School & Public Stabbings

[Blindgreed1]

You've presented no facts or statistics to disprove any statement I've made in this thread. You can't because everything I've said in here is fact. You on the other hand have only pointed out the fact that guns are used to murder people (who knew?). I challenge you to prove that the gun laws in your state have been proven effective. You can't. Because they aren't effective. California's gun laws are exactly what I said they are. Security Theater. People in Ca. "feel safer" because they have strict gun laws, but the laws haven't protected anybody. Californian's still murder each other with guns more often than in states where there are no such gun laws. I have proven with facts and statistics that knives are just as dangerous as guns in the hands of a maniacal killer. Your popular opinion doesn't equate to fact my dear. If it did you could prove it without hypothetical scenarios.

You entered a discussion about a school stabbing and jumped into an anti gun-control agenda, straight off. Here are some non-hypothetical examples of the bullshit you posted in the process.

1. MS made a statement about it being easier to escape someone who he sees coming at him with a knife than it would be someone coming at him with a 'GUN'. See post 35. You insisted his point was invalid. Not so.

MS's point was valid. A knifeman can not inflict damage with the weapon unless he gets near enough for the blade to penetrate or slash the victim (unless he throws it and loses his weapon). It's impossible. However, it is possible and extremely common for bullets fired from guns to hit, penetrate, and inflict damage when the gunman is more than gun length's away from the intended victim.

See training video

Then, you responded with several posts about how knives kill more people than "rifles". We all know that handguns are used more often than rifles. We all know that semi-automatics aren't limited to rifles, not by a long shot. MS, said "gun" and you -- either because you were attempting to mislead or because your mind was too narrowly-focused on an old statement referencing a rifle-type example -- kept posting about how knives kill more people than rifles, which was totally irrelevant to the argument.

MS and you have both made a statements against the evil assault rifle before, but it's a fact that knives are more lethal. totally relevant when it comes to picking a fight over gun control laws.

"Guns", which is what MS specifically posted, kill several times as many people as knives. That's a fact.

Restating the only fact I gave you credit for posting

3. You responded to sally (see post 58) that a person more than 21 feet away in a movie theater would have the same chance of avoiding injury/death at the hands of a gunman wanting to kill as many people as a knifeman with the same goal. Not so.

It is so. Statistically the odds of surviving are exactly the same.

A knifeman would have to make contact with every intended victim in order to injure or kill them, in an open or confined space. That's not true with a gunman. Bullets aimed at an intended victim can hit the victim from a distance. Stray bullets can injure and kill people. Ricochet bullets can injure and kill people. Bullets that exit one victim can enter and injure or kill another victim. All other factors equal, a gunman armed with a semi-automatic and sufficient ammo could do much more damage than a knifeman in the same movie theater.

James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 others in minutes in a crowded movie theater. His victim count included many people further away from him than 21 feet. If you really believe a man with a knife or two, even a skilled knifeman, would have had the opportunity/ability to run up and down the aisles of a filled movie theater and stab/slash 82 people in the same amount of time, you're in fantasy land with those fluffy and dramatic rainbows and unicorns of yours.

Was length of time to kill ever discussed? Didn't think so. Nice diversion though

4. I made a statement that one of your specific contentions defied common sense. Your response: What defies common sense is thinking that making a law will make everyone safe. The fact that I can purchase a semi-automatic weapon doesn't make me a killer. It doesn't even mean that I will purchase one. Making it illegal to purchase one will have the same affect on public safety. -- Purely deflective and, again, totally irrelevant to the argument. I never mentioned anything about laws banning semi-automatic weapons in relation to you or anyone else.

So you can do it, but nobody else can (see above where you discussed how long it would take someone to kill people with a knife). Gotcha!

5. After a wanna-be mass-murderer who couldn't get a hold of guns in California turned to a knife and failed to kill anyone with it, you're using that to challenge me to defend the effectiveness of California gun laws. That doesn't make sense, it's backwards logic. In any event, I never criticized, applauded or even mentioned California state gun laws in the School Stabbing thread.

Yes, one instance where someone couldn't get a gun and tried to kill people with a knife is an exception, especially in comparison to all of the murders in CA that occur using guns. CA and IL lead the nation.[/color]

Anyway, I like reading your posts. You argue and jump on a lot of posts by others, and some of us respond in kind (or do the same thing proactively ourselves, some more effectively than others.). It's not a big deal and nothing new. But, since you asked, I provided some examples of what I consider bullshit on your part in this thread.

Points addressed above. Good thing this isn't baseball, you'd have been out at your 3^rd strike.