Emma Gonzalez's important speach

[seer]

But to tell them to bring canned food to school so they can have them at hand to throw in case of a shooter is just goofy.

But what if it is a can of Spam? That would instantly kill any perp...

[Sparko]

A moron for asking why guns are much needed in self defense but not more or less effective than whatever is at hand when used in an attack?

sigh. Guns are more effective than knives. Nobody ever said anything different. But if the goal is to stop mass attacks, then eliminating guns does not solve the problem because people will find other means to harm others. This is what happened in Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Africa, China, Japan, and every country in the world. You don't stop these people by taking away their guns. They will use poison, trucks, knives, swords, or bombs, or rocks. The problem isn't with the weapons, it is with the perpetrators. Are you saying you are just fine if they only kill 10 people with knives instead of 17 with guns? That is acceptable to you?

You could give a normal person an arsenal of guns, knives, and explosives and they would not harm a single person. Taking weapons away from them does not take them away from the demented and evil people who do go around killing people.

[Sparko]

But what if it is a can of Spam? That would instantly kill any perp...

Not if they had an ad blocker!

[seer]

Not if they had an ad blocker!

That was sad, even for you...

[Sparko]

That was sad, even for you...

C99FaIOVoAECxoa.jpg

[Charles]

sigh. Guns are more effective than knives. Nobody ever said anything different.

Ok, so you admit that guns are more effective at killing innocent people. Why all the fuzz then?

But if the goal is to stop mass attacks, then eliminating guns does not solve the problem because people will find other means to harm others. This is what happened in Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Africa, China, Japan, and every country in the world. You don't stop these people by taking away their guns. They will use poison, trucks, knives, swords, or bombs, or rocks. The problem isn't with the weapons, it is with the perpetrators.

I though we just agreed that knives were not as effective? Would swords be as effective? Would rocks? No one made the claim that mass attacks would be eliminated without guns. It simply is dishonest of you to suggest so. What I want to point to is that it would reduce the problem.

Are you saying you are just fine if they only kill 10 people with knives instead of 17 with guns? That is acceptable to you?

How low of you to even suggest that. All I am saying is that if it is a choice between 17 or 10 then 10 is an absurd tragedy but 17 would be even worse since each indivudual is irreplaceable. Would you disagree? If not then why provide more effective means for killing? Each individual counts.

You could give a normal person an arsenal of guns, knives, and explosives and they would not harm a single person. Taking weapons away from them does not take them away from the demented and evil people who do go around killing people.

And of course we all know beforehand who are normal people and who are demented and evil? Taking them away from all civilians would ensure they would not end up in the hans of evil persons. It would be a long proces in a country as influenced by gun lobbies and heartless people earning fortunes on others misfortunes as yours. But again, since each individual counts it need to get started.

[Sparko]

Ok, so you admit that guns are more effective at killing innocent people. Why all the fuzz then?



I though we just agreed that knives were not as effective? Would swords be as effective? Would rocks? No one made the claim that mass attacks would be eliminated without guns. It simply is dishonest of you to suggest so. What I want to point to is that it would reduce the problem.



How low of you to even suggest that. All I am saying is that if it is a choice between 17 or 10 then 10 is an absurd tragedy but 17 would be even worse since each indivudual is irreplaceable. Would you disagree? If not then why provide more effective means for killing? Each individual counts.

Then don't worry about the method but the person who committed the crime. Find a way to stop him. Otherwise all you are doing is playing a numbers game and saying you are perfectly happy if you can reduce the body count. Not every shooting results in 17 dead. Some result in only a couple dead, just like a knife attack. Are you OK with those attacks? This is why I said you were a moron and not worth responding to.

And of course we all know beforehand who are normal people and who are demented and evil? Taking them away from all civilians would ensure they would not end up in the hans of evil persons. It would be a long proces in a country as influenced by gun lobbies and heartless people earning fortunes on others misfortunes as yours. But again, since each individual counts it need to get started.

Why don't we just lock everyone up in prison that way we know we have all of the evil ones in jail?

Punishing law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a minority of nutjobs is not a feasible answer. And it is logistically impossible. Not to mention against the constitution of the USA. How about you come up with a realistic solution instead of fantasy?

