Topic: 22 Kids Stabbed At School In China - page 2. (Read 15564 times)

My argument is to not add new laws. There are safety regulations when it comes to guns. Every gun has some sort of safety feature on it (at least one). Every gun is shipped with a lock to keep it out of the reach of unauthorized people. You can't be drunk and discharge a firearm in most (if not all) states. Concealed carry licenses in Florida don't allow the carrier to go into a restaurant that serves alcohol, a sporting event, or a government building. Not to mention it's very illegal to use a gun in a crime, especially to murder (at least in Florida).

You've said that guns serve no other purpose than to kill (which isn't true, but we'll go with it). My analogies show that there are things out there which have no purpose other than to put people in danger, such as the ability for cars to far exceed the traffic laws. Even little 4 cylinder cars have the ability to go 100 mph, which is illegal on public roads and can be extremely deadly, moreso than a car restricted to 70 mph.

My point is that just because somebody could do something bad, or has done something bad, with an object we shouldn't necessarily be focusing our attention on the object rather than the person behind it. We don't say "If only cars were restricted in speed, we wouldn't have these thousands of speed related accidents." Nor do we say, "If only alcohol didn't exist, we wouldn't have parents beating their children, people destroying their livers, and kids getting run over by drunk drivers." We say that drivers should slow down and that drinkers should be responsible in their drinking.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that while we have things that are completely unnecessary and are responsible for more deaths in this country, we tell people to use them responsibly and blame the operator for it's use. With guns, especially "assault weapons" we tend to blame their existence for the damage they cause. 

Well, dead is dead.

Guns are also useful on daily basis you never know when you face a situation such as this one, where obeying the law will mean death:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE#!


Most people are lemmings hence so few of them lead meaningful lives or achieve anything.

It's a lot easier to hide a gun than a car. And cars are useful on a daily basis. Sorry, but the car/gun analogy is so tenuously weak, that it isn't worth discussing.

Regarding my views: outside of this forum, they're pretty mainstream. Hang out with some different people for a change and you might discover this yourself.

You're right. With a knife, they can do more.

I'm just curious as to where and how you acquired your view on life.

But anyway:


You're in luck, those laws already exist with respect to guns... Same as cars.  In fact, it's a lot harder to get a hold of a gun than it is to get a hold of a car, typically speaking.  You can kill just as many if not more people faster with a car, too.

And you're curious because you suddenly want to go on a photography adventure with me? I sincerely doubt it. What's your motivation for this information?

Distribution,

Your analogies don't really hold up. Consider:

Cars do require certain attributes to be legal, such as meeting safety regulations. Also, traffic laws, including speed limits are indeed laws which put limits on behavior regarding the use of cars. How about behavior laws for guns, such as when and where you may use one, have one on your person, how many bullets you can shoot, etc. Remember, not only is your behavior with cars limited on the roadways, but it is also restricted to roadways. Last time I checked, nobody is going to approve of you driving your car through a playground, a park, a department store, or a movie theater.

You're having trouble finding something that isn't there. It's not about speed limits. It's about about having "unnecessary" attributes to an item (in this case, a car that goes faster than what is safe) which someone could point to and say, "What do you need that for? Fast cars kill people. Ban fast cars."

But this point doesn't sink in with a lot of people because of their familiarity with cars and their ability to handle a car safely without killing others despite having attributes which are sometimes involved in peoples deaths yet serve no practical purpose.

With guns, proponents of gun control want to get rid of certain contours in a barrel or certain ergonomic features, because they make the gun look more menacing. On TV, we see people getting killed in foreign countries by people with guns that have pistol grips and adjustable stocks, so these features (seen as unnecessary because guns haven't had them for hundreds of years) are associated with death on a tool that many have little to no familiarity with.

For example, under the assault weapons ban in the United States, this barrel was legal:
 
while this one was illegal:
 
 Simply because of that contour in the middle of the barrel.

EDIT: Actually, I have to correct that, I believe neither barrel was legal because it has threads at the end for a flash guard. But my point still stands that the contour in the middle was an illegal feature.

