Chinese teen kills 9 in knife attack. This is a Call to ban Knifes in America

nm

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Clearly the knife is to blame.

Hold up there a second.

I used my knife yesterday to cut some vegetables. Are you telling me, that if my Knife had ulterior motives to kill someone, it wouldn't be my fault the people were killed, but the knifes?

More likely, the teenager killed people using a knife BUT it may as well have been a baseball bat, a hammer or a crowbar because whatever the item was, HE killed the people. And what should be scrutinized is how he was able to get so far into the spree, how was he allowed to do these things without someone clocking onto his motives, and is there a way we could’ve stopped him now we have hindsight, so we can prevent such events in the future.

I mean, I doubt the knife would be held in court instead of the teenager.

reply to post by SpearMint


And you never answered my question.....


Case in point chuck, Alaska is 2nd in the nation for consumption of alcohol and 1st for suicide related deaths.

Guess what your stats are in fact per capita....and with only 600000 people in the whole state of Alaska...there's no way that's a fair shake on numbers. Most major cities in the US have way more people than that as well as alcohol related crimes. But because the state only has 600000 people in it they gauge it that way per state.

With less people they count a higher instance for individual stats not overall....now with those numbers you'd think we'd have the higher crime rate right? Overall crime rate for Alaska is absurdly low because the population is absurdly low.

With your stats it just represents the same thing only worse because it comes from the UN and not all countries run to them with their problems...so I guess that makes their stats incomplete.

Thats like getting an F in math class but you still pass the grade because you got higher marks in other classes....do you get it now? Not to mention that the UN is a biased entity anyway and needs to be obliterated. Its a monster that never should have been created and does way more harm than good.

I had thought of an idea that would make both sides happy... Though I know it would make none of them happy in the process.

Licensing similar to cars.

Class C: Handguns: Revolver/Semi automatic. ten shot magazine limit. Bolt action rifles. Semi-auto rifles with bullet-buttons.

Class B: Handguns: Semi automatic with normal magazines. Semi automatic rifles with no bullet button. All firearms as listed in previous classification. Additional training required qualifies users for CCW permit.

Class A: Fully automatic rifles and specialty guns (Like .50 BMG) As well as all licensing available with the previous licenses.

licensing could be done in a way that would be affordable per class. So a Class C: could be a $100 safety test/class/licensing for guns that avg cost about about $1,000. Class B: $500 since the avg gun costs $1300-$2500 (Avg... I know some get really pricey) Class A $1,000. (Avg .50 BMG is about $5k, and some fully auto's are more expensive still)

Felony convictions would immediately lead to de-certification of all classes and unable to own any licenses. Just like in real life today.

The pro's are it does keep a level of control for the people who do not have need for certain firearms and still allow those who are safe/sane/professional to get whatever they like for their collection. It also can be used to enforce proper gun control/safety among people and criminalizes the prospect of someone not having proper training for a weapon that is otherwise out of their control or skills. (Try to give a 16-year old an M-14 with full auto and see how well he can control that)

Qualifications for each license as yet in my mind has yet to be determined.

Just a heads up about me. I am a gun loving, sword collecting, knife using type of person. I have no qualms in any type of firearm. This is just one idea that I thought MIGHT help to get this to be a non-issue. Since it makes too much sense in my mind, I know it will never work in politics.

It also allows properly trained gun owners to own the collection that they would want.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Banning a weapon because a person who possessed one commited a crime with it is like....well....like this:

No, it's not at all. Guns don't make people kill, but them ALLOW them to. A gun is perhaps the most practical way to kill someone and grantee you succeed, you could choose another method, but it will be harder, more likely to fail and they will fight back. Fat people will find another way to shovel food in their mouth.

How can you be ignorant on this?
By your logic, we should outlaw pencils and pens and sharpened toothbrushes, even heavy ashtrays or coffee cups.
All of these things have been used to kill human beings, no inanimate object has EVER ALLOWED someone to do something.
Knives would actually be more efficient of a tool for mass murder, aim high in a crowd and not many would dare approach you.
By the time you are done several people could have deep throat gashes.
Don't be silly about this, inanimate objects do not kill people, politicians do, and sometimes, non elected/selected psychos too.

reply to post by conspiracyrus


"Not to mention i happen to believe the harder it is for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm the easier it is for a criminal to obtain one."
I don't see your logic here. Your Putting too much of a gap between the criminals and the "law abiding citizen" its simple if you cut off the supply then the goods begin to stop circulating. A criminal can easily be a "law abiding citizen" in the eyes of the law if he doesn't have a criminal record. Therefore he can buy guns.
What if where he was somewhere he couldn't buy guns legally? Then obviously he'd get one from somewhere (a different state/country) he can, or buy one off someone selling them illegally (who, somewhere along the line must have purchased it legally).

