Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lone Star College Mass Shooting

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:29:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean "Mass Stabbing"....

Do you think democrats will now start pushing for laws requiring individuals undergo a background check before they can legally purchase knives?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 5:36:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM, imabench wrote:
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now

So why are mass shootings used to justify background check for guns, but mass stabbings are not used to justify background check for knives?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 5:44:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 5:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM, imabench wrote:
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now

So why are mass shootings used to justify background check for guns, but mass stabbings are not used to justify background check for knives?

Seriously?

1.
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and people. They are not a household item with many alternative uses.

The purpose for knives is wide and varied. Knives are used by millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of different purposes besides killing. You could murder someone with a pillow or a rope- the thing is, pillows and ropes are not efficient killing machines whose main utility is killing.

2.
Not one single person who was stabbed died at the mass stabbing.

Not many people who were shot survived at the mass shootings.

3.
Mass stabbings require a specific person with a specific body type- not just anybody can stab just anybody. It requires a rather large person in close quarters with another.

A below-average size four year old could potentially kill an entire family in five minutes with a gun in a large backyard.

This is a poor argument against background checks, son. Try again.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 6:07:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 5:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM, imabench wrote:
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now

So why are mass shootings used to justify background check for guns, but mass stabbings are not used to justify background check for knives?

Last time I checked, no one actually died here.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 6:12:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Guns can be used for recreational purposes, and almost exclusicvely is, instead of actually killing someone.

Also, objects don't have objective purposes. Its all dependent on how a person utilizes it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 6:36:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 5:44:49 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM, imabench wrote:
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now

So why are mass shootings used to justify background check for guns, but mass stabbings are not used to justify background check for knives?

Seriously?

1.
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and people. They are not a household item with many alternative uses.

The purpose for knives is wide and varied. Knives are used by millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of different purposes besides killing. You could murder someone with a pillow or a rope- the thing is, pillows and ropes are not efficient killing machines whose main utility is killing.

Guns have two main purposes;
1.) Sport
a.) Marksmanship
b.) Hunting
2.) Survival
a.) Self-Defense
b.) Hunting

The Javelin was originally designed as a ranged weapon, but is now an Olympic sport. Fireworks were originally used as artillery, but are now a form of celebratory entertainment.

2.
Not one single person who was stabbed died at the mass stabbing.

Permanent scaring, and PTSD is arguably worse than death. If he knew more about vitals he could have easily killed them.
Not many people who were shot survived at the mass shootings.

If you are going to compare body counts, than let me point out that timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, and injured over 650 more using fertilizer.
3.
Mass stabbings require a specific person with a specific body type- not just anybody can stab just anybody.
not true.
It requires a rather large person in close quarters with another.

Not true. A small person can be just as effective in a knife fight as a large person.
https://www.youtube.com...
A below-average size four year old could potentially kill an entire family in five minutes with a gun in a large backyard.

Lizzie Borden killed her whole family with an ax.... What is your point?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 7:06:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 6:36:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:44:49 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM, imabench wrote:
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now

So why are mass shootings used to justify background check for guns, but mass stabbings are not used to justify background check for knives?

Seriously?

1.
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and people. They are not a household item with many alternative uses.

The purpose for knives is wide and varied. Knives are used by millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of different purposes besides killing. You could murder someone with a pillow or a rope- the thing is, pillows and ropes are not efficient killing machines whose main utility is killing.

Guns have two main purposes;
1.) Sport
a.) Marksmanship
b.) Hunting
2.) Survival
a.) Self-Defense
b.) Hunting

The Javelin was originally designed as a ranged weapon, but is now an Olympic sport. Fireworks were originally used as artillery, but are now a form of celebratory entertainment.

2.
Not one single person who was stabbed died at the mass stabbing.

Permanent scaring, and PTSD is arguably worse than death. If he knew more about vitals he could have easily killed them.
Not many people who were shot survived at the mass shootings.

If you are going to compare body counts, than let me point out that timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, and injured over 650 more using fertilizer.
3.
Mass stabbings require a specific person with a specific body type- not just anybody can stab just anybody.
not true.
It requires a rather large person in close quarters with another.

