Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Unlikely.   He had a gun that I'd have no problem restricting ownership with very tight gun laws.    But this kid in PA didn't have a gun.   I don't know that he'd have killed anyone with a firearm.   But you and tec do.   How many would he have killed if he had the same type of gun as Lanza?  I'm sure you and tec know.

I never said I did know.  I would say odds are that more than 0 children would have died.

And I suggest that driving a car into a crowd standing outside would have produced a higher chance of fatalities than a knife.

OK. I'm not sure how it's relevant. He had a knife and went inside a school.

He sure did.   Why are we discussing guns, cars and the potential of fatalities if those were his weapons of choice?

The topic of the conversation was comparing knives to guns. See: "Maybe the Problem Isn't Guns After All"

If lives were saved because this kid had difficulty finding a gun because of gun control laws, that's a good thing.  

I think the OP was suggesting that mental illness is the problem.   Not guns, knives or cars.  

I'm almost certain he had access to a car.  We know he had access to knives.   We don't know if he had access to guns and chose knives over guns/car. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 2:22:00 PM (view original):
You and 19 of your closest friends and family are in a room.  A crazed man with a weapon appears.  Would you rather the weapon be a gun or a knife?

I'll use the same logic I used with tec.   If you want to argue gun control, please do.   But don't create scenarios that don't exist.   WHAT IF I HAD A NUCLEAR WARHEAD FROM WAL-MART!?!?!?!  IN THAT CASE, I DON'T CARE WHAT THIS CRAZED MAN HAS!!!!   I JUST DETONATE MY WARHEAD AND TAKE OUT THE ENTIRE BLOCK!!!!!!

I'll take your non-answer as "no preference."  Natural selection, I guess, is a good thing then.

I answered.    Would I be allowed to pass out my guns prior to your pretend crazed man entering the room?

No. 

Why not?

You can have knives.  Because, same thing, right?

Can I have a nuclear warhead?

You can have knives.  Because, same thing, right?

What if he's in a tank?    Can I have a bazooka?

He's not.

Would you rather he have a knife or a gun?

How will he enter the room?   Waving his weapon around or just stabbing/shooting randomly?

Correct, we don't know what he had access to.  It would have been interesting if he tried to attack his schoolmates by driving a car through the building though.  He probably figured that wouldn't have worked as well.  Same with using a cider block, or a pen.  He choose a knife.

Again, I said that if current gun control laws prevented him from getting a gun and using that to attack people with, then that's a good thing.  Because it should go without saying that guns are more dangerous than knives.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Unlikely.   He had a gun that I'd have no problem restricting ownership with very tight gun laws.    But this kid in PA didn't have a gun.   I don't know that he'd have killed anyone with a firearm.   But you and tec do.   How many would he have killed if he had the same type of gun as Lanza?  I'm sure you and tec know.

I never said I did know.  I would say odds are that more than 0 children would have died.

And I suggest that driving a car into a crowd standing outside would have produced a higher chance of fatalities than a knife.

OK. I'm not sure how it's relevant. He had a knife and went inside a school.

He sure did.   Why are we discussing guns, cars and the potential of fatalities if those were his weapons of choice?

The topic of the conversation was comparing knives to guns. See: "Maybe the Problem Isn't Guns After All"

If lives were saved because this kid had difficulty finding a gun because of gun control laws, that's a good thing.  

I think the OP was suggesting that mental illness is the problem.   Not guns, knives or cars.  

I'm almost certain he had access to a car.  We know he had access to knives.   We don't know if he had access to guns and chose knives over guns/car. 

How is it that you are "almost certain he had access to a car", yet seems quite confused about the concept that he may have been able to do more damage with a gun as opposed to a knife?

This kid was 16.  I'm not sure about the laws in PA these days since I haven't lived there since 1982, but if it's like CT is these days, there's a number of restrictions on driving when you first get your learners permit at 16.  It's probably more likely than not that he was not able drive by himself, and therefore not "have access to a car".

Yet you sound certain that he did, but somehow doubt that he could have possibly hurt anybody with a gun had that been his weapon of choice that day.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Correct, we don't know what he had access to.  It would have been interesting if he tried to attack his schoolmates by driving a car through the building though.  He probably figured that wouldn't have worked as well.  Same with using a cider block, or a pen.  He choose a knife.

Again, I said that if current gun control laws prevented him from getting a gun and using that to attack people with, then that's a good thing.  Because it should go without saying that guns are more dangerous than knives.

Bus stop.   50-60 MPH thru a crowd with a 3000 lb weapon on wheels. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:36:00 PM (view original):
How will he enter the room?   Waving his weapon around or just stabbing/shooting randomly?

Give me answers for both.

Sure.  

Waving it around:  Gun.  Gives 20 people time to react and neutralize with no injury.  Somebody is likely to get cut wrestling a knife away from your crazed man.   A gun only fires in one direction.
Stabbing/shooting randomly:  Knife.   Somebody is getting hit before there's time to react.  A guy can fire off 6 shots quicker than he can stab at 6 people.

Of course, that's assuming the people realize that he is going to empty his gun once he starts firing.   If they believe he's just trying to scare them, it doesn't really matter.  He's going to stab or shoot them in that case.

