20 Kids Stabbed

Your comparison should really be with a bullet, as I don't see many people walking around and bludgeoning people with guns.

Rebolded for reading comprehension. Again, take your time. Your last response completely failed.

That's the thing, the government doesn't have the authority to limit any type of firearm.

The ATF is unconstitutional in this respect.

INB4 the SCOTUS: they never were authorized to judge on what is constitutional, just nobody has the power to challenge them on their theft of power.

Depends on the students, and the knife or gun.

Not all knives and guns are compatible.

Still trying to figure out why we're comparing guns and knives instead of bullets and knives.

So, you want me to answer about somebody who was not in the conversation, nor was even referred to until you, who were also not in the conversation nor referred to mentioned him?

I was talking about Onorgul and his insults. I was talking to Dawn about Onorgul and his insults. See a pattern?

Yep. Waiting for an answer. If it's too hard, just say so.

The countries aren't comparable, they really aren't but nice try.

All crimes are committed by criminals, that's what makes them criminals.

There's also the point that effectively if they did make an attempt to fully nullify the 2nd, there will be a civil war, and who would win that, people who have guns and the people who don't.



It's kept hushed, thanks to the anti-gun crowd.

That's not what he said, and he said criminals, not pre-determined criminals.

the instant somebody intends to commit a crime, they become a criminal, therefore all crimes are committed by criminals.

it's not that hard to understand.

They aren't, that's your assumption.

and guns are really easy to obtain, even by not-yet criminals.

You can shoot a gun and you can only fight close-range with a knife (or throw it, once), so if you're attacking multiple targets, in say, a massacre, the gun would be a more efficient weapon. Comparing a bullet with a knife makes no sense, people don't go to massacres equipped with just a bullet.


I would like to see such statistics myself, but if you're going to act like it's in your favor, you need to produce this evidence yourself or don't even bother mentioning it.


Arguing semantics I see. That has nothing to do with the point that someone who is about to/planning to commit a crime would have a harder time obtaining a gun assuming stricter gun regulation is in place. If you believe that such laws would be ineffective, what is your justification? Why would gun laws specifically be ineffective compared to laws against, say, possession of drugs? After all, if someone cared enough, they can buy drugs despite the laws in place. That doesn't mean the law won't work as a deterrent.

The knife is more comparable to the bullet as it's actually doing the damage.

I see a tool that fires knives no different than one that fires knives, and apparently they do exist.

Although I imagine bullets are typically more efficient in this manner.

I'd be very interested in them as well, however I didn't bring them up.

Considering it entirely changes the argument and that's what he meant in the first place, then yes. It changes the scope entirely, so stop trying to deflect.

No, they wouldn't.

No time in the history of the United States has anyone been able to institute an effective ban, or better known by the attempts as de-regulation.


It also doesn't take into account that guns aren't the most effective weapon, and to be honest I'd rather deal with a nut with a gun than a nut with explosives.

thats why government fights so hard to get rid of em'

Edit: from civilians

Most criminals obtain there weaponry illegally to begin with. You don't see street gangs and drug cartels going to a mom and pop shop for there arsenal.

So if the best that law can do is a deterrent, then by definition the criminals still can obtain there while the law biding ppl have nothing. - The problem not only would still exists, but it would get much much worse.

You want to cut down the overall death by guns in America? end the ridiculous war on drugs. Expensive and costly deregulation.

Once you take care of gang/inner city crime (you know, where there's strict gun regulation in place) then come back and your arguments may be heard.

Nobody has given a good argument for why here in the United States as to why the government should be better armed than it's own people.

How exactly do you plan to stop the war on drugs? How do you plan to stop drug cartels from milling from country to country?

The war on drugs is not just about inner city crimes, it's about the people illegally shipping cocaine and other narcotics passed a country's borders, just going "Ok war is over" isn't going to solve it. Border patrol is only providing a stop gap measure, and those that slip through? They're making thousands to millions of dollars off of people in the country they ship it to.

Also to give you a better argument on why the government should be better armed than their citizens, uh take a look at what the US government (SWAT teams, National Guard, Army Reserves, Conventional Military Forces) has. They have people constantly designing and redesigning weapons monthly for them, you think a little semi-automatic carbine is going to trump what a fully outfitted marine is using?

