Where is the cry for banning knifes now, 14 people seriously hurt in a Texas Community College by a delusional individual with a knife. Fact is more people are killed with a knife that with a rife… FACT

Knife don’t kill, guns don’t kill, ammo don’t kill and weapon magazines don’t kill … people kill people … crazy people, mentally ill people, delusional people and government people … are the killers


http://video.foxnews.com/v/2289599454001/horror-in-texas-as-knife-wielding-man-launches-campus-attack/?playlist_id=1621774019001

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/01/18/politifact-yes-more-people-murdered-with-knives-body-parts-and-blunt-objects-than-rifles-in-2011/

The thing that we should take away from this incident is that the adage "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." really is true. This week alone in my area, there was several fatal knifings and well as a brutal sledgehammer bludgeoning. Instead of wrong headed legislation to control guns, we should focus on the factors that cause violence and feed the culture of violence, and to increase the security of our vulnerable citizens.

http://www.19actionnews.com/story/21892447/boyfriend-charged-in-girlfriends-stabbing-death

http://twinsburg.patch.com/articles/twinsburg-man-charged-with-aggravated-murder-in-stabbing-death

http://www.nbc4i.com/story/21289935/2-injured-in-stabbing-on-northeast-side

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51470466/ns/local_news-columbus_oh/#.UWVd1rWG18E

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/04/cleveland_police_seek_man_in_s.html

http://fox8.com/2013/03/12/man-charged-in-womans-stabbing-death/

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/02/20/one-dead-in-stabbing

http://www.wkyc.com/news/specials/crime/article/293207/287/East-Cleveland-Arrest-made-in-Thursday-stabbing-death

Yeah, but guns protect The People from government tyranny ....... and we can't have any of that you know.

HitsRus;1422677 wrote:The thing that we should take away from this incident is that the adage "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." really is true. This week alone in my area, there was several fatal knifings and well as a brutal sledgehammer bludgeoning. Instead of wrong headed legislation to control guns, we should focus on the factors that cause violence and feed the culture of violence, and to increase the security of our vulnerable citizens.

I'm not surprised this would be the rhetoric coming out of this weekend on this website based upon the political leanings.

However, this isn't entirely accurate.

Slogans are always nice, and the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is one that is proclaimed to defend guns. The problem is not about that though. Yes, a person ultimately has to make the decision or pull the trigger (however you want to frame it). But guns certainly do make it easier to kill people... otherwise they wouldn't exist. Just because "_____ don't kill people, people kill people" can be applied to something doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated.

Hand grenades don't kill people, people kill people. So we should all have access to hand grenades?

"Bazooka's" don't kill people, people kill people. Do we really need RPG's or other form of "Bazooka's?"

As I pointed out in the thread over in serious business. Guns and knives really aren't all that comparable. Guns are generally much more efficient in inflicting more severe injuries and injuries to more people in a shorter time.

And THAT is the reason that there is regulation.

You can kill someone with a butter knife, does it need regulated? No, that'd be ridiculous.

But it's equally ridiculous to oppose gun regulation with the kind of arguments present in this thread.

It's not about whether something can kill someone, it's about the inherent dangers of the particular regulated object.

To put it simply (and in context with the "school" environment):

If you were in a classroom, and someone busted in with the intention to kill people in there, would you prefer them to be armed with knives or guns? I know I sure as hell would hope he only had a knife as opposed to a gun.

Fly4Fun;1422848 wrote:If you were in a classroom, and someone busted in with the intention to kill people in there, would you prefer them to be armed with knives or guns? I know I sure as hell would hope he only had a knife as opposed to a gun.

That is the whole point of "guns don't kill people". It frames the question in a way that makes the argument about should you keep something from everyone because someone with bad intentions is going to break the law? Or you should you go after people who break the law? If you ask "do you want bad people to do bad things to have more powerful weapons" then it leads people to a certain answer.

FatHobbit;1422871 wrote:That is the whole point of "guns don't kill people". It frames the question in a way that makes the argument about should you keep something from everyone because someone with bad intentions is going to break the law? Or you should you go after people who break the law? If you ask "do you want bad people to do bad things to have more powerful weapons" then it leads people to a certain answer.

I agree that how one frames the question can sometimes dictate the answer and agree that is the point of the "Guns don't kill people" slogan. I was just pointing out the other side, something there isn't much of on here.

Fly4Fun;1422893 wrote:I was just pointing out the other side, something there isn't much of on here.

Lol, this is the truth!

I'm not surprised this would be the rhetoric coming out of this weekend on this website based upon the political leanings.

