporters who think banning guns is taint amount to rounding up people in death camps and having some universal police state.

[Crunchy Frog]

169. I could write an entire book of a post on that subject. n/t

[Jenoch]

23. "Guns deserve to be more highly regulated due to their more lethal nature."

They already are.

I agree that a person with a gun and intent on a mass killing would kill more people than someone with the same intent using a knife.

LEOs are generally more adraid of close contact with a perp who has a knife than a perp with a gun. It is more likely the perp with a handgun will miss than hit when confronting a cop. Knives can slice right through bullet resistant vests (except for the ceramic plate over the sternum/heart area). Cops are not trained too much in hand o hand combat, that's what their guns are for.

[Hoyt]

130. Not true. In most states it's against the law to carry a knife that big in public, but just about

any yahoo can carry a gun (permits are required in some states). That makes no sense, but there are not millions of right wing gun fanciers promoting more knives in more places.

[Jenoch]

132. You responded to my post with a non-sequiter.

What did I write that you think is not true? (I did not write about anybody carrying either guns or knives, legally or illegally.)

Edit: I figured out your confusion. You read into my post in inferrence I was not intending. When cops are confronted in close quarters with a perp who has a gun vs a perp with a knife, the cops are usually more fearful of the blade rather than the gun.

[applegrove]

30. I wanted to say this tonight but was not brave enough. Glad you did. Food for thought eh?

[Tanta]

42. I don't post much...

But this deserves a correction...it wasn't Japan it was China where the man stabbed people.
We should at least get that out there.

http://www.latinospost.com/articles/8436/20121220/22-schoolchildren-stabbed-china-same-day-sandy.htm

Other than that, I agree entirely

[Nanjing to Seoul]

47. My gun humping brother has already sent me an email saying "see, mass stabbings are real. . .

time to ban knives.

I said "no one died. Nice try."

[Hoyt]

50. In many states, it is illegal to carry a knife that large, yet a gun or two strapped to some yahoo

is OK. That's nuts.

[oneofthe99]

51. Very true many states have a 3 or 4 inch limit on blade size unless the person is camping

fishing or hunting. I know in Vermont there is no requirement for any type of permit to carry a gun.
I know the remainder of New England states permits are required to carry any type of firearm.

[Fla Dem]

67. If he had 2 guns rather than 2 knives, chances are many of those 24 would be dead and

many more injured or dead.

[G_j]

72. what is absolutely absurd is

that there are people arguing on this thread about your statement. Of course it's true!
I don't care how many convoluted arguments someone may use to attempt to convince me water isn't wet...
(duh..)

[DrDan]

74. and stopped by a tackly by the principal

he probably would not have done that had the attacker had a gun

[Separation]

79. Knives can be just as deadly.

Just google Chinese knife attacks. It's more than just the 29 that were killed, it's happening quite a bit over there with 5-6 killed in one attack.

[kwassa]

81. No, they can't. You haven't read the thread.

[Separation]

82. Can you explain 29 dead, 140 wounded?

This was done with knives. Lots of adults in those numbers that by according to this thread "should have been able to over power them because it's not a gun."

[kwassa]

149. what incident are you referring to?

your reference is unclear.

[Crunchy Frog]

171. Eight highly trained and coordinated knife wielding terrorists.

Not some lone maniac with a knife. Nice try though.

[Hoyt]

131. No need to google it, many fanciers have posted about that ONE incident to support their gun love.

If that Chinese guy had a gun, he'd killed several hundred people.

Fortunately, the Chinese have sane gun laws, much like Australia had the sense to enact in 1996.

[Separation]

133. LMGTFY

[link:https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=kRdIU-7KE62u2gWJkIHwBQ&q=chinese+knife+attacks&oq=chi&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.41l2j0l3.3519.4238.0.6975.4.4.0.1.1.0.1496.4702.7-4.4.0....0...1c.1.40.mobile-gws-hp..0.4.3370.3.vbCNm0iODkU|]

Now I know you didn't accuse me of being a "gun fancier" and I appreciate that. These knife attacks are happening all the time over there with 5-6 deaths and many more wounded. It's not just a random one time thing. They can't get guns so they use knives and swords, which people have been using to kill each other with since man first learned to smith metal.

After edit: complete fail on the google link embed so you will have to google Chinese knife attacks. It's not just that one attack it's as rampant as the gun sprees here.

[Art_from_Ark]

85. That Asian stabbing incident you are referring to wasn't in Japan

It was in China.

[Boom Sound 416]

94. And the connection the OP makes

Doesn't exist.

[kwassa]

145. Oh, yes it does.

I got the wrong country. I got the right event.

[Boom Sound 416]

146. Is your argument based on

Availability or chance?

[kwassa]

148. My argument is based on knives vs. guns

Did you read the OP?

[oneshooter]

151. With a gun you can miss...................

If you are close enough to use a knife, hard to miss.

[kwassa]

152. Indiana Jones has the answer to this argument.

[Boom Sound 416]

93. UnRec

You don't have a massive increase in these types of crime because of the availability of weapons.

Weapons have always been available.

[DrDan]

96. rec (the OP, of course) - increased availability certainly plays a role

[Boom Sound 416]

109. It hasn't increased

[Hip_Flask]

97. Never waste a crisis eh?

[Capt. Obvious]

100. Hopefully they use this crisurtunity to to take away all guns

[AcertainLiz]

102. Most guns should be banned

At least in this current climate.

