Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack

JonnyPistachio

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Well than maybe we can compromise...I'd be willing to bet most automobile deaths are due to poor driving, no? Maybe it should be harder to get a drivers license and texting should be outlawed while driving? And at the same time, it should be harder to obtain assault rilfes, and magazine capacities should be reduced. Bingo.

Actually using your cell phone while driving is already illegal in NYS. And about your gun points...those are already heavily regulated. Sure maybe an incident slips thorugh...once maybe twice a year...it's a tragedy and I don't minimize that for those involved...but theis thought that it's such a widespread problem and issue is ridiculous. I mean more people will die today from accidental electrocution than will die this year from legally obtained weapons. I say ban the toasters!

You've missed a lot of the points being made in this thread. And these silly analogies have got to stop...Just because there are more deaths from yada yada blah blah toasters, cars, sprinklers, barbie curling irons...etc, doesnt have anything to do with the ease of obtaining a lethal weapon such as an AR-15. The point is that something as lethal as an AR-15 or the dangers associated with high capacity magazines might be avoidable if laws were more strict.

Cosmo

DS1119 wrote:

And I say since the percentage of deaths in the US by LEGALLY OWNED WEAPONS is still significantly lower than deaths by automobile even if you increase the number of LEGALLY OWNED WEAPONS the percentage NEVER changes. :fp: Ban the cars!

...
Let me try this again...
Cars. You see a lot of them out there, driving around, right?
Guns. You don't see that many, right?
Example: When you go to a Pearl Jam Concert or a ball game of the supermarket, in the parking lot, on the street, etc... which do you see more of... cars or guns?
So... do you think that for every car out there, there was someone firing a gun... because that's what you do when you use a gun, you fire it... that the number of gun related deaths, in total, not in percentage, would:
A. Become greater.
B. Become less.
C. Remain the same.

fife

DS1119 wrote:

fife wrote:

now that I have calm down, i have a question.

If gun ownership is a right than why is there never an issue raised when someone with mental health issues tries to get one but can't?

If gun ownership is a right would anyone minds if a 16 goes and buys a gun.

if gun ownership is a right would anyone mind if a person who had a history of violence when they were young wasa able to get a gun?

Simple...there are restrictions to everything here...and for good reason. I mean a 20 year old can't legally drink but a 21 year old can. A 17 year old can't vote, but an 18 year old can. Pretty simple actually.

so then you won't have a problem with restricting the amount of guns that a person can own and what guns people can have access.

DS1119

JonnyPistachio wrote:

You've missed a lot of the points being made in this thread. And these silly analogies have got to stop...Just because there are more deaths from yada yada blah blah toasters, cars, sprinklers, barbie curling irons...etc, doesnt have anything to do with the ease of obtaining a lethal weapon such as an AR-15. The point is that something as lethal as an AR-15 or the dangers associated with high capacity magazines might be avoidable if laws were more strict.

No I'm not missing the point. It's just when people with certain views get countered with logic and ACTUAL numbers they start to get "antsy". More people will die in the US today from accidental electrocution than by legally obtained weapons for the entire year....but lets concentrate on the weapons. :fp: Just remember it's harder for me to get an AR-15 in this country than a toaster...so sleep well tonight.

cincybearcat

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

You've missed a lot of the points being made in this thread. And these silly analogies have got to stop...Just because there are more deaths from yada yada blah blah toasters, cars, sprinklers, barbie curling irons...etc, doesnt have anything to do with the ease of obtaining a lethal weapon such as an AR-15. The point is that something as lethal as an AR-15 or the dangers associated with high capacity magazines might be avoidable if laws were more strict.

No I'm not missing the point. It's just when people with certain views get countered with logic and ACTUAL numbers they start to get "antsy". More people will die in the US today from accidental electrocution than by legally obtained weapons for the entire year....but lets concentrate on the weapons. :fp: Just remember it's harder for me to get an AR-15 in this country than a toaster...so sleep well tonight.

You do realize that we can do more than 1 thing at a time? We can work against deaths by guns, cars, electrocution, etc all at the same time.

DS1119

Cosmo wrote:

...
Let me try this again...
Cars. You see a lot of them out there, driving around, right?
Guns. You don't see that many, right?
Example: When you go to a Pearl Jam Concert or a ball game of the supermarket, in the parking lot, on the street, etc... which do you see more of... cars or guns?
So... do you think that for every car out there, there was someone firing a gun... because that's what you do when you use a gun, you fire it... that the number of gun related deaths, in total, not in percentage, woud;
A. Become greater.
B. Become less.
C. Remain the same.

If I set my neighborhood on fire tonight the number of deaths by fire would go up too. I really don't understand what you mean. :? :fp:

You assume that by increasing the number of LEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS would increase the total number of deaths if I read you correctly. Yes it would. But the percentage will still be a hell of a lot lower than people driving cars. Since automobile death is a much more considerable problem than LEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS at this time I still say ban the cars. Get them off the road and lets save lives!

