That is what I tried to get at earlier. Stigma. Either the parents have it not to admit their kids have problems. Or the kid has it and won't admit to mom and dad he is getting all this shit at school and so on. Next thing you know snap.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

As for wiping out as many people in a school as you can as efficiently as possible... rob sticks of dynamite from somewhere and blast away.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I worked at a quarry with with Rob Sticks of Dynamite.

The stigma is less now then in the past, but is still a far cry from being eradicated.

I think people would be surprised by the amount of kids currently taking soe type of medication be it an anti depressant, or something else like Ritalin.

_________________

Easier than what is my question. Easier than a knife? Maybe, maybe not. Easier than chaining a door and lighting a fire? Or a couple sticks of dynamite or a pressure cooker bomb? I just can't agree that guns are easier (easier being an unqualified word... like an advertisement for a food that says 10% less fat... 10% less fat than what?). I think it depends on the person, their experience, what they know and any training they had. Jim Jones thought it was easier to kill a bunch of people and himself with poison; the 9/11 hijackers used knives and boxcutters, the Columbine kids used guns and McVeigh and Nichols used a bomb. It was easier for Nichols and McVeigh to kill 168 people with a bomb than it was with some guns.

I don't believe in blanket statements. This is easier than that. It depends. There's no way to qualify that.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I'll answer this in two ways, giving you two different answers.

1. An executive order or individual states or municipalities banning guns scenario: I would absolutely be against banning guns to save 10 lives. Absolutely 100% against it. It is a clear violation of our constitutional rights. We're already willing to surrender the 4th Amendment in the name of "saving lives" and to a lesser extent the 5th, and 8th amendment are being violated in the name of saving lives. I am a firm believer in the slippery slope. Chip away at these rights and others are easy to revoke or attack. Some day someone might say us having this conversation online could harm someone or cost lives as we're maybe giving ideas to people... who knows.

2. A constitutional amendment revoking the 2nd amendment: I would be against this. I would abide by the law. Disarming the citizens in my opinion tends to be the first step toward a dramatic governmental shift from a republic to a dictatorship (or single party rule if you will). Citizens have no means of properly defending themselves against threats foreign and domestic, and I do not for a moment believe that the government is capable of defending us against all threats that present themselves in even this modern society.

A simple answer is that I would be against banning guns to save 10 lives. I would be against banning free speech to save 1000 lives. I would be against banning the right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers and effects to save 10,000 lives. These are the things that are worth dying for. We've sacrificed millions of lives over the history of our nation protecting these rights and freedoms, and god willing we will sacrifice more to keep them. Freedom has a price. It can only be paid in blood unfortunately.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Pretty clearly answered Darko.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Look at it this way a knife makes it easier to kill more faster and efficient. Plus it is quiet. You pop a round off people take notice right away. It is far easier to kill quiet with a knife. You have someone with minimal training and you can do a lot of damage. So the kid did not kill anyone but her hurt a hell of a lot more than if he was packing a gun. No need to reload

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Helpful Hint: Killing silently is a tall order, but a quick look at an anatomy chart will show that the larynx is an easy enough target—providing you can make a stealthy submerged approach, sneak up on your victim, and catch him unaware. Once that's accomplished, grasp his hair as close to the scalp as you're able to and yank his head back while using your Ka-Bar combat knife to make a lateral cut across his throat. Make sure you sever both the carotid artery and jugular vein while piercing the windpipe, and press hard; the larynx is a tough, rubbery piece of tissue

Pretty simple.


If that kid had a gun yesterday, more people would have died.

_________________

How do you know? He could have been a shitty shot and not hit anyone like most gangbangers?

About the Canadian thing,I checked some stats they had 5 murders by gun but 2500 "Hunting "accidents

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

This thread should go in the FAQ under the heading "predictable"

He got close enough to make contact with a knife. Hard to miss at the range.

