5 ms·

There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well I don't want to be the "citation needed" guy, but this is an outrageous claim.

clarky07 14y ago
read your sibling comment, but here are a few to get you started: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E... from [1] - Related or similar events Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who visited the site a week after the massacre to offer prayer to the victims,[70] said that he "is worried that similar cases occur about 10 times a year in Japan."[32][71] According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar random attacks have taken place between 1998 and 2007. People will undoubtably say that, well, this time 26 people died, but in this examples only 8 died. To that I'd say a few things: 1. Is that somehow acceptable? Most of our school shootings have had far less people die than the 26, closer to the 8 of these stabbings. It's still an outrage and a horrible tragedy, and I'd like to try to find a solution to the problem (though I suspect it's nearly impossible to prevent entirely). 2. Killing 26 5 year olds with a knife would not be that hard. It's likely that most of these others have been overpowered sooner by more able opponents, though I'll concede it's easier to overpower someone with a knife than a gun. On the other hand, it's also easier to overpower someone with a gun, if you have one as well...
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Thanks for the reasonable response. I took exception to the word "plenty" for knife massacres, as they are exceedingly rare. The truth is, gun massacres are also exceedingly rare, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that parallel, other than the obvious: 1. It's logistically easier to kill more people with a tool that's better at killing a lot of people. and the less obvious: 2. It may be psychologically easier to commit mass murder with a somewhat detached and abstracted weapon like a gun than something more primal and physical. The same way that many people would become vegetarians if they had to slaughter their own meat. Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    Thanks, I try to be as reasonable as possible, though I have to admit when I came across this thread I had an "Oh noes, somebody is wrong on the internet I can't go to bed" moment. Back on topic. I'll give you both points, but I'm not sure how they relate to my comment or the parent. I don't believe guns are inherently evil. The are just things. Clearly my parent believes that they are evil and nothing I say will change his mind but that's neither here nor there. >Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction. I don't think it is. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the cat is out of the bag. There are far too many readily available firearms for there to be any meaningful gun control in this country short of completely outlawing them AND confiscating them with a search. There are already lots of firearms safeguards, including background checks, waiting periods, etc. Most people who post on boards like these and say we should have tighter gun control have no idea what that means, or what kind of gun control we in place now. Most of it is fine (in places like TN where I live) some of it is absurd and IMO unconstitutional (in places like DC and NYC). DC has some of the toughest gun control in the country and yet also has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from lawful citizens just means the criminals don't have anything to be afraid of. To get my handgun carry permit I had to go to a class, pass a written test, pass a shooting test, pass a background check, get approval from my local sheriff, and all of this came with a waiting period. (Now, simply buying a gun is easier, but it still requires a background check unless you are purchasing from a private individual). What is it that you (or anyone else) would propose we add to this? You already can't legally buy or own a gun if you are a felon or have any history of mental illness. There are however plenty of guns available for them to buy from private individuals who don't know you are a felon, or alternately they could just steal them.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      What I would add. Not perfect, but not terrible either. Require education/tests/checks/mental health screens for all purchases, not just concealed carry. Close gun show loophole. Regulate private sales. Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons.

clarky07 14y ago

read your sibling comment, but here are a few to get you started: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E... from [1] - Related or similar events Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who visited the site a week after the massacre to offer prayer to the victims,[70] said that he "is worried that similar cases occur about 10 times a year in Japan."[32][71] According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar random attacks have taken place between 1998 and 2007. People will undoubtably say that, well, this time 26 people died, but in this examples only 8 died. To that I'd say a few things: 1. Is that somehow acceptable? Most of our school shootings have had far less people die than the 26, closer to the 8 of these stabbings. It's still an outrage and a horrible tragedy, and I'd like to try to find a solution to the problem (though I suspect it's nearly impossible to prevent entirely). 2. Killing 26 5 year olds with a knife would not be that hard. It's likely that most of these others have been overpowered sooner by more able opponents, though I'll concede it's easier to overpower someone with a knife than a gun. On the other hand, it's also easier to overpower someone with a gun, if you have one as well...

MartinCron 14y ago
Thanks for the reasonable response. I took exception to the word "plenty" for knife massacres, as they are exceedingly rare. The truth is, gun massacres are also exceedingly rare, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that parallel, other than the obvious: 1. It's logistically easier to kill more people with a tool that's better at killing a lot of people. and the less obvious: 2. It may be psychologically easier to commit mass murder with a somewhat detached and abstracted weapon like a gun than something more primal and physical. The same way that many people would become vegetarians if they had to slaughter their own meat. Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.
- clarky07 14y ago
  Thanks, I try to be as reasonable as possible, though I have to admit when I came across this thread I had an "Oh noes, somebody is wrong on the internet I can't go to bed" moment. Back on topic. I'll give you both points, but I'm not sure how they relate to my comment or the parent. I don't believe guns are inherently evil. The are just things. Clearly my parent believes that they are evil and nothing I say will change his mind but that's neither here nor there. >Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction. I don't think it is. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the cat is out of the bag. There are far too many readily available firearms for there to be any meaningful gun control in this country short of completely outlawing them AND confiscating them with a search. There are already lots of firearms safeguards, including background checks, waiting periods, etc. Most people who post on boards like these and say we should have tighter gun control have no idea what that means, or what kind of gun control we in place now. Most of it is fine (in places like TN where I live) some of it is absurd and IMO unconstitutional (in places like DC and NYC). DC has some of the toughest gun control in the country and yet also has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from lawful citizens just means the criminals don't have anything to be afraid of. To get my handgun carry permit I had to go to a class, pass a written test, pass a shooting test, pass a background check, get approval from my local sheriff, and all of this came with a waiting period. (Now, simply buying a gun is easier, but it still requires a background check unless you are purchasing from a private individual). What is it that you (or anyone else) would propose we add to this? You already can't legally buy or own a gun if you are a felon or have any history of mental illness. There are however plenty of guns available for them to buy from private individuals who don't know you are a felon, or alternately they could just steal them.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    What I would add. Not perfect, but not terrible either. Require education/tests/checks/mental health screens for all purchases, not just concealed carry. Close gun show loophole. Regulate private sales. Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons.