Emma Gonzalez's important speach

[Mountain Man]

You didn't name any and are now avoiding responsibility for supporting your claim. Not played at all.

You laid the ground rules by citing two relevant examples and then immediately dismissing them as irrelevant. Sorry, I'm not going to play along.

[Sparko]

That's despicable, Sparko.

It wasn't me that introduced the gun/knife comparison. It wasn't me that claimed other means were just as deadly. If you wanted to complain about it being treated as "just a numbers game" then you should have objected then, and not cited numbers yourself.

You are getting into the habit of objecting only to the behaviour and challenging only the claims of your ideological opponents while giving yourself and your ideological colleagues a free pass - even when it is you and your colleagues who are making the false and/or callous statements and your opponents are merely responding in kind.

That's hypocrisy, Sparko.

You are the one who is comparing number of deaths in the incidents, Roy, not me. I was just showing that there are mass attacks, in schools, even when there are no guns involved. I have said previously and I stand by it: The problem isn't the weapon, it the person. Guns are tools, just like knives, or cars, or poison. If you remove access to guns they will use other means to inflict harm. That is why I posted those stats. You are the one who complained that the deaths were not comparable.

And I just chose specifically incidents in schools. If I wanted to go with mass deaths not committed by guns I could have mentioned 9/11, the Oklahama federal building, and others that far outnumber the deaths in a mass shooting.

[Roy]

You are the one who is comparing number of deaths in the incidents, Roy, not me.

No, Sparko, I'm responding to the person pretending the numbers are comparable.

The problem isn't the weapon, it the person. Guns are tools, just like knives, or cars, or poison. If you remove access to guns they will use other means to inflict harm.

Of course. But does the availability of guns increase their ability to inflict harm? Or does it not?

And I just chose specifically incidents in schools. If I wanted to go with mass deaths not committed by guns I could have mentioned 9/11, the Oklahama federal building, and others that far outnumber the deaths in a mass shooting.

So you would argue that guns do not contribute to the level of harm inflicted by comparing an incident involving a lone perpetrator to incidents executed by groups.

[Charles]

You are the one who is comparing number of deaths in the incidents, Roy, not me. I was just showing that there are mass attacks, in schools, even when there are no guns involved.

Well, actually, the "number" thing was in the opening post in the quote "He would not have harmed that many students with a knife." MM was the very first to reply and he challenged this claim: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post518974
Roy then challenged MM by asking for actual evidence showing the perpetrator would likely have harmed that many people with a knife. So Roy certainly did not start it. Rather unfair approach to blame Roy for asking MM to support his claims with actual evidence. And as we have seen MM has now started his usual playing games instead of providing it.

[Sparko]

No, Sparko, I'm responding to the person pretending the numbers are comparable.Of course. But does the availability of guns increase their ability to inflict harm? Or does it not? So you would argue that guns do not contribute to the level of harm inflicted by comparing an incident involving a lone perpetrator to incidents executed by groups.

I am not arguing with you at all Roy. I said what I wanted to say and I gave evidence of it. You can try to nitpick away any comparisons you want by comparing the number of perpetrators, or number of deaths, or type of weapon to no avail. The fact remains that guns don't kill people, people kill people, using whatever is at hand. You are not going to solve mass killings by taking away guns. You will just shift the methods used. There are sick and evil people in the world, and only by dealing with them will you solve the problem.

And the only permanent solution is when Jesus comes back.

[Charles]

[...] You can try to nitpick away any comparisons you want by comparing the number of perpetrators, or number of deaths, or type of weapon to no avail. The fact remains that guns don't kill people, people kill people, using whatever is at hand.[...]

I think you missed the point again. We were not discussing whether people kill people or not. We were discussing whether it would be harder for people to kill people if they did not have acces to guns. How do you know beforehand that it is to no avail?

BTW: If "whatever is at hand" can be used instead of a gun then why are you so concerned about the thought of not being allowed to have one?

[Charles]

And the only permanent solution is when Jesus comes back.

Whether one believes Jesus will return or not seems rather irrelevant when discussing how to reduce the number of people being killed.

[Littlejoe]

How about this example from China? Not a school but mass slaying non the less.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world...ack/index.html ETA:NVM, this is the same example as it was multiple attackers. Sorry!

[Sparko]

I think you missed the point again. We were not discussing whether people kill people or not. We were discussing whether it would be harder for people to kill people if they did not have acces to guns. How do you know beforehand that it is to no avail?

Because it is to no avail in China which I posted links to, or in Britain which has just had three attacks using cars last year. Or Boston where they used a bomb, or any number of other mass attacks I can name.

BTW: If "whatever is at hand" can be used instead of a gun then why are you so concerned about the thought of not being allowed to have one?

What? Do you think I am planning on doing a mass attack or something? That is an idiotic comment.

I am concerned because for law-abiding citizens, owning guns is about sporting, hunting, and self-defense. Taking guns away from them doesn't take them away from criminals.

[Sparko]

Whether one believes Jesus will return or not seems rather irrelevant when discussing how to reduce the number of people being killed.

It is completely relevant. People need Jesus in their heart instead of hate.

Romans 1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[Charles]

Because it is to no avail in China which I posted links to, or in Britain which has just had three attacks using cars last year. Or Boston where they used a bomb, or any number of other mass attacks I can name.

So you did join the number game? Are you willing to discuss it in that context? It seems you are not, or that you are speaking with two tongues.

What? Do you think I am planning on doing a mass attack or something? That is an idiotic comment.

I am concerned because for law-abiding citizens, owning guns is about sporting, hunting, and self-defense. Taking guns away from them doesn't take them away from criminals.

Of course it is not an idiotic comment and you showed so yourself by pointing to self-defense. If a gun is not more effective than "whatever is at hand" why do you need it for self-defense? Why not go for "whatever is at hand" in your self-defense?

[Charles]

It is completely relevant. People need Jesus in their heart instead of hate.

Romans 1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

One would get the impression that people talking in this way about people who do not believe in Jesus must feel some sort of hate towards them.

[Sparko]

So you did join the number game? Are you willing to discuss it in that context? It seems you are not, or that you are speaking with two tongues.

what? I can't even follow you at this point, Charles. Stop the drugs.

Of course it is not an idiotic comment and you showed so yourself by pointing to self-defense. If a gun is not more effective than "whatever is at hand" why do you need it for self-defense? Why not go for "whatever is at hand" in your self-defense?

I have a machete next to my bed.

[Roy]

The fact remains that guns don't kill people, people kill people, using whatever is at hand. You are not going to solve mass killings by taking away guns. You will just shift the methods used.

So you don't think that shifting the methods used to the point that they won't be mass killings is in any way worthwhile. Just because you can't solve the problem doesn't mean you can't reduce it.

Next time some nutter slaughters a dozen schoolchildren - and there will be a next time, likely within a few months of now - remember that without your help he'd only have got three.

[seer]

Next time some nutter slaughters a dozen schoolchildren - and there will be a next time, likely within a few months of now - remember that without your help he'd only have got three.

So if he used a truck to kill 15 or 20 people would that make you happy?