Another School Shooting, Taft Cali.

[Number 6]

I'm not saying a samurai sword isn't a potentially deadly weapon, especially for someone trained with one, but really, if you think it's as inherently as dangerous as a weapon that fires lead at a rapid pace, I really don't know what else to say about it.

 

[Gotham Knight]

I'm not saying a samurai sword isn't a potentially deadly weapon, especially for someone trained with one, but really, if you think it's as inherently as dangerous as a weapon that fires lead at a rapid pace, I really don't know what else to say about it.

Aiming/gripping/shooting an assault rifle isn't like it is with a video game controller.

 

[Number 6]

There are more types of guns in the world than assault rifles.

 

[Gotham Knight]

There are more types of guns in the world than assault rifles.

What are you trying to get at?

 

[Number 6]

...Are you serious? A pistol, for instance. Not as rapid firing as an assault rifle obviously, but you can fire those pretty quickly, at least the hanguns I've shot in the past.

 

[Gotham Knight]

...Are you serious? A pistol, for instance. Not as rapid firing as an assault rifle obviously, but you can fire those pretty quickly, at least the hanguns I've shot in the past.

Right, but it has no relevance in the conversation we're having, so I don't know why you brought up what most people including myself already know.

Are you trying to say we should ban pistols as well as assault rifles?

 

[Number 6]

Right, but it has no relevance in the conversation we're having, so I don't know why you brought up what most people including myself already know.

Are you trying to say we should ban pistols as well as assault rifles?

You're getting lost in translation. I'm not commenting on the idea of banning anything. My original post was commenting on your implication that bringing a cleaver or sword into a school to cause harm is roughly the same as a gun, which it's not at all. You can jump some logical hoops to try and make it that way, but in general, it's not.

 

[Gotham Knight]

You're getting lost in translation. I'm not commenting on the idea of banning anything. My original post was commenting on your implication that bringing a cleaver or sword into a school to cause harm is roughly the same as a gun, which it's not at all. You can jump some logical hoops to try and make it that way, but in general, it's not.

My point exactly. We were talking about one thing and then you threw out something about pistols being as bad as assault rifles. I don't know what you were trying to say with that comment or what place it had in your argument.

 

[Number 6]

I said pistols were as bad as assault rifles? I didn't even mention assault rifles, you did, much less say they were as bad as assault rifles (look three posts above you, and I even mention pistols fire less rapidly). You're right, you guys were talking about the idea of banning and such, but I was obviously replying to another point that was mentioned earlier that wasn't about that. Sometimes conversations have more than one potential conversation pieces, ya know...

 

[Gotham Knight]

I mentioned an assault rifle being hard to control and next post you brought up your point about there being more types of guns than assault rifles. So one would only assume you were replying to me, but OK....

 

[Number 6]

I was. Because you replied to my post previously where I was obviously referring to guns in general, and apparently assault rifle is the only kind of gun. But again, how you get that one is as dangerous as the other is fairly...baffling? I'm not sure how you got this lost in the conversation, guess you just assumed I was talking about the idea of banning, even though I never mentioned it and it had little to do with the original point I was commenting on...

 

[bullets]

I'm having a hard time following you guys. What exactly is being discussed here?

 

[Number 6]

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that if someone entered a school with another weapon besides a gun there would be potentially a lot less damage (forget the context), and GK replied with an implication that something like a cleaver or samurai sword would be as lethal, which I found kind of ridiculous. Where this got lost in translation, I think, is that the discussion had moved into the banning argument. I just wasn't on when he originally said it, so my quote must've come off like it was part of that argument to him.

Not sure on the pistol, assault rife, game controller thing, though...

 

[Kelly]

Kids on the neighbourhood of America carry guns.

Kids here in the UK carry knives.

What with all the talk of legalizing marijuana to reduce crime, what would happen to crime culture if guns were banned?

Then only the criminals would have them....wow, now theres a thought.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Yeah, I'm lost as well bullets. It seems like some people want to debate just to debate.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that if someone entered a school with another weapon besides a gun there would be potentially a lot less damage (forget the context), and GK replied with an implication that something like a cleaver or samurai sword would be as lethal

I never claimed it as fact. It depends on a multitude of things playing into the scenario. I was just trying to get across that those weapons, although maybe not a meat cleaver in most cases, could be as lethal as a gun.

 

[cherokeesam]

Yeah. The connection is we're in a country filled with people who don't want to take responsibility for raising their children. Our youth is beyond ****ed up right now.

If you're implying that the reason United Kingdom has a lower murder rate is because guns are illegal(which by the way can easily be obtained if someone wanted to go on a mass murder, and I assume they'd take the extra time if they were crazy enough to even go through with something like that), then I vehemently disagree.

I think it's because the United Kingdom has an entirely different culture. One less violent.

