You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Oh, I remember you guys acting like knife attacks were no big deal. There was a knife attack at the same time as that school shooting with about the same amount of damage. Which you guys ignored and dismissed. A psycho with a knife seems to be just as deadly. Maybe you can ban knives.
Didn’t 30 get killed in China from a big knife attack?
- A Private Eye
- Rep: 77
Re: US Politics Thread
Oh, I remember you guys acting like knife attacks were no big deal. There was a knife attack at the same time as that school shooting with about the same amount of damage. Which you guys ignored and dismissed. A psycho with a knife seems to be just as deadly. Maybe you can ban knives.
Carrying a knife is illegal in the UK.
I’m not really sure what your point is. Firstly, regardless of weapon, society gives less of a shit if a load of gang members stab each other to death than a mass shooting in a school or town centre. The two aren’t really comparable events.
Secondly, you can perform a ‘mass killing’ with all sorts of things. Guns, knives, hammers, cars/trucks. The reason there isn’t call to ban these items is they all serve a normal day to day non-violent purpose, guns don’t. They exist to kill, nothing else. You see the difference?
Thirdly, are you seriously trying to suggest that in a situation where a mass murder is going to be attempted, a knife presents the same scope for damage as an assault rifle?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Oh, I remember you guys acting like knife attacks were no big deal. There was a knife attack at the same time as that school shooting with about the same amount of damage. Which you guys ignored and dismissed. A psycho with a knife seems to be just as deadly. Maybe you can ban knives.
Carrying a knife is illegal in the UK.
I’m not really sure what your point is. Firstly, regardless of weapon, society gives less of a shit if a load of gang members stab each other to death than a mass shooting in a school or town centre. The two aren’t really comparable events.
Secondly, you can perform a ‘mass killing’ with all sorts of things. Guns, knives, hammers, cars/trucks. The reason there isn’t call to ban these items is they all serve a normal day to day non-violent purpose, guns don’t. They exist to kill, nothing else. You see the difference?
Thirdly, are you seriously trying to suggest that in a situation where a mass murder is going to be attempted, a knife presents the same scope for damage as an assault rifle?
And as I posted several weeks ago, around 80 murders in the US were due to an assault rifle in a mass shooting in 2016. 80/11,000 firearm homicides. I don't want to the murder rate to be anything above 0, same as you. But that's a farce. Ignoring the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban, is depriving millions of law abiding americans the right to own a semi automatic rifle that takes magazines worth it because you think 80 more people a year will survive. Some sources say that 2.5 million lives are saved each year through the presence of a firearm. I'm not going to tell you any of these numbers are 100% accurate, but there's evidence of utility outside of the human right to self defense. And before you call this question outrageous and pull the "if it saves one life!" card, about 30k Americans die to alcohol related driving accidents a year. Roughly 600k due to alcohol related causes annually. If we banned alcohol, we could save 600k people a year! So tell me where the magic cut off is? Who gets to say what vices are worth outlawing and which aren't?
Bad people are going to do bad things. Europe is learning this the hard way as they see true racial and cultural diversity occur in their borders. Unfortunately because they've decided to let a lot of people from a culture that is incompatible with western beliefs. We could cut the murder rate in half in the US if we deported all black people. I'm not for a moment suggesting that and agree the idea is horrific. But I also think the idea of depriving americans the right to defend themselves is also horrific. There's a lot of actions we can take to "save lives", but most of them infringe on individual liberty and personal autonomy. I happen to be in the camp that believes we should limit that infringement as much as possible.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Hold on, it is illegal to carry a knife in the U.K. yet a a lot of murders happen from people carrying knives. Lol. So even in knife Free zones they still have knife deaths. We keep going in circles. There are so many just bad dudes (and dudettes) in this world.
- A Private Eye
- Rep: 77
Re: US Politics Thread
True enough, I don’t doubt the statistical unlikelehood of you or a family member being killed in a mass shooting. Equally the odds of being stabbed or run over or shot by a radical in a European city centre are equally unlikely. They make tue headlines because it could be you or me. Most murders are between criminals and gangs, nobody concerns themselves with those as much because unless you move in those circles it’s unlikely to affect you. It’s the 1% that terrifies as it has no rationale or even skewed morality to it.
I have no doubt lives have been saved with the presence of a firearm, millions maybe. I think it’s also worth considering, however, how many lives have been lost due to the escalation of a situation due to the presence of a firearm? I have no idea the answer to that btw. I do know though, that most burglars or intruders want jewellery and valuables, not to murder the occupants of the house they are robbing. An armed intruder against an unarmed family has the control, takes their shit and leaves (typically). An armed intruder against a family with a gun could end up all sorts of ways but I’m sure statistically it’s more likely to end up in a gun being fired. As a military man you’d probably fancy your chances but I’m not sure if it’s worth the risk for a typical household? The right to defend yourself is fine in theory but when put to the test the reality can play out quite differently.
