Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry in the year 2010 20 children died in China from knives attacks and eight also died in an attack in Japan.

And in those attacks in China where 20 died there were over 30 who survived their injuries.
In Japan 15 survived compared to the 8 that died.

So knives kill about 35% of their victims and guns kill well over 50%.
I think it is you that loves your blood baths Bill. You are the one that prefers they use a weapon that can be shown to kill far more in numbers and in percentages.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
p but actual number of people killed will go down..

Not likely and as the criminals will be armed and know that the civilians will not be the guns deaths is likely to go up not down as well as the gun crimes as a whole.

ROFLMAO.. right because before conceal carry, criminals always shot and killed their victims.

Bill, your arguments are making less sense these days.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The number of victims will go down simply because the tool will be less efficient. It's a simple case of math Bill.

Unless you are arguing that guns are this magical thing that actually make people not want to kill others.

4 Replies

@parados,

Give up your parody parados. What has going around in circles for this long now benefited you in anyway possible?
Basically these idiotic politicians tactical move in banning all the semiautomatic military looking rifles is a big step in the direction of nearly banning any and all semiautomatic weapons.
So what now? You want us to carry around bolt action rifles?
And when are you going to start supporting the severe restrictions of such weapons as well?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Unless you are arguing that guns are this magical thing that actually make people not want to kill others.

No, no one is that stupid and does not fully understand its killing ability...Or they would have no reason to carry...

Unless Bill carries around Christmas trees with him... 2 Cents

They just do not want to admit that irresponsible people have guns...Because it can impact them in ways that they do not care...Because they are more concerned in making statements about freedom....

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

It seems you do know what a slippery slope fallacy is.

Too bad you don't understand "parody". Clearly a ban on assault weapons will lead to the confiscation of all guns. It happened in 1994. It will happen just like that next time they pass it.

1 Reply

@parados,

Oh, so you're being for real and in favor of the exaggerated fear mongering by some of the idiotic politicians with suspicious motives. And here I was trying not to make you loose face.
And good one with the 1994 comment, or are you being serious?
Oh yes the 1994 happening, a fat lot that did in keeping the streets safe. Oh the irony of it if you or any of your loved ones will face a tragedy and this thing that "they pass" couldn't do anything to prevent it. Oh well, **** has to hit the fan sometime or another doesn't it? And tell me your next big idea. Oooooooh let me guess, let me guess. I bet it's stitching everyone's ass so they can't **** right? Without ****, **** just can't hit the fan right?

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

That woman said, "My nephew harvested his first deer...."

What a sick expression.

Farmers raise animals to be harvested. Another way to say it is that the animals move on to finishing school were they are killed.

To a great extent, deer hunters raise the deer they harvest. Maintaining feed plots and herd management sounds like farming to me.

What expression would you prefer?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It was hardly a tangent. The fact that gun availability has very little impact on homicide rates is entirely on topic.

And where exactly does anyone find this fact?

It doesn't exist because it seems the NRA got congress to shut down any studies of homicide rates and gun ownership.

I've provided it to you many times over the years. Try "the useful website GunCite" (as Salon describes them).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

You mean your fact is really an
"Arbitrary Comparisons Between Countries"

That would NOT be a fact oralloy. It would be an opinion that shows how numbers are skewed to support one side or the other.

Nothing has been skewed. It is a fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

In the US in the last 40 years, guns have killed more people than knives have. There really is not question.
Guns are used in 60-70% of homicides so they kill more than knives
Guns are used in 50% of suicides and knives are not the choice of most suicides.

Interesting trivia, but they'd still be just as dead if they were killed with knives instead.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

BillRM wrote:
The point is not to let the anti 2 amendment crowd put out all kinds of misinformation out to the part of the public who are not gun owners therefore do not know better unchallenged.

what about all the gun owners who disagree with your position? how are you planning to manage them?

If such people put out information that is not true, the obvious course is to just challenge the untrue information just as if any other person had posted it.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

parados wrote:
Why does something that exists in only 40% of homes kill more than twice as many people as something that exists in every home?

Bill, nor any gun holder wants to answer this question honestly...

I glossed over it because I've already addressed it in the past, and because the question was kind of silly.

Clearly if a killer can use a gun, they will choose to do so.

But that does not change the fact that if a killer cannot get a gun, they will just kill some other way.

There, now you've seen someone answer it honestly.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

No one is saying knife attacks won't go up but actual number of people killed will go down..

Not likely. The number of people killed will probably stay just about the same.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

And defend the right to bear one...no matter what...and not be willing to have stricter gun laws? That will limit these people...And save lives...

Your proposals to violate our rights would not save any lives. All you would achieve is the violation of our rights.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

If you made stricter laws...Who does it actually, physically, hurt?

Considering that by "stricter laws" you mean "violate our rights", you would hurt every citizen in America.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

And in those attacks in China where 20 died there were over 30 who survived their injuries.
In Japan 15 survived compared to the 8 that died.

So knives kill about 35% of their victims and guns kill well over 50%.

Knives are far from ideal spree weapons. But most killings are one-on-one affairs, and knives are very deadly in those circumstances.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The number of victims will go down simply because the tool will be less efficient. It's a simple case of math Bill.

No. The other tools may be less efficient. But they are still more than enough to result in a homicide. The end result is likely to be the number of victims staying about the same.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
The number of victims will go down simply because the tool will be less efficient. It's a simple case of math Bill.

No. The other tools may be less efficient. But they are still more than enough to result in a homicide.
The end result is likely to be the number of victims staying about the same.

It is faster n easier to make bombs than guns.
As kids in Arizona, we thawt bomb-making was fun.
(We never did anything unlawful.) We made guns too (tho we aalready had plenty).

Bombs have proven to have greater magnitudes of lethality.
Remember Tim McViegh (sp?) in Oklahoma
and innumerable I.E.D.s in Iraq ?

0 Replies

What are the economic advantages to the nation as a whole of the present gun laws?

Advantages to individuals or corporations are beside the point. The money spent on guns is to the disadvantage of corporations and individuals with other products or services to sell. Self-evidently.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Here's a stat for you. Guns make up only 5% of attempted suicides but guns make up 50% of completed suicides. Guns are deadlier than other ways.

Give me a break you are comparing mainly women who take pills and men who blow their brains out?

Who may or may not in fact be serous concerning suicide.

Jumping off a tall building will do it just as will as any gun or jumping in front of a subway train or a millions and one way of killing one self.

Hell a plastio bag over one head will do the deal as well as a gun.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Re: BillRM (Post 5234583)
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
p but actual number of people killed will go down..

Not likely and as the criminals will be armed and know that the civilians will not be the guns deaths is likely to go up not down as well as the gun crimes as a whole.

ROFLMAO.. right because before conceal carry, criminals always shot and killed their victims.

Bill, your arguments are making less sense these days.

Well I am not "laughing" about it.

How anyone can actually argue that "more guns" will result in "fewer shootings" is beyond comprehension.

But that does not stop the "gun advocates" from proposing it. Rolling Eyes

2 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know