Amazon.com Widgets

Does the Lone Star stabbing spree prove gun control is useless in preventing violence?

  • It is the evil in someone's heart, not their weapon, that makes them want to kill others. People will do this regardless of the laws

    This is just one example of many on how people can do without a gun. Another example would be prisons, even without guns, they still manage to kill each other. Banning certain types of guns won't solve our problems, but certain laws may keep people from defending themselves from criminals.

  • Weapons will always be found

    This proves that gun control is useless. If criminals want to kill, they will find weapons to do just that. Might aswell ban kitchen knives and my hands while their at it. An example of this is were I live in Canada, there is always a stabbing fatality. People use knives now instead of guns to kill.

  • Yes, they will always find weapons.

    Yes, the Lone Star stabbing spree proves that gun control is useless in preventing violence, because those who are insistent on doing harm will always find a way. The Oklahoma city bombing was not perpetrated by a gun. Neither was September 11. Someone who wants to hurt others will find a way, whether or not guns are legal.

  • The Lone Star stabbing spree does prove gun control is useless in preventing violence.

    The Lone Star stabbing spree does prove gun control is useless in preventing violence. If criminals want weapons then they are going to find a way to get weapons. Criminals do not care about laws or the authority and will do everything in their power to get the weapons that they need.

  • Lone Star Stabbing shows Gun Control is Useless in Preventing Violence

    The Lone Star stabbing spree does prove that gun control is useless in preventing violence. Unfortunately, as seen in the Lone Star case, anything can be used as a weapon for people bent on committing violence. As such, gun control is useless in preventing violence as the violence comes from people, not from the item itself.

  • Evil will occur if evil wants to occur.

    This incident helps to prove that people cannot only be harmed by means of firearms. If someone wants to commit and act of evil they will find anyway possible to go through with it. If gun rights are taken away they will find alternatives in which to kill/harm people in which they want to in the first place.

  • This incident is indeed proof that gun control is useless in preventing violence.

    The Lone Star stabbing spree is evidence that if a person has murder in their heart they will find a way to get it done. Banning or regulating any sort of potentially lethal weapon won't reduce crime by any margin; it will have the opposite effect. If an armed, law-abiding citizen were present at the time of any of these recent cold-blooded mass murders, odds are they would have been either prevented or moderated severely. Even if we were to take guns and knives out of the equation completely there would always be the possibility of murder. Poles, crowbars, bats, silverware, rocks: it sounds silly but every one of these objects and many more are capable of killing a human being when placed in the hands of a person with murder in their heart. This unfortunate incident proves that the regulation of any kind of weapon won't noticeably effect the amount of crime by any means.

  • This would be a different headline if he had easy access to a gun and it'd include a death toll.

    No one died from the stabbing spree. If a gun was involved the headline would be completely different. Yes, there's troubled people and that should be addressed. But that's an incredibly complicated issue and we do a poor job of correctly treating mental health issues. Until we can better treat mental stability we should limit the weapons available to them. The stabbing instances would probably increase but until those stabbings resulted in 26 deaths then access to knives isn't as bad as easy access to guns. A knife gives you a chance to fight back and protect yourself a gun doesn't. A lot of people argue a gun prevents gun violence not if the person with ill-intent kills you first. There will always be violence but we can help prevent deaths. Stabbings don't result in as many death this case proves it.

  • This would be a different headline if he had easy access to a gun and it'd include a death toll.

    No one died from the stabbing spree. If a gun was involved the headline would be completely different. Yes, there's troubled people and that should be addressed. But that's an incredibly complicated issue and we do a poor job of correctly treating mental health issues. Until we can better treat mental stability we should limit the weapons available to them. The stabbing instances would probably increase but until those stabbings resulted in 26 deaths then access to knives isn't as bad as easy access to guns. A knife gives you a chance to fight back and protect yourself a gun doesn't. A lot of people argue a gun prevents gun violence not if the person with ill-intent kills you first. There will always be violence but we can help prevent deaths. Stabbings don't result in as many death this case proves it.

  • No, the Lone Star stabbing spree does not prove gun control is useless in preventing violence.

    No, the Lone Star stabbing spree does not prove gun control is useless in preventing violence.The Lone star stabbing spree assailant was able to stab 14 people and yet none of them died. If he had a handgun or high power rifled it is almost assured that their would have been fatalities.

  • No, it really didn't

    Which tends to be more fatal, stabbing sprees or shooting sprees? It's the latter. Gun control isn't going to eliminate violence, nothing will. That doesn't mean it isn't common sense to look at one of the primary causes of death in this country and say "we probably shouldn't encourage having these." Like most examples against gun control, pointing to a stabbing incident is a poor and fallacious one.

  • It proves absolutely nothing about gun control.

    The most common argument from the position of gun advocates is that measures which restrict firearms possession will not stop violence. This is a correct but entirely pointless statement, as it is practically impossible to stop violence altogether. Gun violence in the United States is an epidemic, and the aim of gun control is to reduce the violence. As there is a wealth of data demonstrating with certainty that nations with strict gun control measures suffer far less gun violence (with occasional and relatively insignificant rises in violence using other methods), it is clear that while gun control laws may not have helped in the Texas incident, they may very well have prevented tragedies such as in Newtown, Connecticut or Virginia Tech, which were both committed with legally-acquired firearms.

  • No, it proves that the mental health system is messed up.

    There are sick people out in the community, we all know that. And when we stayed in the communities we were born into people who were odd stood out like a sore thumb and the other community members knew if their behavior was escalating or just normal for them. We have moved so far away from our communities that no one knows us, just another face in the crowd and isolation is the worst thing for people with mental illness. Left alone, with no support these people crack. It's nothing to do with gun availability, it's to do with the shameful state of our mental health system.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.