However, this isn't entirely accurate.

Slogans are always nice, and the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is one that is proclaimed to defend guns. The problem is not about that though. Yes, a person ultimately has to make the decision or pull the trigger (however you want to frame it). But guns certainly do make it easier to kill people... otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Guns existence is not for the intention to kill people but to defend people from those who choose to do harm and for the survival of equality within a society. Societies where gun are taken from the people have only created anarchy.

Just because "_____ don't kill people, people kill people" can be applied to something doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated.

Hand grenades don't kill people, people kill people. So we should all have access to hand grenades?

"Bazooka's" don't kill people, people kill people. Do we really need RPG's or other form of "Bazooka's?"

The Constitution is the “right to bear arms” the term arms is that of the same as &#8220resent arms” which is a rife or a weapon to be carried. Hand grenades, M80 or RPG where not available at the time and even today the sale of those types of weapons are limited to only Class III individuals.

As I pointed out in the thread over in serious business. Guns and knives really aren't all that comparable. Guns are generally much more efficient in inflicting more severe injuries and injuries to more people in a shorter time.

And THAT is the reason that there is regulation.

Regulation are more dangerous that both a knife and guns because it taking away the law biding citizen the freedom to choose, defend and protect against corrupted government.

You can kill someone with a butter knife, does it need regulated? No, that'd be ridiculous.

But it's equally ridiculous to oppose anti-gun regulation with the kind of arguments present in this thread.

It's not about whether something can kill someone, it's about the inherent dangers of the particular regulated object.

Democrat, Liberals and Socialist mentality take the easy road of failure agenda driven and the limitation of others rights. Not one of those suggested gun restriction/bill would have or will prevent Sandy Hook from not happening again. How about doing want is right and more difficult. Better Mentality Health data base, better information between teacher, social work, school psychologist, mental health professional and the law enforcement, security at the schools, weapon training and education, profiling and responsible parents with options to seek help. I don’t see this in any bill presented… Why it not the agenda and it’s difficult.

To put it simply (and in context with the "school" environment):

If you were in a classroom, and someone busted in with the intention to kill people in there, would you prefer them to be armed with knives or guns? I know I sure as hell would hope he only had a knife as opposed to a gun.

If what you want “regulation” this situtation should not happen .. or is you idea to limit my rights flawed.

To answer your question I carry, trained and prepared to protect and if that means killing someone with my gun that is why guns exist to protect

Belly35;1422898 wrote:Not one of those suggested gun restriction/bill would have or will prevent Sandy Hook from not happening again.

Here's my biggest complaint with anyonr pushing for more gun control. None of the suggested "fixes" would have stopped the tragedy.

FatHobbit;1422899 wrote:Here's my biggest complaint with anyonr pushing for more gun control. None of the suggested "fixes" would have stopped the tragedy.

Nothing they ever do will ever stop a psychopath from committing mass murder. The next one will happen and we'll go through all this bullshit again. For the children! Common sense! Blah blah blah! Then the next one will happen. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Belly35;1422898 wrote: Guns existence is not for the intention to kill people but to defend people from those who choose to do harm and for the survival of equality within a society. Societies where gun are taken from the people have only created anarchy.

Guns aren't to kill people but to only defend? I'd say that is inherently false. That's part of the reasoning behind the constitutional amendment providing for guns. But I don't think that is why they were created. Generally "weapons" are created as they are more powerful in inflicting injury and/or more efficient. But to break down your statement let's examine WHY guns can even be considered "protection." A gun is not really good for purely defending such as blocking say another bullet with it, or blocking someone's strike with it, whether it be a punch, knife jab or swing with a bat. A gun is only a defense because of it's ability to severely injure (possibly kill) other people. So yes, a gun's main reason for existing is to severely injure or kill (besides leisure activities such as target shooting).

Belly35;1422898 wrote:The Constitution is the “right to bear arms” the term arms is that of the same as &#8220resent arms” which is a rife or a weapon to be carried. Hand grenades, M80 or RPG where not available at the time and even today the sale of those types of weapons are limited to only Class III individuals.

And yes, you're right that the Constitution in the Second Amendment provides for the right to bear arms. But I always find this provision interesting when conservatives interpret this. Usually they like to call for a strict interpretation, which is sticking to the text and the historical context, but not so much when it comes to Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment was written in the same sentence and thus context of being associated with a well regulated militia as a necessity for the security of the state.