That's partially true. But there are plenty of countries that have a very high gun ownership rate, yet a VERY small murder rate. The biggest connection for why that is is because societies that are more close knit and community based are less aggressive and more connected to one another. (it's easier to see people as less than people if you live in a cold, isolated country like the US)

Both these quotes sum it up perfectly. We've got to face up to the fact that the problem isn't guns, it isn't video games, it isn't poor mental health --- it's cultural. It's America. It's our history, and it's our nature. This country was populated by immigrants who come from very lawless and iconoclastic and rebellious backgrounds, and that continues even to this day. We were pretty much founded by rebels and criminals, and we never established our own cultural identity. Almost every other nation on Earth (except for maybe Australia, whose backstory is in many ways similar to America's) is a cohesive unit, based on a single shared culture. England is uniquely "English"; Japan is uniquely "Japanese"; and so on. America has never been defined, other than "every man for himself."

And that kind of lack of culture, mixed with a long history of anti-authoritarianism, and a worship of violence as the solution to all our problems (both on a personal and a national level), makes us the most dangerous country on the planet.

 

[Number 6]

Yeah, I'm lost as well bullets. It seems like some people want to debate just to debate.

I like how you say this, and then you reply right below jumping back into the debate to the reasoning I just gave. It's like you're both lost and found.

I never claimed it as fact. It depends on a multitude of things playing into the scenario. I was just trying to get across that those weapons, although maybe not a meat cleaver in most cases, could be as lethal as a gun.

Never said you did, obviously this was opinion-based but still found it a ridiculous point to try and counter with, in my opinion, which is why I said something. Simple as that. Really, I think you bringing up assault rifles rather out of the blue, and then trying to paint me as saying pistols and assault rifles were the same is when everything got really confusing. I had no clue what the hell you were talking about, or how you got any of that from a word I typed.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Never said you did, obviously this was opinion-based but still found it a ridiculous point to try and counter with, in my opinion, which is why I said something. Simple as that. Really, I think you bringing up assault rifles rather out of the blue, and then trying to paint me as saying pistols and assault rifles were the same is when everything got really confusing. I had no clue what the hell you were talking about, or how you got any of that from a word I typed.

You're still missing my point. I'm not saying that what I stated isn't a fact because it's my "opinion". I said it can't be stated as fact because every potential situation where someone attacks a school, or a mall, or cafe, whatever public setting it is, is a totally different scenario.

 

[Gotham Knight]

We've got to face up to the fact that the problem isn't guns, it isn't video games, it isn't poor mental health --- it's cultural. It's America. It's our history, and it's our nature. This country was populated by immigrants who come from very lawless and iconoclastic and rebellious backgrounds, and that continues even to this day. We were pretty much founded by rebels and criminals, and we never established our own cultural identity. Almost every other nation on Earth (except for maybe Australia, whose backstory is in many ways similar to America's) is a cohesive unit, based on a single shared culture. England is uniquely "English"; Japan is uniquely "Japanese"; and so on. America has never been defined, other than "every man for himself."

And that kind of lack of culture, mixed with a long history of anti-authoritarianism, and a worship of violence as the solution to all our problems (both on a personal and a national level), makes us the most dangerous country on the planet.

10/10 Post.

 

[Number 6]

You're still missing my point. I'm not saying that what I stated isn't a fact because it's my "opinion". I said it can't be stated as fact because every potential situation where someone attacks a school, or a mall, or cafe, whatever public setting it is, is a totally different scenario.

No, I do totally understand this. Completely. Situation has to come into play when something like this happens, but again, I still don't think it's a particularly good counterpoint, because I think at a base level, guns are much more destructive than cutting or blunt weapons, which is most weapons someone is realistically going to obtain. Playing with logical loophole diminishes that, I think, in order to try and cast guns as less destructive than they are.

 

[Gotham Knight]

No, I do totally understand this. Completely. Situation has to come into play when something like this happens, but again, I still don't think it's a particularly good counterpoint, because I think at a base level, guns are much more destructive than cutting or blunt weapons, which is most weapons someone is realistically going to obtain. Playing with logical loophole diminishes that, I think, in order to try and cast guns as less destructive than they are.

Alternatively, I could make the case that I'm not trying to win an argument about something that I find so important and treat it as a game to one up you for some kind of pathetic enjoyment, and claim that I'm seeing the bigger picture and you're seeing the little one that you've been slightly brainwashed by media coverage to see.

But I would never do that, because it would be disrespectful and insulting. And I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Badger]

holy ****ing tapdancing jesus playing a fiddle.....


i'm NOT "dissappointed" that he didn't end up killing anyone, and it's good that in this situation the shooter is actually caught and no innocent people died, other than how these situations usually go. all i meant was that IN HIS PERSPECTIVE AND FROM WHAT HE SET OUT TO DO, he was clearly what most of the internet would refer to as " an epic fail " . THAT'S ALL I ****ING MEANT. i wasn't trying to "glorify " these type of things. i don't get it.... if i made a ****ing holocaust joke , or a 9/11 joke, or even a dead baby joke, i probably wouldn't get nearly as much ridicule. people on the internet get away with it every ****ing day. but i make ONE " shooting fail " joke and i'm some kind of sick animal in your minds. whatever. i don't need to please or convince a bunch of uptight ****ing strangers on the internet.

