By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas (19 Students, 2 Teachers Dead)

I always laugh when people compare knives and guns. As if they are even remotely close in terms of lethal. And before somebody claims I'm underestimating knives... who here things getting rid of guns in our military and replacing them with knives is a good idea? And that is the root of the problem. Pro gun folks are just bonkers.  Flat out bonkers.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Around the Network

I wonder in about 10 more years will we need to have a 3 man team in order to leave the house in America. Interesting as I look back in time 20 years ago most violent situations people rarely would have body armor but lately we see that is the new trend. I am sure we will see this be a main stay from here on out as the GOP continue to believe more armed people stop violent situations. Pretty soon you will not be able to leave your house unless you are armored up because as we continue to see, escalation in weaponry just ups the ante on the amount of firepower you will need for each encounter. A hand gun is not going to be enough, you will need to be packing a high powered rifle as well maybe a couple of flashbangs for good measure. Hmm instead of just arming our teachers with guns we should also give them a few flashbangs as well and tactical training. Just having some armed person with a gun seem highly irresponsible in a school setting if they are not properly trained. You can see that this is going to go bad because its going to be some half assed bill put together to say we are doing something but not really thought out.



My prediction is the next generation (my kids) will have strict gun laws and wonder what in the living hell was the older generation thinking. Kind of like how I look at the Jim Crow era in astonishment.  The next generation will be absolutely baffled with our stupidity regarding selling war guns to the general public.



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

ConservagameR said:
sundin13 said:

First of all, I'm not advocating getting rid of guns. But beyond that, the USA is the chief supplier of guns across the whole of North America. If we were able to get a handle on our gun problem, it would significantly help both Canada and Mexico deal with their gun problems and reduce the supply to criminals across the continent. 

As for whether killings would decrease, I believe it would reduce a lot of impulsive crime in particular. It is far from uncommon to have a scenario where two guys get into a fight and one ends up pulling out a gun and killing the other. If you take the gun out of those situations, they may throw hands, but the odds of death decreases drastically. While you do see knife crime in other countries like the UK, you also see a drastically lower homicide rate in general. Even then, I would much rather someone come at me with a knife than with a gun (and there are further subdivisions regarding different calibers of ammunition). 

At the end of the day, the US is pretty good evidence by itself that more guns isn't the solution to the crime problem. 

Well if a lot of strict laws aren't working already, more stricter laws from a federal level are quite unlikely to make a difference. It may reduce those types of crimes criminals are committing, but they're more likely to change tactics or types of crime before becoming honorable citizens. So the problem would just shift.

I'd assume someone would be more likely to pull a knife than a gun. A knife is easier to carry and hide plus it's quiet. You don't have to point and shoot it either, you just stab which can be done quite inconspicuously. Shooting gives a reasonable opportunity to be missed assuming it's not point blank so they have distance and can get away easier, where as nobody is going to throw a knife at you. They're going to walk right up to you and jab you, likely a bunch of times, and are unlikely to miss. I'd rather have a gun to defend against a gun than a knife to defend against a knife. Being totally defenseless is a bad situation all around, unless you're well trained.

Less guns doesn't necessarily look to mean a great reduction either though. Like with the schools, it seems many problems need to be dealt with all at once.

Unless you put walls around each state and border security, state laws on guns aren't gonna do much.

Yes a knife is easier to carry but to kill someone with a knife isn't as easy as with a gun. You are getting blood on your hands, you have to do it at close proximity, most these mass gun shooters would not have the balls to use a knife. Guns are easy for them as they shoot from a distance as no fear of combat and it is less personal than getting blood directly on your hands. In Australia we can't even carry a knife, there is also no need for you to carry one.

Most of the developed world it's people are defenceless and we all seem to be surviving just fine because the first thought on our minds isn't we want to kill each other.



 

 

Hard to change systemic gun violence. Hey, I love me some guns too for hunting and recreation, but when guns are entrenched in your political culture and embody your nation, that is very hard to fix.