Anyway, applying it to the case at hand, if he fires a few shots, people are running away from the sound of gunfire.   My guess the only warning was screams.  Which is something HS girls do when the greet one another. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:36:00 PM (view original):
How will he enter the room?   Waving his weapon around or just stabbing/shooting randomly?

Give me answers for both.

Sure.  

Waving it around:  Gun.  Gives 20 people time to react and neutralize with no injury.  Somebody is likely to get cut wrestling a knife away from your crazed man.   A gun only fires in one direction.
Stabbing/shooting randomly:  Knife.   Somebody is getting hit before there's time to react.  A guy can fire off 6 shots quicker than he can stab at 6 people.

Of course, that's assuming the people realize that he is going to empty his gun once he starts firing.   If they believe he's just trying to scare them, it doesn't really matter.  He's going to stab or shoot them in that case.

Anyway, applying it to the case at hand, if he fires a few shots, people are running away from the sound of gunfire.   My guess the only warning was screams.  Which is something HS girls do when the greet one another. 

Haha, when one of those 20 people approach this man, you don't think he's going to try to shoot them?  Did you assume that by "waving it around" it meant that he would not also fire bullets?  Or that he's waving it around as he's approached, so he's inaccurate?

Your family would be disappointed that you chose this man to have a gun.  Because guns are more likely to kill than knives.

UNLESS the Matrix survival skill you have is hereditary? And only applies to bullets, and not knives.  That would make sense.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Correct, we don't know what he had access to.  It would have been interesting if he tried to attack his schoolmates by driving a car through the building though.  He probably figured that wouldn't have worked as well.  Same with using a cider block, or a pen.  He choose a knife.

Again, I said that if current gun control laws prevented him from getting a gun and using that to attack people with, then that's a good thing.  Because it should go without saying that guns are more dangerous than knives.

Bus stop.   50-60 MPH thru a crowd with a 3000 lb weapon on wheels. 

The school is a bus stop?  He attacked people at his school.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:36:00 PM (view original):
How will he enter the room?   Waving his weapon around or just stabbing/shooting randomly?

Give me answers for both.

Sure.  

Waving it around:  Gun.  Gives 20 people time to react and neutralize with no injury.  Somebody is likely to get cut wrestling a knife away from your crazed man.   A gun only fires in one direction.
Stabbing/shooting randomly:  Knife.   Somebody is getting hit before there's time to react.  A guy can fire off 6 shots quicker than he can stab at 6 people.

Of course, that's assuming the people realize that he is going to empty his gun once he starts firing.   If they believe he's just trying to scare them, it doesn't really matter.  He's going to stab or shoot them in that case.

Anyway, applying it to the case at hand, if he fires a few shots, people are running away from the sound of gunfire.   My guess the only warning was screams.  Which is something HS girls do when the greet one another. 

Haha, when one of those 20 people approach this man, you don't think he's going to try to shoot them?  Did you assume that by "waving it around" it meant that he would not also fire bullets?  Or that he's waving it around as he's approached, so he's inaccurate?

Your family would be disappointed that you chose this man to have a gun.  Because guns are more likely to kill than knives.

UNLESS the Matrix survival skill you have is hereditary? And only applies to bullets, and not knives.  That would make sense.

How ******* big is this mystical room?    21 people in most rooms is pretty crowded.   You know, like a school hallway.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Correct, we don't know what he had access to.  It would have been interesting if he tried to attack his schoolmates by driving a car through the building though.  He probably figured that wouldn't have worked as well.  Same with using a cider block, or a pen.  He choose a knife.

Again, I said that if current gun control laws prevented him from getting a gun and using that to attack people with, then that's a good thing.  Because it should go without saying that guns are more dangerous than knives.

Bus stop.   50-60 MPH thru a crowd with a 3000 lb weapon on wheels. 

The school is a bus stop?  He attacked people at his school.

Don't most schools have buses?   Where do they pick up kids?

Sure, call it the size of a school hallway.  And?  You're going to have to explain your Matrix skills in more detail.

I suppose he could have attacked a crowd outside the school.  But I'm just replacing the knife in his hands with a gun, and saying it's good he didn't have a gun, because guns are much more dangerous than knives.  If gun control laws kept him from having a gun that day, that's a very good thing.

It's close quarters.   If you don't understand the difference between that and a football field, I can't help you.   No one is dodging bullets.   You're neutralizing the gun.

Why can't we replace the knife with a car?  Because that doesn't help your "Guns are evil" argument?

I guess if you can't understand how bullets fired from a gun are more dangerous than a knife, I don't know what to tell you.  You're likely in the 1% group of people who think that a child who brings a knife to school is likely to do as much damage as a child who brings a gun.

Yes, cars are dangerous.  Let's ban them too.

EPIC.

If every kid in the school had a knife...

If every kid in the school had a gun...

If every kid in the school got a lunch…  (Oh Wait!  Never mind!  They do that!)

The point is…..nothing is fair.  **** happens.  Deal with it.  Change it.  Fix it.  Make it work.

If no guns or police in school is working…..then do that.  And stop ********.

If guns and police in school works…..then do that.  And stop ********.

Stop ********.  Do that.  That works.