Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
RavenHawk

14 injured in stabbing

102 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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.

I'm familiar with that line of reasoning, it is evasive and faulty just by the fact that "a dangerous weapon" is an oxymoron to me.

It just doesn't make sense and sense is what I'm trying to see here.

If a weapon isn't 'dangerous' does that make it a weapon? Does it mean it can't be used to kill ?

Shouldn't the focus here be on the criminal with intentions to kill ? If so, shouldn't the point here be making it as difficult as possible for criminals who intends to kill ?

To kill with bare hands is possible too ... you know that as well if not more so than many others here. :tu:

becose we talk about real world, not imaginary utopia.

what utopia isn't imaginary >?

what is imaginary that isn't real >?

~edit : double post detour

Edited by third_eye
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Actually baseball bats and hammers account for more murders than guns in the USA. Fear of guns is mass hysteria. I live in the most populous neighborhood of a fair sized city and have never heard a gun being fired (although I'm sure it happens once in a while) most of the violent crime you hear about where I live involves people being beaten walking home from a bar and that's fairly rare.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

I didn't say it was originally designed as a deterrent but as a means to clear the battlefield. Back then, victory was determined by who was left on the field of battle.

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).

No, I'm not twisting logic. If anything, I am using logic. We're separating actions, implements, and intentions. But firearms were not designed to kill things. I.e. hunting was still far more efficient by using the bow and arrow. The gunpowder used was not powerful enough to kill for the most part. People did get killed but that was not the original purpose. It was an added perk. That meant fewer of the enemy you had to track down and hack apart with a blade.

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.

Well, that food was still kicking. A knife was design to not just cut things but also to penetrate flesh to kill it. I'm pretty sure a hammer was not originally designed to hammer nails, just simply to hammer or pound things. Wooden pegs and wedges existed before metal nails so something had to be used to put those into place. Shooting a projectile has just as much practical purpose as cutting or pounding something. It extends Man's reach. Shooting a projectile is vital in reproduction (trying not to smile). Hammers weren't invented to do a lot of things but if something doesn't work, the first impulse is to pound on it for a while. Cars have practical purposes but they kill more people than guns do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's somewhat strange to me, is as to why he is not being charged with attempted murder, as oppossed to aggravated assault.

What I mean by this, is that if you visciously slice someones's throat(I guess that was the case in a few of his multiple attacks), couldn't the victim potentially bleed-out and die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just doesn't make sense and sense is what I'm trying to see here.

may be it is the problem with YOU, trying to see things that are not there. and just ignoring things that are in your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AP13041011435_244x183.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I go inside and there’s another person with a hole—another girl with a hole in her throat. There’s blood on the stairway so I run upstairs and I look and there’s people out in the hallway,” he said. “I run down there and another kid has a stab wound in the back of his head. I asked, ‘Where is he at? What does he look like?’ They couldn’t tell me anything.”

He said someone else pointed the suspect out to him down outside a window downstairs.

“So I just took off downstairs running. The security guards were running after him, but the kid was probably about 100 years ahead of us and we passed them up, me and three other kids passed up the security guards, because they weren’t keeping up with him,” he said.

Maida said the suspect saw they were chasing him and went into a building.

“We thought we lost him, but we found him going out the south doors and into the parking lot,” he said. “Thank God I’ve been working out a little bit and so I had the energy to catch up to him and then we got him on the ground and then the security guards came and handcuffed him. That’s when I took that picture.”

Maida told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he’s glad to be among the people who were able to help.

“There’s people saying I did it by myself, I didn’t do it by myself, Eric Bertrand helped out, this kid named James, he also helped out, and this other kid—I didn’t get his name but I want to thank him also for his help,” he said.

:clap: :tsu::clap::tsu:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Lone-Star-College-student-witnesses-stabbing-spree-tackles-suspect--202377011.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with that line of reasoning, it is evasive and faulty just by the fact that "a dangerous weapon" is an oxymoron to me.

It just doesn't make sense and sense is what I'm trying to see here.

If a weapon isn't 'dangerous' does that make it a weapon? Does it mean it can't be used to kill ?

Shouldn't the focus here be on the criminal with intentions to kill ? If so, shouldn't the point here be making it as difficult as possible for criminals who intends to kill ?

To kill with bare hands is possible too ... you know that as well if not more so than many others here. :tu:

what utopia isn't imaginary >?

what is imaginary that isn't real >?

~edit : double post detour

Again i agree,but quit dancing around my question and throwing philosophy at me....Do you agree that just getting rid of guns will not stop violence and other violent crimes would take their place?Or do you believe that getting rid of guns will make murder almost obsolete and drop all other violent crime levels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one thing left to do now. We are going to just have to make breaking the law illegal. All problems solved.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one thing left to do now. We are going to just have to make breaking the law illegal. All problems solved.

What a novel idea fess criminalizing bad behavior,that will solve all our problems!I think someone here deserves that obama peace prize :clap:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Again i agree,but quit dancing around my question and throwing philosophy at me....Do you agree that just getting rid of guns will not stop violence and other violent crimes would take their place?Or do you believe that getting rid of guns will make murder almost obsolete and drop all other violent crime levels?

that dance is the only logical thing because the solution proposed thus far from both camps is the exact reasons why it perpetuates and compounds the problems encountered by societies with firearms as a dictating factor in their well being and state of mind.