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Around the Network
Machiavellian said:

I wonder in about 10 more years will we need to have a 3 man team in order to leave the house in America. Interesting as I look back in time 20 years ago most violent situations people rarely would have body armor but lately we see that is the new trend. I am sure we will see this be a main stay from here on out as the GOP continue to believe more armed people stop violent situations. Pretty soon you will not be able to leave your house unless you are armored up because as we continue to see, escalation in weaponry just ups the ante on the amount of firepower you will need for each encounter. A hand gun is not going to be enough, you will need to be packing a high powered rifle as well maybe a couple of flashbangs for good measure. Hmm instead of just arming our teachers with guns we should also give them a few flashbangs as well and tactical training. Just having some armed person with a gun seem highly irresponsible in a school setting if they are not properly trained. You can see that this is going to go bad because its going to be some half assed bill put together to say we are doing something but not really thought out.

I think it is important to remember that up until the last two years (largely due to the pandemic) the murder rate has been declining in the U.S since the 90's, and halved from 1990 to 2019. 

While they are much more frequent in the U.S than in other countries, mass shootings are still very rare events. Chances are that in 10 years people are going to be safer than they are now barring some calamity or socio-political discord. 



sundin13 said:
ConservagameR said:

Well if a lot of strict laws aren't working already, more stricter laws from a federal level are quite unlikely to make a difference. It may reduce those types of crimes criminals are committing, but they're more likely to change tactics or types of crime before becoming honorable citizens. So the problem would just shift.

I'd assume someone would be more likely to pull a knife than a gun. A knife is easier to carry and hide plus it's quiet. You don't have to point and shoot it either, you just stab which can be done quite inconspicuously. Shooting gives a reasonable opportunity to be missed assuming it's not point blank so they have distance and can get away easier, where as nobody is going to throw a knife at you. They're going to walk right up to you and jab you, likely a bunch of times, and are unlikely to miss. I'd rather have a gun to defend against a gun than a knife to defend against a knife. Being totally defenseless is a bad situation all around, unless you're well trained.

Less guns doesn't necessarily look to mean a great reduction either though. Like with the schools, it seems many problems need to be dealt with at once.

The reason that the effect of local laws is limited is because of how easily guns can travel from areas with weaker gun laws. If those areas don't have weaker gun laws, that problem is solved.

The rest of your post is baffling. Like, you argue that you can miss with a gun if you're not point blank, but somehow ignore that stabbing someone is much harder when they are out of arms reach. The whole thing is just such a ridiculous premise that is refuted by every ounce of our reality that I can't imagine it is being made in entirely good faith. 

I would like to ask you this: What is your solution to the problem of mass shootings and general violence/crime?

So if the federal government fixes that problem, then what about the country to the north and the south, or any others in the world that could illegally import those guns? Just look at the people flooding across the border into the US right now. How many guns are going to come into the country regardless? The problem would only be partially solved at best.

Well I already said nobody would be throwing knives from a distance. How many shootings take place where the gunman couldn't have gotten to their target? If you remove the guns, you think criminals won't take another approach if they have to? Did criminals not exist until guns did? A knife is just one example of a different weapon. Another would be a vehicle, and nobody is going to even suggest restricting or banning them, but what about those killed by vehicles being used for the wrong purpose? It's not like once guns were harder to get a hold of, that all criminals would choose the same next weapon.

Better parenting, better schooling, better (mental) healthcare, better policing (+FBI etc), better media coverage, better gun laws (age, training, etc). That's enough to get started anyway.



ConservagameR said:
sundin13 said:

The reason that the effect of local laws is limited is because of how easily guns can travel from areas with weaker gun laws. If those areas don't have weaker gun laws, that problem is solved.

The rest of your post is baffling. Like, you argue that you can miss with a gun if you're not point blank, but somehow ignore that stabbing someone is much harder when they are out of arms reach. The whole thing is just such a ridiculous premise that is refuted by every ounce of our reality that I can't imagine it is being made in entirely good faith. 

I would like to ask you this: What is your solution to the problem of mass shootings and general violence/crime?

So if the federal government fixes that problem, then what about the country to the north and the south, or any others in the world that could illegally import those guns? Just look at the people flooding across the border into the US right now. How many guns are going to come into the country regardless? The problem would only be partially solved at best.

Well I already said nobody would be throwing knives from a distance. How many shootings take place where the gunman couldn't have gotten to their target? If you remove the guns, you think criminals won't take another approach if they have to? Did criminals not exist until guns did? A knife is just one example of a different weapon. Another would be a vehicle, and nobody is going to even suggest restricting or banning them, but what about those killed by vehicles being used for the wrong purpose? It's not like once guns were harder to get a hold of, that all criminals would choose the same next weapon.

