[QUOTE=RichyZ;49589443]you don't have to do nearly as much physical work to kill someone with a gun, the mental preparation is much easier, you just pull the trigger and you probably took a life[/QUOTE]
That's hilarious.
I want to lend you my AK, and laugh as you struggle to simply load it. Let alone hitting any target with it.
Even the most idiot-proof gun on the planet is going to be a useless metal brick if you don't know what the fuck you're doing, and have no practice with it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49589307]La Loche isn't a reserve, just saying.[/QUOTE]
Ah, I thought it was since I'd heard the population was like 97% native.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49590304]i've fired a tec 9, an ab-10, multiple .22 rifles, an ar-15, multiple .380 pistols, multiple shotguns of all varieties, and various generic hunting rifles in my lifetime
i live in texas, you don't think i know how to operate a gun? a fucking child could do it, because children do here, it's really easy
generally we're going to be talking about pistols and shotguns here because that's whats mostly used in killings, and surprise surprise, its fucking easy to load and fire a pistol and or shotgun
but no, please tell me how running around swinging an axe into bone and meat (and pulling it out of your victims) is somehow on the level or easier than pulling a trigger[/QUOTE]
How many people have accidents with axes and how many people have accidents with guns? You never hear stories about people accidentally jamming their axe into their foot, but perhaps that could be an issue of newsreporting.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;49588439]Your country already has too much restriction. A man was jailed and tried for defending his home against attackers who were throwing molotov cocktails into his home. He was brought up on charges for improperly storing weapons because he got to them too quickly.[/QUOTE]
There is no thing such as too much or too little gun control IMO. Both can be completely fine, depending on the type of country, and a list of other things.
[editline]23rd January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49590339]How many people have accidents with axes and how many people have accidents with guns? You never hear stories about people accidentally jamming their axe into their foot, but perhaps that could be an issue of newsreporting.[/QUOTE]
So, loading a round in the chamber and/or firing the round, either accidentally or in purpose and killing somebody, is easier than with an axe.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49590353]So, loading a round in the chamber and/or firing the round, either accidentally or in purpose and killing somebody, is easier than with an axe.[/QUOTE]
I left it open as a question on purpose. I didn't make a conclusion.
[QUOTE=Jacam12SUX;49587966]your use of 'SJW' here doesn't even make sense. why is it such a boogeyman word to SH?[/QUOTE]
It has long shifted meaning into "pc crazy". SH just didn't get the memo.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49587882]What the fuck are you even talking about? Care to cite that claim?
When Niall Ferguson wrote in [i]Empire[/i] that he thought that the empire was not one hundred percent bad and that it was the best of the European empires, there was outrage. How does this fit with your absurd claim that we ignore what happened when in every school there is a Black History Month? It doesn't make any sense.
You've invented a narrative that you're surrounded by a bunch of uninformed racists in order to feel a self-righteous glow.
In regards to the story, I would be interested in what exactly the Canadian government should do to try to help the Aboriginal peoples. And whether they are doing anything substantial at the moment.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I think we'll countine this via PMs to avoid de railing the thread.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49588478]
you'll have a hell of a better time recovering from being stabbed in the shoulder with a flathead screwdriver than being shot multiple times with a pistol[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not disagreeing that a firearm is more deadly than a knife. My point is that removing a gun does not remove the violence. You remove weapons from the equation and people will just adapt and innovate.
[editline]23rd January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=pentium;49588608]The commercial interest that pushes congress would rip you apart and bury the debate before you knew what hit you.[/QUOTE]
I'm not debating that congress is broken.
[editline]23rd January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49590353]There is no thing such as too much or too little gun control IMO. Both can be completely fine, depending on the type of country, and a list of other things.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, what works in the US may not work in Somalia or Tasmania. But in the US and to an extent Canada, stricter gun control isn't necessary.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;49590839]
I'm not debating that congress is broken.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately congress in its current state will never allow a firearms debate, so your fact will come up no matter what happens.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49589684]this just sums up facepunch for me. ignore everything you read so you can be dumb about somebody's argument instead of using your brain.
