Polish mall rampage by knife weilding man kills 1 wounds 9

[ch33zw1z]

I would think you could do even more damage because the stealthiness of a knife. A gun gives more warning to potential victims

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

You read a lot of comic books? watch movies?

Most people aren't ninja's.

 

[mdavis1145]

Greedy health insurance co. and poor mental health services causes messed up people to lose hope and go over the edge.

Unfortunately people have to die because of simple greed.

Mental health services and the Pharmaceutical companies love it because the perpetual cycle of violence just makes them more $$$

I'm in the U. S. and mental health services, especially long term are pretty much gone. Most of the severe mentally I'll are now homeless and on the streets or their in the jails under poor conditions that just make them worse.

Another quick note, the quick fix of taking a pill to fix the symptom, just masks the underlining issues. Nobody wants to look at what really causes these problems, parenting, abuse, bullying, poor education, etc. Until we as a society deal with that things will just get worse

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[SlowSpyder]

While that doesn't really address what I said, I can say the same as you. I vote for who I think will benefit U.S. citizen's (not corporations), obviously I didn't vote for Trump, and the R's aren't looking too hopeful for the next one either.

I am pro-2A, just like I am pro-personal freedoms and personal responsibility in almost all other areas.

It also doesn't mean that the 2A is my line in the sand, as we have far to go before any semblance of it going away(or infringement) even starts to arise. Just like any other law or rule, it was made by men and sometimes needs to be reassessed as to what exactly we can fix, if anything.

Still, your attempts to deviate to other areas like they're somehow comparable in the way you think they are just turns many away from discussion, because at that point you're not discussing the topic at hand.

I am not trying to deviate from anything. You are NOT pro-2A. All freedoms and personal responsibilities should be weighed against cost to society. Can we agree there? We don't want people having nuclear bombs in their basement, that freedom is restricted. The potential damage to society is just too much. When I look at guns in this light, and weigh the freedom vs. cost to society, I simply cannot see reason for more useless feel good restriction as guns are already more restricted than other things that kill us more and do less good for society. Want to make a change that will make a difference that do not harm our rights, I'm fine with that. Background checks on every gun sale, private and retail. I think over time that'll help get guns out of the hands of those we don't want to have them. But laws on mag capacity limits, semi-auto bans, suppressor bans, "assault" weapon bans, etc. I will not go for. Those things have been tried and do nothing but restrict rights of lawful gun owners.

*edit - Just something to think about. This site is so left and I don't think most of you realize it. If you really had your finger on the pulse of America, don't you think the elections would have turned out better for you? Polls and a handful of people on the internet all agreeing and high fiving each other are one thing, but reality of how the elections went is another.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So I'm not pro-2A because you say I'm not?

Please show me where I've said anything that indicates I want to ban anything.

 

[mdavis1145]

You read a lot of comic books? watch movies?

Most people aren't ninja's.

Media contributes to our violent culture. Although people aren't ninjas. I've met some mentally ill with super human strength. Throw in desperation and lose of hope. You could cause alot of damage.

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[SlowSpyder]

So I'm not pro-2A because you say I'm not?

Please show me where I've said anything that indicates I want to ban anything.

The only thing you replied to was a four word sentence. There is a bigger point being made that you ignored.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The only thing you replied to was a four word sentence. There is a bigger point being made that you ignored.

Wow, that's some irony.

I'm off to work, so that'll give you plenty of time to prove your statements.

Maybe you're a tad emotional about this.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Wow, that's some irony.

I'm off to work, so that'll give you plenty of time to prove your statements.

Maybe you're a tad emotional about this.

I gave you a reasonable response, you've added nothing since. Carry on, doing what you're doing is exactly why the next two or three SC justices are likely to be pro-2A.