JonnyPistachio

cincybearcat wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

You've missed a lot of the points being made in this thread. And these silly analogies have got to stop...Just because there are more deaths from yada yada blah blah toasters, cars, sprinklers, barbie curling irons...etc, doesnt have anything to do with the ease of obtaining a lethal weapon such as an AR-15. The point is that something as lethal as an AR-15 or the dangers associated with high capacity magazines might be avoidable if laws were more strict.

No I'm not missing the point. It's just when people with certain views get countered with logic and ACTUAL numbers they start to get "antsy". More people will die in the US today from accidental electrocution than by legally obtained weapons for the entire year....but lets concentrate on the weapons. :fp: Just remember it's harder for me to get an AR-15 in this country than a toaster...so sleep well tonight.

You do realize that we can do more than 1 thing at a time? We can work against deaths by guns, cars, electrocution, etc all at the same time.

Well there's an idea! :idea:
Im out of here -- off to get a maragarita, some chick-fil, an embarrassing tattoo, and an AR-15. All in the next 22 minutes.

DS1119

cincybearcat wrote:

You do realize that we can do more than 1 thing at a time? We can work against deaths by guns, cars, electrocution, etc all at the same time.

Sure...but the cars are the biggest killers right now. Let's ban those and then start with the toasters.

cincybearcat

DS1119 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You do realize that we can do more than 1 thing at a time? We can work against deaths by guns, cars, electrocution, etc all at the same time.

Sure...but the cars are the biggest killers right now. Let's ban those and then start with the toasters.

But the provide actual benefits other than "I get to kill me some things!!!"

Cosmo

DS1119 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Let me try this again...
Cars. You see a lot of them out there, driving around, right?
Guns. You don't see that many, right?
Example: When you go to a Pearl Jam Concert or a ball game of the supermarket, in the parking lot, on the street, etc... which do you see more of... cars or guns?
So... do you think that for every car out there, there was someone firing a gun... because that's what you do when you use a gun, you fire it... that the number of gun related deaths, in total, not in percentage, woud;
A. Become greater.
B. Become less.
C. Remain the same.

If I set my neighborhood on fire tonight the number of deaths by fire would go up too. I really don't understand what you mean. :? :fp:

You assume that by increasing the number of LEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS would increase the total number of deaths if I read you correctly. Yes it would. But the percentage will still be a hell of a lot lower than people driving cars. Since automobile death is a much more considerable problem than LEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS at this time I still say ban the cars. Get them off the road and lets save lives!

...
So... removing all of the other unrelated gibberish...
Your answer is 'A', right?
Thanx, that's all I as looking for. A straight answer from you.

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

If I set my neighborhood on fire tonight the number of deaths by fire would go up too. I really don't understand what you mean. :? :fp:

You assume that by increasing the number of LEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS would increase the total number of deaths if I read you correctly. Yes it would. But the percentage will still be a hell of a lot lower than people driving cars. Since automobile death is a much more considerable problem than LEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS at this time I still say ban the cars. Get them off the road and lets save lives!

What's the number of Americans who die in traffic accidents every day?
I read that the number of gun deaths every day is 84.

China has the highest number of traffic accident casualties in the World, and that equates to about 300 deaths a day. So where's the U.S on that scale?

comebackgirl

Cosmo wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

And I say since the percentage of deaths in the US by LEGALLY OWNED WEAPONS is still significantly lower than deaths by automobile even if you increase the number of LEGALLY OWNED WEAPONS the percentage NEVER changes. :fp: Ban the cars!

...
Let me try this again...
Cars. You see a lot of them out there, driving around, right?
Guns. You don't see that many, right?
Example: When you go to a Pearl Jam Concert or a ball game of the supermarket, in the parking lot, on the street, etc... which do you see more of... cars or guns?
So... do you think that for every car out there, there was someone firing a gun... because that's what you do when you use a gun, you fire it... that the number of gun related deaths, in total, not in percentage, would:
A. Become greater.
B. Become less.
C. Remain the same.

You have the patience of a saint That's all I have to say

DS1119

Cosmo wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Let me try this again...
Cars. You see a lot of them out there, driving around, right?
Guns. You don't see that many, right?
Example: When you go to a Pearl Jam Concert or a ball game of the supermarket, in the parking lot, on the street, etc... which do you see more of... cars or guns?
So... do you think that for every car out there, there was someone firing a gun... because that's what you do when you use a gun, you fire it... that the number of gun related deaths, in total, not in percentage, woud;
A. Become greater.
B. Become less.
C. Remain the same.

If I set my neighborhood on fire tonight the number of deaths by fire would go up too. I really don't understand what you mean. :? :fp:

You assume that by increasing the number of LEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS would increase the total number of deaths if I read you correctly. Yes it would. But the percentage will still be a hell of a lot lower than people driving cars. Since automobile death is a much more considerable problem than LEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS at this time I still say ban the cars. Get them off the road and lets save lives!