Not true. A small person can be just as effective in a knife fight as a large person.
https://www.youtube.com...
A below-average size four year old could potentially kill an entire family in five minutes with a gun in a large backyard.

Lizzie Borden killed her whole family with an ax.... What is your point?

What is your point?

Guns were designed to be, and are, efficient killing machines that can be used by anybody against anybody regardless of how they are used most of the time by normal people.

A knife can be fashioned out of a rock. What will you argue next? That if we require background checks for guns, we should require background checks for people entering the woods, lest they fashion a javelin out of a stick or a dagger from flint?

Your argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy. "If we make people get background checks to buy the guns- what's next? Background checks for all the things we can use to kill people?" No, actually- we're only going to continue having background checks for people who want to buy the objects which were specifically designed to be efficient killing machines. This is in the same way that the states that legalized gay marriage aren't going to all of a sudden legalize dog-human marriage.

Again, the argument against background checks in this way is simply a poor argument.
Try again.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 7:22:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 11:29:50 PM, DanT wrote:
I mean "Mass Stabbing"....

Do you think democrats will now start pushing for laws requiring individuals undergo a background check before they can legally purchase knives?

The weapon used in the incident was an exacto knife, the same kind used for arts and crafts, model building, etc. Background checks for knives would have almost no utility, and the reason that NO ONE will urge for background checks for knives is because doing so is a fantastically stupid idea.

My question is this: why did no one step up and stop this guy? I can understand if people are physically frail, but if I saw someone cutting other people I would try to intervene. Disabling someone (especially a scrawny college student, which this guy was) with a knife is not a difficult task -and doing nothing is unacceptable.
Tsar of DDO
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 7:34:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 7:22:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:29:50 PM, DanT wrote:
I mean "Mass Stabbing"....

Do you think democrats will now start pushing for laws requiring individuals undergo a background check before they can legally purchase knives?

The weapon used in the incident was an exacto knife, the same kind used for arts and crafts, model building, etc. Background checks for knives would have almost no utility, and the reason that NO ONE will urge for background checks for knives is because doing so is a fantastically stupid idea.


I meant to say that too... it would be incredibly impractical even if there were a group of people who wanted it.....
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 7:38:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 7:34:36 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 7:22:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:29:50 PM, DanT wrote:
I mean "Mass Stabbing"....

Do you think democrats will now start pushing for laws requiring individuals undergo a background check before they can legally purchase knives?

The weapon used in the incident was an exacto knife, the same kind used for arts and crafts, model building, etc. Background checks for knives would have almost no utility, and the reason that NO ONE will urge for background checks for knives is because doing so is a fantastically stupid idea.


I meant to say that too... it would be incredibly impractical even if there were a group of people who wanted it.....

I could see the Onion writing an article about people who urged for background checks, and then having caricature Republicans defend their "constitutional right" to carry exacto knives...
Tsar of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 7:52:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 7:22:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:29:50 PM, DanT wrote:
I mean "Mass Stabbing"....

Do you think democrats will now start pushing for laws requiring individuals undergo a background check before they can legally purchase knives?

The weapon used in the incident was an exacto knife, the same kind used for arts and crafts, model building, etc. Background checks for knives would have almost no utility, and the reason that NO ONE will urge for background checks for knives is because doing so is a fantastically stupid idea.

My question is this: why did no one step up and stop this guy? I can understand if people are physically frail, but if I saw someone cutting other people I would try to intervene.
they did. A group of students tackled him.
Disabling someone (especially a scrawny college student, which this guy was) with a knife is not a difficult task -and doing nothing is unacceptable.
A.) he was not scrawny, but he was deaf
B.) disabling someone with a knife is difficult if you are unarmed. If you get in close you can get stabbed.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 7:54:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 7:38:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/10/2013 7:34:36 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 7:22:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:29:50 PM, DanT wrote:
I mean "Mass Stabbing"....

Do you think democrats will now start pushing for laws requiring individuals undergo a background check before they can legally purchase knives?

The weapon used in the incident was an exacto knife, the same kind used for arts and crafts, model building, etc. Background checks for knives would have almost no utility, and the reason that NO ONE will urge for background checks for knives is because doing so is a fantastically stupid idea.


