Child shot dead

[Stealthbomber]

And? A person can have a knife and stab someone just as quick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zat so?

 

Wow? I wonder how come the army use guns then?

 

*EDIT*

For clarity...

Are you for real?

Before you can stab somebody you've got to catch them.

It's amazing how, when you get right close to somebody, you can very easily lose the nerve to attack them. That's why guns are good for cowards.

Most people who are attacked by knives survive. It's not pleasant and it's not clever but it is actually pretty difficult to kill somebody with a hand-held weapon. People get stabbed 20 or 30 times and survive.

 

With a gun, it's as easy as swatting an annoying insect.

[Cyber Soldier]

Zat so?

 

Wow? I wonder how come the army use guns then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because they're impulsive

[Tostitos]

If you don't want other people to have guns because "guns will make you snap and kill someone", what that really means is that YOU would snap out and kill someone if you had a gun and are projecting your own dysfunctional psyche onto everyone else.

 

The amount of gun owners in the world who have never flipped out and impulsively killed someone (what is it? 99.9% of legal gun owners) proves you wrong.

 

I'm glad that you are coming closer to recognizing the fact that YOU should not have a gun, though.

 

Most people who are attacked by knives survive. It's not pleasant and it's not clever but it is actually pretty difficult to kill somebody with a hand-held weapon. People get stabbed 20 or 30 times and survive.

 

Oh my GOD.

 

Tell that ###### to anyone who ever was an EMT, a cop, or worked in a trauma unit let alone someone that's been knife wounded themselves and they'll probably backhand you. It's downright pathetic when you have to resort to BS like that just to push your 'guns are bad knives aren't as bad' agenda.

[Stealthbomber]

The amount of gun owners in the world who have never flipped out and impulsively killed someone is at least one less than 24 hours ago

Fixed.

 

Oh my GOD.

WHAT? WHAT IS IT?

 

Tell that ###### to anyone who ever was an EMT, a cop, or worked in a trauma unit let alone someone that's been knife wounded themselves and they'll probably backhand you. It's downright pathetic when you have to resort to BS like that just to push your 'guns are bad knives aren't as bad' agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice job dodging the facts there buddy.

Any fool can shoot a gun and murder somebody, as this incident proves.

 

To hurt somebody with a knife you've got to get close to them AND hope that they're not actually nastier than you.

Also, much as both guns and knives are nasty tools in the wrong hands, I'm pretty sure your mum would rather you were the victim of a knife attack rather than a gun.

[sekiryu]

It's been proven that a person with a knife, if within 25 feet of you, can kill you before you react fast enough to pull the trigger on a firearm.

 

http://www.toptips.com/CrimeClock.htm

[Connery]

Uh, Stealth, maybe you ought to rethink your statement about gun owners being the ones shooting people before we correct you.

[Terror_drone]

noone is blaming law-abiding citizens, but Stealthbomber does have a good point which I think should be respected.

 

Whats likely to have happened in this incident? egg hits windscreen, man pulls loaded gun from glove compartment and shoots the kid running away in the back, and drives off?

The news rarely tells the full story, its possible the kids had been harassing people for months and someone finally had enough, who knows

[Stealthbomber]

It's been proven that a person with a knife, if within 25 feet of you, can kill you before you react fast enough to pull the trigger on a firearm.

 

http://www.toptips.com/CrimeClock.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's been shown that in highly selective situations, super-ninjas can make use of knives in a better tactical manner to firearms.

Hardly the same thing as suggesting that knives are more deadly than guns in the hands of the average person.

 

Nice try though.

 

Uh, Stealth, maybe you ought to rethink your statement about gun owners being the ones shooting people before we correct you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

The guy had a gun, legally held or not.

Let's assume he was a low-down, dirty, scumbag, drug dealer. If he had a knife or sharpened screwdriver or baseball bat or pepper-spray or god-knows-what then it's still a lot more likely that the kid would still be alive.

Ergo, I'm pretty sure my statement still holds true.

[Connery]

The news rarely tells the full story, its possible the kids had been harassing people for months and someone finally had enough, who knows

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This isn't the UK we're talking about. Here in the US, you accidently step on someones foot and apologize, they'll stab you.

[Tostitos]

Not highly selective situations. Not super-ninjas.

 

And I'd rather be shot than stabbed. Speaking as someone who has ridden with EMTs and seen many of both kinds of wounds, I would MUCH rather be shot (with a handgun) than stabbed.

[Guest Captain J Wesker]

Would you recommend killing them for a first offence or adopting a three-strikes-and-your-out system for capital punishment?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think 50 lashes with the Nine tailed whip for a first offense, amputation of 2 limbs of choice for a second, and public stoning for the third is fair enough.

[Terror_drone]

ever thaught of moving to Saudi Arabia?

[Connery]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

The guy had a gun, legally held or not.

Let's assume he was a low-down, dirty, scumbag, drug dealer. If he had a knife or sharpened screwdriver or baseball bat or pepper-spray or god-knows-what then it's still a lot more likely that the kid would still be alive.

Ergo, I'm pretty sure my statement still holds true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh well then. I guess I've no choice.

 

As of 1999, over 23% of all murders involving firearms were caused by 18 to 20 year olds, all of which are not legally allowed to purchase firearms due to their age under the law at the time. I know it's an old statistic, but it still fits to this day.

 

Also, nearly all of the firearms used in crimes are not legally owned by the person squeezing off the round. Say for instance, a man murders his brother. Now, unless the man was stupid enough, he would know better than to go through the system and purchase a firearm, because the chances of him being the prime suspect will rise significantly. If he has a gun illegally, one that is not in the system, the chances of him being caught will drop. He will most likely still be caught in the long run, but chances are that he may buy himself some time to escape.

 

This is the point I'm trying to make: Registering a gun under your name leaves a fairly obvious paper trail when it comes to ballistics and motive. Nearly everyone knows this, so they use other means to get their hands on a firearm of some sort. Even kids that use their parents' handguns at the bottom of the dresser drawer are still stealing a gun.

 

So, no, your statement does not hold true, because registered gun owners are enthusiasts, people who go to the range and fire their guns for the sport of it. They keep their guns locked away, and they follow all the rules. If they go through all the steps to legally own a gun, they're more than likely to continue to follow the rules so that they can keep their guns. In some places, you literally need to leap through hoops and over hurdles just to legally hold a gun.

[joeking27]

So with all these people running around with illegal guns, maybe someone should do something about it? Apart from giving everyone else guns, which doesn't strike me as a fantastic idea.

[Connery]

So with all these people running around with illegal guns, maybe someone should do something about it? Apart from giving everyone else guns, which doesn't strike me as a fantastic idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's really nothing that can be done about it anymore. You stop one source, five more will just pop up to replace the one you just stopped.

[Stealthbomber]

Oh well then.  I guess I've no choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What? No choice but to ignore what I said?

 

I already said, irrespective of whether the gun was legally owned or not, if the driver had attacked the kid with anything besides a gun the chances are that he wouldn't be dead.

 

I'm not going to let you differentiate between legally held guns or not. It doesn't matter.

The simple fact is that if the driver didn't have a gun he couldn't have shot the kid.

 

Clear enough?

[Terror_drone]

joeking27: sounds like a better idea than we have here, people running around with illegal guns and take citizens guns away

[Sale]

If you had just lost your child because someone had over reacted to the point of killing them for something relatively harmless,* would you be happy about that person's right to bear arms? Also, speeding away from the scene of a pretty serious crime is hardy law abiding.

 

*relatively harmless as it hadn't killed or injured the driver. I know that could have happened, but it didn't, therefore I'd say that's relatively harmless.

As I already said on the first page, the man who shot the kid to death was a hardened criminal. He had previous convictions of gun and drug crimes and a history of alcohol abuse. He had not been a law-abiding citizen for a long time, and he did not legally own any firearms.

 

Gun bans only reduce the amount of firearms in law-abiding hands, so a ban would not have caused this man to give up his weapons.

 

The two times it's happened in the last 20 years (Hungerford and Dunblane) both the people owned their weapons legally.

Dunblane could have been prevented if the laws in effect would have been enforced properly.

 

The undeniable problem is that it's very easy to kill somebody with a gun.

Oh, that's why school shooters fire off 900 rounds and only get about a dozen people dead.

 

-Sale

[Connery]

What? No choice but to ignore what I said?

 

I already said, irrespective of whether the gun was legally owned or not, if the driver had attacked the kid with anything besides a gun the chances are that he wouldn't be dead.

 

I'm not going to let you differentiate between legally held guns or not. It doesn't matter.

The simple fact is that if the driver didn't have a gun he couldn't have shot the kid.

 

Clear enough? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What're you, dense?

 

The fact that he's illegally owning a gun already makes him a criminal, so regardless of what he would have used, he would've had no qualms killing the kid.

 

If it were someone responsible, they'd take the steps see that the kids are brought to justice, not just run out and kill them. THAT'S the point of the matter; regardless of the weapon, this person would have killed the kid(s) because he's a stupid shitfaced gangbanger.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I was responding to your earlier 'fix' of a quote, so shaddap.

[joeking27]

Um. There isn't a little check box in your head that clicks you over to a psychopathic killer when you snatch a granny's bag.

[Connery]

Um. There isn't a little check box in your head that clicks you over to a psychopathic killer when you snatch a granny's bag.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you wanna get away and the granny isn't letting go without a fight, yeah there is. Human nature will allow a person to kill to escape. Basically speaking, a cornered mouse.

[joeking27]

Perhaps when threatened. I'm not sure you would feel threatened when you're snatching a bag.

[Connery]

Perhaps when threatened. I'm not sure you would feel threatened when you're snatching a bag.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like I said, if the victim isn't letting go without a fight, the snatcher might.

[Stealthbomber]

What're you, dense?

 

The fact that he's illegally owning a gun already makes him a criminal, so regardless of what he would have used, he would've had no qualms killing the kid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umm, you're missing the point that with any other weapon our ruthless criminal killer has to catch the kid first.

 

Scenario 1

Kid eggs car.

Car stops.

Kid turns and runs.

Driver exits car and shoots kid.

 

Scenario 2

Kid eggs car.

Car stops.

Kid turns and runs.

Driver gives chase, waving knife around.

Kid runs for his life.

Driver (inevitably) runs out of stamina and is forced to give up chase.

 

The guy might have no qualms about killing the kid but the lack of a gun would have, most likely, denied him the ability to carry out his desire.

[joeking27]

1, "might" uhoh, thats a tad different from "no qualms"

 

2, bag snatching is but an example, so I'll make it even simpler for you, when you break the law you don't become a psychopathic killer.