Shooter at large on Virgina Tech campus.

[Something Amyss]

I didn't shift anything, though you did put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was the only reason people used guns, but it is one of them. Give me a better reason why they would. Or, you could answer my question that you so artfully evaded.

Yeah, you didn't say it was the only reason, you just gave it as the sole reason.

You did, however, shift the goalposts. The question I "so artfully evaded" had nothing to do with what I said or the shit I scoffed at. Sorry.

Better reason? You're actually trying the "Well, I may have made an inane and unproven comment, but let's see you do better" card? Ummm...Yay for disingenuous behaviour! Trying to shift the burden to me while still trying to distract from the point in contention.

So if more guns help, why do those gangs seem to keep killing each other with them? Surely, the threat that the other guys might (and, in fact almost certainly do) have guns should be a deterrent! Hell, it worked for that cop at the traffic stop, right?

Man, I should be one of the safest people in America, what with everyone and their brother carrying guns here, but we still get murders and armed robberies in-step with any other are with similar population density. It's almost like guns aren't a deterrent or something crazy like that

"But Zachary," I hear you say, "That's not in step with my specious reasoning so ponies!"

Maybe not literally ponies, but I expect you to try and shift away again, because you seem to know your logic is ridiculous. But that's okay. Because as long as you can keep changing the subject and accusing me of not answering irrelevant questions, you might convince someone, somewhere that you have a point.

More guns certainly helped Gabrielle Giffords and the 20-ish other people who were wounded or injured, didn't it? Hell, one of the guys who did respond with a weapon nearly shot the wrong guy. Yay guns! They nearly shot the guy who actually disarmed Loughner!

And I'm sure the counter-argument will come that surely there would have been more deaths if not for those gun-carrying Americans who weren't the ones who disarmed him and who really did nothing the entire time. In the midst of panic and disorder, what we needed were more firearms. Because panic and crossfire are an excellent combination and surely a lifesaver!

lol.

Clearly, Loughner felt that he could get away with it because people in Arizona don't carry guns.

 

[Something Amyss]

That means that by your logic someone owning a firearm legally will lead to that person shooting someone.

No it doesn't. Theonecookie did not say that at all. Please don't make things up.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

Something horrible must be going on at Virginia Tech... I just wish I knew what it was.

 

[ElPatron]

That means that by your logic someone owning a firearm legally will lead to that person shooting someone.

No it doesn't. Theonecookie did not say that at all. Please don't make things up.

Did I say he said that?

He said "only criminals having guns can't really be a bad thing because it leads to less people getting shot" - which means that shootings often occur bewteen people who are legal firearm owners and not criminals.

I am not sure how picking up his logic and applying in reverse makes me a liar.

So if more guns help, why do those gangs seem to keep killing each other with them?

1. How many of those guns are legal?
1.1 And of the guns which are regal, how many were obtained legally? (sale to someone who isn't elegible for firearm ownership as a way to bypass backgorund checks)

2. Do gang shootouts normally involve law abiding citizens shooting or just law abadig citizens being shot? (Because I am not sure if it's legal to just draw a weapon and fire at gangs if they are not on your property)
2.1 If said shootouts usually do not involve said responsible citizens "busting some caps" on random gang fights, then why did you bring that up to this argument?



I am not here to say "MOAR GUNS", I am here to say that guns are not at fault and citizens should not have their rights infringed. I am here to say that "gun free zones" are useless, even if I disagree with carrying inside banks and police stations, etc.

I am here to disprove broken logic such as "citizens can't own X because criminals use them too".

 

[CrazyGirl17]

AGAIN?! *SIGH* There's a reason why I prefer fantasy to reality...

 

[theonecookie]

That means that by your logic someone owning a firearm legally will lead to that person shooting someone.

No it doesn't. Theonecookie did not say that at all. Please don't make things up.

Did I say he said that?

He said "only criminals having guns can't really be a bad thing because it leads to less people getting shot" - which means that shootings often occur bewteen people who are legal firearm owners and not criminals.

I am not sure how picking up his logic and applying in reverse makes me a liar.

So if more guns help, why do those gangs seem to keep killing each other with them?