I meant to say that too... it would be incredibly impractical even if there were a group of people who wanted it.....

I could see the Onion writing an article about people who urged for background checks, and then having caricature Republicans defend their "constitutional right" to carry exacto knives...

Out of curiosity I looked it up. Nothing so far... but there's some good stuff.....

http://www.theonion.com...
^Gold^

http://www.theonion.com...
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 8:23:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is the kind of weird argument that could be applied in any circumstance where there are two similar things, one of which is inherently ridiculously more dangerous.

"You can run over someone with a bicycle and kill them if they're old and break their hip, so why aren't those hypocritical liberal democrats pushing for licensing and mandatory insurance of bicycles instead of just cars?!"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:48:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 8:23:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
This is the kind of weird argument that could be applied in any circumstance where there are two similar things, one of which is inherently ridiculously more dangerous.

"You can run over someone with a bicycle and kill them if they're old and break their hip, so why aren't those hypocritical liberal democrats pushing for licensing and mandatory insurance of bicycles instead of just cars?!"

You can also kill someone by bumping into them. Therefore we should make people have licenses to walk.

Obviously, this is ridiculous, since the benefit does not outweigh the cost.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 7:40:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for

Oryus wrote:
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and people. They are not a household item with many alternative uses.

The purpose for knives is wide and varied. Knives are used by millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of different purposes besides killing. You could murder someone with a pillow or a rope- the thing is, pillows and ropes are not efficient killing machines whose main utility is killing.

There are ~270,000,000 guns in the U.S. that are owned by private individuals. There were 9,484 gun-related deaths in 2008.

This means that, assuming that each murder is done with a separate gun (which isn't always the case), 3.5 percent of the total number of guns were used in murders. If guns were only used for killing, this would be drastically higher.

Oryus wrote:
Not one single person who was stabbed died at the mass stabbing.

Not many people who were shot survived at the mass shootings.

In 2008, 1,897 people died from sharp objects.

Oryus wrote:
Mass stabbings require a specific person with a specific body type- not just anybody can stab just anybody. It requires a rather large person in close quarters with another.

A below-average size four year old could potentially kill an entire family in five :minutes with a gun in a large backyard.

The key word here is potentially. This would be unlikely, as the four-year-old would have to gain access to the gun, know how to properly use the gun, not miss his targets, and not be stopped by someone else.

bladerunner060 wrote:
This is the kind of weird argument that could be applied in any circumstance where there are two similar things, one of which is inherently ridiculously more dangerous.

Oryus wrote:
Guns were designed to be, and are, efficient killing machines that can be used by anybody against anybody regardless of how they are used most of the time by normal people.

If the majority of people do not use guns for malicious purposes, how can you justify them being treated differently than other potential weapons? Just because when the small minority of people use them to commit crimes they are deadlier doesn't matter. As previously pointed out, a bomb with much more power than a gun can be made out of ANFO.

Oryus wrote:
A knife can be fashioned out of a rock. What will you argue next? That if we require background checks for guns, we should require background checks for people entering the woods, lest they fashion a javelin out of a stick or a dagger from flint?

bladerunner060 wrote:
"You can run over someone with a bicycle and kill them if they're old and break their hip, so why aren't those hypocritical liberal democrats pushing for licensing and mandatory insurance of bicycles instead of just cars?!"

If you follow the logic behind background checks, that would be the conclusion. The point is that regulating knives would be just as unreasonable as regulating guns.

Oryus wrote:
No, actually- we're only going to continue having background checks for people who want to buy the objects which were specifically designed to be efficient killing machines.

If they are not primarily used to kill people, they should not be treated any differently than any other object. Again, 96.5 percent of guns are not involved in shootings.

Source:
http://www.infoplease.com...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:00:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 7:06:27 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 6:36:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:44:49 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM, imabench wrote:
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now

So why are mass shootings used to justify background check for guns, but mass stabbings are not used to justify background check for knives?

Seriously?

1.
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and people. They are not a household item with many alternative uses.

The purpose for knives is wide and varied. Knives are used by millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of different purposes besides killing. You could murder someone with a pillow or a rope- the thing is, pillows and ropes are not efficient killing machines whose main utility is killing.

