22 Kids Stabbed At School In China

[Bitware]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z135WhHnlM8

there were guards at the school

[FirstAscent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z135WhHnlM8

there were guards at the school

Thankfully, he could not get a gun. If ever there was an argument for gun control, this is it. In a timely manner, this event juxtaposes with the Connecticut shooting. Nobody was killed in this knife attack.

[RodeoX]

I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.

[FirstAscent]

I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.

They are a tool with utilitarian value. Just like cars. I can't believe you think your argument is any type of argument at all.

[01BTC10]

I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.

We should only allow those:

[BlackBison]

I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.

Knives have other practical uses besides killing...

[RodeoX]

I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.

Knives have other practical uses besides killing...

Oh, like a say... a gun. 

So the law should be that you may own things that have practical uses? This will finally put to an end the wearing of low rider jeans.

Just playing devils advocate here.

[kokojie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z135WhHnlM8

there were guards at the school

Thankfully, he could not get a gun. If ever there was an argument for gun control, this is it. In a timely manner, this event juxtaposes with the Connecticut shooting. Nobody was killed in this knife attack.

Seriously? you think Knives can not kill people? These are two completely different incidents, done by completely different people. If you had put a gun in the knife man's hand, I doubt he'll even injury as many, because he apparently did not learn how to kill effectively nor does he make any effort to make a kill. It's actually quite difficult in my opinion to stab 22 kids and not kill any one of them. I think he might not have even made any stab motion.

[FirstAscent]

I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.

Knives have other practical uses besides killing...

Oh, like a say... a gun. 

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

So the law should be that you may own things that have practical uses?

I would, in general, prefer a limit on devices whose sole purpose is killing. Art, flowers and pastries don't necessarily have practical uses, but I don't see any serious problems with them.

Just playing devils advocate here.

Then play it well, if you're going to do it at all.

[malevolent]

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

So what? What's wrong in killing someone in self-defense or hunting for animals to gather food?

[myrkul]

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.



That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime.

Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to.

There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed a human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons.

[FirstAscent]

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.



That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime.

Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to.

There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed another human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons.

So?

[myrkul]

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.



That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime.

Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to.

There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed a human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons.

So?

So your argument is invalid.

[FirstAscent]

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.



That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime.

Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to.

There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed another human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons.

So?

So your argument is invalid.

In what way?

[myrkul]

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.



That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime.

Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to.

There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed a human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons.

So?

So your argument is invalid.

In what way?

You said that guns are for killing, and have no other purpose. I showed that guns, first off, do not have that purpose at all, unless given to them by the user (not the manufacturer). To quote William Gibson (from off his twitter feed, just now, @GreatDismal), A gun is like a very long, very fast temporary finger, but of very limited utility: instantly pokes a hole in a distant object.

That's all it does. Secondly, I showed that that distant object is almost never a person. Usually it's a piece of paper, or a fruit, or a milk jug full of water. Once in a while it's an animal.

So guns a) have a purpose which is not killing: Poke a hole in something far away, and b) are rarely used to poke holes in people, and c) almost never are they used by civilians to poke holes in people.

[FirstAscent]

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.



That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime.

Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to.

There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed a human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons.

So?

So your argument is invalid.

In what way?

You said that guns are for killing, and have no other purpose. I showed that guns, first off, do not have that purpose at all, unless given to them by the user (not the manufacturer). To quote William Gibson (from off his twitter feed, just now, @GreatDismal), A gun is like a very long, very fast temporary finger, but of very limited utility: instantly pokes a hole in a distant object.

That's all it does. Secondly, I showed that that distant object is almost never a person. Usually it's a piece of paper, or a fruit, or a milk jug full of water. Once in a while it's an animal.

So guns a) have a purpose which is not killing: Poke a hole in something far away, and b) are rarely used to poke holes in people, and c) almost never are they used by civilians to poke holes in people.

So William Gibson is now spokesperson for why guns are manufactured?

So having devices which allow us to put holes in things at distances for recreational value is worth 12,000 lives per year? Do paintings kill 12,000 people per year? Does playing a violin put people in danger? Do R/C cars cause 12,000 people to lose their lives per year?

Your argument is desperate. Stupid. Comical. Pathetic. Without value.

[myrkul]

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.



That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime.

Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to.

There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed a human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons.

So?

So your argument is invalid.

In what way?

You said that guns are for killing, and have no other purpose. I showed that guns, first off, do not have that purpose at all, unless given to them by the user (not the manufacturer). To quote William Gibson (from off his twitter feed, just now, @GreatDismal), A gun is like a very long, very fast temporary finger, but of very limited utility: instantly pokes a hole in a distant object.

That's all it does. Secondly, I showed that that distant object is almost never a person. Usually it's a piece of paper, or a fruit, or a milk jug full of water. Once in a while it's an animal.

So guns a) have a purpose which is not killing: Poke a hole in something far away, and b) are rarely used to poke holes in people, and c) almost never are they used by civilians to poke holes in people.

So William Gibson is now spokesperson for why guns are manufactured?

So having devices which allow us to put holes in things at distances for recreational value is worth 12,000 lives per year? Do paintings kill 12,000 people per year? Does playing a violin put people in danger? Do R/C cars cause 12,000 people to lose their lives per year?

Your argument is desperate. Stupid. Comical. Pathetic. Without value.

In 2010, Automobile accidents claimed 32,885 lives. Is being able to travel at 70 miles per hour worth 32,000 lives per year?

[myrkul]

And no matter what you think of my argument, it does not change the fact that yours is invalid. If guns had only one purpose, to kill, then someone or something would die every time they are used. Since the vast majority of times a gun is used, nothing dies, your argument is invalid.

But please, continue. It's quite comical to watch you sputter.

[RodeoX]

I can't believe in this day and age we allow people to have knives.

Knives have other practical uses besides killing...

Oh, like a say... a gun. 

Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.

So the law should be that you may own things that have practical uses?

I would, in general, prefer a limit on devices whose sole purpose is killing. Art, flowers and pastries don't necessarily have practical uses, but I don't see any serious problems with them.

Just playing devils advocate here.

Then play it well, if you're going to do it at all.

I went shooting this weekend. Put about 100rnds. through each of my assault rifles. But I must be doing it wrong because I didn't kill anything. In fact none of the guns I currently own have ever killed anything. With the exception of my CC weapon, they are for competitive shooting at targets.
I guess one equates guns with killing if you only know about them from crime reports on the news. I grew up shooting with friends and associate guns with fun times and friendly competition. The only "danger" we thought about was tripping and shooting yourself.  

As far as practical danger, art should definitely be banned. Art has lead to countless disruptions of the public order. It gives people ideas that can lead to violent change. It is simply not needed.

[/muahahaha]

[malevolent]

So William Gibson is now spokesperson for why guns are manufactured?

So having devices which allow us to put holes in things at distances for recreational value is worth 12,000 lives per year? Do paintings kill 12,000 people per year? Does playing a violin put people in danger? Do R/C cars cause 12,000 people to lose their lives per year?

Your argument is desperate. Stupid. Comical. Pathetic. Without value.

Guns are only tools, you can ban them but you won't stop people from murdering each other with knives or screwdrivers.
UK is an example, even most knives are difficult to acquire and illegal to possess in a public place unless one has a good excuse (works as a butcher, etc.):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236426/Former-civil-servant-killed-frail-pensioner-71-hammer-screwdriver-attack-falsifying-will.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-149856/Screwdriver-killing-Accused-hiding-man-attacked.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-16035128

And:

Knives most common weapon in youth murders