 

[zinfamous]

When a man has hate in his heart he will use whatever is available to him to carry out his plans. This guy managed to do plenty of harm with just a knife and police still haven't determined his motivation for the crime.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poland-knife-attack-shopping-mall-stalowa-wola/

this really is a terrible defense of the unfettered access to any and all bullet-propelling murder weapons that you are trying to champion. This situation kinda shits on your argument and argues that those who choose to go after people with knives are far less successful in their goals than those who do so with a gun(s).

 

[zinfamous]

How do we keep knives out of the hands of the mentally ill and those that would do harm? Clearly the answer is to heavily restrict knives for everyone.

knives were designed for and are actually used for all sorts of reasons other than killing things, humans included.

same with automobiles, even though they are heavily regulated due to the safety issues

none of that applies to guns. They were only ever conceived, designed, and developed for one single reason" effective killing on the battlefield; and to further effective, lazy killing of ungulates by fat rednecks from the safety of their hidden tree towers where they can't be bothered from their Natty Light swilling long enough to actually hunt their prey.

It would be a start, at the absolute minimum, to actually regulate guns to the degree that automobiles were actually regulated. Hell, it would even up with your misguided and poorly thought arguments that these "horribly dangerous other things are ignored!" when in fact, the obvious truth shows that they aren't.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I gave you a reasonable response, you've added nothing since. Carry on, doing what you're doing is exactly why the next two or three SC justices are likely to be pro-2A.

ive added more that you simply choose to ignore.

you add the same old rhetoric.

need more time to show me where i want to ban anything? anything....anything.....

and as ive already stated about the SC reference, im happy if theyre pro 2a, because i am, but a single issue doesnt mean ill be dancing when it happens. thats a partisan way to look at it. but youre not a partisa hack, so i can only imagine you wouldnt hang your hat on a single issue.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Is discussing intent and allowances even possible at this point regarding firearms? Its seems like it should be, but somehow the same old story keeps getting played out.

Considering the problems the founding fathers had with breaking away from England allowing people to defend themselves so they could never be forced under the rule of another nation was foremost on their minds. Because all able bodied people comprised the militia in their day the language used specifies that the right of the people, all people, to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. I believe their intention on this matter is most clear.

 

[TheVrolok]

Maybe you're a tad emotional about this.

I mean I think that's fairly evident by now, no?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Considering the problems the founding fathers had with breaking away from England allowing people to defend themselves so they could never be forced under the rule of another nation was foremost on their minds. Because all able bodied people comprised the militia in their day the language used specifies that the right of the people, all people, to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. I believe their intention on this matter is most clear.

Ok, Im listening, what was their intention, in relation to now.

I get stuck when I try to put myself in their shoes, and imagine centuries later after changes.

Im totally get the leaving the people with ability to fight off an over reaching, oppressive force. Is the general populace ready amd prepared to do that? Even with a majority of military abandoning posts because they refuse, and assume 50% of americans can fight, do you feel like theres a good chance the people would overcome a military like ours?

 

[ivwshane]

Considering the problems the founding fathers had with breaking away from England allowing people to defend themselves so they could never be forced under the rule of another nation was foremost on their minds. Because all able bodied people comprised the militia in their day the language used specifies that the right of the people, all people, to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. I believe their intention on this matter is most clear.

No it didn't. All able bodied men were eligible, that's not the same as all able bodied men were apart of the militia. You also can't have a well regulated militia comprised of men with no training or chain of command which is why a well regulated militia was left to the states and it guaranteed the states the right to protect themselves.

Its pretty clear what the founding fathers wanted when they specifically talked about the governments duty to put down insurrections and rebellions and when and how they mentioned the word "militia" and how it relates to who its comprised of when they used it in the actual constitution (something all the founding fathers had to agree on).

 

[SlowSpyder]

A knife is a tool, as is a gun.

No it didn't. All able bodied men were eligible, that's not the same as all able bodied men were apart of the militia. You also can't have a well regulated militia comprised of men with no training or chain of command which is why a well regulated militia was left to the states and it guaranteed the states the right to protect themselves.