Guns have two main purposes;
1.) Sport
a.) Marksmanship
b.) Hunting
2.) Survival
a.) Self-Defense
b.) Hunting

The Javelin was originally designed as a ranged weapon, but is now an Olympic sport. Fireworks were originally used as artillery, but are now a form of celebratory entertainment.

2.
Not one single person who was stabbed died at the mass stabbing.

Permanent scaring, and PTSD is arguably worse than death. If he knew more about vitals he could have easily killed them.
Not many people who were shot survived at the mass shootings.

If you are going to compare body counts, than let me point out that timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, and injured over 650 more using fertilizer.
3.
Mass stabbings require a specific person with a specific body type- not just anybody can stab just anybody.
not true.
It requires a rather large person in close quarters with another.

Not true. A small person can be just as effective in a knife fight as a large person.
https://www.youtube.com...
A below-average size four year old could potentially kill an entire family in five minutes with a gun in a large backyard.

Lizzie Borden killed her whole family with an ax.... What is your point?

What is your point?

Guns were designed to be, and are, efficient killing machines that can be used by anybody against anybody regardless of how they are used most of the time by normal people.

A knife can be fashioned out of a rock. What will you argue next? That if we require background checks for guns, we should require background checks for people entering the woods, lest they fashion a javelin out of a stick or a dagger from flint?

Your argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy. "If we make people get background checks to buy the guns- what's next? Background checks for all the things we can use to kill people?" No, actually- we're only going to continue having background checks for people who want to buy the objects which were specifically designed to be efficient killing machines. This is in the same way that the states that legalized gay marriage aren't going to all of a sudden legalize dog-human marriage.

Again, the argument against background checks in this way is simply a poor argument.
Try again.

People can make their own guns as well. It's rather easy to create makeshift firearms; that's why it's illegal in some states to possess homemade guns.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:05:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:56:38 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for
Same could be said for javelins, bow and arrows, swords, and lances; all of which are now used in sports.
Same could also be said for fireworks, which were originally used as artillery.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:58:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 7:40:06 AM, bossyburrito wrote:


bladerunner060 wrote:
This is the kind of weird argument that could be applied in any circumstance where there are two similar things, one of which is inherently ridiculously more dangerous.


Oryus wrote:
Guns were designed to be, and are, efficient killing machines that can be used by anybody against anybody regardless of how they are used most of the time by normal people.

If the majority of people do not use guns for malicious purposes, how can you justify them being treated differently than other potential weapons? Just because when the small minority of people use them to commit crimes they are deadlier doesn't matter. As previously pointed out, a bomb with much more power than a gun can be made out of ANFO.

I am in favor of gun rights. But I'm sorry: equating guns and knives is just stupid.



Oryus wrote:
A knife can be fashioned out of a rock. What will you argue next? That if we require background checks for guns, we should require background checks for people entering the woods, lest they fashion a javelin out of a stick or a dagger from flint?

bladerunner060 wrote:
"You can run over someone with a bicycle and kill them if they're old and break their hip, so why aren't those hypocritical liberal democrats pushing for licensing and mandatory insurance of bicycles instead of just cars?!"


If you follow the logic behind background checks, that would be the conclusion. The point is that regulating knives would be just as unreasonable as regulating guns.

Really? I can buy a gun for a dollar in a jar at the checkout of the grocery line? Because I would have to be able to for the situations to be analogous. Oh, and guns would have to have a metric crapton of utility in the world, like how you use knives to eat, to cut butter, to construct other useful tools, etc. etc.

The situations are not at all analogous; the logic behind background checks is that this is an item with a very high degree of inherent danger, which can trivially be used to kill many people.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 9:15:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 8:05:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:56:38 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for
Same could be said for javelins, bow and arrows, swords, and lances; all of which are now used in sports.
Same could also be said for fireworks, which were originally used as artillery.

You seem to forget that guns are better at killing than a sword.

Javelin - takes plenty of training, not concealable, your target will know before you hit them, does not work at close range, only goes as fast as can be thrown, inaccurate. For each use, you need a separate javelin unless you plan to retrieve and re-use them. Not the best mass-murder weapon.