See what I mean? If they weren't legal in the first place and only the military or police could have them then it would be significantly harder to obtain them.

reply to post by Wongbeedman


A well regulated militia, being NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE......the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..
Take away our defense against a tyrannical government, and there will only be a tyrannical government .
Nuff Said

please demonstrate the "call to ban knives in america" part of the program

I missed that part

reply to post by SpearMint


I replied to the post just click your name at the top and you can see exactly what I am talking about.
Can't be much more specific it just helps if you know how to navigate the site.

Either way.. what you said made absolute zero sense.

Edit: Nevermind after reading your other posts I see that you have pretty much no idea what you are talking about at any given time.

Originally posted by SpearMint
I'm not wasting any more time here, no point get's across and no evidence or facts are being produced against my case. It's like arguing with a child; pointless and frustrating. You're not doing the American stereotype any good, I try to ignore that but it gets very hard.

I'll just be happy living in a country with a homicide rate 5.6 times lower than yours which is directly related to gun homicides, you can kill each other if you want.

Goodbye, need to sleep.

edit on 2-8-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

I don't need to prove any point regarding gun control. History is on my side and speaks for itself. What do tyrants always do before they take over a country? Disarm the population. Now if you want to sit there with your **** in your hand when your Government decides it wants to turn your country into Communist China, so be it. I could care less what Australians do. But just because you've been brainwashed since birth into believing guns are bad, doesn't mean you have a right to sit here and preach to those that choose not to be a victim.

reply to post by Wongbeedman


Do you have any conception of just how impossible such a policy would be to implement? Staggeringly is the first word that comes to mind. I own four. Multiply that by several million very uncooperative citizens, and you've got problems. Big ones.

Not to mention the unconstitutionality of it.

But hey, what's next to go? In the name of public safety, of course... Which freedoms shall we do away with next? Association? Speech? Religion? Go on, tell me. You who are so concerned for the commonweal.

it ain't the knife, and it ain't the gun that's the problem.....

from the following linky:

The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the
authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by
underlying cultural factors. "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not
murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial
aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership"
in their society.
Therefore, "banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic
factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates."
According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, "there is no reason for laws
prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults
because such people virtually never commit murder.

www.mcsm.org...

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

A knife serves more than 1 purpose. A gun does not. You don't cook with a gun, you kill things with a gun.

WRONG, a gun serves one purpose, to kill.
A knife serves one purpose as well, to cut.
I have done a lot of cooking but never has a knife cooked a meal for me.

gun grabbing isn't the answer, but a stricter vetting (omg big brother)system might help raise red flags before crazy mass shootings take place.

Do you suggest the thought police?
This is the only way I think one could see into the future.

I know i know, your right to bare arms is important, i get that. But should it trump my right to live?

How does my gun effect your right to live, chances are my gun is not even in the same state as you are.
And I promise on all that I hold dear to never use it on you as long as you do not oppress my rights.
I have a right to own them anyway, you have the right to move to where they are not.
Hint: the area where they are not is someplace other than the US, here they are guaranteed to be.

Crazy people will always find a way to harm others, we need to address the reasons they are crazy and help work towards fixing that, instead of trying to take away all the dangerous toys.

Agreed, but some things you just cannot do 100 percent.

I don't want to live in a nerf world.

Agreed! a little spice!

reply to post by SpearMint


"I'm not wasting any more time here, no point get's across and no evidence or facts are being produced against my case. It's like arguing with a child; pointless and frustrating. You're not doing the American stereotype any good, I try to ignore that but it gets very hard.

I'll just be happy living in a country with a homicide rate 5.6 times lower than yours which is directly related to gun homicides, you can kill each other if you want."

I'm with you 100% on this. Every time I come to a thread like this I end up wondering why I bothered.
Thinking of mentioning it to the moderators because these threads defending gun laws are a waste of space.
Fair enough people have the right to share their opinions but when they refuse proper debate by ignoring valid points then what's the point?
Its like the whole religious vs the non religious all over again....

Not what this sites for!!!

reply to post by Wongbeedman


Actually its a matter of experience really. NY has pretty strict handgun rules... Most guns used in crimes in my area are committed with handguns. Dont get me wrong im not quoting it as fact but i certainly believe it

Black markets thrive in prohibitions... That is a fact actually.


And didnt a member disprove you "5 to 6 times lower death rate" in another thread? Actually im certain of it

reply to post by Wongbeedman


A Criminal by their very nature deal in criminal activity. Illegally obtained firearms fits neatly into their profession. Law abiding citizens by their very nature abide by the law. If the Law said no personal firearms then in the end which side do you think will be outgunned?

reply to post by Lannister


You can't just say history is on your side and use that as an argument.Whats the one thing history teaches us? times change, we evolve, and we learn from our MISTAKES

reply to post by Wongbeedman


History is on our side and we are learning from our mistakes- By not allowing the government take away our only defense against them

reply to post by camaro68ss


I actually USE knives all day long without harming anything living.
I cannot think of a single USE for any of my guns that does not involve harming something living.

You people see the difference, right?

reply to post by seagull


That's what I mean tho, also why everyone's arguing and no ones come up with a good solution. Its too late now pretty much