Uh no, not even by a longshot. The weaponry our military/law enforcement have vastly outdo everything that can be legally obtained by a citizen, which is generally a semi-automatic rifle. You don't see some idiot toting a fully automatic machine gun (unless it is like an antique or they got the license to own such a thing as a display piece).

If I wanted to own an M950, I can't have it full automatic in my state, it has to be a semi, and even then that's pushing the letter. Guns like that are illegally obtained all the time, and that's why it's a pain for our law enforcement/military/border patrol to deal with these people who have these guns. Believe me, if everyone was in agreement then yeah all guns could be taken, but absolutely not they can't take it away. Too many people are against taking away the right to own and operate a firearm, and if they can't own one, then that infringes upon the Preamble of the constitution which states we are to have a trained militia in times of invasion.

What's gonna happen if they can't operate their own firearm?

They will eventually not remember/know how to use one (Why teach your son/daughter how to use one if you don't have one?)

They will not have any weapons, conventional or unconventional to utilize to defend themselves or their homes.

If they can't have a gun, where will they get one? If you have an armory somewhere, typically an invading force will neutralize that, thus cutting that little idea to shreds.

It comes down to this but so many more factors, but imo I think our military (being ranked 2nd globally for the largest active standing army, 2nd only to China) has far more superior tech than what a citizen can LEGALLY obtain.

To force this topic back on track however:


I'm horrified to see this happened, I hope the victims recover fast and for the ones in critical condition to pull through.

You missed all of my points entirely, not sure if deliberate or not.

You didn't give an argument as to whythey should, you just gave an argument for how they do, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It doesn't matter if the majority are in agreement, it would still be infringing upon the rights of the citizens, even if the majority of them wanted them to be infringed.

I also read more into the incident of the OP: they're trying the kid as an adult.

Discuss:

Uh if you go in and STAB people, your *** shouldn't be tried as a juvenile, that's attempted murder and the perpetrator -knew- what they were doing with that knife.

I say let them try him as an adult, it's warranted.

I disagree, personally:

First off, it depends on the situation, and his lawyer is doing right by requesting a psych evaluations.

Secondly: it's a double standard and by that I disagree with on principle, regardless of the heinousness of his crimes.

On what grounds do you disagree that it's ok to try someone as a juvenile when they tried to kill 20 people with a knife?

I never said it was, you're not very good with words are you?

both of these points are your opinion, not fact. You don't seem to realize that.

He is 16, he stabbed 21 people, he is no kid anymore. Enjoy the life sentence.

Again, opinion, not fact.

I never -stated- it was fact, you're just far too self conceited after our first spat that you think I'm out to get you or something. When I see "Kid stabs 20 students" I go "Throw him in jail if you got the proof and try him as an adult"

That's not facts, but it's outright stupid that he'd get tried as a juvenile after committing a crime like that.

Considering I have no idea what you're talking about, bad argument.
You just asserted two opinions as fact, the ***is right there in quotes...

Again: your opinion.

The heinousness of a crime is irrelevant of whether or not you should try a juvenile as an adult. That's just your emotions talking.

If you want to start/continue trying juveniles as an adult (which I disagree with personally on the bases of it being a double/multiple standard) then you need to prove that they have the mental capacity of an adult who can judge and react to consequences of an adult.

Considering this 16 year old seemed to be out of it during the incident, I find it questionable, at best.

At the same time a lot of kids think "I can break such'n'such law, because I am a kid".

If kids are running around thinking this, is it fair to say that they know what they are doing and should be tried as an adult, when clearly many of them commit the crime under the impression that the same laws do not apply to them as they would an adult.

I believe that's why he said . Age alone is is not the issue but the mental aspects of the person. And imo if there thinking that kind of logic that grumpy cat mentioned then i would lean closer to adult. (Of course that's just one thing.)

There are individuals like that and to those I would probably agree with trying them as an adult. Still don't like the double standard, but as it's a problem without an easy solution, I'll let that part go for now.

Just outright saying he should be tried as an adult due to the crime is ridiculous and an emotional argument. Hopefully the judge agrees to an evaluation so at least some appropriate justice is done.