Bow and arrows - takes plenty of training to be accurate, relatively slow projectile, low rate of fire, not concealable, ammunition is heavy in comparison. No real way to aim with a sight.

Sword - not a ranged weapon, takes training to use properly. Heavy and hard to conceal.

Lance - intended for use on horseback. Most lances are made of wood and are one-use. You'd have to be an idiot to even consider using a polearm for any type of mass-murder.

Fireworks - would take knowledge of pyrotechnics and more preparation to use in a mass-murder.

Knife - Easily concealable, but is not a ranged weapon. Most stabbing victims die because of lack of prompt medical treatment, and could easily be saved. It is difficult to stab someone in the brain.

Gun - high-velocity, small projectile. Takes less training to use than, for example, a bow and arrow. Most are easily concealable. Extra ammunition is relatively light. With proper training, gives a higher degree of accuracy than any bow would. Is not a medieval-era weapon. Takes less preparation to use - just load a magazine and you're practically ready. Can easily be used to fire a bullet into the victim's brain, causing instant death (unless the victim is incredibly lucky).
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 11:11:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 8:00:44 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 7:06:27 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 6:36:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:44:49 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM, imabench wrote:
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now

So why are mass shootings used to justify background check for guns, but mass stabbings are not used to justify background check for knives?

Seriously?

1.
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and people. They are not a household item with many alternative uses.

The purpose for knives is wide and varied. Knives are used by millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of different purposes besides killing. You could murder someone with a pillow or a rope- the thing is, pillows and ropes are not efficient killing machines whose main utility is killing.

Guns have two main purposes;
1.) Sport
a.) Marksmanship
b.) Hunting
2.) Survival
a.) Self-Defense
b.) Hunting

The Javelin was originally designed as a ranged weapon, but is now an Olympic sport. Fireworks were originally used as artillery, but are now a form of celebratory entertainment.

2.
Not one single person who was stabbed died at the mass stabbing.

Permanent scaring, and PTSD is arguably worse than death. If he knew more about vitals he could have easily killed them.
Not many people who were shot survived at the mass shootings.

If you are going to compare body counts, than let me point out that timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, and injured over 650 more using fertilizer.
3.
Mass stabbings require a specific person with a specific body type- not just anybody can stab just anybody.
not true.
It requires a rather large person in close quarters with another.

Not true. A small person can be just as effective in a knife fight as a large person.
https://www.youtube.com...
A below-average size four year old could potentially kill an entire family in five minutes with a gun in a large backyard.

Lizzie Borden killed her whole family with an ax.... What is your point?

What is your point?

Guns were designed to be, and are, efficient killing machines that can be used by anybody against anybody regardless of how they are used most of the time by normal people.

A knife can be fashioned out of a rock. What will you argue next? That if we require background checks for guns, we should require background checks for people entering the woods, lest they fashion a javelin out of a stick or a dagger from flint?

Your argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy. "If we make people get background checks to buy the guns- what's next? Background checks for all the things we can use to kill people?" No, actually- we're only going to continue having background checks for people who want to buy the objects which were specifically designed to be efficient killing machines. This is in the same way that the states that legalized gay marriage aren't going to all of a sudden legalize dog-human marriage.

Again, the argument against background checks in this way is simply a poor argument.
Try again.

People can make their own guns as well. It's rather easy to create makeshift firearms; that's why it's illegal in some states to possess homemade guns.

Well, if it's so easy to make guns, then I guess background checks aren't that big a deal after all, eh? Violent criminals and mentally disturbed individuals can just fashion their own efficient killing utensils. They won't have to go through all the trouble of buying a gun at an arms dealer.

Your argument is now a perfectionist fallacy. Just because we can't stop guns from being in the hands of every violent criminal and mentally disturbed individual doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 11:26:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 7:40:06 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for

Oryus wrote:
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and people. They are not a household item with many alternative uses.

The purpose for knives is wide and varied. Knives are used by millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of different purposes besides killing. You could murder someone with a pillow or a rope- the thing is, pillows and ropes are not efficient killing machines whose main utility is killing.



There are ~270,000,000 guns in the U.S. that are owned by private individuals. There were 9,484 gun-related deaths in 2008.