Now historically this is in the context of the different states want to remain more powerful than the Federal Government besides a few areas. Now over time, this has changed as the Federal government has taken more power and has more centralized the government through subsequent amendments and some "creative" interpretation of already existing text in the Constitution, including the previous amendments. With this in mind, this Amendment was to allow States to maintain militia (with arms) as necessary to protect themselves. However, it would be hard to argue that in the current form of our government and society that is how this Amendment is now used. It's now used as an Amendment to provide for the personal protection of individuals.

So how guns rights are currently being defined is way off the mark from the original text and historical context of the times when the Amendment was written.

Belly35;1422898 wrote:Regulation are more dangerous that both a knife and guns because it taking away the law biding citizen the freedom to choose, defend and protect against corrupted government.

Refer to my previous response.

Belly35;1422898 wrote:Democrat, Liberals and Socialist mentality take the easy road of failure agenda driven and the limitation of others rights. Not one of those suggested gun restriction/bill would have or will prevent Sandy Hook from not happening again. How about doing want is right and more difficult. Better Mentality Health data base, better information between teacher, social work, school psychologist, mental health professional and the law enforcement, security at the schools, weapon training and education, profiling and responsible parents with options to seek help. I don’t see this in any bill presented… Why it not the agenda and it’s difficult.

From a person that regularly complaints about bloated government, taxes, and people generally leeching off society, I'm surprised that this kind of "solution" would come from you. Yes, will stuff like that would be ideal, it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem of gun violence. And not only that, but it would cost a ton. The people who need mental health access are generally those who can't afford it. But yes, our Government is actually trying to take steps in that direction for providing for medical care for those who can't afford it.

Belly35;1422898 wrote:If what you want “regulation” this situtation should not happen .. or is you idea to limit my rights flawed.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Belly35;1422898 wrote:To answer your question I carry, trained and prepared to protect and if that means killing someone with my gun that is why guns exist to protect

That's wasn't responsive to the question at all.

In a classroom, you shouldn't and legally aren't allowed to be carrying a gun. So once again, if you were in the classroom, and someone busted in with the intent to kill, would you prefer they be carrying a knife or a gun?

Every mass shooter in recent memory broke one or more gun laws prior to pulling the trigger the first time. Doesn't bode well for more legislation being the solution.

FatHobbit;1422899 wrote:Here's my biggest complaint with anyonr pushing for more gun control. None of the suggested "fixes" would have stopped the tragedy.

Just because they would not prevent the traggedy in one instance doesn't mean they would help prevent violence in another. And I agree that there will always be free will and people being violent. It's part of the human condition. But we do have an obligation as a society to try to find the best way to limit that. And the gun control debates are about that issue. I don't think either side is going into the debate with bad intentions, but both are advocating what they believe to be the better path to preventing violent situations.

Generally there are two basic fundamental assumptions that either side takes up.

Anti-gun Regulation: Best way to prevent violence is with self-protection in the form of violence (carrying a gun).

Pro-gun Regulation: Best way to prevent violence is to limit access to instruments that can inflict more severe injuries in a more efficient manner.

Fly4Fun;1422916 wrote: Pro-gun Regulation: Best way to prevent violence is to limit access to instruments that can inflict more severe injuries in a more efficient manner.

Regardless of the laws, criminals will always be able to get their hands on a gun if they want one. Always. You can not limit their access to guns because guns exist and criminals DGAF about laws. They can't buy a gun at a gun shop or a gun show? No problem, just buy one from another criminal. Or steal one.

justincredible;1422922 wrote:Regardless of the laws, criminals will always be able to get their hands on a gun if they want one. Always. You can not limit their access to guns because guns exist and criminals DGAF about laws. They can't buy a gun at a gun shop or a gun show? No problem, just buy one from another criminal. Or steal one.

I think this kind of reasoning is generally circular in nature.

We as a country allow for guns to be around with little regulation. There are numerous guns all over the country as a result of this mentality. There are a few people who either can't legally own guns (convicted felons) or who do not have the proper license, that want to have guns regardless. They are easily able to obtain guns because of the mass availability of guns in the first place (since we allow for guns to be around with little regulation). Then people proclaim that clearly gun control laws don't work since the little regulation present is ineffective because of the mass availability of guns.

When guns are widely available because of our societal perception towards them, should we really be surprised when it's easy to get guns outside of the legal methods?

Alcohol is widely available and acceptable in our society. Underage kids can easily get access to alcohol. Should we just not try? (I am in favor of an legal age of 18 by the way).

Fly4Fun;1422936 wrote:I think this kind of reasoning is generally circular in nature.