if you actually think it's a logical argument to say that stabbing someone in the shoulder isn't as effective as shooting someone five times, then you aren't fit to debate anything.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe your post is ignoring all logic and being dumb is something you really should not be leveraging on someone else because you seriously tried to implicate that taking away guns would not reduce mass killings? Like I'm not even trying to say that necessarily means you should take away guns, I'm a license holder. It's just a stupid thing to say
[QUOTE]completely false. I suggest you take a gun to a range, listen experienced people's thoughts on the matter and read up on ballistics before you go around making claims that the average person can pick up a gun and start killing people with a single pull of the trigger.[/QUOTE]
100% of responsible gun safety instructors (do you even have those in the US? I don't think it's mandatory to take a safety course) will tell you how dangerous a gun is and how serious of a problem is to point it at someone. That's coming from people who've spent their whole life shooting guns. People die from being shot accidentally all the time, you seriously think it's hard to kill someone intentionally? How deluded are you?
[QUOTE][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack[/url][/QUOTE]
So a [i]group[/i] of 10 people in a [i]densely crowded area[/i] were unable to kill the majority of people they injured and started being demolished as soon as a single person with a gun arrived
[QUOTE]The incident, targeted against civilians, left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators[1] dead with more than 140 others injured.[4][6] The attack has been called a "massacre" by some news media.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]According to China Central Television, a four-man SWAT team was on site within ten minutes of the start of the knife attack.[26] The sole member of the team with an automatic weapon shot five of the attackers in rapid succession, killing four of them, after two warning shots were fired.[/QUOTE]
You're fucking making this too easy, for real. Meanwhile a single guy with a gun in Australia killed 35 people and injured 25 more, in a [i]drastically less population dense area[/i]. It's not even an isolated case either, the Virginia Tech shooting ended 32 people's lives, Breivik killed 69 people with a gun, and in Tunisia the beach gunman killed 38. A single person with a gun can be devastating.
Like fucking hell you're entitled to your opinion but constantly ignoring facts is just making you look silly. I already said it but I'll say it again, [b]my point is not that we should "take away all your guns"[/b], just that when discussing the possibility of gun control you can't shut out the facts.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49589684]
if you actually think it's a logical argument to say that stabbing someone in the shoulder isn't as effective as shooting someone five times, then you aren't fit to debate anything.
[/QUOTE]
How is it illogical? By the time it took you to sprint a few paces and plant a knife in someone, a shooter with a semi-automatic weapon could have fired several rounds, any one of which could be fatal. It's obvious that firearms are more effective tools to use than melee weapons when it comes to killing humans. Why are you even trying to make this point? It's absurd.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49590152]That's hilarious.
I want to lend you my AK, and laugh as you struggle to simply load it. Let alone hitting any target with it.
Even the most idiot-proof gun on the planet is going to be a useless metal brick if you don't know what the fuck you're doing, and have no practice with it.[/QUOTE]
Firing a rifle is really easy. I don't understand how you think it would be difficult for a determined shooter to load and fire one at close range targets when children can do it.
[editline]23rd January 2016[/editline]
I've seen people who never fired a rifle before be given a 15 year old carbine and land 100% of their shots with misaligned sights and double-feeds on torso sized targets at 50 meters. Firing a rifle isn't an art which is why rifles have been the standard infantry weapon for almost 150 years.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49590304]i've fired a tec 9, an ab-10, multiple .22 rifles, an ar-15, multiple .380 pistols, multiple shotguns of all varieties, and various generic hunting rifles in my lifetime
i live in texas, you don't think i know how to operate a gun? a fucking child could do it, because children do here, it's really easy
generally we're going to be talking about pistols and shotguns here because that's whats mostly used in killings, and surprise surprise, its fucking easy to load and fire a pistol and or shotgun
but no, please tell me how running around swinging an axe into bone and meat (and pulling it out of your victims) is somehow on the level or easier than pulling a trigger[/QUOTE]
so you equate being able to make a firearm discharge with being able to effectively acquire and hit moving targets during a high stress situation. well there you have, we can scrap all military and police firearms training, it turns out they just kill things autonomously.
if you put a 12 year old kid in a room with 20 unsuspecting people and hand him a gun he's probably going to succeed in killing at least one of them. nobody is arguing that guns just don't work unless you have years of training. the point is that your side of the argument is saying that having a gun immediately makes you a drastically deadlier threat. that is just demonstrably untrue. we have seen mass killings with blade weapons, we have seen mass killings with poison, we have seen mass killings with explosives.
if someone has their mind set on killing a large amount of people and you completely eliminate their ability to acquire a gun, you are absolutely not putting a reliable limit on their ability to kill people. if an average teenager of average strength goes into a school with a properly sharpened machete, 5 deaths is on the low end of what you should expect. yeah, your screwdriver in the shoulder idea isn't particularly lethal, but it's also about as hard to swing at someone's neck as it is to hit a target when you're firing into a condensed group of people.