1. How many of those guns are legal?
1.1 And of the guns which are regal, how many were obtained legally? (sale to someone who isn't elegible for firearm ownership as a way to bypass backgorund checks)

2. Do gang shootouts normally involve law abiding citizens shooting or just law abadig citizens being shot? (Because I am not sure if it's legal to just draw a weapon and fire at gangs if they are not on your property)
2.1 If said shootouts usually do not involve said responsible citizens "busting some caps" on random gang fights, then why did you bring that up to this argument?



I am not here to say "MOAR GUNS", I am here to say that guns are not at fault and citizens should not have their rights infringed. I am here to say that "gun free zones" are useless, even if I disagree with carrying inside banks and police stations, etc.

I am here to disprove broken logic such as "citizens can't own X because criminals use them too".

But that's the thing its not broken logic Its broken logic to think that you can trust the public with deadly weapons because it makes them "safer" it just doesn't you only need to look at the homicide rates for the US and western Europe to see that giving guns to the pubic for "protection" just leads to them shooting each other

(this is all per 100,000)

I mean just look at the statistics The US has a homicide rate of 4.8 and a gun crime rate of 13.14 where as the homicide rate in western Europe is 1.2 and the gun crime rate is on average about 1.2 (hell in the UK it's 0.07)

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf (citations lol)

Basically your a lot better of with out guns than with them because the vast majority of criminals stop using them to and things like knives and bats are a lot less deadly than firearms

 

[ElPatron]

To reply to broken logic I mrerely apply it somewhere else - chances are it will stay broken

Basically your a lot better of with out guns than with them because the vast majority of criminals stop using them to and things like knives and bats are a lot less deadly than firearms

Do you know how many seconds you have until bleedout if you get shanked on your neck, heart or just about any major artery?

It will probably kill you faster than a gunshot at center mass. Think about that.


Criminals show up with 6,35 and .22lr pistols? Legally replying in 9x19/.45ACP is apropriate.


Plus, Switzerland.

 

[theonecookie]

To reply to broken logic I mrerely apply it somewhere else - chances are it will stay broken

Basically your a lot better of with out guns than with them because the vast majority of criminals stop using them to and things like knives and bats are a lot less deadly than firearms

Do you know how many seconds you have until bleedout if you get shanked on your neck, heart or just about any major artery?

It will probably kill you faster than a gunshot at center mass. Think about that.


Criminals show up with 6,35 and .22lr pistols? Legally replying in 9x19/.45ACP is apropriate.


Plus, Switzerland.

Right are you really trying to argue that gun shots wounds are less lethal then knife wounds because that's not exactly true

While it is entirely possible to kill a person with a knife it's not all that easy seeing as you have to be within knife distance which put you a risk as well as the target

Then there's just the simple fact that knife wounds produce lower mortality rates than than gun shot wounds, your average gunshot wound has about a 13% mortality rate , with knifes its about 1%. knife wounds just aren't that dangerous unless you hit a major artery , hell even if you took a knife to the heart your still twice as likely to survive then if you got shot in the heart

http://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515%2897%2900144-0/abstract
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/knives-00000.php (Citations)

and yeah Switzerland is weird everybody has a gun but really them only use them to commit suicide Probably has something to do with everybody being a trained soldier. but its more the exception than the rule

 

[ElPatron]

Right are you really trying to argue that gun shots wounds are less lethal then knife wounds because that's not exactly true

Yes, the fact that insurgents have been hit by gunfire and kept running and firing at coalition forces does not matter at all.


Knifes are dangerous. The 21ft rule is a bit of a joke but it also applies. You have to be damn well trained to judge a threat, decide to use lethal force, pull out your gun, take the safety off, align signs on our target and pull the trigger - while someone is running at you and you are fearing for your life.


Look, what do you know about terminal ballistics? Because I know a bit. I know what happens from the moment a bullet starts crushing tissue and your heart finally stops.

Shot placement is very hard. Knifing someone is not.




By the way, there is no point in making up "facts". A blade in your heart will make you bleed out in a few seconds. It is as deadly as a gunshot to the heart.

You can survive with a gunshot to the lung even with "improvised" first aid. With a knife you have a higher chance of making the lungs collapse.


Why do you think the Fairbairn-Sykes knife has such a status? It's even on the SAS icon.