[oneshooter]

116. And how would you go about doing this? n/t

[Hoyt]

134. Is Molon Labe being a law-abiding citizen?

[AcertainLiz]

161. Banning guns you mean?

[oneshooter]

175. Yes, how would you go about doing it. n/t

[AcertainLiz]

176. Taxing the hell out of them for starters

[oneshooter]

179. And then? n/t

[AcertainLiz]

182. I already gave you a link on it.

Read it and tell me what you think.

[AcertainLiz]

180. Asked around on Reddit, and was given this link

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/michael-olenick-the-lesson-of-newtown-time-to-charge-for-the-true-cost-of-gun-ownership.html

What do you think of this?

[beevul]

138. In other words, you disagree with the party platform, and you're an anti-gun extremist...

In other words, you disagree with the party platform which says:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms...

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#protecting-rights

And you're an anti-gun extremist.

You disagree with the clear majority of the American people on the second amendment.

You disagree with the Democratic Party platform on the second amendment.

You disagree with President Obama on the second amendment.

You disagree with supreme court precedent on the second amendment.


That says about all that needs saying.

[AcertainLiz]

162. I do disagree with the politicians (largely) on this issue

And you're saying no Democrats actually agree with gun control and gun restrictions? Oh please.

[DanTex]

164. Interesting. So anyone who disagrees with a 5-4 Scalia decision is now an anti-gun extremist.

It seems to me that the real extremist here is you, willing to label anyone who disagrees with the NRA as "anti-gun extremist".

Are you in favor of gun registration? Because a clear majority of the American people are. Or how about the AWB, which both Obama, the Democratic Party, and a majority of the American people are? You are an extremist by your own standard.

The thing is, if you paid attention to any issue other than guns, you would be aware that one of the major complaints from progressives about the Democratic Party is that they have grown too conservative, and conceded too much to the GOP. Your intolerance of any viewpoint that is even slightly to the left of Obama or the Democratic party would basically make almost everyone on DU an extremist. Single payer? Extremist! Ending drone strikes? Extremist! Opposed to NSA spying? Extremist!

I suppose that for a conservative Dem like yourself, it might actually seem this way, but in fact there is plenty of room to the left of the Obama administration without being extremist.

[AcertainLiz]

185. Exactly my thoughts :)

[Boom Sound 416]

150. Your argument is based on chance

[kwassa]

153. What the hell are you talking about?

[Boom Sound 416]

154. Well, just on the surface

Had any of the knife victims died, where would that leave your argument?

And what of those who have?

[kwassa]

155. If several had died, it would not affect my argument.

There are a number of reasons guns are more lethal than knives

Here are 6.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/33921/lone-star-college-mass-stabbing-6-reasons-why-knives-are-not-as-deadly-as-guns

1. Skill Required for Successful Operation: The skill required to slash and hack through a crowd of people is nowhere near the relative ease of doing so with a firearm. The number of people stabbed in attacks like these are usually quite similar in quantity to that of a magazine. Frankly, it takes a lot less time to shoot someone than it does to stab them. In fact, multiple targets could be struck multiple times before the first few targets are even stabbed. Aiming into a crowd and pulling a trigger takes significantly less energy than running, confronting, and engaging individual targets with a knife. Furthermore, those who go on a shooting rampage quickly rack up a higher casualty and fatality count than those who go on a knife attack.

2. Range of Motion: The amount of force that accompanies the strike of a blade directly relates to the amount of damage it is capable of producing. If the arm used to swing the knife is immobilized or restrained, it merely becomes a potential hazard. However, with a firearms and the magic of gunpowder, anything in front of the bullet is fair game for a target.

3. A Knife Does Not Know Its Master: A sharp blade does not discriminate. The risk for the attacker to sustain incidental injuries from their own weapon grows exponentially when switching from a firearm to a knife. It is easier to disarm a person with a knife than it is to disarm a shooter. A few people could mob a restrain a person with a knife, whereas this feat is not so easy when a person has a firearm. In fact, this knife attack ended when the assailant was confronted and then restrained by a group of students.

4. Distance and Range of Possible Targets: The target of a knife attack has to be relatively close, at least within an arm's length, and at maximum a few lunging steps. Yes the attacker could try throwing knives, but then they are left defenseless when they have expended the few knives they had. That is to say they even landed a hit on their target, instead of what would likely happen, either missing on not making solid contact, leaving just a pissed-off target with your knife. Now, in terms of firearms, distance is really no issue. Some rifles are capable of kilometer or more distances, while handguns are practically perfect for hitting targets in a close quarters environment. After all, that is part of their respective purposes.

5. Purpose in Design: The knife has potentially limitless applicability in daily life, whereas the same cannot be said for a firearm. A doctor's scalpel, box cutter, or pocketknives have more purposes than a firearm. Make no mistake; either in terms of hunting or self-defense, guns are designed to kill. Marksmanship, collectors, and sport shooting are certainly other purposes, but that's where the utilitarian versatility of a firearm ends. Also, these traits are shared with knives, which again, only scratches the surface of their potential uses.

6. Just Look at History: War technology has always been about killing the enemy more effectively than they can kill you. The introduction of gunpowder into the battlefields of the world demonstrates this fatal and paramount difference. Everybody knows how it turns out for those who bring a knife to a gunfight. This is why early settlers of the Americas were able to wipe out the indigenous populations, tomahawks and bows and arrows stood no match to even the most primitive of firearms. Even as firearms technology advanced, the introduction of the machine gun again proved how new generations of firearms are ultimately more devastating in their effect.

[Crunchy Frog]

172. This should be its own seperate post. n/t

[napkinz]

173. the DIFFERENCE between LIFE and DEATH ...