There are no easy solutions but I am still in the camp that thinks limiting ease of access for anyone to guns that can kill hundreds of people in minutes is not a violation of a human right.
- A Private Eye
- Rep: 77
Re: US Politics Thread
Hold on, it is illegal to carry a knife in the U.K. yet a a lot of murders happen from people carrying knives. Lol. So even in knife Free zones they still have knife deaths. We keep going in circles. There are so many just bad dudes (and dudettes) in this world.
Sure, it’s illegal to drive down a pavement knocking over pedestrians like bowling pins as well.
Anyone can pick up a knife from their kitchen and do damage with it (same as with plenty of household items). The scarcity of guns compared to knives makes the likelehood of a shooting much lower than a stabbing.
Agree there are far too many fucked people walking around.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Oh, I remember you guys acting like knife attacks were no big deal. There was a knife attack at the same time as that school shooting with about the same amount of damage. Which you guys ignored and dismissed. A psycho with a knife seems to be just as deadly. Maybe you can ban knives.
Carrying a knife is illegal in the UK.
I’m not really sure what your point is. Firstly, regardless of weapon, society gives less of a shit if a load of gang members stab each other to death than a mass shooting in a school or town centre. The two aren’t really comparable events.
Secondly, you can perform a ‘mass killing’ with all sorts of things. Guns, knives, hammers, cars/trucks. The reason there isn’t call to ban these items is they all serve a normal day to day non-violent purpose, guns don’t. They exist to kill, nothing else. You see the difference?
Thirdly, are you seriously trying to suggest that in a situation where a mass murder is going to be attempted, a knife presents the same scope for damage as an assault rifle?
I'm suggesting a lot of folks came into this thread, getting on their soap boxes about guns, and completely ignored my rebuttals about knife attacks. And again, more people are killed by knives than assault weapons. And it's not even close.
Not. Even. Close.
Re: US Politics Thread
kermit the Trump wrote:This latest Syria news is a bit worrying. Trump announced we would be pulling out shortly, the doves and hawks had a conniption fit, and now a 180 is occurring.
Who's minding the store? If Trump is not really the commander in chief or is in name only, we've got a constitutional crisis on our hands and it has nothing to do with Russia.
My understanding is he wanted to pull out immediately, and the Generals told him that's not a good idea and he listened to them rather than doing what past presidents have done, and ignored military advice. (That's how ISIS happened right? Someone ignored the advice of their generals, and drew red lines and called ISIS the JV team while they retook Iraq and created this mess in Syria)
Our military presence as is is largely a support role with air superiority. It's not like Iraq or Afghanistan where American soldiers were kicking in doors and the primary military force.
I personally don't give a shit what Assad does to his own people. I didn't support the missile strike Trump did months after coming into office, but I didn't think they were entirely wrong if the accusation Assad launched chemical weapons from that location against civilians is true. But I don't want another Iraq or Afghanistan. But I have no problem wiping out a terrorist organization that wants to deploy people into western cities and bring terror to our streets. Use every capability available to extinguish that as early as possible. Keeping a contingent force of American military as eyes on the ground is a prudent idea in my opinion. That's probably what Trump is going to do, so if ISIS 2.0 starts to form in the void, we can kill them early rather than call them JV players and allow them to take over 2 countries and launch suicide bombers into Europe.
Chief Trump apologist.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:misterID wrote:Nothing in that post is anywhere near as antagonistic as Hogg has been. Anthony Borges is a hero and a real victim of the shooting, not just a witness. Why the he'll isn't he on the cover of Time and the face of the shooting?
My hero will always be the fake police school cop who ran away and showed that guns don’t stop other guns.
You just proved the pro gun argument. Just like in the shooter side of it, it's the person not the gun that is responsible.
Yes you’re right buzz and everyone should have the right to own a gun....felons, mentally deranged, children, teachers....
I think infants should be given a gun within 72 hours.
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:My hero will always be the fake police school cop who ran away and showed that guns don’t stop other guns.
You just proved the pro gun argument. Just like in the shooter side of it, it's the person not the gun that is responsible.
Yes you’re right buzz and everyone should have the right to own a gun....felons, mentally deranged, children, teachers....
I think infants should be given a gun within 72 hours.
You keep talking to a guy that doesn't and never has owned a gun like he's a gun nut. I'm not. I'm a constitution nut. I believe in it. All of it. Even the things I wish weren't in it because that's what we as a society have decided is how we want to live. If you think society has changed enough, change the constitution. If society hasn't changed that much, then tough shit.