I say again that I'm a proponent of following your state laws and acquiring a gun legally if you wish to own one. Every instance that you've mentioned involves people not having guns in a legal fashion. Gang members don't just walk into their local walmart and buy a gun. Neither do people doing stupid shit like trying to assassinate senators. These people are already doing bad shit, and are just adding guns to their tools that they use. You don't think that gang members stab and beat each other to death?

Why don't people think like you? It's not like gangs are state-sponsored to shoot each other every boring Friday night.

Even with easy access to firearms, it is just easier to stay away from legal ownership.

 

[Frizzle]

I didn't shift anything, though you did put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was the only reason people used guns, but it is one of them. Give me a better reason why they would. Or, you could answer my question that you so artfully evaded.

Yeah, you didn't say it was the only reason, you just gave it as the sole reason.

You did, however, shift the goalposts. The question I "so artfully evaded" had nothing to do with what I said or the shit I scoffed at. Sorry.

Better reason? You're actually trying the "Well, I may have made an inane and unproven comment, but let's see you do better" card? Ummm...Yay for disingenuous behaviour! Trying to shift the burden to me while still trying to distract from the point in contention.

So if more guns help, why do those gangs seem to keep killing each other with them? Surely, the threat that the other guys might (and, in fact almost certainly do) have guns should be a deterrent! Hell, it worked for that cop at the traffic stop, right?

Man, I should be one of the safest people in America, what with everyone and their brother carrying guns here, but we still get murders and armed robberies in-step with any other are with similar population density. It's almost like guns aren't a deterrent or something crazy like that

"But Zachary," I hear you say, "That's not in step with my specious reasoning so ponies!"

Maybe not literally ponies, but I expect you to try and shift away again, because you seem to know your logic is ridiculous. But that's okay. Because as long as you can keep changing the subject and accusing me of not answering irrelevant questions, you might convince someone, somewhere that you have a point.

More guns certainly helped Gabrielle Giffords and the 20-ish other people who were wounded or injured, didn't it? Hell, one of the guys who did respond with a weapon nearly shot the wrong guy. Yay guns! They nearly shot the guy who actually disarmed Loughner!

And I'm sure the counter-argument will come that surely there would have been more deaths if not for those gun-carrying Americans who weren't the ones who disarmed him and who really did nothing the entire time. In the midst of panic and disorder, what we needed were more firearms. Because panic and crossfire are an excellent combination and surely a lifesaver!

lol.

Clearly, Loughner felt that he could get away with it because people in Arizona don't carry guns.

I wasn't aware that I needed every possible reason to convince you, so I'll throw some more out there. Here's the thing about guns and violence, especially statistics. There have been hundreds of studies done to try to find causation either one way or the other involving guns and people using them to harm other people. No what they've found? Nothing. There is currently no scientific evidence that shows favor to either side of the argument.

You seem to be focusing on one aspect of this argument, which is people who are already doing bad shit with guns. I say again that I'm a proponent of following your state laws and acquiring a gun legally if you wish to own one. Every instance that you've mentioned involves people not having guns in a legal fashion. Gang members don't just walk into their local walmart and buy a gun. Neither do people doing stupid shit like trying to assassinate senators. These people are already doing bad shit, and are just adding guns to their tools that they use. You don't think that gang members stab and beat each other to death? You seem to think that if guns went *poof* from Earth, that somehow all these people would quit dying? That's some pretty failed logic that I don't understand. Since the dawn of our species violence has been a part of our lives. And I'm pretty sure that before guns were invented we were still killing each other with weapons.

And though I don't know where you live, If you live in a place with a very high *legal* gun ownership rate, then common correlation would suggest that you are in fact in a safer area than if only criminals owned guns. That sounds like I pulled it out of my ass doesn't it? It does, but I didn't.
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso
Sure it's 100+ pages, but I've read it. If you want to go straight to the tables that show data, you can scroll down to page 100 for the conclusion and the commencement of visuals.

What I originally stated, is that people legally having guns with them, is better than only the criminal having guns with him/her. If you take away all the means of self defense from the good people, then only the bad people are left with guns, and ultimately, the advantage.

Also, you're clearly not someone who is trained in the use of firearms, so I will say this: You don't fire a gun into a crowd of people running around in a chaotic manner trying to hit 1 guy in the middle. So saying that people with guns "almost shot" others, means that they did the right thing in not shooting them.

