Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

14 injured in stabbing


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#61    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,778 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:35 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 10 April 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

A gun isn't practical?  A gun is great as a deterrent.  A gun is used best when you don't have to shoot it.  A gun is not designed to kill but to shoot a projectile.  It's the use that Man puts to it.  This is the case with anything man made.  Whatever something was designed for, Man can find a way to use it to kill with.

I would have to agree with your first statement. A gun is a great deterrent, without a doubt.

But the rest I disagree with, because a gun wasn't originally designed with deterrent in mind (though is certainly used by many for such a purpose).

And sure, from a technical aspect a gun is designed to shoot a projectile, but you are twisting the logic here - it was designed that way explicitly to kill things (people, originally).
My point being that, unlike a knife that was designed to cut rope or food, or a hammer that was designed to hammer nails, shooting a projectile actually serves, by itself, no practical purpose. I mean guns weren't invented or produced to machine-gun a tree down, or to demolish walls - they were and are designed to kill. That is practically their only purpose. Hell, even C4 has a practical purpose other than killing.


#62    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,778 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:39 PM

View PostOverSword, on 10 April 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

And yet here again you are comparing the homocide rates of 8 small to medium sized countries each the equivilent to one or two states in the USA to 50 states. I'm not sure how the populations of the European nations compare to a large state but do know that Canada has less people than California and Australia less than that, so again you're comparing apples to oranges.

Maybe you should give us a visit, then go to France or Italy and report back in which nation you get your luggage or wallet stolen if you think it's bad here.

It is relatively simple though to scale the numbers to show how the countries relate. Britain has 1/5 of the population of the U.S. (roughly), yet has 1/20 of the amount of deaths. That means the U.S. has 4-fold more deaths (according to the statistics provided) than the UK, per-person.


#63    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • 4,291 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:51 PM

My 1 main question to the anti-gun crowd

Say we have 8,000 deaths recorded this year from gun violence across america,take away all the guns and then we have 16,000 deaths next year from baseball bats,knives,and anything else that can be used as a weapon,would everyone feel better then since it wasnt a gun that caused them?Guns deter more violence than they cause,just my opinion not fact based but no matter how the msm try to sensationalize mass shootings,very few actually happen and deaths from them are far fewer than what happens with illegal guns by criminals on a daily basis.Trying to make guns harder to get for the average law abiding citizen is pointless.

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#64    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,165 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • I love chocolate

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:58 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 10 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

It is relatively simple though to scale the numbers to show how the countries relate. Britain has 1/5 of the population of the U.S. (roughly), yet has 1/20 of the amount of deaths. That means the U.S. has 4-fold more deaths (according to the statistics provided) than the UK, per-person.
Yeah we overdo everything don't we?  Fast food, gas guzzling cars, balls of yarn, murders, coffee shops per square mile.


#65    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 12,298 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • - God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi -

    "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:01 PM

why isn't anyone speaking up for a world where firearms or specifically designed weapons for killing aren't necessary ?

comparing body counts just doesn't make any sense to me ...

He who postpones the hour of living rightly ... is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out ... before he crosses.
Horace - Roman lyric poet & satirist 65 BC - 8 BC
~

third_eye cavern ~ bring own beer


#66    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • 4,291 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:07 PM

View Postthird_eye, on 10 April 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

why isn't anyone speaking up for a world where firearms or specifically designed weapons for killing aren't necessary ?

comparing body counts just doesn't make any sense to me ...

Because it is a unrealistic world,take away firearms and deaths will skyrocket from some other means.What i think a comment like yours should say is lets just all make it a world where it is illegal to kill......Oh yeah we already live it that kind of world yet people get killed everyday and not just by guns....

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#67    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 12,298 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • - God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi -

    "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:13 PM

View PostCrimsonKing, on 10 April 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Because it is a unrealistic world,take away firearms and deaths will skyrocket from some other means.What i think a comment like yours should say is lets just all make it a world where it is illegal to kill......Oh yeah we already live it that kind of world yet people get killed everyday and not just by guns....

Sun-Tzu states :
When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.
Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life.

Murderers cares for no laws, there in lies the difference isn't it ?