California. Probably LA area. He's a big fan of In-N-Out.

FirstAscent, can I ask what state or country you live in?  I'm curious as to if it's the US or not... I thought you mentioned you lived in the US or at least by inference did, but I'm curious where you live in the US or what country you are in.

If you are referring to the knife trend in the UK, it is ILLEGAL, kids in gangs on bad estates have them anyway. Obviously they'd love to have guns like in the USA, but fortunately it's simply not available to them. Thank goodness for that I say.  The police confiscate these knives at every opportunity and regular kids certainly don't have them. It's illegal to buy dangerous knives, so such knives are home made. 

Still, the average person cannot do anywhere near as much damage with a knife as they can with a gun.

I suspect that somewhere in here is an attempted point about speed limits, but I'm having trouble finding it. Try again with different words, so those of us who actually understand the value of speed limits can understand what the heck you're trying to say.

Looking at China's situation and the epidemic of school stabbings they've been having, they reflected on the state of mental health in their country. When stabbings happen in western countries, we get people who tell governments to ban knives and hyped up propaganda about the dangers that being free presents.

I often hear the argument, "What do you need it for?" as if practicality is ultimate decider in what is legal and illegal. In Florida, the highest speed limit is 70mph. Why would one need a car that goes faster? The numbers imply that the faster one is traveling, the more deadly accidents are. When I bring this up, people disregard it as a stupid argument. The government tells them that the most dangerous speed for them to drive is 70, but they think, "I know how to handle a car going 75, I know how to be safe. I drive over the speed limit everyday and don't hurt anyone." So they feel they shouldn't be punished because others don't know how to operate their vehicles responsibly and end up killing innocent people.

That point about the cars usually brings out the fact that they're scared of what they don't know. The overwhelming majority of people I talk to who want to ban any kind of gun have no idea exactly what it is they're banning. They've never handled a gun and have certainly never been shooting, or have shot very little. One kind of gun looks scarier, they see it used in wars. Then when it's brought up that people can use these guns to hunt (even though that's not the point), they start to go off on how an AR-15 would blow a deer up, and that there would be nothing left, because it's such a big gun. Little do people know that the cartridge shot by an AR15 is banned for hunting in some states because it's too small. Most hunting rifles use significantly larger rounds.

Gun control proponents also say that the second amendment was written when people had muskets, that there was no way the writers could envision "assault rifles," high capacity magazines, and barrel shrouds (the shoulder thing that goes up). They neglect to mention that people also had bayonets (which are still only made for one purpose) and cannons. One of those the central planners want to restrict the use of and the other they already have. So they want us to be less armed than when the second amendment was written.

It's not very often that I feel compelled to put my two cents in on a political argument, but there are my points.

Oh, is that what he wrote? Yeah. He doesn't know me, he didn't know me in High school, he doesn't know shit, in fact.

I remember, in middle school, using my Christmas gift jigsaw kit to cut out mini darts with acid-soaked swab tips, which I carried with me "for protection," and in high school, drawing up detailed plans to fire a high-explosive tipped, string-guided rocket into my school's classroom window completely discreetly from a few blocks away. I would have been out that day, and likely never been caught. Yeah, glad I got help  

To paraphrase Penn Jillette from one of the early episodes of Penn's Sunday School, I believe:
There isn't "evil", there is WRONG. Do so-called "evil" people think to themselves, "oh, I'm going to do some evil shit today!". No. Everybody does what they believe to be correct in their own minds, even if it is anywhere from self-harm to tyranny/terrorism to genocide. Their beliefs are WRONG. Calling people "evil" ascribes a mystical explanation to why they do the WRONG things, and lessens their responsibility. Aggression upon others is WRONG. The aggressor's actions are not out of their control, they are not puppets of some almighty being called "Satan" or "God/Allah/whatever", they are 100% responsible. If someone is aggressing, that is WRONG, and you stop them.

No you do not, but its really cute you think you do.
Stick to correcting spelling mistakes ok

You actually could use a gun foe some those things. Not very efficient, but usable.