Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Something I learned today: the knife I use to spread butter on my bagel is actually designed to be a killing machine. I've been using it all wrong.

Let me know when somebody massacres a group of school children with a butter knife.

Better ban pencils and pens too, they're essentially spears, spears were designed to kill people.

I'm not even anti-gun, but that's just stupid.

Sadly there have been some pretty nasty knife attacks in schools in Asia, Japan and China in particular. But yeah. Over all it's a moronic argument. Makes me want to stab my head off. Or bring a knife to a gun fight. Or be the good guy with a knife. Out of my cold, dead, kitchen drawer!

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Something I learned today: the knife I use to spread butter on my bagel is actually designed to be a killing machine. I've been using it all wrong.

Let me know when somebody massacres a group of school children with a butter knife.

Better ban pencils and pens too, they're essentially spears, spears were designed to kill people.

I'm not even anti-gun, but that's just stupid.

Yeah, I believe the original quote went something like, "The pencil is mightier than the butter knife."

But that just didn't have the same oomph.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

The anti-gun freaks make me sick.

Who is anti gun?

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Who is anti gun?

People who express approval of Canadian gun laws in a thread devoted to mass shootings in the USA. Do mass shootings make you sick Taco?

[RougeUnderoos]

Knives and guns are designed to kill. Duh.

If I'm sitting in a movie theatre and a guy strolls in with an AR-15 and starts firing, it is no different than if he came in with a paring knife and started stabbing. People are going to get hurt.

Granted, the knife can't hurt me if it doesn't touch me, and a gun can kill a whole bunch of people in a few seconds, but the principle stands: THEY BOTH KILL.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Knives and guns are designed to kill. Duh.

If I'm sitting in a movie theatre and a guy strolls in with an AR-15 and starts firing, it is no different than if he came in with a paring knife and started stabbing. People are going to get hurt.

Granted, the knife can't hurt me if it doesn't touch me, and a gun can kill a whole bunch of people in a few seconds, but the principle stands: THEY BOTH KILL.

Wrong, most knives are designed with specific purposes, such as preparing food, medical scalpels etc. A gun is mostly designed to kill. A knife CAN be used for killing, but almost all of them are not designed for it. But as mentioned, so can a pencil, or a hammer or an axe. Lots of things can kill someone, but they aren't designed for that purpose.

[jayswin]

Fuzz, he was being sarcastic.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Again knives were first designed to kill people. They do so at a higher rate in Canada than firearms.

I'm pretty sure the first knives were designed as tools, used by hunters and gatherers to kill and prepare food. The fact that people use them to kill other people is a secondary use, one they're not designed for.
Knives kill more people in Canada than guns? I wonder why that is...
So we should legalize guns so that we can kill more people with them, solely for the purpose of knocking knives down a spot?

[jammies]

Knives were never originally designed for killing. They were used as tools, just like they are mainly used today. Do you think in the Stone Age you ran after a deer with your knife and tried to kill it? Were there brigades of knife men fighting in the wars of the Middle Ages? No? Is it perhaps because a knife is not a particularly good tool for killing as compared to something with that express purpose like a gun, or a spear, or a bow and arrow?

It's a stupid argument and a complete red herring. You can use all kinds of things for killing, unfortunately humans are extremely inventive that way. That doesn't mean it is futile to try to keep killing a choice that requires commitment and effort, and not just grabbing a handy tool to go do it with.

[DuffMan]

USA
Highest gun ownership per capita, highest gun related deaths and injuries per capita, of all developed countries.
Math.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by jammies

Knives were never originally designed for killing. They were used as tools, just like they are mainly used today. Do you think in the Stone Age you ran after a deer with your knife and tried to kill it? Were there brigades of knife men fighting in the wars of the Middle Ages? No? Is it perhaps because a knife is not a particularly good tool for killing as compared to something with that express purpose like a gun, or a spear, or a bow and arrow?

It's a stupid argument and a complete red herring. You can use all kinds of things for killing, unfortunately humans are extremely inventive that way. That doesn't mean it is futile to try to keep killing a choice that requires commitment and effort, and not just grabbing a handy tool to go do it with.

Well, I guess it's back to the car analogies.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Well, I guess it's back to the car analogies.

Assault cars, assault knives, assault rifles, they're all the same.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

If we are talking about "mass" murder events, in comparison to firearms yes. If we are talking about overall loss of life (at least in Canada) no.

Don't you want to reduce the amount of people killed each year?



You have me all wrong. I'm not advocating for guns, I'm advocating for banning knives. They meet every "acceptable" metric for being banned, correct? Made for killing, you don't need one, we can have a registry, central storage, mental screening, works for other countries, think of the kids.

Reducto adsurdum would apply; if only knives and firearms were as rare in civilian hands as nuclear material.

I'm willing to argue that eliminating access to knives at an increased rate would not reduce murders. Things like bats would be substituted in these types of incidences.

We also have laws banning knives that aren't used as tools and can be easiliy concealed because we recognize that intelligent regulation makes sense and that each of these tools needs to be regulated independently and in different manners to manage the risk that each provides.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Well, I guess it's back to the car analogies.

Hopefully the gun nuts don't find out that sugar and corn syrup kill far more Americans than guns! Imagine those analogies!

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Hopefully the gun nuts don't find out that sugar and corn syrup kill far more Americans than guns! Imagine those analogies!

Just wait until a two year old accidentally stabs someone to death.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So all narcotics should be freely and legally available too? Cause "freedom"?

Hells to the yeah they should. It's my god given right as a Canadian living in America to get coked up and go shoot things with my AR-15. It's what Jesus would want.

FREEDOM MUTHASUCKA EAT SOME




...WOLVERINES!

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So those are easier than whittling a sick into a point? That's a pretty good argument you got there.

You contended that they are harder to make (which they are) and that they are possible to regulate (not always the case) but it doesn't take away from the thousands of handmade from template pistols that make their way all over the world each year.

Why does original purpose matter? This is a very silly argument. One is essential for daily tasks (eating, construction, medicinal, etc), the other is not. Why are you arguing about what cavemen made a blade for????

I thought that was the basis for arguing against firearms in society? Original purpose and all that. Firearms are used for daily tasks everyday (varmint control, hunting, L.E.) if we are only going to look a legitimate uses for one why do we exclude legitimate uses for the other?

No. Less guns means less successful homicides.

So then less knifes surely means less successful homicides.

We don't need to reduce our knife homicides because our homicide rate is one if the lowest in the world.

We don't? Through 2011-2016 there were 969 knife homicides committed, compared to 797 for firearms. Stats can says the weapon of choice used in violent crimes is a knife.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-...rime01-eng.htm

If it's the controls around firearms that keep our firearm homicide rate so low, then why not enact stricter knife laws, such as a ban on certain knifes that clearly no one needs (katanas, machetes, throwing knifes, spears, pointed steak knifes, fixed or folders with a blade longer than 4") liscencing to own a knife and start a knife registry such as other countries have? Larger knives needed for butchering can be made available, but only to those who earn income from butchering. Of course the manufacturing or altering of ANY knife would be prohibited.

If I can dress a buck with a 4" blade (as recommended by AHEIA) then surely you can prepare your roast with one.

There isn't a leading need for a multibillion dollar useless beaurocracy to decrease something that's already absurdly low. We also don't need further gun regulations either

While I agree, don't you want to lower the overall knife homicide rate?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

We don't? Through 2011-2016 there were 969 knife homicides committed, compared to 797 for firearms. Stats can says the weapon of choice used in violent crimes is a knife.

Well if you want to use numbers to prove absolutely nothing.... there are about 13 million household in Canada. Lets say each one has 10 knives, which is probably low, but anyway, that's 130 million knives in Canada, ignoring restaurants, and all the other sources of knives. I'm really low-balling here.... There are about 10 million guns, So taking your stats...

That's 969 knife homicides per 130 million knives for a rate of 0.745 per 100 000.
797 firearms deaths per 10 million guns...7.97 per 100 000.

That's 10 times the rate! Thus guns are 10 times worse than knives. Numbers don't lie.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Quick question Stonedbirds...why don't special forces use knives as their primary weapon? Because automatic weapons project lethal force more effectively than blades...

Everyone knows that you can use anything to kill someone and that knives are weapons too...but the point that knives are able to kill people so guns are a-ok is foolish.

If someone has the intent to kill they will accomplish their objective...but its a helluva lot easier to create carnage with gunpowder and that is the problem we are facing...especially the Americans.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well if you want to use numbers to prove absolutely nothing.... there are about 13 million household in Canada. Lets say each one has 10 knives, which is probably low, but anyway, that's 130 million knives in Canada, ignoring restaurants, and all the other sources of knives. I'm really low-balling here.... There are about 10 million guns, So taking your stats...

That's 969 knife homicides per 130 million knives for a rate of 0.745 per 100 000.
797 firearms deaths per 10 million guns...7.97 per 100 000.

That's 10 times the rate! Thus guns are 10 times worse than knives. Numbers don't lie.

Uhh... That's exactly my point. If we lower the number of knives in society we lower the amount of knife crime. Same reason why we want to limit firearms, lower the number of knifes and the knife homicide rate drops.