Better parenting, better schooling, better (mental) healthcare, better policing (+FBI etc), better media coverage, better gun laws (age, training, etc). That's enough to get started anyway.

The supply of guns is such that guns flow from America to Canada and Mexico. Reducing the amount of guns in the USA will severely tamper supply across the whole continent. Even then, if a "partial solution" means less dead kids, I support it. 

I literally never said that crime is impossible without a gun. That doesn't mean the gun isn't pretty damn good at helping people do murders. Also, criminals aren't just sitting around all day plotting how to do crime. It is often impulsive and poorly planned if it is planned at all. Even with something that is more likely to be planned like a mass shooting, removing guns from the situation severely limits the individuals actions in a way which is almost certain to save lives overall. 

Your arguments are so ridiculously forced, but what baffles me is that in the end you still fucking agree with me that we need better gun laws.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANY OF THIS IF YOU AGREE WITH THE POINT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST?!



the-pi-guy said:

I find it funny how many pro gun arguments contradict each other.

Guns are simultaneously effective enough to fight off governments, and weak enough that there's no point in banning them, because otherwise something else will be used.

I guess using that logic, it's okay to ban guns, because then we can all use knives instead.

Guns are also simultaneously super easy for criminals to get their hands on, but gun control is a bad idea because then it makes it difficult to fight off governments.

A good knife costs pennies on the dollar to what a SIG MCX costs. We could save billions of dollars by issuing our military members knives instead of rifles. I'll bet we'd have kids lined up around the block at recruiting stations around the country if we told them they were going to be fighting wars with knives. 

And as far as fighting off governments goes, I wonder how 2A proponents would like it if women used the 2A to defend their abortion rights. Or if Disney decided to use the Second Amendment to protect itself from Ron DeSantis's administration. 

Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 16 June 2022

sundin13 said:
ConservagameR said:

So if the federal government fixes that problem, then what about the country to the north and the south, or any others in the world that could illegally import those guns? Just look at the people flooding across the border into the US right now. How many guns are going to come into the country regardless? The problem would only be partially solved at best.

Well I already said nobody would be throwing knives from a distance. How many shootings take place where the gunman couldn't have gotten to their target? If you remove the guns, you think criminals won't take another approach if they have to? Did criminals not exist until guns did? A knife is just one example of a different weapon. Another would be a vehicle, and nobody is going to even suggest restricting or banning them, but what about those killed by vehicles being used for the wrong purpose? It's not like once guns were harder to get a hold of, that all criminals would choose the same next weapon.

Better parenting, better schooling, better (mental) healthcare, better policing (+FBI etc), better media coverage, better gun laws (age, training, etc). That's enough to get started anyway.

The supply of guns is such that guns flow from America to Canada and Mexico. Reducing the amount of guns in the USA will severely tamper supply across the whole continent. Even then, if a "partial solution" means less dead kids, I support it. 

I literally never said that crime is impossible without a gun. That doesn't mean the gun isn't pretty damn good at helping people do murders. Also, criminals aren't just sitting around all day plotting how to do crime. It is often impulsive and poorly planned if it is planned at all. Even with something that is more likely to be planned like a mass shooting, removing guns from the situation severely limits the individuals actions in a way which is almost certain to save lives overall. 

Your arguments are so ridiculously forced, but what baffles me is that in the end you still fucking agree with me that we need better gun laws.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANY OF THIS IF YOU AGREE WITH THE POINT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST?!

ConservagameR said:
sundin13 said:

So...there's no point about guns and school shootings here? I mean, if you want to argue that there is value in nuclear weapons, there is some truth to that but this doesn't seem like the place. If you want to try to make an argument for arming the populace to reduce crime on the other hand, that is a pretty garbage argument although coincidentally this would be just the place to make it.

Had a chuckle when this popped up in my YouTube feed today. Reminded me of this recent post. Seems like Stossel is trying to make the argument.

Probably because I pointed out the irony of this popping up, which somehow others took it to mean I was in full agreement with Stossel I guess, like they somehow assumed I was making other connections prior, which wasn't the case either time.