High School Stabbings

[RenaissanceBiker]

Of course, but there's no significant effort to rectify these issues. Certainly not from gun advocates that I've seen. That, to me, says that the self defense argument made by gun advocates is less about the self defense and more about the gun.

Please explain what you mean by this. Are you saying that gun advocates should be trying to make tasers as effective as guns at self defense so that they wouldn't need guns? What kind of improvements do you think would accomplish this goal?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Please explain what you mean by this. Are you saying that gun advocates should be trying to make tasers as effective as guns at self defense so that they wouldn't need guns?

Anyone interested in effective self defense, if effective self defense is truly their primary concern. I suppose a healthy respect for human life helps, too.

What kind of improvements do you think would accomplish this goal?

That's not my area of expertise.

 

[tyr_13]

Anyone interested in effective self defense, if effective self defense is truly their primary concern. I suppose a healthy respect for human life helps, too.




That's not my area of expertise.

But it is the area of expertise of laymen interested in self defense?

EDIT: By the way, a taser is illegal for us of personal self defense in New York State.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But it is the area of expertise of laymen interested in self defense?

My use of "effort to rectify" wasn't meant to suggest that I think these people, themselves, should be out there trying to design better tasers. I suppose I'm just trying to point out there there doesn't seem to be much interest from "guns for self defense" advocates in seeing a generally non-lethal method of self defense that's as effective as their current, generally lethal method of self defense.

EDIT: By the way, a taser is illegal for us of personal self defense in New York State.

And several other states I see. Bizarre.

 

[Manopolus]

Perhaps you could enlighten me reference your "views on weapons".

Here in Canada, a "weapon" is legally defined as anything used as such and an "assault" is legally defined as any unwanted physical contact.

If you touched my elbow with a soggy Q-Tip (Reg. TM), and I objected to that physical contact, technically you perpetrated "assault with a weapon".

What are your views on this specifically???

I actually quite like that idea... might've stopped the completely unregulated spitball throwing I experienced in Jr. High, at the very least.

 

[tyr_13]

My use of "effort to rectify" wasn't meant to suggest that I think these people, themselves, should be out there trying to design better tasers. I suppose I'm just trying to point out there there doesn't seem to be much interest from "guns for self defense" advocates in seeing a generally non-lethal method of self defense that's as effective as their current, generally lethal method of self defense.

There doesn't seem to be much interest? What would 'such interest' look like? Tazer takes a very large interest in it, as do police agencies, the military, and I'm sure many civilians interested in self defense would be hugely interested in discussing the safe use of such a product if it existed. It doesn't, and sadly it isn't likely to in the near future.

I think you're getting the causation backwards, in short.

And several other states I see. Bizarre.

It is, and in many places mace is of questionable legality. There is a process to get it in New York. Only gun stores, with paperwork and registration, can sell it, and no more than two at a time.

Is it really a surprise at all then that many people are concerned the government will try to ban all guns, if they've already banned much safer modes of self-defense? It's making it difficult to get any meaningful and potentially effective gun regulation passed, that and foolishness like the SAFE act.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course, but there's no significant effort to rectify these issues.

You're wrong. As tyr pointed out, the military has poured huge amounts of money into researching all sorts of nonlethal defense mechanisms. They've come out with some interesting stuff, but they don't have anything that works anywhere near as well as a gun for individuals. They wish they did, because it would make their jobs a lot easier, but no such luck.

Certainly not from gun advocates that I've seen.

Why would they be able to accomplish what military research cannot?

That, to me, says that the self defense argument made by gun advocates is less about the self defense and more about the gun.

You have started with an assumption and a false premise: the assumption that a solution exists with current technology, and the false premise that nobody is trying hard to find it.

The conclusion you have reached from both of these fallacies is baseless.

 

[Autolite]

This.

Strangely silent from the gunnutters I see. In the wake of a mass shooting, the gunnutters are the first to put forth the argument that crazy, violent people will use *any* weapon to harm others. Gunnutters often fail to see the difference in lethality between, say, a knife cuttng spree and a gun shooting spree.

I think I can understand what you're saying. I see the difference now.

Being stabbed to death just means that you're dead whereas being shot to death means you're really, really dead!

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/five-dead-in-stabbing-in-northwest-calgary-1.1776360

Thanks for helping me get that straight in my mind...

 

[12AX7]

I think I can understand what you're saying. I see the difference now.

Being stabbed to death just means that you're dead whereas being shot to death means you're really, really dead!

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/five-dead-in-stabbing-in-northwest-calgary-1.1776360

Thanks for helping me get that straight in my mind...

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove incivility.

A whacko going nuts on a crowd of people with a knife and a whacko going nuts on a crowd of people with a gun will produce different fatality rates.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

A whacko going nuts on a crowd of people with a knife and a whacko going nuts on a crowd of people with a gun will produce different fatality rates.

Which one of those things is illegal?

 

[Autolite]

How much of this 'everybody getting stabbed' thing is a trend?

http://www.660news.com/2014/01/09/c...-police-say-at-least-two-were-random-attacks/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/0...-spree-brandon-meeches-charged_n_3307887.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...party-stabbing-death-of-brett-wiese-1.2604193

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/15/stabbing_at_calgary_house_party_leaves_5_dead.html

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/student-stabbed-toronto-area-school-2-arrested-1-165142643.html

I am really starting to get worried. Does this mean that anybody who doesn't support a ban on cutlery is a "Knife-Nutter"???

