In strict gun control Japan man kills 7 with knife, truck

Look where the article came from, Harvard. One of the most Left leaning (anti-gun) schools in the country. Of course their going to come up with something to try to downplay the facts.

Yet at no stage did they talk about gun bans being the answer nor did they advocate any "restrictive" controls, I would suggest that you read beyond the title.
 
I did, I looked at the bottom where the article came from, that's all the reading I need of that article. Been there, done that got the false teeth.
What 5.56 posted looks like fact to me.
 
Duh, what's that mean?
ChrisFarley.gif

 
Last edited:
I did, I looked at the bottom where the article came from, that's all the reading I need of that article. Been there, done that got the false teeth.
What 5.56 posted looks like fact to me.

I'll admit, I laughed when I read this. Good thing all the parties in this debate are intelligent enough to actually read the other point of view's evidence.


Oh and by the way, from what I see, 5.56 didn't actually say what his source is. I'm sure that went a long way in helping your source reading skills and then using it to determining the validity of his "fact."
 
I'll admit, I laughed when I read this. Good thing all the parties in this debate are intelligent enough to actually read the other point of view's evidence.


Oh and by the way, from what I see, 5.56 didn't actually say what his source is. I'm sure that went a long way in helping your source reading skills and then using it to determining the validity of his "fact."
the randomly inserted Chris Farley doesn't help things much either, though it does go quite nicely with the music I'm listening to...
 
I'll admit, I laughed when I read this. Good thing all the parties in this debate are intelligent enough to actually read the other point of view's evidence.


Oh and by the way, from what I see, 5.56 didn't actually say what his source is. I'm sure that went a long way in helping your source reading skills and then using it to determining the validity of his "fact."

Here are my sources for my facts....

License Holder Profile Report, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - Division of Licensing, Retrieved August 2007

2005-2006 CCW Annual Report, Michigan State Police

Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report - October 1, 1987 to June 30, 2007, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - Division of Licensing, Retrieved August 2007

North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit Statistics by County - 12/01/1995 through 09/30/2004, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html (April 13, 2008)

Oh and for the facts on Clarification of prohibited persons I got that from the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (May 19, 1986), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.


So please.... don't say that I cannot support my facts.
 
Last edited:
Umm is it just me or is there no comparative data in any of those links?

I may be doing something wrong but all I see are data piles.
 
I did, I looked at the bottom where the article came from, that's all the reading I need of that article. Been there, done that got the false teeth.
What 5.56 posted looks like fact to me.

The chances are that if you only read the last page of a book you will have absolutely no idea of the plot. You have your "false teeth" in the wrong orifice I feel.

I am totally baffled by posters who comment that they don't understand the logic or aims of a group, then go on to say that they don't bother to read the explanations,... little wonder that they don't often get it right.
 
Last edited:
Monty I don't think that we're EVER going to be able to have a violence-free society. Unless we're all on state-mandated drugs and we're raised in utter conformity from birth. Even then, emotions will still exist and the passion requisite to murder someone will still be easily within reach.

I think it's ridiculous to even try to change something this basic.
 
Monty I don't think that we're EVER going to be able to have a violence-free society. Unless we're all on state-mandated drugs and we're raised in utter conformity from birth. Even then, emotions will still exist and the passion requisite to murder someone will still be easily within reach.

I think it's ridiculous to even try to change something this basic.

For the most part I agree but the argument of either side is not about creating a violence free society it is about creating the safest society that can be achieved without sacrificing the rights of individuals.

The pro-gun lobby believes that if you arm the people everyone will walk around bow legged, tipping their hat and saying maam and howdy partner a lot but it will all be perfectly safe because you will have in effect created a giant Mexican stand off.

I on the other hand believe that arming everyone and expecting less shootings is like issuing everyone with bubble wrap and telling them not to pop it, however that being said the answer is not in banning firearms either as that doesn't work so what needs to be found is the effective middle ground which may be as simple as making the firearms themselves safer or it may mean a more robust set of nationwide purchasing and storage rules.

My personal belief though is that if you believe you need weapons primarily for defence then you have more pressing problems with your society that you would be better off addressing and that in reality will not be fixed by buying a gun.
 
Last edited:
You don't get killed by popping bubble wrap in front of other people.

Your last point though Monty, is a very good one.
 
You see thats the part that bugs me with the gun lobby.

Their insistance to carry a gun everywhere at all times in order for "protection". To me thats an arguement that shows anti-social tendencies, the same kind of tendacies Cho showed at Va tech. Remember in Cho's mind, he too was only using a gun in order to defend himself.

If you have to go regularly into a dangerous neighboorhood like for work, that to me is a understandable reason to carry a gun.

But when someone insists the right to have a gun everywhere for "protection", including places where its clearly a bad idea (bars/resturants, work, school, on public transportation, shopping centers, etc) it makes me more nervous about the gun owner then of the 1 and million chance I met a "bad guy".
 
Last edited:
Yeah but in Cho's case, it's like a mentally deranged mother who feeds her baby to death because she fears him/her starving. Certainly isn't mainstream. And if other students or staff had a handgun at hand at the time, his rampage very well could have been cut short.
So in that one in a million shot at meeting a bad guy, no one had a gun except the perpetrator. So it's not a good example. In these cases, I'm sure that no social skill would ever save my ass.
Better for self defense than a handgun is usually common sense.

I guess on private property you can have a gun restriction. i.e. "No handguns in our restaurant please." It's like asking that you don't bring your dog and asking people not to smoke in their facility. If the gun owner doesn't like the rule, they can go to another restaurant.
 
To be frank you are curing the symptoms and ignoring the illness.
You wont solve the problem by wondering how many others needed to be armed to stop him but rather how a man that was clearly mentally troubled actually got a gun in the first place.
 
Back
Top