 

[Frizzle]

That means that by your logic someone owning a firearm legally will lead to that person shooting someone.

No it doesn't. Theonecookie did not say that at all. Please don't make things up.

Did I say he said that?

He said "only criminals having guns can't really be a bad thing because it leads to less people getting shot" - which means that shootings often occur bewteen people who are legal firearm owners and not criminals.

I am not sure how picking up his logic and applying in reverse makes me a liar.

So if more guns help, why do those gangs seem to keep killing each other with them?

1. How many of those guns are legal?
1.1 And of the guns which are regal, how many were obtained legally? (sale to someone who isn't elegible for firearm ownership as a way to bypass backgorund checks)

2. Do gang shootouts normally involve law abiding citizens shooting or just law abadig citizens being shot? (Because I am not sure if it's legal to just draw a weapon and fire at gangs if they are not on your property)
2.1 If said shootouts usually do not involve said responsible citizens "busting some caps" on random gang fights, then why did you bring that up to this argument?



I am not here to say "MOAR GUNS", I am here to say that guns are not at fault and citizens should not have their rights infringed. I am here to say that "gun free zones" are useless, even if I disagree with carrying inside banks and police stations, etc.

I am here to disprove broken logic such as "citizens can't own X because criminals use them too".

But that's the thing its not broken logic Its broken logic to think that you can trust the public with deadly weapons because it makes them "safer" it just doesn't you only need to look at the homicide rates for the US and western Europe to see that giving guns to the pubic for "protection" just leads to them shooting each other

(this is all per 100,000)

I mean just look at the statistics The US has a homicide rate of 4.8 and a gun crime rate of 13.14 where as the homicide rate in western Europe is 1.2 and the gun crime rate is on average about 1.2 (hell in the UK it's 0.07)

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf (citations lol)

Basically your a lot better of with out guns than with them because the vast majority of criminals stop using them to and things like knives and bats are a lot less deadly than firearms

You know, Russia has some of the highest murder rates in the world, and guns are banned there. Know why they're high? Because people resort to knives and other objects to kill.

Also, what happened to the violent crime rate in England after they banned guns? Went up.
You can't trust "the public" with anything. That's why we have car crashes constantly, and why we have laws. Specifically because the public can't be trusted. Which is why certain individuals (not every moron that can walk and breathe at the same time) should be allowed to carry for protection.

 

[theonecookie]

Right are you really trying to argue that gun shots wounds are less lethal then knife wounds because that's not exactly true

Yes, the fact that insurgents have been hit by gunfire and kept running and firing at coalition forces does not matter at all.


Knifes are dangerous. The 21ft rule is a bit of a joke but it also applies. You have to be damn well trained to judge a threat, decide to use lethal force, pull out your gun, take the safety off, align signs on our target and pull the trigger - while someone is running at you and you are fearing for your life.


Look, what do you know about terminal ballistics? Because I know a bit. I know what happens from the moment a bullet starts crushing tissue and your heart finally stops.

Shot placement is very hard. Knifing someone is not.




By the way, there is no point in making up "facts". A blade in your heart will make you bleed out in a few seconds. It is as deadly as a gunshot to the heart.

You can survive with a gunshot to the lung even with "improvised" first aid. With a knife you have a higher chance of making the lungs collapse.


Why do you think the Fairbairn-Sykes knife has such a status? It's even on the SAS icon.

I say again that I'm a proponent of following your state laws and acquiring a gun legally if you wish to own one. Every instance that you've mentioned involves people not having guns in a legal fashion. Gang members don't just walk into their local walmart and buy a gun. Neither do people doing stupid shit like trying to assassinate senators. These people are already doing bad shit, and are just adding guns to their tools that they use. You don't think that gang members stab and beat each other to death?

Why don't people think like you? It's not like gangs are state-sponsored to shoot each other every boring Friday night.

Even with easy access to firearms, it is just easier to stay away from legal ownership.

