:shock: Wow nary a Terry's Peep about it? We really are desensitized to these things now. Its funny though , this dude killed 3 with a knife and 3 with a gun and all the comments in the articles about it slam the NRA and "gun nut" second amendment people. No mention that he killed just as many with a knife.

are you talking about the smacked ass hollywood spoiled brat who killed people from his BMW? we covered that in another thread. and fuck him.

:shock: Wow nary a Terry's Peep about it? We really are desensitized to these things now. Its funny though , this dude killed 3 with a knife and 3 with a gun and all the comments in the articles about it slam the NRA and "gun nut" second amendment people. No mention that he killed just as many with a knife.

KUNMING, China — Authorities blamed a slashing rampage that killed 29 people and wounded 143 at a train station in southern China on separatists from the country’s far west and vowed a harsh crackdown Sunday, while residents wondered why their laid-back city was targeted.

I wonder what is the most people ever killed by a knife?

If a dude is comin at me with a knife I'm knocking him the fuck out, no problem.

29?

If a dude is comin at me with a knife I'm knocking him the fuck out, no problem.

If he didn't have any fingers he wouldn't have been able to kill anyone. Ban fingers!

Without taking a position on this story, it's a fallacy to equate murders via guns to murders via other instruments not explicitly intended to kill or incapacitate. A gun irrespective of how it's used is manufactured to kill or maim, so the talk about ban this or what when it comes to guns is all the more reasonable by virtue of the function of the gun itself (i.e. the premise is more or less banning or reducing the proliferation of lethal weaponry will reduce murders and violence committed by the use of said lethal weaponry).

By 'reasonable' I don't mean it should be become policy or something, I just mean it gets a seat at the table of logic, which means it should by the merit of its logic be considered or entertained in a policy debate, while banning knives or fingers (I know it was said in jest) wouldn't make it past the door. Also to be clear I say this as someone opposed to an outright ban on guns (as if that would ever happen anyway).

I don't find the discussion of banning guns logical or reasonable. I don't think it should "get a seat at the table".

I don't find the discussion of banning guns logical or reasonable. I don't think it should "get a seat at the table".

That's fine, I just don't think it's as silly as folks think it is when they counter with things like "a hammer fell off a building and killed a bystander below, so should we ban hammers and gravity?"

I don't find the discussion of banning guns logical or reasonable. I don't think it should "get a seat at the table".

29?

If a dude is comin at me with a knife I'm knocking him the fuck out, no problem.

Helluva note, Pittmike wielding a categorical imperative to shrug off all that annoying adultery bs. "Can't we, can't we, can't we all just....get it on?!"

Helluva note, Pittmike wielding a categorical imperative to shrug off all that annoying adultery bs. "Can't we, can't we, can't we all just....get it on?!"