...
So... removing all of the other unrelated gibberish...
Your answer is 'A', right?
Thanx, that's all I as looking for. A straight answer from you.

It's not gibbersih...it's just straight logic. What you confuse confuse and blur the line of is the overwhelming majority of gun violence is from illegally obtained weapons. :fp: Also, I guess we can just use your logic right back to the car example I love. Decrease the number of cars...that death rate goes down as well. Like I said...ban the cars!!

Cosmo

DS1119 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... removing all of the other unrelated gibberish...
Your answer is 'A', right?
Thanx, that's all I as looking for. A straight answer from you.

It's not gibbersih...it's just straight logic. What you confuse confuse and blur the line of is the overwhelming majority of gun violence is from illegally obtained weapons. :fp: Also, I guess we can just use your logic right back to the car example I love. Decrease the number of cars...that death rate goes down as well. Like I said...ban the cars!!

...
No. It is still gibberish if you are the only one who thinks the following makes sense.
Point. There are more total car related deaths than total gun related deaths. Meaning the body count for cars is higher. No one is arguing that.
Point. No one, except you, are making the exception for Legally Owned Guns... but, I will appease you, rather than try to reason with you that a gun is a gun.
Point. You say that the percentage in the gun would not change, if the number of legally owned guns were increased on numbers and usage to equal the same numbers and usage of cars on the road. But, agree that the body count would increase.
...
Now, yes... I agree, if there were less cars, there would be less death. But, can you live without your car?
You can, bu, it would be tougher, right? I mean, walking to work... walking to the Home Depot and carrying back 4 gallons of paint and primer... you can do it, but the car serves many other purposes, other than running int other cars.
If you cannot see the diference between a car and a gun... then, I suppose, I simply cannot reason with you because i can recognize the difference.

redrock

Cosmo wrote:

If you cannot see the diference between a car and a gun... then, I suppose, I simply cannot reason with you because i can recognize the difference.

Why is this still being discussed. He's playing with everyone regarding this!

mickeyrat

redrock wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

If you cannot see the diference between a car and a gun... then, I suppose, I simply cannot reason with you because i can recognize the difference.

Why is this still being discussed. He's playing with everyone regarding this!

of the deaths by car ACCIDENT , how many of those drivers were legal to drive them? See thats one aspect he continues to leave out. Not that I'm trying to encourage this sillyness.

comebackgirl

redrock wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

If you cannot see the diference between a car and a gun... then, I suppose, I simply cannot reason with you because i can recognize the difference.

Why is this still being discussed. He's playing with everyone regarding this!

and this attack, nor the attacks in any of the other threads were committed by cars.
NOT GUILTY! The car is cleared 8-)

DS1119

Cosmo wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... removing all of the other unrelated gibberish...
Your answer is 'A', right?
Thanx, that's all I as looking for. A straight answer from you.

It's not gibbersih...it's just straight logic. What you confuse confuse and blur the line of is the overwhelming majority of gun violence is from illegally obtained weapons. :fp: Also, I guess we can just use your logic right back to the car example I love. Decrease the number of cars...that death rate goes down as well. Like I said...ban the cars!!

...
No. It is still gibberish if you are the only one who thinks the following makes sense.
Point. There are more total car related deaths than total gun related deaths. Meaning the body count for cars is higher. No one is arguing that.
Point. No one, except you, are making the exception for Legally Owned Guns... but, I will appease you, rather than try to reason with you that a gun is a gun.
Point. You say that the percentage in the gun would not change, if the number of legally owned guns were increased on numbers and usage to equal the same numbers and usage of cars on the road. But, agree that the body count would increase.
...
Now, yes... I agree, if there were less cars, there would be less death. But, can you live without your car?
You can, bu, it would be tougher, right? I mean, walking to work... walking to the Home Depot and carrying back 4 gallons of paint and primer... you can do it, but the car serves many other purposes, other than running int other cars.
If you cannot see the diference between a car and a gun... then, I suppose, I simply cannot reason with you because i can recognize the difference.

It all comes down to people's rights in this country. Cars are the bigger killer than LEGALLY obtained weapons in ths country. Why not combat the bigger problem first? I don't see anything in the COnstituion about cars?

DS1119

mickeyrat wrote:

redrock wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

If you cannot see the diference between a car and a gun... then, I suppose, I simply cannot reason with you because i can recognize the difference.

Why is this still being discussed. He's playing with everyone regarding this!

of the deaths by car ACCIDENT , how many of those drivers were legal to drive them? See thats one aspect he continues to leave out. Not that I'm trying to encourage this sillyness.

This is why I always bring up the point of LEGALLY obtained firearms. I am against ILLEGAL firearms...LEGAL ones...buy away.

ComeToTX

I'm against illegal guns too. So you agree we need stronger gun laws to keep these illegal guns off the street. Yay gun control.