Neither proposals will bring about "true" because stopping violence or crime does NOT involve either banning or possessing firearms in the first place.

may be it is the problem with YOU, trying to see things that are not there. and just ignoring things that are in your face.

how so that it is not you that is suffering from that predicament ?

~edit : still half asleep

Edited by third_eye
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that dance is the only logical thing because the solution proposed thus far from both camps is the exact reasons why it perpetuates and compounds the problems encountered by societies with firearms as a dictating factor in their well being and state of mind.

Neither proposals will bring about "true" because stopping violence or crime does NOT involve either banning or possessing firearms in the first place.

Thats all you had to say,i can respect that opinion :tu: HaHa

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats all you had to say,i can respect that opinion :tu: HaHa

I bet in sandyhook 26 would not be dead using a knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet in sandyhook 26 would not be dead using a knife.

You can bet,yet you could not prove!9/11 what were the weapons brought on board of airplanes mainly full of adults?Remember oklahoma city?That was neither knife nor gun,what were the final numbers to that again?Far more than 26 if i remember right.You can sit there and give me BS bets about things but facts are facts,more people die every year from drunk drivers than guns!People are looking for something to blame all this lunacy on....Maybe it is people,sick minds!Now the real question is......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet in sandyhook 26 would not be dead using a knife.

Maybe – maybe not. Use of a Katana could have resulted in that many deaths.

But you are missing the point. Gun violence against children is very high. It doesn't come from mass shootings. You have accidental shootings (resulting in one death) from kids playing with a weapon without respecting it. This can be fixed with better parental controls (not community ones). Also, suicide results in many youth dying (also resulting in one death) or severely crippled. And gang violence accounts for one or two deaths at a time. What is important here is that this violence is rampant and kills far more children collectively than any mass shootings like Columbine or Sandy Hook. And the weapon of choice is usually a shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun.

So why are people losing their bearing and being convinced that the solution is to ban assault weapons and creating a nation gun registry? For what reason would a government need to do that? How would this prevent the next Columbine or Sandy Hook? No, it won't make it harder. It won't even phase it. If a background check does stop someone, how long before they google for "80% Lower"? Someone intent on killing won't stop. They will just acquire a weapon by some other means like stealing it or making it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for those that think not resisting and givin up your things to a robber would save your life read this.

After the victim handed over a bag with the boots he'd just purchased, he heard another man in the truck yell to the gunman to shoot him, Mitchell said.

In fear for his life, the victim pulled out his own gun and began shooting toward the robber, striking him, Mitchell said. The suspect then jumped back in the vehicle, which fled down the street to the intersection of Wafer and Southmore.

more here. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Robber-gunned-down-on-Pasadena-street-4415402.php

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe – maybe not. Use of a Katana could have resulted in that many deaths.

But you are missing the point. Gun violence against children is very high. It doesn't come from mass shootings. You have accidental shootings (resulting in one death) from kids playing with a weapon without respecting it. This can be fixed with better parental controls (not community ones). Also, suicide results in many youth dying (also resulting in one death) or severely crippled. And gang violence accounts for one or two deaths at a time. What is important here is that this violence is rampant and kills far more children collectively than any mass shootings like Columbine or Sandy Hook. And the weapon of choice is usually a shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun.

So why are people losing their bearing and being convinced that the solution is to ban assault weapons and creating a nation gun registry? For what reason would a government need to do that? How would this prevent the next Columbine or Sandy Hook? No, it won't make it harder. It won't even phase it. If a background check does stop someone, how long before they google for "80% Lower"? Someone intent on killing won't stop. They will just acquire a weapon by some other means like stealing it or making it.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officials say a man accused of stabbing more than a dozen people at a Houston-area college told investigators that he had fantasized about cannibalism and about cutting off people's faces and wearing them as masks.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/11/suspect-in-texas-college-stabbing-case-fantacized-about-cannibalism-warrant/?test=latestnews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officials say a man accused of stabbing more than a dozen people at a Houston-area college told investigators that he had fantasized about cannibalism and about cutting off people's faces and wearing them as masks.

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

WHAT??? :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officials say a man accused of stabbing more than a dozen people at a Houston-area college told investigators that he had fantasized about cannibalism and about cutting off people's faces and wearing them as masks.

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

i wonder what gave him that idea, oh wait i know, Hollywood. and video games, yet almost everyone denies they have any impact. guess that fact that this is multibillion $$$ industry, has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Ed Gein gave him that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to play a game where I cut ones face off and wear it. Movies though... House of 1000 Corpses, Texas Chainsaw, Silence of the Lambs. Lets no forget the obvious, Face-Off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't forget Spartacus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to play a game where I cut ones face off and wear it. Movies though... House of 1000 Corpses, Texas Chainsaw, Silence of the Lambs. Lets no forget the obvious, Face-Off.

Along with negative music like this...........

[media=]

[/media]

I wonder if J. Loughner, J. Holmes and A. Lanza thought "There's nothing wrong with me!" every time they pulled the trigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those kind of 'music' is the worse ...

they listen to it repeatedly all day long it becomes a mantra ...

181819_10151138407291105_714077111_n.jpg

the same applies to music 'sheltered from criticism' too I suspect ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.