Shooting at Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Guns are not the problem. Guns have saved the lives of people in the US, look here at the video footage:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-w...ng-robbers-nbc


You don't blame a knife, or a gun, you blame the operator behind it, which we should all condemn. Even if we adhere to the emotions, and ban guns, I can guaranty you these crimes won't be decreased. People will find different methods to commit the same acts. Don't believe me? Grab a history book and look at what people did prior to the advent of guns.


This is not the time for a gun debate, people are suffering right now.

I agree in terms of the second amendment.

However, one Britisher physician told me the other day:

One Beatle, John Lennon, died thanks to being in NYC and getting shot and the other Beatle, George Harrison got stabbed in Britain when his attacker notably could not access firearms. So in Britain where gun control is in force, one Beatle survived and in the US one died.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I agree in terms of the second amendment.

However, one Britisher physician told me the other day:

One Beatle, John Lennon, died thanks to being in NYC and getting shot and the other Beatle, George Harrison got stabbed in Britain when his attacker notably could not access firearms. So in Britain where gun control is in force, one Beatle survived and in the US one died.

If the attacker shot John lennon in the leg and the other stabbed George Harrison in the head the roles would be in reverse.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

But IT still CAN be done Khushal said it can't kill as many people as this guy did. If this guy was better trained he COULD do it, especially little kids

Well here is an interesting data point to consider in a real world simulation that might actually show knives arent as effective on average since most of these guys are not well trained:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/...ack/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/...ack/index.html

So guy with knife in China can only injure 22 kids

And guy in the US without gun control Kills 20 some kids

Seems to make a pretty dramatic point.

Now mind you, the data you might ask for can never be furnished. It would unethical to arm a bunch of nutjobs and run the gold standard: a randomized control trial.

So the practical assumptions retrospectively show that if one cannot change the society or is unwilling to address the underlying trigger then the brute force way is to disarm the populace.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well here is an interesting data point to consider in a real world simulation that might actually show knives arent as effective on average since most of these guys are not well trained:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/...ack/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/...ack/index.html

So guy with knife in China can only injure 22 kids

And guy in the US without gun control Kills 20 some kids

Seems to make a pretty dramatic point.

Now mind you, the data you might ask for can never be furnished. It would unethical to arm a bunch of nutjobs and run the gold standard: a randomized control trial.

So the practical assumptions retrospectively show that if one cannot change the society or is unwilling to address the underlying trigger then the brute force way is to disarm the populace.

Yeah that's all well and good BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE ....It can and HAS happened.

everything else here is a red herring. The argument here by Khushal is that it CAN'T do as much damage. Which is futher a red herring since the variable isn't HOW many innocent people killed but that innocent people were killed by a nut.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

If the attacker shot John lennon in the leg and the other stabbed George Harrison in the head the roles would be in reverse.

Trust me, I am against gun control. I just find the discussion interesting. I would assume that instinctively folks protect the chest neck and head when being attacked with a sharp object or by an animal with sharp teeth. The rapid projectile coming at someone though is hard to dodge unless you hail from Krypton.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Trust me, I am against gun control. I just find the discussion interesting. I would assume that instinctively folks protect the chest neck and head when being attacked with a sharp object or by an animal with sharp teeth. The rapid projectile coming at someone though is hard to dodge unless you hail from Krypton.

Not necessarily if they're caught off guard which both of them were

[Pisho]

Sick *******s I swear u never know whos gonna go nuts and start shooting
My parents were surprised that schools have no security guards at the entrance
But u know we never seen our security in high school he was somewhere in an office being lazy

[khushal]

That's a false assumption; a Person can kill as many or even more people than a gun; look at some of the stories of Vietnam atrocities.

and also we're not comparing numbers here, but the fact weapons kill ....the variable isn't the number.

please stop ....you're humiliating yourself here. And KRAUSS covered that issue that you were saying was "misleading" so, NO misrepresentation at all, You clearly did not watch the video in full


\
THERE WAS NO HAWKINGS IN THAT VIDEO ...It was DAWKINNSSSSS ...and KRAUSS ....why are you so dumb? Stop knee jerk reacting to things like a fool.