Its pretty clear what the founding fathers wanted when they specifically talked about the governments duty to put down insurrections and rebellions and when and how they mentioned the word "militia" and how it relates to who its comprised of when they used it in the actual constitution (something all the founding fathers had to agree on).

I own long guns. I could join a militia if it was called for. This is because of my personal right to own firearms and the fact that I am able bodied. That is what they wanted.

 

[ivwshane]

A knife is a tool, as is a gun.



I own long guns. I could join a militia if it was called for. This is because of my personal right to own firearms and the fact that I am able bodied. That is what they wanted.

The fact that you have a gun is irrelevant.

 

[jman19]

I would think you could do even more damage because the stealthiness of a knife. A gun gives more warning to potential victims

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

Spoken like a true armchair warrior. Congrats.

 

[Zaap]

Except these things happen far less outside the US and when they do it's not just some dude that flipped out unexpectedly.

Actually per capita they don't. As recently as 2015 (haven't seen figures for 2016, 17) more people were killed per capita in mass shootings in Europe than in the US. Look it up.

If we add in bombing and other forms of mass killings, its not even close. Those are much more frequent in Europe.

Now straight up gun crime- it's no contest, the US takes the lead in the industrialized world, no question.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Actually per capita they don't. As recently as 2015 (haven't seen figures for 2016, 17) more people were killed per capita in mass shootings in Europe than in the US. Look it up.

If we add in bombing and other forms of mass killings, its not even close. Those are much more frequent in Europe.

Now straight up gun crime- it's no contest, the US takes the lead in the industrialized world, no question.

This is what you are referring to. Now the reason for the 3 European countries being so high is the low population of each individual country. Were you to expand it to "Europe" as a whole it wouldn't be close. That being said the top 3 countries per capita had 4 incidents combined. The US had 133.

 

[sandorski]

Actually per capita they don't. As recently as 2015 (haven't seen figures for 2016, 17) more people were killed per capita in mass shootings in Europe than in the US. Look it up.

If we add in bombing and other forms of mass killings, its not even close. Those are much more frequent in Europe.

Now straight up gun crime- it's no contest, the US takes the lead in the industrialized world, no question.

Wrong.

 

[zinfamous]

This is what you are referring to. Now the reason for the 3 European countries being so high is the low population of each individual country. Were you to expand it to "Europe" as a whole it wouldn't be close. That being said the top 3 countries per capita had 4 incidents combined. The US had 133.

I mean, if you needed to be wholly dishonest about actual gun murders, you'd have no choice but to look at these numbers and argue that per capita, from country to country, deaths is what matters.

lol.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I mean, if you needed to be wholly dishonest about actual gun murders, you'd have no choice but to look at these numbers and argue that per capita, from country to country, deaths is what matters.

lol.

Only when its guns. When it is anything you don't care about that kills us the body count doesn't matter to you. When it is guns, then that becomes of prime importance to you since it helps push your political agenda.

 

[zinfamous]

Only when its guns. When it is anything you don't care about that kills us the body count doesn't matter to you. When it is guns, then that becomes of prime importance to you since it helps push your political agenda.

show us the same chart of smoking and auto accidents across those countries. You are wholly inventing a prejudice that flat out does not exist, with no data whatsoever to support your nonsense assumptions.

This claim you are making is profoundly dishonest, and is, in fact, all about your feels more than it is about rational data.

You're such a dumbshit and of course you can't possibly see what the rest of us can see.

 

[brycejones]

Actually per capita they don't. As recently as 2015 (haven't seen figures for 2016, 17) more people were killed per capita in mass shootings in Europe than in the US. Look it up.

If we add in bombing and other forms of mass killings, its not even close. Those are much more frequent in Europe.

Now straight up gun crime- it's no contest, the US takes the lead in the industrialized world, no question.

You're a fucking moron. Post your evidence that mass shooting killings in EUROPE in 2015 were at a higher per capita rate than the US.