[editline]23rd January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49591147]How is it illogical?[/QUOTE]
it's illogical because it's literally taking the absolute worst case scenario for one weapon and comparing it to the best case scenario for another weapon. unsurprisingly, I did exactly that in favor of melee weapons in my response and suddenly everyone arguing against me was on board with how stupid that is.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49591367]it's illogical because it's literally taking the absolute worst case scenario for one weapon and comparing it to the best case scenario for another weapon. unsurprisingly, I did exactly that in favor of melee weapons in my response and suddenly everyone arguing against me was on board with how stupid that is.[/QUOTE]
I literally just proved with several examples that this is demonstrably false, the problem here is that [b]you are comparing the worst case with knives to the best case with guns[/b], that the knife wielder is effective and that the gun wielder is shit. Everyone is arguing against you because what you're saying is completely mental
[QUOTE=Elspin;49591409]I literally just proved with several examples that this is demonstrably false, the problem here is that [b]you are comparing the worst case with knives to the best case with guns[/b], that the knife wielder is effective and that the gun wielder is shit. Everyone is arguing against you because what you're saying is completely mental[/QUOTE]
I can't decide if your excessive use of "Like" or your excessive use of ad hominem is more compelling.
you haven't proven anything. the fact that you think you have is pretty condemning proof of how absurdly biased you are. you mentioned a single incident where a guy tried to kill someone with a knife and failed. I produced a single incident where a mass knife attack was extremely successful. even by your absolutely garbage standards of debating we're 1:1. this is without even mentioning the countless cases of failed murder attempts with functioning firearms that are public knowledge, or the countless other successful attacks with melee weapons. when your basis for what is "demonstrably false" is a single fucking anecdote then it's time to unplug your modem.
[editline]23rd January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;49591580]Yeah but apparently the average person can pick up a screwdriver and start killing people.[/QUOTE]
yeah, use the dumb shit that your side of the argument brought up to try to prove me wrong. good idea. I mean at this point I could basically just say some completely incorrect shit and then in 20 minutes claim that one of you said it, and I'd still be playing by your rules.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49591836]I can't decide if your excessive use of "Like" or your excessive use of ad hominem is more compelling.[/QUOTE]
Look I realize that you are to self awareness what donald trump is to politeness but you actually just tried to claim that I'm consistently using ad hominem with a quote in which I made no ad hominem remarks, [b]in the same sentence you used an ad hominem![/b] Please note that an ad hominem is an attack on a person's character, and I did not say you were mental but that what you were saying is mental. How do you fuck up that bad. Not only that but the post you quoted made no use of the word "Like" and if it helps you come to terms with your own inability to reason this post will be free of it too, aside from that one statement.
[QUOTE]you haven't proven anything. the fact that you think you have is pretty condemning proof of how absurdly biased you are. you mentioned a single incident where a guy tried to kill someone with a knife and failed. I produced a single incident where a mass knife attack was extremely successful. even by your absolutely garbage standards of debating we're 1:1.[/QUOTE]
Actually I used your example in which 10 people with knives attacked a densely populated area and failed to kill most of their victims, and compared it to cases where lone shooters killed much more people at higher rates of success in less densely populated areas. So by any standard of debating that currently exists you were completely destroyed.
[QUOTE]this is without even mentioning the countless cases of failed murder attempts with functioning firearms that are public knowledge, or the countless other successful attacks with melee weapons. when your basis for what is "demonstrably false" is a single fucking anecdote then it's time to unplug your modem.[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked the measure of how dangerous a weapon can be is not how often people fuck up using it, but I think it's fair to say that there's probably an embarrassing amount of failures to assault with both and if anyone here needs to unplug their modem it's you.