Your introducing new variables again. Your comparing a well trained person vs a nut with a gun. For the record I am against gun control, I am only revealing your shyty logic which you highly praise. Show us one instance where a person has mass killed many people with a knife and please dont go to a war zone with trained commandos. A common joe with a gun can do far more damage than that same joe with a knife. If you dont know that, you are dumber than I ever thought possible.

And anything can be a weapon, your fist can be a weapon, your skull buttheading a guy in the nose is a weapon but only an idiot like you would compare a fist or a skull to a gun.

Hawkins, Dawkins, whateverawkins. The point is that you were misleading people and yes the video covered it but you were going along with the misrepresentation until I revealed it and thats when you chickened out.

[khushal]

Yeah that's all well and good BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE ....It can and HAS happened.

everything else here is a red herring. The argument here by Khushal is that it CAN'T do as much damage. Which is futher a red herring since the variable isn't HOW many innocent people killed but that innocent people were killed by a nut.

False, my argument is that it cant do as much damage as a gun. The gun is by far by a large margin more deadly.

[faye]

not in 20 minutes by 1 person.

[khushal]

If the attacker shot John lennon in the leg and the other stabbed George Harrison in the head the roles would be in reverse.

shyty logic again,

So your stupidity is revealed once again. The debate about gun control by Scholars is not your shyty anology "should we ban knives as well" but it has to do with should people have the right to defend that first amendment and prevent tyranny. Its about the greater good You NINCOMPOOP.

[khushal]

This is not the time for a gun debate, people are suffering right now.

Admin salamoona,
people are suffering in afghanistan everyday, when those kids were killed in panjwai much the same way as this trajedy in Conn. Americans were telling me in person that the guy was stressed out once again revealing that these people have no imaan. I could never understand how compassionless those people were.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

shyty logic again, you can survive with a shot to the leg but we have to go with what happened not if.

So your stupidity is revealed once again. The debate about gun control by Scholars is not your shyty anology "should we ban knives as well" but it has to do with should people have the right to defend that first amendment and prevent tyranny. Its about the greater good You nincompoop.

the argument was about analogies not what happened ....you lose concentration easily

actually that is precisely the debate; something having the potential to harm others should not be banned simply because of misuse.

you were already debunked for you to run away like a coward and just swoop back down when the coast is clear to respond to a comment with someone else's attempt to diverge is not a refutation.

"saying shytty" analogy doesn't work either ./...learn how analogies work.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

False, my argument is that it cant do as much damage as a gun. The gun is by far by a large margin more deadly.

BUT IT can, if you mean damage means how many people killed. compared to what happened here.

your argument is incoherent entirely.....and you're straying from the topic. Even if one person was shot there would still be a big fuss on control, thus it has nothing to do with how many people killed but the fact people were killed by a gunman ...thus the analogy of other weapons is relevant here.

if you can't understand the basic concept of an analogy you're a retard ...and it was already shown to you in the definition; so all that can be said here is that you're stupid and you're obstinately so despite evidence.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Your introducing new variables again. Your comparing a well trained person vs a nut with a gun. For the record I am against gun control, I am only revealing your shyty logic which you highly praise. Show us one instance where a person has mass killed many people with a knife and please dont go to a war zone with trained commandos. A common joe with a gun can do far more damage than that same joe with a knife. If you dont know that, you are dumber than I ever thought possible.

And anything can be a weapon, your fist can be a weapon, your skull buttheading a guy in the nose is a weapon but only an idiot like you would compare a fist or a skull to a gun.

Hawkins, Dawkins, whateverawkins. The point is that you were misleading people and yes the video covered it but you were going along with the misrepresentation until I revealed it and thats when you chickened out.

yes that's MY POINT, ANYTHING can be a weapon...../and in particular knives are known for having lethal effects in a similar way as guns, penetrating the body and damaging organs , hence why the analogy applies .....what doesn't apply is banning schools since that would make NO sense to analogize.


you aren't revealing anyone else's "shytty" logic but your own; by repeating a false analogy and saying a correct analogy BY DEFINITION is faulty. Seriously go back to school and get an education you're suffering miserably because you're a retard who thinks he can just wing things as he goes along.

That approach may work well in the remedial classes you took in high school but you aren't fooling me