{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:TFS The Floods Sanctuary
3/3/2014 5:01:14 PM
35
Massacres can happen without guns, prove me wrong.
[url=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966]A group of knife-wielding men attacked a train station in southwestern China on Saturday, killing at least 29 people and injuring more than 130 others in what Chinese officials called a terrorist strike, the official Xinhua News Agency said.[/url]
So stop saying banning guns will end violence like that.
-
Edited by Capiton Render: 3/6/2014 3:30:08 PMMmmmm, taking that bait hook line and sinker
-
2 RepliesOnly one I remember is the guy in Thailand who went around killing people with a machete.
-
No one said massacres can't happen without guns. However, mass shootings can't happen without guns.
-
6 RepliesViolence will happen no matter what. Guns are just spectacularly good at killing people compared to other implements. Engineered to kill.
-
Nice straw man you got there.
-
58 Replies[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing]On the 14th of December, 2012, a man walked into a primary school armed with a weapon and unfortunately managed to claim 24 victims.[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting]On the 14th of December, 2012, a man walked into a primary school armed with a weapon and unfortunately managed to claim 29 victims.[/url] In the first case, none of them were killed, but in the second, 27. In the first case, the attacker was armed with a knife, but in the second, a firearm. Are we noticing something here? Nobody is denying that violence can still occur if firearms were removed from the general populace. [b][u]Nobody[/u][/b], like, at all. However, what should be painfully obvious to anybody with a modicum of intelligence is the effectiveness of the weapon. That being, [b]a firearm is a far more effective killing instrument than a knife[/b]. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua_TZ84hmEA]tl;dr[/url]
-
1 ReplyEdited by Brainspook: 3/5/2014 12:35:36 PMWhat is this a gun debate forum now?
-
Yeah machetes were the most widely used weapon in Rwanda
-
I can't, and I never said massacres are only caused by people with guns.
-
People are still dying of diseases even though we have doctors, therefore doctor are useless and we should get rid of them.
-
and water is wet. what's your point?
-
8 RepliesBanning guns won't stop gun violence. Last time I checked, criminals don't follow laws.
-
6 RepliesObviously, but guns are much more efficient at claiming lives. *braces for ad hominem attacks from the pro gun nuts*
-
Well obviously you don't need a gun for a massacre but you can't deny that guns make it way easier
-
1 Replyimagine how much death there would have been if the crusades had bees fought with guns. just take that in for a moment.
-
2 RepliesBan people...
-
Edited by Mmmmm Napalm: 3/4/2014 2:19:48 PMOf course violence still occurs if guns are banned. Ever fought a being with superpowers?
-
3 RepliesEdited by DesticleStomper6: 3/4/2014 4:41:17 AMBanning guns knives shanks broken glass bottles and pencils or whatever will not magically reduce the amount of insane psychotic sickos and serial killers that live among us with or without premeditated murder in mind. If you Really wanna kill somebody or some people, you'll find a way. No ban will stop them. Will it Complicate their efforts? Perhaps.
-
1 ReplyImagine if it were that many dudes with guns. They would have killed a lot more.
-
2 RepliesBanning guns will lower the amount killed, they're more efficient than a knife. Humans are violent if a somebody wanted to massacre a bunch of people the would find a way. All we can do is limit it, or attempt too.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Quantum: 3/4/2014 5:21:56 AMWhat daz said. Also, you do realize that the last terrorist attack in a developing country in a crowded city [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks]claimed 154 lives using guns?[/url] And that was with [i]police resistance.[/i] These Chinese terrorists would have killed like 4-5 times the number of people had they used guns in the operation, and the police didn't really intervene in force until significantly after the attack began. The Mumbai siege [i]lasted days despite the relatively quick police reaction. [/i]
-
Edited by Pahat Pojat: 3/4/2014 10:56:54 AMWouldn't the death toll have been lower if the victims had a gun?
-
I can't prove you wrong because you are right
-
3 RepliesThe only solution is to ban sharp objects
-
1 ReplyWhy is Capitons Wang a hashtag? lol
-
5 RepliesIf that had been a group of gun wielding men, then the body count would have been much, much higher.