Right I'm just go to assume at this point I'm talking to an idiot because you really are trying to argue that knifes are a more effective weapon than handguns (Hint: there not)

then you go an cut the part of my post where I give you links to studies involving gunshots and knife wounds and then you accuse me of making facts up where are you fucking facts because so far its all been hear say on your part

and yeas you can survive gunshot wounds with minimal first-aid just like you can come away from a stab wound with nothing more than a stitch or two

 

[ElPatron]

Right I'm just go to assume at this point I'm talking to an idiot because you really are trying to argue that knifes are a more effective weapon than handguns (Hint: there not)

then you go an cut the part of my post where I give you links to studies involving gunshots and knife wounds and then you accuse me of making facts up where are you fucking facts because so far its all been hear say on your part

and yeas you can survive gunshot wounds with minimal first-aid just like you can come away from a stab wound with nothing more than a stitch or two

I never commented on your statistics because:
-- Can't access the first one.
-- "Other stab 172"

So I am supposed to believe this study while most of the stab injuries are of unknown origin to me?

These scores speak for themselves.

Pistol 101 17 16.8 11%-25%
Ice Pick 14 2 14.3 4%-40%
Butcher Knife 15 2 13.3 4%-38%



I did not call on you because of those facts. No. Those are still facts. You have a 2% higher chance of dying off a gunshot. Good to know.

But you made up that a gunshot to the heart will be more deadly than a stab.
Hint: both are deadly enough to kill people dead.

Now, you made up that I was trying to say that knifes are more effective.
No. Otherwise military forces would switch rifles for knifes.


But when you step outside military settings and get to the "streets"...

"Stab wounds occur four times more than gunshot wounds in the United Kingdom, but the mortality rate associated with stabbing has ranged from 0-4% as 85% of injuries sustained from stab wounds only affect subcutaneous tissue."
^ a b Campbell, John Creighton (2000). Basic trauma life support for paramedics and other advanced providers. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Brady/Prentice Hall Health. ISBN 0-13-084584-1.
^ a b Bird J, Faulkner M (2009). "Emergency care and management of patients with stab wounds". Nurs Stand 23 (21): 51?7; quiz 58. PMID 19248451.
^ a b Hanoch J, Feigin E, Pikarsky A, Kugel C, Rivkind A (August 1996). "Stab wounds associated with terrorist activities in Israel". JAMA 276 (5): 388?90. PMID 8683817.




With 172 "other" stab injuries, I am likely to believe that they were not very deep.

I have a knife that kind of looks like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KA-BAR.jpg

It is not a KA-BAR, it just looks like it - it is not sharpened and I have it sort of as a collection item. I do not carry it on the street, and I do not live in the UK where such knifes aren't exactly legal.


Now, if you give me statistical data about knifes with blades with at least 75% of that length and compare it to gunshot wounds on the same target (chest/abdomen/etc... don't mix up Center Mass or CNS shots with stabs in the abdomen) I will be more than gladly swallow my words.

Because I got shanked with a kitchen knife once and it only penetrated 2-3mm, so I am going to want more specific statistics.

 

[Aidinthel]

Did this seriously turn into a gun control debate? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised...

 

[Handbag1992]

Virgina Tech? Again?

Those poor students.

 

[FamoFunk]

Fucking hell. Virginia Tech is the unluckiest campus on the planet.

Ninja'd.

Seriously, this place is cursed; I'd never want to get education there for fear of being shot.

What a sad day, everyone must of been terrified seeing what happened only back in '07.

 

[hooksashands]

Jeebus, did they build the faculty on top of an indian burial ground?

 

[The Funslinger]

So sad that people listen to the demon squirrels inside their head and decide to go get a gun and shoot people. A fist works better and you both live to tell the tale.

Yeah! I occasionally hear voices, but it's not like I take them seriously!

OT: Virginia Tech, again? Damn, that place just can't catch a break...

 

[Something Amyss]

I am not sure how picking up his logic and applying in reverse makes me a liar.

Except you didn't do that. His logic didn't apply that at all. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

 

[ElPatron]

I am not sure how picking up his logic and applying in reverse makes me a liar.

Except you didn't do that. His logic didn't apply that at all. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

"Well the point was that only criminals having guns can't really be a bad thing because it leads to less people getting shot because there are less people with gun's overall"

Only criminals have guns -> because law abiding citizens cannot possess firearms -> less people getting shot -> because there are less guns overall

Now, read it backwards.