http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story
Conclusion, my friends?
It says "injured" though.
I think there have been an increasing number of those in China.
School attacks in China
Wheylous: http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story Conclusion, my friends?
That you didn't read your own link or have poor comprehension.
Either way it seems you were disturbed by the events in Connecticut because they challenge an opinion that you have. So you scrambled for counter evidence to make yourself feel better. Leading to you prematurely posting a thread on the message boards before actually getting all the details from the case you cited.
National Acrobat:That you didn't read your own link or have poor comprehension. Either way it seems you were disturbed by the events in Connecticut because they challenge an opinion that you have. So you scrambled for counter evidence to make yourself feel better. Leading to you prematurely posting a thread on the message boards before actually getting all the details from the case you cited.
Neodoxy: National Acrobat:That you didn't read your own link or have poor comprehension. Either way it seems you were disturbed by the events in Connecticut because they challenge an opinion that you have. So you scrambled for counter evidence to make yourself feel better. Leading to you prematurely posting a thread on the message boards before actually getting all the details from the case you cited. He asked for conclusions. I gave him one. Speculative, of course, but that's what he wanted right? By the by, what do you think the purpose of their thread and its connection to the events in Connecticut (if any) was?
He asked for conclusions. I gave him one. Speculative, of course, but that's what he wanted right?
By the by, what do you think the purpose of their thread and its connection to the events in Connecticut (if any) was?
"By the by, what do you think the purpose of their thread and its connection to the events in Connecticut (if any) was?"
What do you mean by the bolded section? I'm afraid that I don't know what you're talking about.
And I wasn't criticizing your post, just poking fun.
this thread*
The conclusion to be reached was certainly intended to be that it doesn't matter if you ban guns because people will still be violent and find a way to kill others. This was certainly caused by recent interest in the shootings. While there is of course some truth here, the fact is that guns are more efficient killing machines than knives. With this said I don't understand why these sick f***s don't emulate the deadliest school attack in American history.
"On the morning of May 18, Kehoe murdered his wife by beating her to death, then set his farm buildings afire"
Seriously, what a f***ing way to start the day...
Yeah, I'm sorry - I meant to write injured. The killing was on my mind, and that might have played into some biases I have.
I really wish you guys would help me out on the RLM forums...
The fact that nobody died in the Chinese attack while 26 died in the school shooting is precisely the point anti-gun advocates are making.
Perhaps we should ban cars because you can kill a lot of pedestrians with them with a single forward movement of the foot.
Somebody should make a comedy show called "Liberal Logic."
Cars have a lot more uses than guns do.
SkepticalMetal: Perhaps we should ban cars because you can kill a lot of pedestrians with them with a single forward movement of the foot. Somebody should make a comedy show called "Liberal Logic."
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Are you fake-debating me now, Paleodoxy?
No. I'm trying to stop you from making silly arguments.
Making silly arguments? How is that making a silly argument? It's countering the liberal argument that says "anything that can kill large amounts of people with a single pull of a trigger should be banned." It has nothing to do with all of it's other uses - most liberals even say that you should be able to hunt because "guns do...some...good."
This is why I can't stand Bill Maher, you know, that phony libertarian. Calls himself a libertarian, yet he's the first "libertarian" I've seen who advocates gun control and higher taxes. Yeah. Stick to religion, phony Maher. But what I stated with the car was just the liberal instinct to ban anything so that they could feel a little more secure, and bring us one step further to the Brave New World.
That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be beneficial to ban guns in order to bring down violence and death. If we banned cars then there would be massive economic problems. This would not occur with guns.
...You're fake-debating me, aren't you? Pulling a Wheylous, eh?
SkepticalMetal: ...You're fake-debating me, aren't you? Pulling a Wheylous, eh? No man. The car argument is just really bad.
No man. The car argument is just really bad.
^
What he said.
Agree that the car argument doesn't work. If I were arguing for gun control I'd simply point out that cars are necessary for many activities, while guns really only have one function: to kill or destroy what you point them at. So while someone couldn't accusingly ask a stranger, "What do you need an SUV for?", it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to ask "What do you need an AK-47 for?"
Exactly. Cars do a lot to increase our standard of living. Guns to not. This is especially true of automatic/concealed weapons which can't be used to hunt with.
There's interpersonal utility comparison here, but the point is still clear.
SM - I did reply to your post. Read what I wrote.
I see what you mean, it is a relatively non-challenging outage for gun control advocates. However, if I used that argument, I would simply explain to any of these liberal retorts that regardless of whatever function the item serves, it is still an object that does not act unless a human takes control of it, and therefore can be perfectly harmless, meaning that depriving an owner of one who never committed a crime would be theft.
And National Acrobat, perhaps you can give me some more information on why it is bad, rather than just stating "it's bad" without any explanation of why it is that way.
Exactly. Cars do a lot to increase our standard of living. Guns to not. This is especially true of automatic/concealed weapons which can't be used to hunt with
Guns don't provide millions with a sense of security in their home and beyond in the USA? Cars and guns both have extremely deadly and extremely beneficial uses (obviously the degree is different, but you literally said guns don't increase "our" standard of living.. quite a careless statement), so I don't see the attacks on Skeptical as warranted.
@ Wheylous
By "help" I meant help me out over on the RLM forums.
I agree that the car argument is weak, but it is not bad per se. The strength of the argument has to do with the relevance of the specific tool to the person you are debating with. I live in a densely populated area. If I were to claim that I needed a gun to hunt with, then people could easily see that my claim is absurd. If I said that I wanted an AK-47 in order to defend my home against burglars, you would see that my claim is absurd. I do not live under threat of assault by heavily armed burglars or even many burglars. A handgun or shotgun would be far better as a defensive weapon.