We as a country allow for guns to be around with little regulation. There are numerous guns all over the country as a result of this mentality. There are a few people who either can't legally own guns (convicted felons) or who do not have the proper license, that want to have guns regardless. They are easily able to obtain guns because of the mass availability of guns in the first place (since we allow for guns to be around with little regulation). Then people proclaim that clearly gun control laws don't work since the little regulation present is ineffective because of the mass availability of guns.

When guns are widely available because of our societal perception towards them, should we really be surprised when it's easy to get guns outside of the legal methods?

Alcohol is widely available and acceptable in our society. Underage kids can easily get access to alcohol. Should we just not try? (I am in favor of an legal age of 18 by the way).

There are more than 50k gun laws already on the books. How about we start enforcing them before we add more ineffective legislation?

justincredible;1422939 wrote:There are more than 50k gun laws already on the books. How about we start enforcing them before we add more ineffective legislation?

So you say that the current gun laws are ineffective, which is suggested by the qualifying word "more." But you want to try again to enforce those instead of trying to make new legislation that would hopefully be effective?

Seems counter-intuitive to me.

Fly4Fun;1422941 wrote:So you say that the current gun laws are ineffective, which is suggested by the qualifying word "more." But you want to try again to enforce those instead of trying to make new legislation that would hopefully be effective?

Seems counter-intuitive to me.

Seems to suggest gun laws don't really work.

WebFire;1422947 wrote:Seems to suggest gun laws don't really work.

Or it seems to suggest that relatively loose gun laws don't work when guns are available to the population at large.

Fly4Fun;1422916 wrote:Just because they would not prevent the traggedy in one instance doesn't mean they would help prevent violence in another. And I agree that there will always be free will and people being violent. It's part of the human condition. But we do have an obligation as a society to try to find the best way to limit that. And the gun control debates are about that issue. I don't think either side is going into the debate with bad intentions, but both are advocating what they believe to be the better path to preventing violent situations.

Generally there are two basic fundamental assumptions that either side takes up.

Anti-gun Regulation: Best way to prevent violence is with self-protection in the form of violence (carrying a gun).

Pro-gun Regulation: Best way to prevent violence is to limit access to instruments that can inflict more severe injuries in a more efficient manner.

I don't think more people should be carrying guns. (although I admit that idea has been put forth.) The pyscho in the newtown ct tragedy killed his mother and stole her licensed guns before he attacked the school. They are not proposing getting rid of all licensed guns. Just not selling more. So the next psycho who wants to do mass murder only needs to find someone with licensed guns, kill them and then the new laws have prevented nothing.

I'm not proposing that we ban anything. I just think it's funny that the anti-gun side wants to do SOMETHING for the children. Even is their something doesn't do anything and THEY KNOW IT. They are using people's emotion to try to further erode our gun rights. And they even admit they have to act quickly before people's emotions settle down.

Fly4Fun;1422948 wrote:Or it seems to suggest that relatively loose gun laws don't work when guns are available to the population at large.

You assume they are "lose", or loose, because they don't work?

FatHobbit;1422949 wrote:I don't think more people should be carrying guns. (although I admit that idea has been put forth.) The pyscho in the newtown ct tragedy killed his mother and stole her licensed guns before he attacked the school. They are not proposing getting rid of all licensed guns. Just not selling more. So the next psycho who wants to do mass murder only needs to find someone with licensed guns, kill them and then the new laws have prevented nothing.

I'm not proposing that we ban anything. I just think it's funny that the anti-gun side wants to do SOMETHING for the children. Even is their something doesn't do anything and THEY KNOW IT. They are using people's emotion to try to further erode our gun rights. And they even admit they have to act quickly before people's emotions settle down.

With regards to making changes to laws after an event, that's typically when laws are changed. Laws generally aren't changed absent some event that brings a certain problem to the forefront of the public debate.

But as far as whether the proposed law would have prevented the situation it is in response to is and isn't relevant. Yes, it would make more sense if the change would directly have an impact on the event that brought the discussion the the public discourse. But, do you really want to oppose a law because it wouldn't help in one situation, but it could be helpful in another? That's what legislation is about.

Your argument would have merit if you were discussing a Supreme Court Judicial ruling that "created" a law that was inapplicable to a case before it. As decisions are supposed to be fact specific and remedies tied to the fact.

However, legislation doesn't have that same requirement as to specificity.

WebFire;1422950 wrote:You assume they are "lose", or loose, because they don't work?

No, they are loose because the laws we have provide for the wide availability of guns in our country. Loose as in not strict.

Fly4Fun;1422957 wrote:No, they are loose because the laws we have provide for the wide availability of guns in our country. Loose as in not strict.

What makes them so loose in your opinion?