[QUOTE]I mean at this point I could basically just say some completely incorrect shit and then in 20 minutes claim that one of you said it[/QUOTE]
News flash, you're already doing that.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49591367]the point is that your side of the argument is saying that having a gun immediately makes you a drastically deadlier threat. [I]that is just demonstrably untrue[/I].[/QUOTE]
There is no hope for this argument if you honestly believe this. Guns, unlike screwdrivers or hammers, are invented to harm people. Even things like knives cannot kill at a distance as guns can. This isn't even an opinion, this a [B]fact[/B] both sides should be agreeing on. Having a gun makes a dangerous person more dangerous.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49591147]How is it illogical? By the time it took you to sprint a few paces and plant a knife in someone, a shooter with a semi-automatic weapon could have fired several rounds, any one of which could be fatal. It's obvious that firearms are more effective tools to use than melee weapons when it comes to killing humans. Why are you even trying to make this point? It's absurd. [/QUOTE]
To play the devils advocate; 20 foot rule.
With that said, I still agree that firearms are obviously more deadly than a knife or most other weapons your typical person could get a hold of. But again, removing guns doesn't eliminate violence. Go after what causes violence, not what people use to make it.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49591367]the point is that your side of the argument is saying that having a gun immediately makes you a drastically deadlier threat. [/QUOTE]
Dude, I am an avid gun owner but what you are saying is absolutely stupid. It is trivially obvious that having a gun immediately makes you a drastically deadlier threat. Who the fuck would go to all the trouble of getting a gun, a weapon that makes a lot of noise and can jam or fail, if they could be just as effective with a knife?
Look, I agree that going after guns is the wrong approach, it's treating the symptom rather than the problem, but it is pants-on-head retarded to claim that people will just use knives or explosives or poisons [i]equally effectively[/i]. In countries where guns are banned, people don't turn to these alternatives, they try harder (and with less success) to procure guns. These are just obvious facts, and you make the pro-gun side look like a bunch of fanatical morons completely disconnected from reality by posting this tripe.
[quote]the point is that your side of the argument is saying that having a gun immediately makes you a drastically deadlier threat.[/quote]
yes and i cant believe that you don't actually acknowledge this
So, any age on the shooter yet?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49590194]Ah, I thought it was since I'd heard the population was like 97% native.[/QUOTE]
It borders a reserve which, from everything I've heard, is managed infinitely better and has nowhere near the issues with drug abuse and crime as La Loche.
[QUOTE=da space core;49592121]There is no hope for this argument if you honestly believe this. Guns, unlike screwdrivers or hammers, are invented to harm people. Even things like knives cannot kill at a distance as guns can. This isn't even an opinion, this a [B]fact[/B] both sides should be agreeing on. Having a gun makes a dangerous person more dangerous.[/QUOTE]
in the context of going into a room full of unarmed, defenseless people; no, having a gun does not make you significantly more dangerous than having a conventional melee weapon. you're generally going to stack up the same bodycount regardless, because immediately people are going to start pouring out of the room you're in and escaping, and the amount of people you can kill with 8 shotgun shells in a 4-10 minute window isn't significantly higher than the amount of people you can kill with a practical melee weapon suited to that situation, such as a machete, a hatchet, a polearm of some kind etc. even if the person has extra ammunition and is experienced enough to reliably load the weapon under that much stress, that's still going to equal out to, what? 15 deaths? that's not far fetched at all for a machete wielding attacker.
the average number of deaths per every american school shooting in the 2010s is 0.98. this number is meaningless due to the fact that it's impacted heavily by occurrences where the deathcount was 0, so I calculated the average of deaths resulting from school shootings where deaths actually occured (in other words the average if you omit every shooting where nobody died) and the average is 2.53. based on this, I should hope that nobody in this thread would disagree that that number is not in any way unattainable in a scenario where guns just do not exist in the U.S.
there is still the issue of whether or not guns can still allow significantly higher death counts in certain scenarios. essentially, if guns were completely banned and unavailable would that put an upper limit on how many people can die in a single attack.