[Psychic Missile]

sigh. Guns are more effective than knives. Nobody ever said anything different. But if the goal is to stop mass attacks, then eliminating guns does not solve the problem because people will find other means to harm others. This is what happened in Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Africa, China, Japan, and every country in the world. You don't stop these people by taking away their guns. They will use poison, trucks, knives, swords, or bombs, or rocks. The problem isn't with the weapons, it is with the perpetrators. Are you saying you are just fine if they only kill 10 people with knives instead of 17 with guns? That is acceptable to you?

You could give a normal person an arsenal of guns, knives, and explosives and they would not harm a single person. Taking weapons away from them does not take them away from the demented and evil people who do go around killing people.

If a kid wants to kill people at school, making sure he doesn't have guns would significantly hamper his plans. That's something we can do to fight the problem right now. Getting to the heart of mass killings and finding a way to prevent them from the beginning isn't going to happen any time soon.

[Charles]

Then don't worry about the method but the person who committed the crime. Find a way to stop him. Otherwise all you are doing is playing a numbers game and saying you are perfectly happy if you can reduce the body count. Not every shooting results in 17 dead. Some result in only a couple dead, just like a knife attack. Are you OK with those attacks? This is why I said you were a moron and not worth responding to.

Sparko, your approach is getting unworthy. I have just made it very clear that each individual counts and now you want to insist that somehow I am ok with people being killed, or at least you want to present it as a fair question. It is simply not and you know it. Fair enough to disagree but not fair to misrepresent on purpose. I have never claimed mass killings could be prevented completely but I think it is important to do what we can to prevent them and to reduce the numbers being killed when they unfortunately happen. The fact that you need to misrepresent my point and call me a moron only seems to show the lack of any good arguments to strengthen your case. I am not ok with any innocent person being killed. That is why I think we should do what we can to prevent it from happening.

Why don't we just lock everyone up in prison that way we know we have all of the evil ones in jail?

Punishing law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a minority of nutjobs is not a feasible answer. And it is logistically impossible. Not to mention against the constitution of the USA. How about you come up with a realistic solution instead of fantasy?

Now there is a tremendous difference between being locked up and not being allowed to own a gun. I have lived a lucky life without ever owning a gun. As far as the realistic solution thing I think you need to actually understand and respond to my actual points and actual intentions instead of making up all sorts of false claims about what I think. Then I guess you will start to actually see the point or come up with arguments that contradict what I acutally said and not what you want to try to turn it into.

[Darth Executor]

If a kid wants to kill people at school, making sure he doesn't have guns would significantly hamper his plans. That's something we can do to fight the problem right now. Getting to the heart of mass killings and finding a way to prevent them from the beginning isn't going to happen any time soon.

There's no way to make sure he doesn't have guns without starting a civil war.

You could significantly reduce their likelihood of having guns, which would require little more than actually enforcing current laws and, for example, having the FBI do their job instead of trying to avenge Hillary Clinton's humiliating defeat. But we both know the real motive here is to disarm the population so that you can do whatever you want to them with no possibility of serious retaliation.

[Darth Executor]

Teaching folks to fight back if they cannot escape or hide is actually a good idea. But to tell them to bring canned food to school so they can have them at hand to throw in case of a shooter is just goofy.

is it though? a few flying cans might distract the shooter enough to give someone time to tackle them.

[Darth Executor]

Well, actually, the "number" thing was in the opening post in the quote "He would not have harmed that many students with a knife."

There's no way to know how many he would have killed with a knife. Obv just rushing a crowd of people with one would not be as effective as a gun but if you methodically isolate and slit throats you could get through a lot of people before someone figures it out.* just lurking in the bathrooms could net you a half dozen each. This tactic would not work with guns which are loud and instantly alert everyone there's a killer on the loose.




*source: I played Party Hard

[rogue06]

is it though? a few flying cans might distract the shooter enough to give someone time to tackle them.

Something tells me there will be plenty of objects suitable for throwing right there in the classroom without building a stockpile of canned peas and the like.

[alaskazimm]

Something tells me there will be plenty of objects suitable for throwing right there in the classroom without building a stockpile of canned peas and the like.

What else would you use canned peas for?

[Psychic Missile]

There's no way to make sure he doesn't have guns without starting a civil war.

You could significantly reduce their likelihood of having guns, which would require little more than actually enforcing current laws and, for example, having the FBI do their job instead of trying to avenge Hillary Clinton's humiliating defeat. But we both know the real motive here is to disarm the population so that you can do whatever you want to them with no possibility of serious retaliation.

What do you think the Illuminati wants to do to the population that we might retaliate for?