4 ms·

ban also knifes then. Today in China someone killed 22 children with a knife.

harichinnan 14y ago
A man stabbed 22 children. Nobody died. They are in hospital. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/man-stabs-22-children-in-china/article6353552/?cmpid=rss1 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/man-stabs-22-child... I wish the man in Connecticut stabbed the kids instead of using an assault weapon to blast them away.
- nhangen 14y ago
  A pistol is no more an assault weapon than a knife. There are far more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol. I'm a gun owner, former Army, and gun rights advocate, but I'm not crazy, and I do recognize the need for change. I just want to discuss it with level head, outside of the gun/anti-gun lobby confines.
  - powatom 14y ago
    > A pistol is no more an assault weapon than a knife. You're just arguing semantics here - if you assault somebody with a pistol, then it's an assault weapon. Saying that there are more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol is like saying that getting hit by a lorry is worse than getting hit by a car: it doesn't fucking matter, it's still going to kill you.
    - nhangen 14y ago
      My point is that if a pistol is an assault weapon, then so is a knife.
      - powatom 14y ago
        Well, yes - but you don't use a pistol to cut your steak.
        propercoil 14y ago
        How is it that you can't see that banning weapons will quickly escalate to other things even in the tech world? "Let's ban X because someone met a group using service Y and killed them", "Let's regulate X because Y happened, hey we did that with guns".
        powatom 14y ago
        Show me why you believe that this is what will happen: don't just tell me that this is what will happen. This is precisely why we do everything in our power to stop countries like Iran getting nukes. It's only a matter of time before some nutjob actually goes and uses one - so the sensible thing to do is make it really, really difficult to get one in the first place.
        propercoil 14y ago
        Well Hitler was pro banning guns for a reason and so does any other tyrannical regime. Here is what happens shortly after: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KLhgZaRvc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KLhgZaRvc
        powatom 14y ago
        Well sure, if I only ever listened to views that echoed my own, I'm pretty sure I'd feel like that too. A few points from this video: 1: Horrible presentation: this is fear-mongering at its finest. 2: Not a single argument presented from the anti-gun perspective. 3: Admissions that length of sentences are not high enough (nothing to do with guns at all). 4: Admissions that police are hilariously under-equipped to respond and deal with crime (nothing to do with guns). If your police force cannot do its job, and your justice system is a joke, then surely you can see how that would reduce the risks for would-be criminals and make it more likely for them to commit a crime? Why is 'no guns' the only explanation for an increased crime rate (if indeed those figures are valid)? You can't just say that gun control = tyrannical regime (note: I have never once actually advocated an outright gun ban). Stop being ridiculous. What level of weaponry do you believe individuals should be allowed to own? Would you be happy for Joe Schmoe to own that same level of weaponry? Gun advocates are fond of saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Yes, people kill people. Using guns. A gun is such a devastating weapon to the human body - the only reason to point it at somebody is if you want them to die. If it's trivially easy to get hold of a gun, then more people are likely to use them against other humans. This isn't complicated. The pro-gun lobby seems to think that anybody who advocates gun-control is some kind of idiot: that we don't understand how not owning a deadly weapon reduces the ability to defend myself. Of course we understand that - but we believe that the risks of easy access to guns far outweigh the benefits. I am fully aware that criminals will still get hold of guns - but they have access to them anyway if guns are legal. I'd rather have the odd armed criminal than all of them armed.

A man stabbed 22 children. Nobody died. They are in hospital. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/man-stabs-22-children-in-china/article6353552/?cmpid=rss1 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/man-stabs-22-child... I wish the man in Connecticut stabbed the kids instead of using an assault weapon to blast them away.

nhangen 14y ago
A pistol is no more an assault weapon than a knife. There are far more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol. I'm a gun owner, former Army, and gun rights advocate, but I'm not crazy, and I do recognize the need for change. I just want to discuss it with level head, outside of the gun/anti-gun lobby confines.
- powatom 14y ago
  > A pistol is no more an assault weapon than a knife. You're just arguing semantics here - if you assault somebody with a pistol, then it's an assault weapon. Saying that there are more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol is like saying that getting hit by a lorry is worse than getting hit by a car: it doesn't fucking matter, it's still going to kill you.
  - nhangen 14y ago
    My point is that if a pistol is an assault weapon, then so is a knife.
    - powatom 14y ago
      Well, yes - but you don't use a pistol to cut your steak.
      - propercoil 14y ago
        How is it that you can't see that banning weapons will quickly escalate to other things even in the tech world? "Let's ban X because someone met a group using service Y and killed them", "Let's regulate X because Y happened, hey we did that with guns".
        powatom 14y ago
        Show me why you believe that this is what will happen: don't just tell me that this is what will happen. This is precisely why we do everything in our power to stop countries like Iran getting nukes. It's only a matter of time before some nutjob actually goes and uses one - so the sensible thing to do is make it really, really difficult to get one in the first place.
        propercoil 14y ago
        Well Hitler was pro banning guns for a reason and so does any other tyrannical regime. Here is what happens shortly after: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KLhgZaRvc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KLhgZaRvc
        powatom 14y ago
        Well sure, if I only ever listened to views that echoed my own, I'm pretty sure I'd feel like that too. A few points from this video: 1: Horrible presentation: this is fear-mongering at its finest. 2: Not a single argument presented from the anti-gun perspective. 3: Admissions that length of sentences are not high enough (nothing to do with guns at all). 4: Admissions that police are hilariously under-equipped to respond and deal with crime (nothing to do with guns). If your police force cannot do its job, and your justice system is a joke, then surely you can see how that would reduce the risks for would-be criminals and make it more likely for them to commit a crime? Why is 'no guns' the only explanation for an increased crime rate (if indeed those figures are valid)? You can't just say that gun control = tyrannical regime (note: I have never once actually advocated an outright gun ban). Stop being ridiculous. What level of weaponry do you believe individuals should be allowed to own? Would you be happy for Joe Schmoe to own that same level of weaponry? Gun advocates are fond of saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Yes, people kill people. Using guns. A gun is such a devastating weapon to the human body - the only reason to point it at somebody is if you want them to die. If it's trivially easy to get hold of a gun, then more people are likely to use them against other humans. This isn't complicated. The pro-gun lobby seems to think that anybody who advocates gun-control is some kind of idiot: that we don't understand how not owning a deadly weapon reduces the ability to defend myself. Of course we understand that - but we believe that the risks of easy access to guns far outweigh the benefits. I am fully aware that criminals will still get hold of guns - but they have access to them anyway if guns are legal. I'd rather have the odd armed criminal than all of them armed.