The most deadly school shooting in US history was the Virginia Tech Shooting, which resulted in 32 deaths. the shooter killed 30 people within 11 minutes. immediately I'll acknowledge that this number is at least somewhat higher than what a normal person should be able to do in 11 minutes with a melee weapon, and my personal estimate for what the number would be like with a melee weapon is around half of that provided their circumstances were similar to those of the virginia tech shooting.
to me, this is not compelling, and there are a number of reasons for that. the most significant reason is that using a firearm is immediately putting a handicap on the amount of time the attacker has before police arrive or before the building is empty. when you start firing a gun, the police are going to be called almost immediately (which they were in the virginia tech shooting.) another reason is that if your intention is to kill as many people as possible then there are several advantages to using a weapon that doesn't make any noise. you could easily go into a bathroom or something and kill someone without raising any suspicion. in the best case scenario (for the attacker), you could kill up to 5 people before anyone even knows that something is wrong. this combined with the extended time frame are obviously going to bolster the number of deaths to some degree. my best guess would be around 20, up from my previous estimate of 15. (these numbers are very unlikely to result from this kind of attack but again I'm attempting to draw a parallel with the deadliest school shooting in US history so these numbers are generous for a reason.)
so that's approximately 10 deaths avoided, and I think the logic I've used to reach that number is pretty fair. so this does suggest that a firearm equals out to a higher number of deaths, but my argument was always that a firearm doesn't make you [B]significantly[/B] more dangerous. this isn't to say that 10 lost lives is insignificant, but rather that the number of deaths a melee weapon can cause is not negligible compared to firearms like so many people believe it is. still though, in terms of an upper limit, I believe a firearm is a greater threat.
that's not ever what I was addressing though. my argument was about the average school shooting, and the implications that firearms ownership have on the overall situation. I guess it would be fair to say that I didn't articulate this very clearly, but it's kind of hard for me to be clear about that sort of thing when 80% of every post I make is reserved for responding to completely meaningless arguments.
and again, every point I've made has been in the context of school shootings or similar planned attacks on civilians. in the context of a battlefield or gangwars, almost none of what I've said applies. the circumstances are drastically different.
I really wanted to get away from this discussion because its just pure stupidity, but I can't let this go. I just want to preface this with the fact that I'm a gun owner, gun enthusiast, and I'm not for any unreasonable restrictions of firearms in the US.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855]in the context of going into a room full of unarmed, defenseless people; no, having a gun does not make you significantly more dangerous than having a conventional melee weapon.[/quote]
You're absolutely insane if you actually believe that. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be a military on earth that would still use guns over swords or spears.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855] you're generally going to stack up the same bodycount regardless, because immediately people are going to start pouring out of the room you're in and escaping, and the amount of people you can kill with 8 shotgun shells in a 4-10 minute window isn't significantly higher than the amount of people you can kill with a practical melee weapon suited to that situation, such as a machete, a hatchet, a polearm of some kind etc.[/quote]
This is hilariously wrong. I'm going to point to a stabbing that happened 2 days prior to Sandy Hook taking place in 2012. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing"]Read about this[/URL]. The attacker stabbed 24 people, 23 being children, and there were 0 fatalities. 2 days alter in the US, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting"]the Sandy Hook school shooting took place[/URL]. 29 people at the school were shot and 27 were killed, only 2 people got away with injuries.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855] even if the person has extra ammunition and is experienced enough to reliably load the weapon under that much stress, that's still going to equal out to, what? 15 deaths? that's not far fetched at all for a machete wielding attacker.[/quote]
It really is. China has had issues with mass stabbings around 2010. You can look into it [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312)"]here [/URL]but you'll see the that most of the attacks resulted in more wounded than it did fatalities.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855]
the average number of deaths per every american school shooting in the 2010s is 0.98. this number is meaningless due to the fact that it's impacted heavily by occurrences where the deathcount was 0, so I calculated the average of deaths resulting from school shootings where deaths actually occured (in other words the average if you omit every shooting where nobody died) and the average is 2.53. based on this, I should hope that nobody in this thread would disagree that that number is not in any way unattainable in a scenario where guns just do not exist in the U.S.[/quote]
I would disagree with this hilarious statement. I'll refer back to my point on China's mass stabbing sprees and I'll let you do the math on them.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855]
there is still the issue of whether or not guns can still allow significantly higher death counts in certain scenarios. essentially, if guns were completely banned and unavailable would that put an upper limit on how many people can die in a single attack.[/quote]
