To be fair, you are ranting about things a little bit... The more reasonable question is to look at the following chart and ask: do the other countries make up the difference with non-gun related murders? The evidence presented by the chart (and the related article: http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...ntrol-in-america/story-fnh81jut-1227500840270) is that the loose gun laws in America have lead to a serious problem. And the implication of the chart is EITHER that citizens of the USA are predisposed towards being psychotic killers OR that guns are far more deadly than other weapons. If one wants to argue that a knife would prove just as deadly, surely one would have to give evidence of enormous rates of knife mass murders in some country that has strict gun laws (eg, Australia). But it doesn't happen, sooo...
Yes, it's true guns are more dangerous than knives. In this case, though, it's a hard one to argue that a knife would not have been as effective. Flanagan had every intention to murder these two victims. He clearly had the jump on Adam Ward and easily could have taken him out with a knife. His next victim would've been Alison Parker and there's no way she will overpower him. Vicki Gardner was an innocent bystander and she might have escaped Flanagan's bloodshed as she wasn't his intended targets. A mental health screen for gun control would not have stopped this crime. Flanagan didn't exactly have any red flags to warrant any mental health evaluation, and thus would've been able to purchase a gun to commit these murders. If guns were banned, he would've used another weapon to do it. That's not to say gun laws need to be more strict. They do, but that's a tough proposition.
I look at that chart and ask: if guns are the controlling factor in the murder rate, why does the chart only track "gun-related" murder rates? Why not just have a murder rate chart? List of countries by intentional homicide rate available here. Edit: The same countries in the same order with murder rate in place of gun related murder rate:
I don't think you know what self-righteous indignation means. And thanks for the extreme overreaction and getting personal. Maybe could've read my follow-up posts or think for a minute before making this baseless post.
What are they doing in Estonia I suppose the point of the original graph is to illustrate the gun law problem in the USA? Without peer in terms of number of gun deaths per million (and it doesn't take a brainiac to think that availability of guns would make this number higher). I imagine the US intentional homicide rate would drop with tighter gun regulations? Apologies for turning this into a D&D worthy thread. I am taking discussion away from the horrible events and making it all about gun regulation. Perhaps that's my hobby horse, I'll dismount.
Absolutely. Sadly, gun is so effective at its intended function, it turns baby and toddler into killers.
He shot her from 5ft away. Unless he's a master trained knife assassin, who knows what the outcome would be in this very situation. But its safe to said, the victims have a much higher chance of reaction toward his imaginary knife attack than being shot at. Once upon a time, long ago, in ancient China, kung fu masters were the oohhh and ahhhh,.... Until gun happens.
There was some idiot republican governor on CNN last night from Virginia and I believe his name is Jim Gilmore or something. Anyway this idiot went on to say that guns are not the issue and it's part of the 2nd amendment. He said the issue was the mental state of these culprits. And that they must be treated and checked thoroughly. Fact is this moron killer passed the background check and no amount of background check would have prevented him from getting a gun. Also a killer could be all well and fine and get a gun through legalized means and then snap at any point later. Gun control and ridding all civilians of guns is the absolute way to go.
ISIS doesn't seem to struggle with knife kills. Just sayin. A gun will always do more damage than a knife. But the element of surprise, IN THIS INSTANCE, would of had the same effect had the weapon been different.
That's not a good comparison. ISIS have you locked and tied down already. They can use whatever means to glorify then. An effect, yes. Same effect, that's quite an extreme claim when we clearly know the difference between gun and knife. The element of surprise doesn't discount the time and effectiveness of a gun vs a knife. The same effect is BS because of that simple fact. Now, if you take the ISIS example and said both of them are tied down with rope, then yes, it doesn't matter if he uses a gun or knife. But with three able moving bodies, like I said, unless he's a master knife killer, there is a much higher chance that reaction can occur and the result can be different.
People who want to commit murders will find a way to get a gun. When your that obsessed and driven then you will find a way.
I read some of her other tweets like (paraphrasing) so it's ok for whites to kill blacks but not ok for blacks to kill whites? or There's got to be a good valid reason he did why he did, or something like that. My question to her is Why is she supporting someone who she does not know just because he's black? This is what's wrong with this country, people can't base a decision on common sense and rationality. I didn't sympathize for the Virginia tech shooter just because he's asian and i'm asian.
So he'd have to change his mode of attack if he had something other than a gun....do you think that means he wouldn't attack them? I think that's the point that most hardcore anti-gun people don't realize. While guns potentially make killing easy, those hell bent on killing will do so one way or the other....which is why the desire to kill is what needs to be addressed more so than the tool used to kill....especially since the right to possess that tool is constitutionally guaranteed.
That chart is not the same countries in the same order. To the extent they are included, it's the same countries - but they took out a whole bunch of them from all across the spectrum.
And those less hell bent on killing will be less likely to kill. Or some that are hell bent on killing will be more likely to fail. In both cases, murders go down. Again, there is a reason these killers pick guns as their method. There is a reason that there is a statistical correlation between # of guns somewhere and # of murders, even within the US. Pretending otherwise doesn't change anything.
Right. Parker was in shape and could have possibly outrun the ******. And even if he had "the jump" on Ward, he would have to stab him at the right spot.
Come ON. It took this guy SECONDS to kill 2 people and all he had to do was squeeze his right index finger. Are you REALLY trying to argue that wrestling 2 people to the ground and knifing them is just as easy as squeezing your right index finger a few times? That's silly. With this kind of logic, we should just make murder legal. I mean, people are going to do it anyway, right?