This means that, assuming that each murder is done with a separate gun (which isn't always the case), 3.5 percent of the total number of guns were used in murders. If guns were only used for killing, this would be drastically higher.

Oryus wrote:
Not one single person who was stabbed died at the mass stabbing.

Not many people who were shot survived at the mass shootings.

In 2008, 1,897 people died from sharp objects.

Oryus wrote:
Mass stabbings require a specific person with a specific body type- not just anybody can stab just anybody. It requires a rather large person in close quarters with another.

A below-average size four year old could potentially kill an entire family in five :minutes with a gun in a large backyard.

The key word here is potentially. This would be unlikely, as the four-year-old would have to gain access to the gun, know how to properly use the gun, not miss his targets, and not be stopped by someone else.

bladerunner060 wrote:
This is the kind of weird argument that could be applied in any circumstance where there are two similar things, one of which is inherently ridiculously more dangerous.


Oryus wrote:
Guns were designed to be, and are, efficient killing machines that can be used by anybody against anybody regardless of how they are used most of the time by normal people.

If the majority of people do not use guns for malicious purposes, how can you justify them being treated differently than other potential weapons? Just because when the small minority of people use them to commit crimes they are deadlier doesn't matter. As previously pointed out, a bomb with much more power than a gun can be made out of ANFO.


Oryus wrote:
A knife can be fashioned out of a rock. What will you argue next? That if we require background checks for guns, we should require background checks for people entering the woods, lest they fashion a javelin out of a stick or a dagger from flint?

bladerunner060 wrote:
"You can run over someone with a bicycle and kill them if they're old and break their hip, so why aren't those hypocritical liberal democrats pushing for licensing and mandatory insurance of bicycles instead of just cars?!"


If you follow the logic behind background checks, that would be the conclusion. The point is that regulating knives would be just as unreasonable as regulating guns.

Oryus wrote:
No, actually- we're only going to continue having background checks for people who want to buy the objects which were specifically designed to be efficient killing machines.


If they are not primarily used to kill people, they should not be treated any differently than any other object. Again, 96.5 percent of guns are not involved in shootings.



Source:
http://www.infoplease.com...

I never said that guns were used primarily to kill. In fact, I said the opposite. I said that regardless of how normal people use them, they still are what they are. I said that efficiently killing is what they are designed to do. Both you and DanT are missing the operative phrase here:
Guns are efficient killing machines.

There is literally no other widely available, easily concealed, fairly inexpensive item which requires no training to operate in this country which makes the following happen: press a button--> dead person

Sorry, but I don't advocate items like that being easily accessible for mentally disturbed individuals and people with a criminal history of violence- nor does the majority of the country.

So what is the counterargument, aside from strawman arguments, slippery slopes, and perfectionist fallacies? Why should the mentally disturbed and violent criminals be able to easily access the only widely available killing machine, which is more efficient by far than any other widely available weapon? In following the naysayers slippery slope logic here, since we should allow the mentally disturbed and violent criminals to have guns, shall we allow drunk people to drive their cars and pedophiles to teach elementary school classes too?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 12:47:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 11:11:35 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/11/2013 8:00:44 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 7:06:27 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 6:36:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:44:49 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/10/2013 5:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/10/2013 12:02:36 AM, imabench wrote:
no dumba**, go be stupid somewhere else now

So why are mass shootings used to justify background check for guns, but mass stabbings are not used to justify background check for knives?

Seriously?

1.
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and people. They are not a household item with many alternative uses.

The purpose for knives is wide and varied. Knives are used by millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of different purposes besides killing. You could murder someone with a pillow or a rope- the thing is, pillows and ropes are not efficient killing machines whose main utility is killing.

Guns have two main purposes;
1.) Sport
a.) Marksmanship
b.) Hunting
2.) Survival
a.) Self-Defense
b.) Hunting

The Javelin was originally designed as a ranged weapon, but is now an Olympic sport. Fireworks were originally used as artillery, but are now a form of celebratory entertainment.

2.
Not one single person who was stabbed died at the mass stabbing.

Permanent scaring, and PTSD is arguably worse than death. If he knew more about vitals he could have easily killed them.
Not many people who were shot survived at the mass shootings.