He who postpones the hour of living rightly ... is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out ... before he crosses.
Horace - Roman lyric poet & satirist 65 BC - 8 BC
~

third_eye cavern ~ bring own beer


#68    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • 4,291 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:19 PM

View Postthird_eye, on 10 April 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

Sun-Tzu states :
When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.
Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life.

Murderers cares for no laws, there in lies the difference isn't it ?

Correct but GUNS are not murderers,people are murderers,and a murderer doesnt need a gun to accomplish this.If someone has it in them to take a life no laws,no bans,no changing of the weapon will stop them.

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#69    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 12,298 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • - God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi -

    "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:43 PM

View PostCrimsonKing, on 10 April 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Correct but GUNS are not murderers,people are murderers,and a murderer doesnt need a gun to accomplish this.If someone has it in them to take a life no laws,no bans,no changing of the weapon will stop them.

Incorrect, you are comparing criminals with guns. The gun in question in this case is not the issue, it is the criminal intentions that results in killings.
The opposite end might say it is simply because of availability of guns in this case that prompts one to commit killings involving guns, simply because there is guns available.
The question is not whether guns kills or not and no one is punishing guns, and least of all, no one is punishing innocent gun owners.
Criminals are human beings, defective and imperfect as they are, and guns are effective instruments of a killer, determined or not, rightfully or not.

He who postpones the hour of living rightly ... is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out ... before he crosses.
Horace - Roman lyric poet & satirist 65 BC - 8 BC
~

third_eye cavern ~ bring own beer


#70    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,436 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:47 PM

View PostWyrdlight, on 09 April 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Socialist is Fascist?
You mean this isn't clear to you?  I'm going to briefly touch on this.  Yes, they are the same.  Please don't resort to trying to tell me how they are different by providing definitions.  We all know how they are different that's not the point.  But I put it to you; tell me the one thing that makes them the same.  When you do that, they become interchangeable for all practical purposes.  To get hung up on definitions is just being a stooge of the state.

Quote

My main point, is that the go-to response is one of irrational anger.

By way of example.

In the USA if a child/young adult/adult is feeling isolated and bullied etc etc a fairly "common" response appears to be "Ill show em! Ill show em all! will make them all pay!" Some of them then go and grab an m16, wander onto campus and mow down a dozen or so people, most of whom would have likely never met the offender.
That's the go-to irrational response.  What about the go-to rational response?  This is what the government is afraid of.  And they use the irrational response to distract from this fact.  Do you consider our little Revolution a rational or irrational response?  237 years ago, you probably would call it irrational.  We have a document associated to that event.  Part of it states: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  We did it to a king.  There is nothing that prevents the people from doing it to a President.  In fact, if you get into what the Founding Fathers intended, they expected that we have such a purge from time to time.  Now with that stated, the text from that document immediately following this excerpt states: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."  This Presidency is on the threshold of lasting usurpations.  So at what point does this go from irrational white supremacist action to rational acts of patriots to do their duty to throw off such despotism?  To think that the government can thwart this from happening is a miscalculation of Socialism.  Just as with any dictatorship, it only takes a matter of time before the peasants revolt.

The independence and individualism that you don't have or understand is what allows us to have the vigilance to stand guard.  Many times righteous anger can be misconstrued as irrational anger.  And the government uses that confusion to grab more power.

I suppose you are aware of some of what is going on here with an upcoming vote on gun control?  The President is using a tactic that all dictators have used in the past, demanding that a vote *MUST* be taken, juxtaposing his agenda for the will of the people.  They are not the same.

Quote

Its not a rational response, it simply does not really happen in other countries.  Even if you feel your "rights" are being infringed upon, the rational response is not mass slaughter.
I think it is in error to compare Europe with the US.  Europe may be comparable to the US in population size only.  But each European nation is still a separate entity with an average population of around 40million??  In this country, we may have different races and cultures represented and discrimination exists, but for the most part, all 315 million of us are American.  So of course, *it* will happen less in Europe.  Population bases are far smaller.