Ok, heres a scenario. It's the Dark Knight Rises premier in a movie theater in Aurora Colorado. Dood walks in with a AR-15, a Glock handgun, and a pump action shotgun. Leaves 12 bodies and injures 70. You're absolutely delusional if you think someone can walk in there with a machete or a fucking 10 foot spear and achieve the same results.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855]
The most deadly school shooting in US history was the Virginia Tech Shooting, which resulted in 32 deaths. the shooter killed 30 people within 11 minutes. immediately I'll acknowledge that this number is at least somewhat higher than what a normal person should be able to do in 11 minutes with a melee weapon, and my personal estimate for what the number would be like with a melee weapon is around half of that provided their circumstances were similar to those of the virginia tech shooting.[/quote]
You're part ways wrong about the Virginia Tech shooting. If you want to be technical, the Bath school murders were deadlier. Regardless, you can't hope to achieve with a knife what you could achieve with a handgun.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855]
to me, this is not compelling, and there are a number of reasons for that. the most significant reason is that using a firearm is immediately putting a handicap on the amount of time the attacker has before police arrive or before the building is empty. when you start firing a gun, the police are going to be called almost immediately (which they were in the virginia tech shooting.) another reason is that if your intention is to kill as many people as possible then there are several advantages to using a weapon that doesn't make any noise. you could easily go into a bathroom or something and kill someone without raising any suspicion. in the best case scenario (for the attacker), you could kill up to 5 people before anyone even knows that something is wrong. this combined with the extended time frame are obviously going to bolster the number of deaths to some degree. my best guess would be around 20, up from my previous estimate of 15. (these numbers are very unlikely to result from this kind of attack but again I'm attempting to draw a parallel with the deadliest school shooting in US history so these numbers are generous for a reason.)[/quote]
You're a fucking lunatic dood. Even if police are called, your typical officer in a patrol car can't and won't go into an area where theres an active shooter. Thats SWAT's job and it takes time for those guys to get prepped and ready. Furthermore, if you think you can walk into a elementary school with a machete and kill 5-15 people unnoticed in bathrooms before someone figures out that the dood covered in gore walking around with a machete may or may not be slaughtering children, then you really are delusional.
Adam Lanza shot and killed 27 people in the time it took for police to arrive. You can not achieve that with a bladed or melee weapon. You can't deny the facts bud.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855]
so that's approximately 10 deaths avoided, and I think the logic I've used to reach that number is pretty fair.[/quote]
The logic you used to reach that number is reaching so fucking far that its probably going to pull its back out if you try and come to any more bullshit conclusions with it.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855] so this does suggest that a firearm equals out to a higher number of deaths, but my argument was always that a firearm doesn't make you [B]significantly[/B] more dangerous. this isn't to say that 10 lost lives is insignificant, but rather that the number of deaths a melee weapon can cause is not negligible compared to firearms like so many people believe it is. still though, in terms of an upper limit, I believe a firearm is a greater threat. [/quote]
Again, you're delusional. A untrained person with a handgun will kill more people than an untrained person with a knife.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855]
that's not ever what I was addressing though. my argument was about the average school shooting, and the implications that firearms ownership have on the overall situation. I guess it would be fair to say that I didn't articulate this very clearly, but it's kind of hard for me to be clear about that sort of thing when 80% of every post I make is reserved for responding to completely meaningless arguments. [/quote]
If you didn't start meaningless and inept arguments like "Guns aren't as deadly as knives", you could maybe articulate your points better.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;49596855]
and again, every point I've made has been in the context of school shootings or similar planned attacks on civilians. in the context of a battlefield or gangwars, almost none of what I've said applies. the circumstances are drastically different.[/QUOTE]
A knife can not hope to ever achieve the capacity to kill or maim that a gun can. The wound canal from a 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP, and 10mm Auto's are absolutely devastating. With the exception of 10mm auto, its generally less than 2 or 3 rounds to center mass to incapacitate and kill a person. 10mm could do it with one in most cases.
With a intermediate caliber rifle, the ability to kill is immense. Rounds like 5.56 and 7.62x39 are insanely good at this, because thats what they were designed to do. The proper rounds fired out of the proper rifles can end lives with individual rounds. I could dribble on with statistics and photographs of wounds and wound canal graphs, but thats wholly unnecessary because you and I both know that a firearm is deadly and you can't refute that fact. It is far deadlier than a knife could ever hope to be.
Let me ask you this. If a man walks into a restaurant you're eating at and opens fire with an AKM. Are you likely to charge into his line of fire to stop him? Probably not. Now, same scenario but a guy runs in with a butcher knife, or per your suggestion, a polearm. You're probably more likely to charge that guy to stop him purely because you know its easier to overwhelm a man with a knife than it is to overwhelm a man with a gun.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