But if I lived in a war zone, suddenly that claim doesn't seem so absurd. And that's the problem with the argument. We don't live in war zones, so people see that owning an AK-47 for the purpose of defending against burglars is absurd. Maybe you will end up under assault by a heavily armed gang of home invaders and that AK-47 will be useful. But we live in a society where that is so rare that if you cite that as your reason, people will either think you are lying or crazy.
In the case of the car, not all cars are equally useful. Most people probably don't need SUV's, which is why so many liberals don't see a problem with regulating them and advocating hybrid cars instead. SUV's don't necessarily raise the standard of living for anyone. But what raises a person's standard of living really can only be decided by the person in question. However, since most people don't understand that, pointing it out won't really get you anywhere.
That's why the car argument isn't strong. It doesn't matter if guns can be used legitimately and if cars can be used illegitimately. The people who want to ban guns live in communities where guns aren't necessary or relevant to their life, so they assume that they are not necessary or relevant to others, at least in their community. These same people probably wouldn't mind banning or regulating certain types of cars. So don't give them any ammunition.
@NAA
They would probably be able to feel safer if criminals were disarmed. And therein lies the deadly assumption of gun control. With this said the fact is that automatic weapons in particular, and concealed weapons to a certain extent, provide less of this security while supposedly causing much more of the danger.
@Skeptic
You have not refuted the idea that guns are capable of doing infinitely more harm than most of the other objects which can to harm are capable of. A gun is inherently a weapon. A car isn't inherently one.
We don't live in war zones, so people see that owning an AK-47 for the purpose of defending against burglars is absurd.
More or less absurd than if you were to ban rifles under the pretense that they increase violence, when in fact falling out of bed is about an equal "killer"?
Well maybe you might want to use an RPG to defend your home against burglars. I guess if you can't have your TV, then nobody can have your living room.
Why not convert all schools to military academies, complete with dorms and on-site living arrangements? The military is more efficient, so you can double the amount of students per class, and halve the staff, while eliminating security as every staff member is militarily trained. If the ultimate goal is reducing the number of school children killed to zero, wouldn't that be the most effective and least costly method?
Since the state is responsible for educating and keeping the kids safe all day, every day, for at least 13 years, how about giving them the tools they need to effectively complete their task.
I brought up the bed argument on another forum. Here's the response:
Ah the the old straw man argument. See beds actually have a function in everyday life and just about everyone spends about huge portion of their life in one. Unlike guns which really don't serve a function in everyday life. 458 deaths is surprisingly low for a device just about everyone in America spends up to 8 hours a day using. Unlike guns which can cause 27 pointless deaths in little over an hour.
Here's the response I wrote (with a large quote from Xahrx):
Here's something interesting I read on another forum: "Stats are essentially useless because you can find stats to 'prove' the case either way, both accross countries and cultures and within the same populations. It's multi factor issue and likely impossible to truly isolate how much the crime rate/murder rate in this or that area is due to gun control or the lack thereof. It's just easier to see the harm done by psychotics with guns than it is to see the harm averted because decent people were armed. The basic and most fundamental point is that no individual has the right to forcibly stop another individual from doing something that is not per se harmful to others. Owning guns does not harm anyone. If they are more easily available they will be more frequently used when people do want to harm others and more frequently used as a means of defense as well. That's simply a tautology. If you address the issue of harm by individuals with guns by restricting access to them, you will potentially raise the amount of harm possible by disarming decent people and reducing the deterent they represent. If you're a utilitarian you can try and determine the potential lives lost vs saved and choose the option that spares the most people. If you're not a utilitarian, you can stand on principle and be made to look like an insensitive asshole due to emotions running high at times like this. And you can potentially answer this rhetorical disadvantage by seeking out and using instances of people using guns to defend themselves and celebrating them as much as possible to offset the political advantage gun control advocates get when some schmuck goes on a rampage. Not that it will matter much in the end. People rarely change their minds, they merely look for facts that reinforce their existing belief system without worrying over much whether or not their beliefs are logically consistent or if their 'facts' are indeed facts." So you're definitely correct in saying that there are different degrees in what beds and weapons can do, however banning any object that "could do something" but doesn't until a human controls it is simply aggression, and is not justified therein. And on a bit of another note, I find it ironic that people are promoting gun control for the sake of less shooting sprees in places like schools when the exact same government that they want to ban these guns is destroying entire schools overseas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDYYd5W0kwE
I haven't posted it yet, so tell me what you think or if it needs some correcting.
I can't comment in detail now, but I suggest revising that. Unless you are debating someone who accepts the NAP, talking about aggression isn't goin to get you anywhere. Interestingly enough, the very reasons I said the car argument was weak were the same reasons he gave you.
Well then screw it, I'm done.
lol, well I think you'll do better pointing out that he supports the end justifies the means. If he is comfortable with that, then you will not convince him. If he is uncomfortable, then there is a possibility of convincing him.
No, I don't think I'm going to try anymore, it's pointless. Ever since I got into libertarianism I've been exposed to the fact that I'm living in a world filled with lies like "gun control," and they all just fill me with rage. Nothing is what it seemed. Boy Scouts, School, all of it was just made to fill my mind with crap. I know it's irresponsible to go out and try to debate when you don't debate well, but my instinct to battle lies just really gets the better of me.
SkepticalMetal: And National Acrobat, perhaps you can give me some more information on why it is bad, rather than just stating "it's bad" without any explanation of why it is that way.
Guns are made for killing. Cars kill, at best, as a side effect or secondary function.
So it's not about everything that can end up killing someone. It's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous.
How do you kill a bottle with a gun?