Death rates from firearms in this nation are around 30,000.  99% of it is not mass slaughter in nature.  Drug abuse and auto accidents account for more deaths than firearms.  There are far more deaths from heart attacks and cancer.  This society is not going to de-evolved into a nation gone rampant on killing each other.  There is a normal risk of being killed by an irrational killer.  But if rational people are armed as well, that risk is reduced.  It's all about taking personal responsibility for your own life.  This is what government fears most.  If we are all forced to purchase health insurance, a firearm should be included.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#71    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • 4,291 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:51 PM

View Postthird_eye, on 10 April 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

it is the criminal intentions that results in killings.


Thats pretty much what my point was  :lol:  And yes guns are effective weapons but so can anything else.Hell you can choke someone to death in a short time span with a shoestring,do we need to ban shoestrings?

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#72    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • 4,291 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:56 PM

View Postthird_eye, on 10 April 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

Incorrect, you are comparing criminals with guns. The gun in question in this case is not the issue, it is the criminal intentions that results in killings.
The opposite end might say it is simply because of availability of guns in this case that prompts one to commit killings involving guns, simply because there is guns available.
The question is not whether guns kills or not and no one is punishing guns, and least of all, no one is punishing innocent gun owners.
Criminals are human beings, defective and imperfect as they are, and guns are effective instruments of a killer, determined or not, rightfully or not.

Oh and i was not comparing criminals to guns,i clearly stated guns are not murderers.Comparing the 2 would have been stating what a gun and a murderer had in common.Seeing how a gun is not capable of thought or action on its own there is no comparing the 2  ;)

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#73    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 12,298 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • - God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi -

    "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

Posted 10 April 2013 - 04:05 PM

View PostCrimsonKing, on 10 April 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Thats pretty much what my point was  :lol:  And yes guns are effective weapons but so can anything else.Hell you can choke someone to death in a short time span with a shoestring,do we need to ban shoestrings?

but you are using the point as a blunt instrument, just as someone using shoe strings to kill, it doesn't apply so well

View PostCrimsonKing, on 10 April 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Oh and i was not comparing criminals to guns,i clearly stated guns are not murderers.Comparing the 2 would have been stating what a gun and a murderer had in common.Seeing how a gun is not capable of thought or action on its own there is no comparing the 2  ;)

exactly ... but you do not see that when the guns are used with criminal intentions, it is as much an extension of the criminal as it empowers them as a armed criminal
what I meant by you comparing 'guns and criminals' is that you stated "a gun is not capable of thought or action on its own" where as a criminal with intentions shoulders the consequences entirely.
my point is : the gun is the thoughts of the criminal armed with it, it is therefore as responsible for the crimes committed with it

He who postpones the hour of living rightly ... is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out ... before he crosses.
Horace - Roman lyric poet & satirist 65 BC - 8 BC
~

third_eye cavern ~ bring own beer


#74    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • 4,291 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 10 April 2013 - 04:16 PM

View Postthird_eye, on 10 April 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

but you are using the point as a blunt instrument, just as someone using shoe strings to kill, it doesn't apply so well



exactly ... but you do not see that when the guns are used with criminal intentions, it is as much an extension of the criminal as it empowers them as a armed criminal
what I meant by you comparing 'guns and criminals' is that you stated "a gun is not capable of thought or action on its own" where as a criminal with intentions shoulders the consequences entirely.
my point is : the gun is the thoughts of the criminal armed with it, it is therefore as responsible for the crimes committed with it

Ok i can see what you are saying,but take for example

You and a friend are hanging out and the "friend" bad intentions but you have no clue.They have a icepick and put it through your skull,they know an icepick isnt intended as a weapon,it is meant to break up ice.But breaking up ice for a nice cold drink isnt their intentions when they scramble your brains with it.Would you feel better that it wasnt a bullet that killed you?Just because what took your life wasnt intended as a dangerous weapon?What i am saying is anything can be used as a dangerous weapon if the intent is there.See what i am saying?Just because you take guns away you do not take away dangerous intentions that can still be carried out.

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#75    aztek

aztek

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,619 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 10 April 2013 - 04:34 PM

View Postthird_eye, on 10 April 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

why isn't anyone speaking up for a world where firearms or specifically designed weapons for killing aren't necessary ?
becose we talk about real world, not imaginary utopia.

RESIDENT TROLL.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users