If you are going to compare body counts, than let me point out that timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, and injured over 650 more using fertilizer.
3.
Mass stabbings require a specific person with a specific body type- not just anybody can stab just anybody.
not true.
It requires a rather large person in close quarters with another.

Not true. A small person can be just as effective in a knife fight as a large person.
https://www.youtube.com...
A below-average size four year old could potentially kill an entire family in five minutes with a gun in a large backyard.

Lizzie Borden killed her whole family with an ax.... What is your point?

What is your point?

Guns were designed to be, and are, efficient killing machines that can be used by anybody against anybody regardless of how they are used most of the time by normal people.

A knife can be fashioned out of a rock. What will you argue next? That if we require background checks for guns, we should require background checks for people entering the woods, lest they fashion a javelin out of a stick or a dagger from flint?

Your argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy. "If we make people get background checks to buy the guns- what's next? Background checks for all the things we can use to kill people?" No, actually- we're only going to continue having background checks for people who want to buy the objects which were specifically designed to be efficient killing machines. This is in the same way that the states that legalized gay marriage aren't going to all of a sudden legalize dog-human marriage.

Again, the argument against background checks in this way is simply a poor argument.
Try again.

People can make their own guns as well. It's rather easy to create makeshift firearms; that's why it's illegal in some states to possess homemade guns.

Well, if it's so easy to make guns, then I guess background checks aren't that big a deal after all, eh?
It would be a crime to make your own guns, as it already is in many states.
Violent criminals and mentally disturbed individuals
Why are you grouping the mentally ill in with criminals? The mentally ill are not 2nd class citizens. By making them second class citizens, you deter them from seeking treatment. I know pilots who have refused treatment for depression, because they would lose their pilot's license. We need to stop persecuting the mentally ill; a majority of the population has mental illness, but many go untreated because of the stigmata.

can just fashion their own efficient killing utensils. They won't have to go through all the trouble of buying a gun at an arms dealer.

Or they could just use fertilizer like McVeigh.

Your argument is now a perfectionist fallacy. Just because we can't stop guns from being in the hands of every violent criminal and mentally disturbed individual doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

What you are saying is that we should disarm all the law abiding citizens, to prevent crime, despite the fact criminals can still obtain arms illegally.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:16:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:56:38 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for

A-a-a-a-asssseeeerrrrttttiiiiiooooonnnnn!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:27:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:16:28 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:56:38 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for

A-a-a-a-asssseeeerrrrttttiiiiiooooonnnnn!

Then find me something that is just as widely available and which is just as effective at killing people.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:29:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:27:05 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:16:28 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:56:38 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for

A-a-a-a-asssseeeerrrrttttiiiiiooooonnnnn!

Then find me something that is just as widely available and which is just as effective at killing people.

Cars, knives in certain situations, various types of homemade bombs, and planes.

*boom*

*drhead's argument's head blows up*
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:31:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Current legislation moving through the senate will only hinder law abiding gun owners, it's cliche to say but absolutely true that criminals won't follow the rules.
What difference will it be to a straw purchaser, if the law says they can't do it vs the law says they can't do it and they should do a background check? They going to all of the sudden start following the law?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:27:05 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:16:28 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:56:38 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for

A-a-a-a-asssseeeerrrrttttiiiiiooooonnnnn!

Then find me something that is just as widely available and which is just as effective at killing people.

I like the saying "My guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car has"

Also, fertilizer, cars and airplanes are extremely effective killing machines.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:50:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:29:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:27:05 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:16:28 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:56:38 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Let's be honest, guns kill. And that's all they're good for

A-a-a-a-asssseeeerrrrttttiiiiiooooonnnnn!

Then find me something that is just as widely available and which is just as effective at killing people.

Cars, knives in certain situations, various types of homemade bombs, and planes.

*boom*

*drhead's argument's head blows up*

Cars are not concealable. Knives can't hit a person across longer distances. Bombs require preparation to use, such as building the bomb. Planes are by no means widely available or concealable. None of the things you listed are things that you can pull out of your pocket and kill someone with across a room without an extreme amount of skill.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian