Knives, Blunt Objects, and Fists (Oh my!)

[Ethereal]

According to FBI data (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2009-2013.xls), Americans used rifles to commit 285 homicides in 2013.

In that same year, Americans used knives, blunt objects, and fists to commit 2605 homicides.

So while the mass shootings involving rifles are certainly more spectacular, they constitute a tiny percentage of homicides in America.

[Chris]

That's just not fair, you shouldn't use facts against liberal fictions.

We also know for a fact that violent crime rates are down at a time gun ownership is high, but that's not fair either.

[Common]

Choking, suffocating, stabbing, blunt force trauma, beating to death, thrown off roofs, run over, drowning or shot

[Safety]

...yet, 5,782 handguns were used to kill Americans in 2013...

[nathanbforrest45]

...yet, 5,782 handguns were used to kill Americans in 2013...

Link

[Mister D]

Link
Bump

[Safety]

Link

Sigh....

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+use+a+mouse

then click on link in OP, look for handgun label, then scroll over to 2013, then read the f'king number.

[Dangermouse]

According to FBI data (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2009-2013.xls), Americans used rifles to commit 285 homicides in 2013.

In that same year, Americans used knives, blunt objects, and fists to commit 2605 homicides.

So while the mass shootings involving rifles are certainly more spectacular, they constitute a tiny percentage of homicides in America.

When was the last time anybody injured or killed 600 people with a knife, blunt object or fists?

[Captdon]

When was the last time anybody injured or killed 600 people with a knife, blunt object or fists?

600? What's this 600?

[Chris]

...yet, 5,782 handguns were used to kill Americans in 2013...


OK, now how many in that year were knives, blunt objects, and fists used to kill? How many were killed by other things like automobiles.

[Safety]

OK, now how many in that year were knives, blunt objects, and fists used to kill? How many were killed by other things like automobiles.

How many of those items were used to kill as intended and designed....

[The Xl]

It's time for fist control.

[Chris]

How many of those items were used to kill as intended and designed....

Neither were guns.


Are the old arguments, well, kind of old.

[Chris]

It's time for fist control.

Interlude of humor...control...fist...

https://i.snag.gy/gAbS9j.jpg

[Ethereal]

...yet, 5,782 handguns were used to kill Americans in 2013...
Mostly by black men in cities controlled by Democrats.

[Safety]

hyuk! Autobots, roll out!

[Ethereal]

When was the last time anybody injured or killed 600 people with a knife, blunt object or fists?
In 2013, 2605 people were killed by them.

[resister]

hyuk! Autobots, roll out!
Troll often? How do you feel about the actual, topic?:rollseyes:

[Ethereal]

hyuk! Autobots, roll out!
Why are you trying to go off topic? Do the facts upset you?

[Adelaide]

Discuss the topic. Do not insult each other.

[Cthulhu]

How many of those items were used to kill as intended and designed....Doesn't really matter if they are designed to or not.

What matters is cause of death.

Although I would argue that we need to separate accidental deaths from both cars and guns to be fair.

Only use numbers with malice attached to them.

It would be wise to remove suicides as well from all items on the table.

Stick to crimes committed with X and see how the numbers pan out. Violent crimes specifically.

For once I'd like to see an honest discussion about this.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Chris]

Doesn't really matter if they are designed to or not.

What matters is cause of death.

Although I would argue that we need to separate accidental deaths from both cars and guns to be fair.

Only use numbers with malice attached to them.

It would be wise to remove suicides as well from all items on the table.

Stick to crimes committed with X and see how the numbers pan out. Violent crimes specifically.

For once I'd like to see an honest discussion about this.

Sent from my evil cell phone.


Exactly right, design is irrelevant. Guns don't get up and start shooting. People pick them up and shoot. What matters is intent. Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

[ripmeister]

I think the point is how many were killed in Vegas, how many in Texas in single incidents and by what means. Annual totals comparisons based on MO are red herrings.

[Dangermouse]

600? What's this 600?

The last shooter but one (or was it two?) shot 600 people at a C&W concert in LV. People tend to just talk about the headline deaths and not the wounded.

[Safety]

Doesn't really matter if they are designed to or not.

What matters is cause of death.

Although I would argue that we need to separate accidental deaths from both cars and guns to be fair.

Only use numbers with malice attached to them.

It would be wise to remove suicides as well from all items on the table.

Stick to crimes committed with X and see how the numbers pan out. Violent crimes specifically.

For once I'd like to see an honest discussion about this.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

I disagree, a firearm, since it’s inception was designed as a lethal tool. A car, hammer, knife, crowbar, and a baseball bat, all had other purposes in their design. That makes a difference when debating how impersonal a firearm can be when it is used, and in today’s time, how many can be killed effortlessly within a short period. Having the debate about gun control, and bringing into the discussion other items used to kill, has been used as a deflection over the bottom line in those debates, which is how to limit the number of casulities per event. Just like when a pilot intentionally crashes a plane full of people, steps are always reviewed to see what can be done to prevent the incident from happening again, be it stronger background checks of pilots, to more regulations placed on procedures, see what happened after 9/11 to the airline industry. They didn’t ban aircraft after the event, but they drastically implemented more rules and restrictions, including the creation of a new federal department.

[Chris]

I disagree, a firearm, since it’s inception was designed as a lethal tool. A car, hammer, knife, crowbar, and a baseball bat, all had other purposes in their design. That makes a difference when debating how impersonal a firearm can be when it is used, and in today’s time, how many can be killed effortlessly within a short period. Having the debate about gun control, and bringing into the discussion other items used to kill, has been used as a deflection over the bottom line in those debates, which is how to limit the number of casulities per event. Just like when a pilot intentionally crashes a plane full of people, steps are always reviewed to see what can be done to prevent the incident from happening again, be it stronger background checks of pilots, to more regulations placed on procedures, see what happened after 9/11 to the airline industry. They didn’t ban aircraft after the event, but they drastically implemented more rules and restrictions, including the creation of a new federal department.


No, it's a bogus argument. You demonstrated it is when you used that analogy with airplanes. Guns, planes, hammers are things. Regardless initial design, they all have multiple uses...depending on the person. If you want to limit mass murders, look to what type of people commit them, not whether they shoot guns in churches or fly planes into buildings.

That guns were designed to kill in war is a fact. It is not an argument.

[Ethereal]

I think the point is how many were killed in Vegas, how many in Texas in single incidents and by what means. Annual totals comparisons based on MO are red herrings.
Why are they red herrings?

[Ethereal]

The last shooter but one (or was it two?) shot 600 people at a C&W concert in LV. People tend to just talk about the headline deaths and not the wounded.

Such incidents, while certainly tragic, are exceedingly rare. Far more people die from less sensational forms of violence, like stabbings.

[Ethereal]

I disagree, a firearm, since it’s inception was designed as a lethal tool. A car, hammer, knife, crowbar, and a baseball bat, all had other purposes in their design. That makes a difference when debating how impersonal a firearm can be when it is used, and in today’s time, how many can be killed effortlessly within a short period. Having the debate about gun control, and bringing into the discussion other items used to kill, has been used as a deflection over the bottom line in those debates, which is how to limit the number of casulities per event. Just like when a pilot intentionally crashes a plane full of people, steps are always reviewed to see what can be done to prevent the incident from happening again, be it stronger background checks of pilots, to more regulations placed on procedures, see what happened after 9/11 to the airline industry. They didn’t ban aircraft after the event, but they drastically implemented more rules and restrictions, including the creation of a new federal department.

Those were overreactions that didn't really address the problem, much like gun control measures.

[ripmeister]

Why are they red herrings?
Because your data is referring to event number not the number of casualties in a given event. Its an invalid comparison.

[ripmeister]

No, it's a bogus argument. You demonstrated it is when you used that analogy with airplanes. Guns, planes, hammers are things. Regardless initial design, they all have multiple uses...depending on the person. If you want to limit mass murders, look to what type of people commit them, not whether they shoot guns in churches or fly planes into buildings.

That guns were designed to kill in war is a fact. It is not an argument.
So you don't think the "kill rate" is a legitimate concern? Your are ok with bump stocks for example?

[Chris]

So you don't think the "kill rate" is a legitimate concern? Your are ok with bump stocks for example?

Kill rate? But 2,977 dead in NYC, DC, and Shanksville didn't ban airplanes.

[ripmeister]

Kill rate? But 2,977 dead in NYC, DC, and Shanksville didn't ban airplanes.
False equivalency.

[Ethereal]

Because your data is referring to event number not the number of casualties in a given event. Its an invalid comparison.
So a small number of events that kill a relatively large number of people at a time is more important than a large number of events that kill a small number of people at time because... ?

[Mister D]

So a small number of events that kill a relatively large number of people at a time is more important than a large number of events that kill a small number of people at time because... ?
Because the former makes a larger emotional impact. That is all.

[Cletus]

So you don't think the "kill rate" is a legitimate concern? Your are ok with bump stocks for example?

I think they are stupid, but other than that, I have no objection to someone owning one. They are inefficient and do not promote good marksmanship. In fact, the death toll in Las Vegas would probably have been considerably higher if the shooter had not been using that kind of stock.

If anyone comes after me with a semiautomatic rifle, I sincerely hope he is using such a stock.

[Common Sense]

Kill rate? But 2,977 dead in NYC, DC, and Shanksville didn't ban airplanes.
But they did increase security measures.

[Chris]

But they did increase security measures.

Security measures that monitored people.

[Chris]

False equivalency.

Nice words, dismissive, but meaningless.

[Common Sense]

Again, one guy tried to blow up his shoe bomb and now we all have to take our shoes off at the security check.

Mass shootings become commonplace and nothing is done at all.

[Chris]

Again, one guy tried to blow up his shoe bomb and now we all have to take our shoes off at the security check.

Mass shootings become commonplace and nothing is done at all.



Because of the shoe bomber, shoes regulated? No.

[Common Sense]

Because of the shoe bomber, shoes regulated? No.
Lol...explosives are regulated.

[Chris]

Lol...explosives are regulated.

Explosives aren't arms--to follow you to yet another argument.

[Common Sense]

Explosives aren't arms--to follow you to yet another argument.
Ok...and?

The fact still remains, when a shoe bomb was attempted to be used to kill people, steps were taken to mitigate the threat. Attempts at obfuscation doesn't change that fact.

[Chris]

Ok...and?

The fact still remains, when a shoe bomb was attempted to be used to kill people, steps were taken to mitigate the threat. Attempts at obfuscation doesn't change that fact.

Right, to search people at the airport prior to boarding.

IOW, you do something...reasonable.


Then don't obfuscate, and, please, don't flit from one fact to another. If you have an argument, get it out on the table.

[Ethereal]

But they did increase security measures.
Yea, by eroding our rights.

[Ethereal]

Ok...and?

The fact still remains, when a shoe bomb was attempted to be used to kill people, steps were taken to mitigate the threat. Attempts at obfuscation doesn't change that fact.

Meaningless steps, much like gun control would be.

[Ethereal]

Lol...explosives are regulated.
Knives aren't though.

[Common Sense]

Yea, by eroding our rights.

I agree that the increase of mass surveillance and much of the so called war on terror has eroded rights. I don't know that having to take your shoes off is.

[Common Sense]

Knives aren't though.

Most states do indeed have regulations regarding knives.

[Ethereal]

Most states do indeed have regulations regarding knives.
Interesting. I've never personally encountered such regulations. Can't say the same thing for rifles, which kill far less people.

[Common Sense]

Interesting. I've never personally encountered such regulations. Can't say the same thing for rifles, which kill far less people.

Well, the regulations exist.

[Ethereal]

I agree that the increase of mass surveillance and much of the so called war on terror has eroded rights. I don't know that having to take your shoes off is.
Viewed in isolation, taking your shoes off before entering the concourse is pretty benign. But viewed in the context of a larger system of surveillance and interference, it is just one more example of how the population is being conditioned and desensitized to authoritarianism. This is especially true given the TSA's demonstrated incompetence.

[Ethereal]

Well, the regulations exist.
Not in any way comparable to the regulations on firearms, rifles in particular.

[Crepitus]

According to FBI data (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2009-2013.xls), Americans used rifles to commit 285 homicides in 2013.

In that same year, Americans used knives, blunt objects, and fists to commit 2605 homicides.

So while the mass shootings involving rifles are certainly more spectacular, they constitute a tiny percentage of homicides in America.

Hand guns killed 5,782. May I expect your support for handgun legislation?

[Crepitus]

Link


Bump

OMFG. Click the link in the op.

Christ.....

[Crepitus]

Link


OK, now how many in that year were knives, blunt objects, and fists used to kill? How many were killed by other things like automobiles.

Figures are in the OP.

[Ethereal]

Hand guns killed 5,782. May I expect your support for handgun legislation?

No, you may not. But you guys need to make up your minds. Every time there is a mass shooting, it's all about regulating or banning "assault rifles". But those rifles kill significantly less people than knives do. So if there were any consistency to your logic, you'd be demanding similar regulations on knives. Why don't you? Are people murdered by knives less important than people murdered by rifles?

[Crepitus]

Link


It's time for fist control.

As soon as your fists can kill 50 people from 1/4 mile away we will talk about it.

[Ethereal]

As soon as your fists can kill 50 people from 1/4 mile away we will talk about it.
Fists kill more people than rifles each year. Are those deaths less meaningful than death by rifle?

[Ethereal]

What is the magic number of people who need to be killed by something at a time in order for it to qualify as a serious social problem that requires government involvement?

[Crepitus]

Link


No, you may not. But you guys need to make up your minds. Every time there is a mass shooting, it's all about regulating or banning "assault rifles". But those rifles kill significantly less people than knives do. So if there were any consistency to your logic, you'd be demanding similar regulations on knives. Why don't you? Are people murdered by knives less important than people murdered by rifles?

When was the last time someone with a knife killed a couple dozen people at once? Or a baseball bat? Or a hammer? Or he'll he could have had one in each hand and a spare in his pocket.

[Ethereal]

When was the last time someone with a knife killed a couple dozen people at once? Or a baseball bat? Or a hammer? Or he'll he could have had one in each hand and a spare in his pocket.
So what is the magic number of people who must die at a time before it becomes a serious problem in need of government intervention? Doesn't it matter to you that far more people are killed by knives each year than by rifles?

[Ethereal]

Rifles can kill more people per incident, but such incidents are exceedingly rare compared to incidents involving knives, blunt objects, and fists. Wouldn't any rational person worry more about the outcome with a much higher probability of occurring? Fixating on mass shootings with rifles is sort of like betting all your money on double zero in roulette. The potential payoff is much larger, but the probability of actually hitting is virtually zero.

[Mister D]

When was the last time someone with a knife killed a couple dozen people at once? Or a baseball bat? Or a hammer? Or he'll he could have had one in each hand and a spare in his pocket.
Obviously, the point is that murder via rifle is exceedingly rare. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[Mister D]

Rifles can kill more people per incident, but such incidents are exceedingly rare compared to incidents involving knives, blunt objects, and fists. Wouldn't any rational person worry more about the outcome with a much higher probability of occurring? Fixating on mass shootings with rifles is sort of like betting all your money on double zero in roulette. The potential payoff is much larger, but the probability of actually hitting is virtually zero.
But then the race issue comes up and they run for the hills only to return when a white man does something crazy.

[Dr. Who]

Explosives aren't arms--to follow you to yet another argument.

A bullet is technically an explosive device. Gunpowder when added to a pipe, is a bomb. Were gunpowder not explosive, it would be useless in bullets.

[Dr. Who]

Rifles can kill more people per incident, but such incidents are exceedingly rare compared to incidents involving knives, blunt objects, and fists. Wouldn't any rational person worry more about the outcome with a much higher probability of occurring? Fixating on mass shootings with rifles is sort of like betting all your money on double zero in roulette. The potential payoff is much larger, but the probability of actually hitting is virtually zero.

More people survive attacks with fists, blunt objects and knives. Even a prodigious knife thrower could not kill 68 people in a couple of minutes. He would simply be physically incapable of spraying a crowd with knives as fast as someone could press a hair trigger.

[Chris]

Most states do indeed have regulations regarding knives.


Regulations should have prevented Devin Patrick Kelley from purchasing guns and ammo.

The problem isn't guns are designed to kill and the solution isn't gun regulation.

[Chris]

A bullet is technically an explosive device. Gunpowder when added to a pipe, is a bomb. Were gunpowder not explosive, it would be useless in bullets.

And your point is what beyond semantics?

The government can't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

[Mister D]

More people survive attacks with fists, blunt objects and knives. Even a prodigious knife thrower could not kill 68 people in a couple of minutes. He would simply be physically incapable of spraying a crowd with knives as fast as someone could press a hair trigger.

If I may speak for Ethereal and I don't think he would mind in this case...I think he's saying so what? The fact of the matter is that mass shootings are rare and the vast majority of homicides are everyday occurrences that typically involve people of color and illegal weapons. Why do you people react like this but say virtually nothing about day to day gun violence?

[Dr. Who]

Regulations should have prevented Devin Patrick Kelley from purchasing guns and ammo.

The problem isn't guns are designed to kill and the solution isn't gun regulation.
I know that it's a stretch to connect objects designed to kill people with violence and the deaths of, well, people. It's not like we connect cars with driving...oh wait. Anyway, the solution to bad driving isn't regulation, education and driver's licenses...oh wait. It's not like we impose safety regulations on car manufacturers...oh wait. Well, I mean why should we require anyone to be responsible about weapons ownership? It's a right. Of course ownership of property is a right, but somehow I can't use my land as a toxic landfill site if I want to. Hmmm. I can't even build a substandard building that will collapse and kill people. Oh, woe is me. My rights are being eroded by do gooders. Why should my right to build a terrible building be thwarted? It could take years before anything happens and who knows if it will fall down and kill sixty people? It could fall down when everyone is away. Anyway, I still have a right to sell food. Hmmm, but the same idiots that want to take away my right to have any gun I want also want to make sure my food is safe to eat. What's wrong with those do gooders?

[Mister D]

I know that it's a stretch to connect objects designed to kill people with violence and the deaths of, well, people. It's not like we connect cars with driving...oh wait. Anyway, the solution to bad driving isn't regulation, education and driver's licenses...oh wait. It's not like we impose safety regulations on car manufacturers...oh wait. Well, I mean why should we require anyone to be responsible about weapons ownership? It's a right. Of course ownership of property is a right, but somehow I can't use my land as a toxic landfill site if I want to. Hmmm. I can't even build a substandard building that will collapse and kill people. Oh, woe is me. My rights are being eroded by do gooders. Why should my right to build a terrible building be thwarted? It could take years before anything happens and who knows if it will fall down and kill sixty people? It could fall down when everyone is away. Anyway, I still have a right to sell food. Hmmm, but the same idiots that want to take away my right to have any gun I want also want to make sure my food is safe to eat. What's wrong with those do gooders?

That's a really good question. People are shot and killed on a daily basis in the US but you have little to nothing to say about it. Sorry, it's quite noticeable.

[Crepitus]

Link


Fists kill more people than rifles each year. Are those deaths less meaningful than death by rifle?

When was the last mass bludgeoning again?

[Crepitus]

Link


So what is the magic number of people who must die at a time before it becomes a serious problem in need of government intervention? Doesn't it matter to you that far more people are killed by knives each year than by rifles?

Answer the question please.

[Dr. Who]

If I may speak for @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) and I don't think he would mind in this case...I think he's saying so what? The fact of the matter is that mass shootings are rare and the vast majority of homicides are everyday occurrences that typically involve people of color and illegal weapons. Why do you people react like this but say virtually nothing about day to day gun violence?
Perhaps because they are becoming far less rare and seem to be competing for body count.

[Dr. Who]

That's a really good question. People are shot and killed on a daily basis in the US but you have little to nothing to say about it. Sorry, it's quite noticeable.
Actually, I made a significant post today on what states and municipalities could do to eliminate the major cause of such violence and thus eliminate the screaming about gun control. I doubt that you would approve of the solution, but who knows.

[Cletus]

A bullet is technically an explosive device.

That is false.


Gunpowder when added to a pipe, is a bomb. Were gunpowder not explosive, it would be useless in bullets.

There is no gunpowder in a bullet.

[Ethereal]

But then the race issue comes up and they run for the hills only to return when a white man does something crazy.

They run for the hills because they are supposed to be acting in the best interests of black Americans, but all you have to do is look at how a disproportionate number of black Americans are living in the cities they control. Detroit is probably the most stark example of what happens to black families and communities when Democrats monopolize the system.

[Chris]

That is false.



There is no gunpowder in a bullet.

Hah, I missed that one, the bullet is just the projectile.

[Cletus]

I know that it's a stretch to connect objects designed to kill people with violence and the deaths of, well, people. It's not like we connect cars with driving...oh wait. Anyway, the solution to bad driving isn't regulation, education and driver's licenses...oh wait. It's not like we impose safety regulations on car manufacturers...oh wait. Well, I mean why should we require anyone to be responsible about weapons ownership? It's a right. Of course ownership of property is a right, but somehow I can't use my land as a toxic landfill site if I want to. Hmmm. I can't even build a substandard building that will collapse and kill people. Oh, woe is me. My rights are being eroded by do gooders. Why should my right to build a terrible building be thwarted? It could take years before anything happens and who knows if it will fall down and kill sixty people? It could fall down when everyone is away. Anyway, I still have a right to sell food. Hmmm, but the same idiots that want to take away my right to have any gun I want also want to make sure my food is safe to eat. What's wrong with those do gooders?
Hysteria really doesn't become you. Calm down.

Go shooting. You'll feel better.

[Cletus]

Hah, I missed that one, the bullet is just the projectile.

Exactly.

People who want to claim some level of expertise in any given subject should at least be familiar with the most basic terminology associated with it.

[Dr. Who]

That is false.



There is no gunpowder in a bullet.
Some have cordite, however, I suspect that you are just being technical. There is a primer and gunpowder in the casing.

[Chris]

I know that it's a stretch to connect objects designed to kill people with violence and the deaths of, well, people. It's not like we connect cars with driving...oh wait. Anyway, the solution to bad driving isn't regulation, education and driver's licenses...oh wait. It's not like we impose safety regulations on car manufacturers...oh wait. Well, I mean why should we require anyone to be responsible about weapons ownership? It's a right. Of course ownership of property is a right, but somehow I can't use my land as a toxic landfill site if I want to. Hmmm. I can't even build a substandard building that will collapse and kill people. Oh, woe is me. My rights are being eroded by do gooders. Why should my right to build a terrible building be thwarted? It could take years before anything happens and who knows if it will fall down and kill sixty people? It could fall down when everyone is away. Anyway, I still have a right to sell food. Hmmm, but the same idiots that want to take away my right to have any gun I want also want to make sure my food is safe to eat. What's wrong with those do gooders?


There's no stretch involved. It's people who are the smoking gun, pun intended.

Liberals want to state a couple facts and just to a conclusion. People are dead. Guns are designed to kill. Therefore control guns. But there's no argument there, no connective rational. Until you plug people who shoot guns, bludgeon with hammers, fly airliners into building. People. But when you bring people into it, people as actors, people as killers, there's just no easy answer. But liberals have spent so long shouting that doing nothing is crazy, resisting gun control is evil, they just can admit the problem is people, for then all you all vitue signalling turns against you.

Rights are not freedoms from responsibility, Who, they're not freedoms from not doing others harm.

[Ethereal]

A bullet is technically an explosive device. Gunpowder when added to a pipe, is a bomb. Were gunpowder not explosive, it would be useless in bullets.

The constitution is not written in "technical" language, at least, not as you are using that word. Although there are certainly aspects of the constitution that one could deem "technical", the overarching spirit of the law is written in cultural terms. So whenever the cultural understanding of a particular word clashes with a "technical" version of it, the legal interpretation necessarily favors the cultural one.

[Ethereal]

More people survive attacks with fists, blunt objects and knives. Even a prodigious knife thrower could not kill 68 people in a couple of minutes. He would simply be physically incapable of spraying a crowd with knives as fast as someone could press a hair trigger.

Yet none of that changes the fact that more people are dying from knives than from rifles.

[Ethereal]

When was the last mass bludgeoning again?
The mass bludgeoning is ongoing. I'm sure numerous people were bludgeon or stabbed to death in only the past few days. You appear to be callously indifferent to their suffering.

[Ethereal]

Answer the question please.
I don't know the answer. But why would it matter in any case? Is a "couple of dozen" the magic number of dead people that it takes to make a particular incident important?

[Ethereal]

Perhaps because they are becoming far less rare and seem to be competing for body count.

They aren't becoming less rare. Homicides with rifles, as with all homicides involving firearms, have been declining for roughly two decades. The FBI data I cited in the OP shows that trend has continued into 2015.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/guns4.jpg

[Dr. Who]

Hysteria really doesn't become you. Calm down.

Go shooting. You'll feel better.
Why should I? The responses I get are fairly histrionic as opposed to truly reasoned arguments. The only argument I ever get really get is ultimately "constitution". If the constitution suggested that you had the right to leave your newborn male child on a rock, exposed to the elements as a test of strength, like the Spartans did, would you defend it? Furthermore, revolting against the government is not protected by the constitution, so that is not part of the 2nd.


Humankind was able to engage in self-defense for millennia without guns. The only reason that he now needs guns for self-defense is due to the proliferation of guns and yet people are adamant about allowing the uncontrolled proliferation of the instruments of their own demise. You need guns for self-defense because the bad guys have guns because the market is flooded with fairly uncontrolled gun sales which you don't want controlled or at least limited to make it at least less possible for one lunatic to wipe out half of a small town in five minutes or less or shoot 500 or more people at a concert. Doesn't that really set the right to own guns in general above the right to life itself? Cripes, even in the wild west, some towns required that people check their weapons because you couldn't account for behavior when people were cheek to jowl and drinking. They were not concerned with constitutional rights, they were worried about people getting killed. It seems to me that they were just exercising common sense and consideration for their residents. Of course, the alternative would have been bankrupting those towns with the cost of policing.

[Ethereal]

Why should I? The responses I get are fairly histrionic as opposed to truly reasoned arguments. The only argument I ever get is ultimately "constitution". If the constitution suggested that you had the right to leave your newborn male child on a rock, exposed to the elements as a test of strength, like the Spartans did, would you defend it?

Humankind was able to engage in self-defense for millennia without guns. The only reason that he now needs guns for self-defense is due to the proliferation of guns and yet people are adamant about allowing the uncontrolled proliferation of the instruments of their own demise. You need guns for self-defense because the bad guys have guns because the market is flooded with fairly uncontrolled gun sales which you don't want controlled or at least limited to make it at least less possible for one lunatic to wipe out half of a small town in five minutes or less or shoot 500 or more people at a concert. Doesn't that really set the right to own guns in general above the right to life itself? Cripes, even in the wild west, some towns required that people check their weapons because you couldn't account for behavior when people were cheek to jowl and drinking. They were not concerned with constitutional rights, they were worried about people getting killed. It seems to me that they were just exercising common sense and consideration for their residents. Of course, the alternative would have been bankrupting those towns with the cost of policing.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, according to liberals and Democrats. The constitution is where the central government derives its taxing and regulatory powers. So either the constitution has a fairly concrete authority and meaning or it doesn't. You cannot just pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to follow based on your own personal sentiments and whimsy.

[Dr. Who]

There's no stretch involved. It's people who are the smoking gun, pun intended.

Liberals want to state a couple facts and just to a conclusion. People are dead. Guns are designed to kill. Therefore control guns. But there's no argument there, no connective rational. Until you plug people who shoot guns, bludgeon with hammers, fly airliners into building. People. But when you bring people into it, people as actors, people as killers, there's just no easy answer. But liberals have spent so long shouting that doing nothing is crazy, resisting gun control is evil, they just can admit the problem is people, for then all you all vitue signalling turns against you.

Rights are not freedoms from responsibility, Who, they're not freedoms from not doing others harm.

People are hateful, violent and sometimes crazy, so let's make it easier for them to do harm to even more people because they will invariably do harm anyway. We can't worry about death count. It doesn't matter whether 5 people or 500 people die. Those 455 extra deaths don't matter or 1,000 or even 10,000. It's human nature to kill. The abstract notion of rights matter, individual lives don't. It's all just existential nihilism. Nietzsche would be so proud.

[Dr. Who]

The constitution is not written in "technical" language, at least, not as you are using that word. Although there are certainly aspects of the constitution that one could deem "technical", the overarching spirit of the law is written in cultural terms. So whenever the cultural understanding of a particular word clashes with a "technical" version of it, the legal interpretation necessarily favors the cultural one.
And yet culture has evolved considerably since the ink dried on the constitution, but the culture of 1787 continues to legally define, if not dictate the need, purpose and right to bear arms in a society that is more urban than rural and where the population of a largely rural 1787 America could be subsumed into any one of its current larger cities.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother about towel folding. For years I kept folding towels the way I was taught because she was so adamant that they must be folded that way. One day I admitted to my mother that I simply couldn't fold them her way and get them to fit in my closet. She laughed and told me she folded them a certain way so they could fit in her closet.

[Dr. Who]

Yet none of that changes the fact that more people are dying from knives than from rifles.

For now. However, there are 100's if not 1000's more knifing incidents. Knifings tend to be personal combative incidents. Mass shootings are just impersonal slaughters.

[Dr. Who]

They aren't becoming less rare. Homicides with rifles, as with all homicides involving firearms, have been declining for roughly two decades. The FBI data I cited in the OP shows that trend has continued into 2015.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/guns4.jpg

There has been an uptick since 2015 and a fairly significant one at that both in mass shooting and in criminal gun homicides.

[Dr. Who]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, according to liberals and Democrats. The constitution is where the central government derives its taxing and regulatory powers. So either the constitution has a fairly concrete authority and meaning or it doesn't. You cannot just pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to follow based on your own personal sentiments and whimsy.
Of course there is nothing stopping people from deciding that certain amendments are somewhat anachronistic and amending them accordingly.

[Crepitus]

Link


The mass bludgeoning is ongoing. I'm sure numerous people were bludgeon or stabbed to death in only the past few days. You appear to be callously indifferent to their suffering.

Really? Link to the mass bludgeoning that happened recently please?

[Cletus]

Humankind was able to engage in self-defense for millennia without guns.

This is the only part of your rant I am going to address. There is an old saying... "God may have created men, but Samuel Colt made them equal". That saying is especially true for women. You say Humankind was able to engage in self defense for millennia without guns. Well, that was true if you were bigger and stronger and faster than your assailant(s). If you weren't, you were just a victim. For the next two weekends, I am teaching defensive handgun classes to women only classes. Two separate groups of women contacted me and said they wanted to be able to take the responsibility for their safety into their own hands. A 110 pound woman with a handgun can defend herself against a 240 pound male attacker. For all those millennia you were talking about before, when you had to be bigger and stronger and faster than your attacker to survive, there was really little a woman could do to defend herself. There was little most men could do to defend themselves against a more powerful attacker. Firearms are the great equalizers. They make your grandmother as powerful as any juiced up thug looking for a victim. There have been too many cases of women defending themselves and their children against more powerful men who would them harm to even count.

[donttread]

According to FBI data (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2009-2013.xls), Americans used rifles to commit 285 homicides in 2013.

In that same year, Americans used knives, blunt objects, and fists to commit 2605 homicides.

So while the mass shootings involving rifles are certainly more spectacular, they constitute a tiny percentage of homicides in America.

BUT, they take the attention off the urban cesspool where most shootings are done by felons who already cannot possess the gun they use under CURRENT law. Minority violence is not a place the ultra libs want to go.
Long guns are also our real protection against tyranny and the control freaks know that.

[Chris]

People are hateful, violent and sometimes crazy, so let's make it easier for them to do harm to even more people because they will invariably do harm anyway. We can't worry about death count. It doesn't matter whether 5 people or 500 people die. Those 455 extra deaths don't matter or 1,000 or even 10,000. It's human nature to kill. The abstract notion of rights matter, individual lives don't. It's all just existential nihilism. Nietzsche would be so proud.


To your hateful Hobbsean view of people I reply with Lockean cooperation. People generally cooperate with each other and will go so far as to sacrifice themselves for others. Only a few are as you describe. It makes no sense to control the many for the faults of the few.


Sorry, but I don't believe you know what existential nihilism is or Nietzsche was about.

[resister]

This is the only part of your rant I am going to address. There is an old saying... "God may have created men, but Samuel Colt made them equal". That saying is especially true for women. You say Humankind was able to engage in self defense for millennia without guns. Well, that was true if you were bigger and stronger and faster than your assailant(s). If you weren't, you were just a victim. For the next two weekends, I am teaching defensive handgun classes to women only classes. Two separate groups of women contacted me and said they wanted to be able to take the responsibility for their safety into their own hands. A 110 pound woman with a handgun can defend herself against a 240 pound male attacker. For all those millennia you were talking about before, when you had to be bigger and stronger and faster than your attacker to survive, there was really little a woman could do to defend herself. There was little most men could do to defend themselves against a more powerful attacker. Firearms are the great equalizers. They make your grandmother as powerful as any juiced up thug looking for a victim. There have been too many cases of women defending themselves and their children against more powerful men who would them harm to even count.
And sadly, liberals would just as soon see those women disarmed, perhaps turn in your gun, get a free whistle and a dinky can of mace!

[donttread]

This is the only part of your rant I am going to address. There is an old saying... "God may have created men, but Samuel Colt made them equal". That saying is especially true for women. You say Humankind was able to engage in self defense for millennia without guns. Well, that was true if you were bigger and stronger and faster than your assailant(s). If you weren't, you were just a victim. For the next two weekends, I am teaching defensive handgun classes to women only classes. Two separate groups of women contacted me and said they wanted to be able to take the responsibility for their safety into their own hands. A 110 pound woman with a handgun can defend herself against a 240 pound male attacker. For all those millennia you were talking about before, when you had to be bigger and stronger and faster than your attacker to survive, there was really little a woman could do to defend herself. There was little most men could do to defend themselves against a more powerful attacker. Firearms are the great equalizers. They make your grandmother as powerful as any juiced up thug looking for a victim. There have been too many cases of women defending themselves and their children against more powerful men who would them harm to even count.


Great point. I remember that a village in Florida many years ago that lowered it's rape rate dramatically by training women to use and then giving them handguns. But he outweighs her by 80 pounds? Doesn't matter to Smith or Wesson.
The other part of Who's comment here is that for most of that time people were defending themselves without guns FROM people WITHOUT guns. TV's great but in real life bring a knife to a gun fight and you'll probably die .

[Mister D]

Perhaps because they are becoming far less rare and seem to be competing for body count.
My chances of being killed in a mass shooting are like my chances of being mauled by a wild animal.

Don't waste your time doing the math. It's rhetorical.

[Mister D]

For now. However, there are 100's if not 1000's more knifing incidents. Knifings tend to be personal combative incidents. Mass shootings are just impersonal slaughters.
Extremely rare impersonal slaughters.

[Chris]

My chances of being killed in a mass shooting are like my chances of being mauled by a wild animal.


Probably even less.

Calculating My Odds (https://blogs.princeton.edu/librarian/2015/12/calculating-my-odds/)


According to shootingtracker.com, there have been at least 462 people killed and 1312 injured in 353 mass shootings this year, which is already more than the 383 people killed last year. They define a mass shooting as one in which four or more people are killed or injured, which is a broader definition than the government has used. (Compare that to the 30K or so people killed in auto accidents each year.) According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. currently has a resident population of 322,367,564, giving me a 0.00000143% chance of getting killed in a mass shooting this year by the broadest definition. That’s almost literally a one in a million chance, the phrase we use when something is so unlikely that we won’t bother to worry about it.


And I like the attitude of You Will Not Die in a Mass Shooting (http://gawker.com/you-will-not-die-in-a-mass-shooting-1746158444)


You are far more likely to die driving to the movie theater than you are to die by being killed by a mass shooter at the movie theater.

Life, in truth, is mundane. Things become big news stories because they are extraordinary. It is a mistake to imagine that your death will make national news. It probably will not. If you fear guns, don’t kill yourself. If you fear dying, eat healthier and exercise and don’t smoke.

You will not die in a tragic mass shooting. You will die of heart disease in your late 70s. Unless you keep worrying about being murdered all the time. Stress is a killer.

[Mister D]

It amazes me how often gun control advocates dismiss the facts as technical jargon or mere semantics. How firearms actually function, what an assault rifle really is and where and among whom most gun violence actually occurs is dismissed as immaterial to the discussion. It's incredible.

[Mister D]

Probably even less.

Calculating My Odds (https://blogs.princeton.edu/librarian/2015/12/calculating-my-odds/)




And I like the attitude of You Will Not Die in a Mass Shooting (http://gawker.com/you-will-not-die-in-a-mass-shooting-1746158444)

lol That was pretty funny.

[Chris]

It amazes me how often gun control advocates dismiss the facts as technical jargon or mere semantics. How firearms actually function, what an assault rifle really is and where and among whom most gun violence actually occurs is dismissed as immaterial to the discussion. It's incredible.


What amazes me is the lack of logic. So many times all that's stated is a fact--guns designed to kill (disputed though one says it's self-evident), bullets are explosives (false)--and statated as if facts are arguments, as if facts speak for themselves.

[Mister D]

What amazes me is the lack of logic. So many times all that's stated is a fact--guns designed to kill (disputed though one says it's self-evident), bullets are explosives (false)--and statated as if facts are arguments, as if facts speak for themselves.
Agreed. Assuming for the sake of argument that guns are designed solely to kill...so what? What follows from this?

[Chris]

Agreed. Assuming for the sake of argument that guns are designed solely to kill...so what? What follows from this?

The only thing that follows is some people use guns to kill but liberals don't seem to want to go there, it's too complicated.

[Dr. Who]

To your hateful Hobbsean view of people I reply with Lockean cooperation. People generally cooperate with each other and will go so far as to sacrifice themselves for others. Only a few are as you describe. It makes no sense to control the many for the faults of the few.


Sorry, but I don't believe you know what existential nihilism is or Nietzsche was about.


To your hateful Hobbsean view of people I reply with Lockean cooperation. People generally cooperate with each other and will go so far as to sacrifice themselves for others. Only a few are as you describe. It makes no sense to control the many for the faults of the few.

You clearly can't discern a sardonic response when you see one. Liberals do understand the human failings and dysfunction behind the misuse of guns. They would certainly like to see more than just the pretense of addressing the underlying sociopsychological ills that engender violence and crime. They also understand that without laws in general to regulate human behavior, anarchy would reign. They further understand that an increasingly amoral and nihilistic society is translating to a declining belief in the intrinsic value of human life. Since we cannot wave a magic wand and fix people, it seems prudent that until we can, we make some good faith effort to limit the carnage rather than exacerbate it.


Sorry, but I don't believe you know what existential nihilism is or Nietzsche was about.


I think you will believe what you want, regardless of what I say, so my response to your last statement is - "whatever".

[Chris]

You clearly can't discern a sardonic response when you see one. Liberals do understand the human failings and dysfunction behind the misuse of guns. They would certainly like to see more than just the pretense of addressing the underlying sociopsychological ills that engender violence and crime. They also understand that without laws in general to regulate human behavior, anarchy would reign. They further understand that an increasingly amoral and nihilistic society is translating to a declining belief in the intrinsic value of human life. Since we cannot wave a magic wand and fix people, it seems prudent that until we can, we make some good faith effort to limit the carnage rather than exacerbate it.



I think you will believe what you want, regardless of what I say, so my response to your last statement is - "whatever".

I base that on what you say. Nihilism and Nietzsche were mere name dropping. Of course you could have easily returned to explain what you know of those topics.


You're prose is not sardonic. It's bland and argues the same thing other liberals argue, none of which really addresses the problem of people. In fact even now while you claim to see people as a problem you throw up your hands and return to guns. As I just posted above, "The only thing that follows is some people use guns to kill but liberals don't seem to want to go there, it's too complicated."

[Dr. Who]

I base that on what you say. Nihilism and Nietzsche were mere name dropping. Of course you could have easily returned to explain what you know of those topics.


You're prose is not sardonic. It's bland and argues the same thing other liberals argue, none of which really addresses the problem of people. In fact even now while you claim to see people as a problem you throw up your hands and return to guns. As I just posted above, "The only thing that follows is some people use guns to kill but liberals don't seem to want to go there, it's too complicated."

Why should I derail the topic in order to prove something to you? That's your thing, not mine.

[Chris]

Why should I derail the topic in order to prove something to you? That's your thing, not mine.

So Nihilism and Nietzsche were off topic?

[Dr. Who]

So Nihilism and Nietzsche were off topic?

As a comment no. As a topic unto themselves - yes. Want to discuss them in detail, start a thread.

[Chris]

As a comment no. As a topic unto themselves - yes. Want to discuss them in detail, start a thread.

They didn't fit but by misconception.

Anyway, if you need to try to make me look bad to advance your non-arguments, go right ahead.

[donttread]

And sadly, liberals would just as soon see those women disarmed, perhaps turn in your gun, get a free whistle and a dinky can of mace!

Bigdaddy.gov can't be there to prevent your rape, but they will solve it. Maybe.

[donttread]

It amazes me how often gun control advocates dismiss the facts as technical jargon or mere semantics. How firearms actually function, what an assault rifle really is and where and among whom most gun violence actually occurs is dismissed as immaterial to the discussion. It's incredible.


They don't care to study guns they jsut want to ban the "really scarry looking ones" Literally, that's often their approch with long guns. And then they wonder why we can't take them seriously.
It's never been about the guns, it's always been about the control

[Dr. Who]

They don't care to study guns they jsut want to ban the "really scarry looking ones" Literally, that's often their approch with long guns. And then they wonder why we can't take them seriously.
It's never been about the guns, it's always been about the control

Not really. They could be really cute and covered with pink fake fur, but as long as they can kill with close to the same efficiency as a fully automatic rifle, they are the weapons of choice for mass murderers, particularly when combined with high capacity mags.

[donttread]

Not really. They could be really cute and covered with pink fake fur, but as long as they can kill with close to the same efficiency as a fully automatic rifle, they are the weapons of choice for mass murderers, particularly when combined with high capacity mags.

Ever hear of bombs ? Tim McVeigh took out how many? Mass shootings are the attention getter. Handguns used by people who oddly are willing to break current gun laws are what does most of the gun violence dangers

[Dr. Who]

Ever hear of bombs ? Tim McVeigh took out how many? Mass shootings are the attention getter. Handguns used by people who oddly are willing to break current gun laws.
Not surprisingly since that time, regulations have been brought in requiring anyone buying more than 25 pounds of ammonium nitrate to register, be screened against a known terrorist list, and requires any thefts to be reported within 4 hours.

[Chris]

Not surprisingly since that time, regulations have been brought in requiring anyone buying more than 25 pounds of ammonium nitrate to register, be screened against a known terrorist list, and requires any thefts to be reported within 4 hours.


Clearly, they didn't blame bombs, they blamed people.

[Dr. Who]

Clearly, they didn't blame bombs, they blamed people.
Insofar as regulations apply to people, I don't see a difference. A gun sitting in a gunsafe can't act on its own. Requiring registration and permits to own certain weapons is no different that similarly regulating the purchases of ammonium nitrate exceeding 25 pounds.

[Chris]

Insofar as regulations apply to people, I don't see a difference. A gun sitting in a gunsafe can't act on its own. Requiring registration and permits to own certain weapons is no different that similarly regulating the purchases of ammonium nitrate exceeding 25 pounds.

Correct, a gun sitting anywhere cannot act on its own. Someone must pick it up and use it. The focus should be on the types of persons who misuse it, from drive-by shooters, to family murderers, to mass murderers. Like climate change, it's a wicked problem. It won't be solved by focusing on guns.

[Cthulhu]

I disagree, a firearm, since it’s inception was designed as a lethal tool. A car, hammer, knife, crowbar, and a baseball bat, all had other purposes in their design. That makes a difference when debating how impersonal a firearm can be when it is used, and in today’s time, how many can be killed effortlessly within a short period. Having the debate about gun control, and bringing into the discussion other items used to kill, has been used as a deflection over the bottom line in those debates, which is how to limit the number of casulities per event. Just like when a pilot intentionally crashes a plane full of people, steps are always reviewed to see what can be done to prevent the incident from happening again, be it stronger background checks of pilots, to more regulations placed on procedures, see what happened after 9/11 to the airline industry. They didn’t ban aircraft after the event, but they drastically implemented more rules and restrictions, including the creation of a new federal department.I guess I'm hung up on the inconsistent then.

Where is the federal department for fists, knives, and other blunt objects? What about ladders and stairs?

Regardless it is pointless.

I don't like deaths anymore than the other guy does...but in a nation of our side with the freedoms we have - messes are going to happen from time to time.

But either make it legit and get a constitutional convention going, or stop trying to bypass it with more slithery laws that shouldn't have any effect anyways.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Again, one guy tried to blow up his shoe bomb and now we all have to take our shoes off at the security check.

Mass shootings become commonplace and nothing is done at all.Lol.

Not common place at all.

But they get a rather morbid amount of media saturation.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Hand guns killed 5,782. May I expect your support for handgun legislation?Nope.

Make a constitutional amendment for it first.

I'll resist that motion as well. And violate it with careful calculation.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Mister D]

Commonplace like polar bear attacks.

[Ethereal]

And yet culture has evolved considerably since the ink dried on the constitution, but the culture of 1787 continues to legally define, if not dictate the need, purpose and right to bear arms in a society that is more urban than rural and where the population of a largely rural 1787 America could be subsumed into any one of its current larger cities.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother about towel folding. For years I kept folding towels the way I was taught because she was so adamant that they must be folded that way. One day I admitted to my mother that I simply couldn't fold them her way and get them to fit in my closet. She laughed and told me she folded them a certain way so they could fit in her closet.
So then amend the constitution in order to reflect this supposed evolution of culture.

[Ethereal]

For now. However, there are 100's if not 1000's more knifing incidents. Knifings tend to be personal combative incidents. Mass shootings are just impersonal slaughters.

Yes, there are more knifing incidents, which is why more people die from knives. Yet nobody thinks much of it. Apparently, we've decided that over a 1,000 people dying per year from knives is acceptable.

[Ethereal]

There has been an uptick since 2015 and a fairly significant one at that both in mass shooting and in criminal gun homicides.
Maybe there has and maybe there hasn't. But despite any short term fluctuations, the long term trend is clear.

[Ethereal]

Of course there is nothing stopping people from deciding that certain amendments are somewhat anachronistic and amending them accordingly.
The second amendment will not be amended within our lifetime precisely because most Americans still support its original meaning and intent.

[Ethereal]

Really? Link to the mass bludgeoning that happened recently please?

You haven't defined "mass" yet, so I cannot really answer your question. What is the magic number of people who must die per incident in order for something to qualify as "mass"?

[Dr. Who]

Yes, there are more knifing incidents, which is why more people die from knives. Yet nobody thinks much of it. Apparently, we've decided that over a 1,000 people dying per year from knives is acceptable.
Knives tend to come out in the context of fights, often when people are drunk.

[resister]

Knives tend to come out in the context of fights, often when people are drunk.
What about all the other times?

[Crepitus]

You haven't defined "mass" yet, so I cannot really answer your question. What is the magic number of people who must die per incident in order for something to qualify as "mass"?

How many victims does a mass shooting have? We can use the same number.

[Dr. Who]

What about all the other times?
Knifing is up close and personal. It's pretty rare that people use knives to kill random strangers except in cases of either a crime of property or sexual assault. Even then guns are more popular.

[resister]

Knifing is up close and personal. It's pretty rare that people use knives to kill random strangers except in cases of either a crime of property or sexual assault. Even then guns are more popular.
But it does happen.

[Chris]

You haven't defined "mass" yet, so I cannot really answer your question. What is the magic number of people who must die per incident in order for something to qualify as "mass"?

That's hard to say now that Physics Has Demoted Mass (http://nautil.us/issue/54/the-unspoken/physics-has-demoted-mass)


Now comes the shock. In the same units of MeV/c2 the proton mass is 938.3, the neutron 939.6. The combination of two up quarks and a down quark gives us only 9.4, or just 1 percent of the mass of the proton. The combination of two down quarks and an up quark gives us only 11.9, or just 1.3 percent of the mass of the neutron. About 99 percent of the masses of the proton and neutron seem to be unaccounted for. What’s gone wrong?

So I say with James Joyce:

Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he hasn't got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.


Makes as much sense as some of the imaginings in this and other threads on this topic.


(All in humor for those who seem to lack it.)

[Ethereal]

How many victims does a mass shooting have? We can use the same number.

Can you define mass shooting or can't you?

[Ethereal]

Knifing is up close and personal. It's pretty rare that people use knives to kill random strangers except in cases of either a crime of property or sexual assault. Even then guns are more popular.

And?

[Dr. Who]

And?
Sticking someone with a knife requires more commitment to killing.

[Crepitus]

Can you define mass shooting or can't you?

Wait, you can't? I'm pretty sure it's 4 or more victims within a few minutes.

[resister]

Sticking someone with a knife requires more commitment to killing.
Really not so hard, unless you hit bone, especially when stabbing unaware innocents, from behind.

[Ethereal]

Sticking someone with a knife requires more commitment to killing.
Yet far more people die because of knives and rifles, which is what really matters at the end of the day.

[Ethereal]

Wait, you can't? I'm pretty sure it's 4 or more victims within a few minutes.

So if four or more people are killed within a "few" minutes, it's an important problem that society and government must fix. But if it's less than four or more people people within a few minutes, it's an acceptable price to pay for freedom. Do you disagree? Why or why not?

[resister]

Yet far more people die because of knives and rifles, which is what really matters at the end of the day.
Come now Eth! Logic has no place in this gun control debate!

[resister]

So if four or more people are killed within a "few" minutes, it's an important problem that society and government must fix. But if it's less than four or more people people within a few minutes, it's an acceptable price to pay for freedom. Do you disagree? Why or why not?
It is used to bolster the statistics, and ignore the gargantuan # of urban, gang homicides.

[Dr. Who]

Yet far more people die because of knives and rifles, which is what really matters at the end of the day.
Last time I checked, AR's are rifles.

[Ethereal]

Last time I checked, AR's are rifles.

Far more people are killed each year by knives than by rifles, including AR's.

[Dr. Who]

Far more people are killed each year by knives than by rifles, including AR's.
Actually, more people are killed by handguns than by either.

[resister]

Actually, more people are killed by handguns than by either.
And heart disease and cancer kill way more than all of them, can we make laws that require research to cure it?

[Dr. Who]

And heart disease and cancer kill way more than all of them, can we make laws that require research to cure it?
I think we can draw a distinction between homicide and disease. However, even with contagious disease, there are quarantine procedures and lifestyle and diet-related disease involve changes in behavior and food choices.

[Crepitus]

So if four or more people are killed within a "few" minutes, it's an important problem that society and government must fix. But if it's less than four or more people people within a few minutes, it's an acceptable price to pay for freedom. Do you disagree? Why or why not?

Lol. Ok, I fell for it. You demand an definition so you can pick it apart. You only got me because that's usually Mr d's schtick.

Enjoy, you just got put in the same pigeonhole.

[donttread]

Actually, more people are killed by handguns than by either.


Right, in cities primarly. So if the control freaks want to push their unconstitutional agenda they should push it for handguns in cities and leave the rest of us alone

[ripmeister]

So a small number of events that kill a relatively large number of people at a time is more important than a large number of events that kill a small number of people at time because... ?
In the context of automatic or semi-automatic weapons, yes. This is where the debate is.

[ripmeister]

No, you may not. But you guys need to make up your minds. Every time there is a mass shooting, it's all about regulating or banning "assault rifles". But those rifles kill significantly less people than knives do. So if there were any consistency to your logic, you'd be demanding similar regulations on knives. Why don't you? Are people murdered by knives less important than people murdered by rifles?

I'll take my chances with some dude with a knife over one with a semi-automatic.

[ripmeister]

So if four or more people are killed within a "few" minutes, it's an important problem that society and government must fix. But if it's less than four or more people people within a few minutes, it's an acceptable price to pay for freedom. Do you disagree? Why or why not?
Its kinda like the definition of obscenity. I can't necessarily and succinctly define it but I know it when I see it.

[ripmeister]

Lol. Ok, I fell for it. You demand an definition so you can pick it apart. You only got me because that's usually Mr d's schtick.
Enjoy, you just got put in the same pigeonhole.

Crepitus, I'm surprised you didn't see it. The is standard MO for D and Eth. They like to set their little traps.

[Chris]

Crepitus, I'm surprised you didn't see it. The is standard MO for D and Eth. They like to set their little traps.

But here it's not a definition as in dictionary definition but a criteria used to classify an event as a mass murder.

The FBI says 4 or more murders without a cooling off period. Some people set the criteria as a broader 4 or more victims, which is really mass shooting as it includes victims.

And Ethereal didn't tear the criteria apart but used it to ask a more important question. Sort of how discussion goes.

[ripmeister]

But here it's not a definition as in dictionary definition but a criteria used to classify an event as a mass murder.

The FBI says 4 or more murders without a cooling off period. Some people set the criteria as a broader 4 or more victims, which is really mass shooting as it includes victims.

And @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) didn't tear the criteria apart but used it to ask a more important question. Sort of how discussion goes.
What I know is we have had several mass shootings over the past couple of months. This false dichotomy being put forth doesn't change that.

[Chris]

What I know is we have had several mass shootings over the past couple of months. This false dichotomy being put forth doesn't change that.

False dichotomy? What false dichotomy? What alternatives are being omitted?

[ripmeister]

False dichotomy? What false dichotomy? What alternatives are being omitted?
Looking at the endpoint and ignoring the path to the two endpoints as if that does not matter creates a false comparison and/or choice.

[Chris]

Looking at the endpoint and ignoring the path to the two endpoints as if that does not matter creates a false comparison and/or choice.

Not sure I'm understanding.

I think comparing mass murder, especially when it could be as few as 4 murders to murders in general and murder by other means is valuable. To me the objective is to try and understand psychologically, at least, those who murder.

[ripmeister]

Not sure I'm understanding.

I think comparing mass murder, especially when it could be as few as 4 murders to murders in general and murder by other means is valuable. To me the objective is to try and understand psychologically, at least, those who murder.
Ethereal has put forth the argument that because in totality the number of deaths via knives, fists etc. far exceeds those from single incident mass murders, telling us that its those final numbers that make the difference, therefore there is no difference in how we see those events or more importantly do anything to change them. The final numbers are all that seem to matter in the argument. I reject that as I see the path towards those numbers being just as if not more important. To claim that 500 individual incidents via one MO is somehow comparabale to a single incident with 500 victims is IMO an invalid comparison.

[ripmeister]

Not sure I'm understanding.

I think comparing mass murder, especially when it could be as few as 4 murders to murders in general and murder by other means is valuable. To me the objective is to try and understand psychologically, at least, those who murder.
I do agree on the ultimate objective of trying to gain understanding but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address the means by which these mass murders take place.

[Chris]

I do agree on the ultimate objective of trying to gain understanding but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address the means by which these mass murders take place.

The main means is people. Guns don't get up and start shooting, people do.

The problem with seeing guns as the means is you regulate them infringing on the right to self defense, depriving law-abiding people the many legitimate uses of guns, all the while doing virtually nothing to prevent criminals and crazies from obtaining guns illegally--fi the law worked so well the Air Force would have reported the recent shooter and prevented him from purchasing guns legally.

[Chris]

Ethereal has put forth the argument that because in totality the number of deaths via knives, fists etc. far exceeds those from single incident mass murders, telling us that its those final numbers that make the difference, therefore there is no difference in how we see those events or more importantly do anything to change them. The final numbers are all that seem to matter in the argument. I reject that as I see the path towards those numbers being just as if not more important. To claim that 500 individual incidents via one MO is somehow comparabale to a single incident with 500 victims is IMO an invalid comparison.

I'll let Eth address this one, if you don't mind. It was much cleared, thanks.

[ripmeister]

I'll let Eth address this one, if you don't mind. It was much cleared, thanks.
You challenged my use of "false dichotomy". I explained and this is your response?

[Chris]

You challenged my use of "false dichotomy". I explained and this is your response?

See post http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/90780-Knives-Blunt-Objects-and-Fists-(Oh-my!)?p=2211242&viewfull=1#post2211242

[donttread]

Choking, suffocating, stabbing, blunt force trauma, beating to death, thrown off roofs, run over, drowning or shot

Dead is dead

[jigglepete]

"If you really wanted to you could beat someone to death with a rolled up New York Times.". George Carlin

[Dr. Who]

That is false.



There is no gunpowder in a bullet.
Funny, but according to Wiki - there is:

Propulsion[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bullet&action=edit&section=5)]Propulsion of the ball can happen via several methods:

by using only gunpowder (i.e. as in flintlock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock) weapons)
by using a percussion cap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion_cap) and gunpowder (i.e. as in percussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion) weapons)
by using a cartridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(firearms)) (which contains primer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centerfire_ammunition#Centerfire_primers), gunpowder and bullet in a single package)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet

Unless you are using an external form of propulsion for a bullet, there has to be something in that bullet to propel it from the gun. It's not the same gunpowder that was used during the Civil War, but it's still called gunpowder or black powder or smokeless gunpowder.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gunpowder

[Cletus]

Who, I really don't care what you read in Wikipedia. There is no gunpowder in a bullet.

This is a pistol cartridge

https://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/I+dont+mean+to+be+quotthat+guyquot+but+this+is+_ba b030fc2bf12daec9cf9f2ce142a09f.jpg

The copper colored part toward the front is the "bullet". It contains no gunpowder. The gunpowder is stored behind the bullet in the "cartridge case".

There is no gunpowder in a bullet.