 

[stanfr]

These threads depress me, i've got to stop reading them.
In my cynical opinion, the only thing that will ever change the gun advocates' minds is more carnage--on a massive level. When people are so armed to the hilt (we're getting there...) that 'shoot first...ask questions later' becomes the preferred method of solving problems or settling an argument...then maybe some minds will sway. To those of you engaged in the
"You're wrong!"
"No, you are!" that fills the pages of these 'debates', which i've never seen sway or change anyone on either side of the issue's mind, I urge you to spend whatever time you would have spent spinning your argument (for these multi-page threads, Im guessing we're talking many hours of pointless work engaged by the main proponents) and go out, do some volunteer work, help some neighbor or stranger. Take some stress away from their daily life; then maybe they'll be less likely to blow some one's brains out next time they're feeling a bit down.

 

[fuelair]

Of course, but there's no significant effort to rectify these issues. Certainly not from gun advocates that I've seen. That, to me, says that the self defense argument made by gun advocates is less about the self defense and more about the gun.

You do, I trust, recognize that most people who have a device that is very good at what it does (regardless of what that is) are not busy running around trying to find or push someone to find a way to improve an alternative.

 

[Autolite]

To those of you engaged in the
"You're wrong!"
"No, you are!" that fills the pages of these 'debates', which i've never seen sway or change anyone on either side of the issue's mind.

Indeed.

I'm speaking for myself, and honestly, when I say that I have (very long ago) decided to stop trying to change anyone's mind or "win" an argument. It took me a while to realize that it's impossible to convince someone of the obvious if they are willfully choosing to ignore the obvious.

I rarely post here anymore and when I do it's primarily to get an idea of what other's are thinking and perhaps try and figure out why they think the way that they do.

I see these discussions in the same light as those concerning religion or theism. There is no way you can expect to change anyone's mind but it's still interesting to see how others think and how they justify their beliefs no matter how irrational they might be...

 

[Autolite]

A whacko going nuts on a crowd of people with a knife and a whacko going nuts on a crowd of people with a gun will produce different fatality rates.

Yes, I am quite sure that you are most likely right!

Still, it's interesting to note that the city's police chief is claiming:

"This is the worst mass murder in Calgary's history," said Hanson at a news conference Tuesday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...pect-in-calgary-s-worst-mass-murder-1.2610465

Perhaps the 'worst mass murder' comment was just an attempt to sensationalize the stabbings or maybe Canadians in general really don't know how to use a gun...

 

[The Norseman]

These threads depress me, i've got to stop reading them.
In my cynical opinion, the only thing that will ever change the gun advocates' minds is more carnage--on a massive level. When people are so armed to the hilt (we're getting there...) that 'shoot first...ask questions later' becomes the preferred method of solving problems or settling an argument...then maybe some minds will sway.

When do you think that might happen?

To those of you engaged in the
"You're wrong!"
"No, you are!" that fills the pages of these 'debates', which i've never seen sway or change anyone on either side of the issue's mind, I urge you to spend whatever time you would have spent spinning your argument (for these multi-page threads, Im guessing we're talking many hours of pointless work engaged by the main proponents) and go out, do some volunteer work, help some neighbor or stranger. Take some stress away from their daily life; then maybe they'll be less likely to blow some one's brains out next time they're feeling a bit down.

Why do you presume that many of us don't already volunteer and so forth and yet still advocate for rational (as opposed to "common sense") gun laws?

 

[Autolite]

help some neighbor or stranger. Take some stress away from their daily life; then maybe they'll be less likely to blow some one's brains out next time they're feeling a bit down.

You've made a very good point there!

Actually, the concept of affording more resources to attend to the mentally ill as a preventive measure against violent crime has been brought up before.

Many firearm owners would like to see more effort directed toward helping those with mental issues* rather than a push for more, tougher albeit useless gun laws.

Unfortunately B.S. is an easier sell and the unscrupulous politician knows this...

*(reference this recent 'rampage', reports indicate that the attack was not provoked and possibly premeditated).

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...mpage-at-house-party-kills-five-young-people/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/calgar...y-to-undergo-psychiatric-assessment-1.1778151

 

[stanfr]

When do you think that might happen?

Good question...perhaps never. But I suspect if dead bodies became as commmon as seeing roadkill, it would probably change some opinions...albeit hard to predict in what way. I should clarify that when I stated "gun advocates" in my post--I should have included opponents as well--my bad!

Why do you presume that many of us don't already volunteer and so forth and yet still advocate for rational (as opposed to "common sense") gun laws?

I didn't 'presume' anything. Since this was apparently your first post here--you don't even qualify for my statement. If i stick around too long, I'll be a hypocrit.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Which one of those things is illegal?

Both. Which of these illegal acts (ETA: has the greater potential to) leave the most innocent people alive?

You do, I trust, recognize that most people who have a device that is very good at what it does (regardless of what that is) are not busy running around trying to find or push someone to find a way to improve an alternative.

All too aware. Fossil fuels and the like are another area where this unfortunate attitude is resulting in harm that some refuse to even recognize.

 

[The Norseman]

Good question...perhaps never. But I suspect if dead bodies became as commmon as seeing roadkill, it would probably change some opinions...albeit hard to predict in what way. I should clarify that when I stated "gun advocates" in my post--I should have included opponents as well--my bad!

I didn't 'presume' anything. Since this was apparently your first post here--you don't even qualify for my statement. If i stick around too long, I'll be a hypocrit.

Sorry, didn't mean to come across as rude. It seemed to me that you had made a presumption, so thank you for the clarification.