Than why not just say, "It's great that nobody died and they caught him"? Instead of your first post? Also, if you are going to joke/troll you might want to get some thicker skin.

 

[Doctor Evo]

If you're unfamiliar/uneducated with samurai swords then I can see how you'd take that position.

I didn't know we had a celebrity here with us today.

It's an honor to meet you, Mr. Schrute.

 

[Badger]

The best home protection in most cases may be small to mid caliber. But not every break in is one bumbling high school student with a bad childhood. It's funny you say that now. But maybe one day you'll have an armed robbery on your own hands with real professionals, and there will be more of them than you can handle, and you won't be praising for those high powered weapons to go away.

Just to make it clear, because with the "'MERICA!!" quote, it seems to imply that you think I'm some kind of *****ebag gun touting American in the most generic light. I should make it clear that I don't even own a gun myself. Nor have I ever handled one. So if you're trying to make my argument hold less merit by painting me in a bad light, please don't do that. My whole life I've been against violence and weapons. They're for self-protection, maybe hunting. But nothing else. They're not toys to me.

Not to say I never will get one for protection, but if you're trying to pawn me off as someone who's vehemently trying to defend the right to own assault rifles, semi's etc. Then you're quite wrong. That's not really my position and if those kinds of weapons were to be banned, I wouldn't be outraged all that much if at all as long as hand guns were still allowed. Although you mention semi automatic weapons, but they're practically handguns that fire off faster and more clips if I'm correct.

So I don't know why you're acting like they're some kind of different beast when they're practically the same. And assault rifles can fire off more rounds before they need reloading, right? It's not like you can spray down a room with semi-automatic.

What you've been implying is that a hand gun will save a few extra lives or so. But in that scenario that you imply where I suppose that you think the gun will get wrestled away by a hero? Well, a few extra rounds wouldn't make the difference.

If you're unfamiliar/uneducated with samurai swords then I can see how you'd take that position.

First, relax, I wasn't trying to insult you with the 'MERICA thing. Just wanted topoint out that a lot of the people that staunchly defend our right to have any kind of firearm known to man fall in that category. Plus the post above mine gave me a chuckle. Hell, I'm probably closer to that stereotype than most. Grew up on a farm, I've had a gun or guns since I was 11 years old. I like to hunt and I believe in my right to have and carry a firearm. But there are limits, there needs to be better limits and better regulations.

Second, when talking about protection, for the Private Sector, I am talking about the Home. Not a business or a school. In those cases, if there is a need for more extreme protection, then you hire professionals. Every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't need to be walking around with an Assault Rifle.

For example, I can't just go start driving a semi-truck can I? No, I have to take many classes and pass tests. That knowledge has to be maintained, as I have to re-certify. I also have to keep my driving record clean. This is all done to protect the public, because there is a damn big difference between a semi and my Ford Focus.

Also, all semi-automatic means is I have to engage the trigger to fire one bullet and that I do not need to re-cock or manually chamber the next shell through a bolt action or lever action. Assault Rifles are basically the same type of Rifle used in the Military (think AK-47 or M-16). To be legally sold in the US they can not be fully automatic. They also have large capacity detachable clips.

Semi-automatic does not equal Assault Rifle.

The large capacity detachable clips is what makes an Assault Rifle and ASSAULT RIFLE. I can shoot off 25+ rounds as fast as I can engage my trigger finger, eject the clip, grab the next pre-loaded clip, engage clip, slide bolt to chamber first bullet and go again. All of that can be done under 10 seconds easily. Faster if you really know what you're doing.

They are a different beast. Yes you can spray down a room with a semi-automatic that has a high capacity clip/magazine. How fast can you move your index finger back and forth? Take that and put it with what I said about reloading an Assault Rifle. I hope you get the picture. Big big difference between that and a run of the mill bolt/lever action rifle.

Finally, I will yield to your superior Samurai Sword knowledge. Though I fairly certain, even with my limited knowledge of the Samurai Sword that a bullet has the reach advantage by a MILE.

 

[Gotham Knight]

I'm more than relaxed. Just being clear.

As far as the sword thing goes, we're not debating two people having a fight: one with a sword and one with a knife. There's a saying for that.

As for your second point. I agree. I think there needs to be security on school grounds. Carrying real firearms.

Anyway, out of interest I was reading up on the different types of guns this morning. Way ahead of ya.

Still, I don't see how you can tout for assault rifles like that and claim such superiority for them, and then want to ban them from someone who wants protection. Seems pretty contradicting with all due respect.