_________________

How do you know most gangbanger suck at shooting? The movies?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Assuming that he knows how to handle the weapon properly. Assuming a lot of things really. But I enjoy watching people make assumptions and state them as fact. It's fascinating.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Thank you. This is the argument that should be made by gun advocates, not the "guns aren't dangerous" argument, IMO.

It is an opinion I share for the most part, by the way.

_________________

Just as bad as creating all sorts of magical scenarios where if everything happens perfectly, somehow, guns may be safer than knives.

No, I wouldn't. That's my point. I don't know if you were trying to be serious here or not, but your example is the exact same debate. We make decisions as a society regarding freedom vs safety constantly.

Everything has a certain level of danger. Driving has danger, but cars are too important to ban. Nuclear weapons (owned by individuals) are dangerous, and we as a society, have determined that they should be banned as they are extremely dangerous and there is no practical use for them other than to kill thousands of people. I agree with both of these conclusions we've made as a society. I value transportation and I see no use for privately owned nuclear bombs.

My point is it's not an all-or-nothing issue, as some try to make it. Banning guns would not mean we would have to ban everything that is dangerous. Conversely, we shouldn't just ban guns because they can be dangerous (though I am against it, I have no problem with it being debated). We can make decisions, as a society, to weigh security vs freedom, take into account all factors, and ban certain things while allowing others. And I don't see a problem with the view that a few saved lives isn't worth the loss of freedom of owning a firearm. I also see no problem with the opposing viewpoint that it would be worth it.

Now I'll wait for don tiny to come on and insinuate that we're all stupid without adding anything.

_________________

Because squeezing a trigger is harder than thrusting a knife into a person's midsection?

He got close enough to be in a can't miss position.

_________________

That would be true had someone said guns were "safer" than knives, but I didn't read anyone saying that. I recall the argument being that it wasn't necessarily easier to kill mass amounts of people with guns than other methods though, which I believe bears out if given some thought.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Well, does he know how to reload? What to do in a misfire or stovepipe situation? I would tell you that I'd rather get shot with a 22 than have someone slice my throat at close range. Does he have one gun with 6 shots? A shotgun with 2? A shotgun with 1?
Have you ever fired a gun at a moving target? It's not as easy as it looks on Die Hard. In fact, it's damn difficult. Did you see how many shots those trained shooters (cops) fired at those bozos that detonated that bomb at the marathon? Not many hits, hundreds of rounds fired. Those were men with hundreds of hours on the range. Professional training. Some must have had military training.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

The news,most stories you see on the news are that tons of shots fired with at most 1 or 2 people hit. I lived in a kinda bad but not terrible hood plus I went to High school in freaking Englewood.I think,is 79th and Halsted Englewood?

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Yeah I don't think that's a gangbanger problem. I think its a hitting a moving target problem. Again, life ain't Lethal Weapon.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

The victims were stabbed. Can't get more close range than that. Pretty hard to miss with the gun when you are close enough to shank someone.

_________________

Do you think that with the first shot, people would have scattered after hearing the noise? Do you know that people knew that people were being stabbed and tried to run away?

Have you ever seen that clip of the guy who emptied a gun at a lawyer from about 2 feet away (with a tree between them to be fair) and he didn't hit him?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Ignorant but honest question here: when was gun control ever about banning guns? I assumed it meant something a bit less drastic than a ban.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

I guess it comes from us living in Illinois and Chicago where gun control meant no handguns or semi auto shotguns or rifles.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I have a relative that had a shoot out with a guy from seven feet. Each one emptied a revolver and missed with every shot. That's still different. The screams probably started when the first knife thrust made contact. People often freeze in dangerous situations. it sounds like this happened here. He was able to stab 20 people, leaving at least a dozen with deep puncture wounds.

_________________

OK 'Crest. Thanks.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

If he were to build a pipe bomb we'd have to assume he'd know how to prime it, where the best place would be to place it and what time to set it off, and even if all that was done there's no telling if the bomb would actually explode.

If killing people with pipe bombs, castor beans, locking them in a burning building, etc., was easier than pointing and shooting a gun at someone why do so many people choose to use guns to do the job?

_________________