jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (145 posts)

Stabbing spree in Texas

  1. 59
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    Maybe didn't pass the background check for a firearm.
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04 … udent?lite

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Given that no one died it seems way better that the firearm alternative.

    2. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, nobody else at the scene did either.

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did he kill 26 people?

      1. Clint Ward profile image61
        Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You prefer people being stabbed?

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          People being stabbed is much better, as seen by the mortality rate.

    4. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I worked in this store on security at this time and all this happened in 4 minutes
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/knife … 16971.html
      The system now deems him safe to walk our streets yet the scares still burden those he attacked.
      The real question is "what should we do to protect the public" banning weapons will not stop it, maybe trying to identify those who are most likely to use them would be a better option.
      We hear all to often that these individuals have been identified as having previous issues with mental illness or crime so as a society should we be putting more resources into preventing these individuals?
      I am sure some human rights campaigners would be up in arms about the question i have asked but the problem with human rights is it seems to focus on the wrongdoers rights rather than the victims.
      Here in the UK we have some of the strictest gun and knife controls in the world yet we still have at least 1 death a week from either or both and in most cases the authorities already know the people who commit or are likely to commit such crimes!

      1. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        1) No one is seriously calling for a ban on all firearms, just some common sense measures to reduce the risk of firearms falling into the wrong hands.

        2) The fact that a law cannot eliminate a problem does not mean the law should not be created. Laws prohibiting homicide clearly do not eliminate homicide, but that does not mean there should be no laws against homicide.

        3) The law alone is not the answer, and I don't think anyone is susggesting it is. Legislation is just one of a number of different measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of mass shootings.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    No fatalities, I note.

    1. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Then I guess its perfectly alright.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Then I guess you think there is no human state of health other than "dead" and "perfectly alright".

        1. 59
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Then I guess you think I'm talking about their health status when I'm talking about the crime committed. You seem to be ok with stabbing someone.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Being stabbed is apparently preferable to being shot full of holes by an an assault weapon.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Or being droned to death.

            2. Clint Ward profile image61
              Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why is that apparent?

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Because no one died.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Think what he might have done with an AR 14.

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    All I said is that they didn't die.

    Thus your conclusion that I am in favor of stabbing can only mean you consider every person not "dead" to be "perfectly alright".  Otherwise how would you go from what I said to your conclusion? There is no other way to get there. 

    I personally feel there is a whole gradation of experiences between "quite alright" and "dead"--being stabbed and in critical care being towards the "really not very alright at all" end of that spectrum.

    1. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yep.

  4. Clint Ward profile image61
    Clint Wardposted 3 years ago

    I think these responses are very strange.

  5. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    He stabbed 14 people before anyone was able to muscle him down? What the hell was everyone else doing?!

    1. Clint Ward profile image61
      Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Running away like they have been told to do all their lives?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure if you had been there you would have stopped him single-handedly.

        1. Clint Ward profile image61
          Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I would have shot him, so yes.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You think, you might have hidden under a desk. You might have missed, someone else might have been hit by the stray bullet.

            1. Clint Ward profile image61
              Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, I don't think I would have hidden under a desk, you might I wouldn't. I am not going to shoot unless I have a clear target and will shoot for center mass. Some people act and some people hide I assume you would fall into the latter category.

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh look an internet tough guy big_smile

                1. Clint Ward profile image61
                  Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Is that how you see it? I explained what I would do, what would you do?

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I occasionally open carry if I have to go to the office in the docks at night but I would not be carrying in a college (not that people are allowed into colleges with guns anyway because they might shoot people) so I would have hightailed it like you would not believe a60 year old man can go tongue

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  I prefer the term "interninja."

              2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My point is, we don't always know how we will react in any situation. We may think we know what we will do but we won't know until faced with it.

  6. Seth Winter profile image85
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    Why aren't the democrats screaming to ban knives? Don't they want our children to be safe?

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      At the very least, people should be limited to one knife, perhaps no more that four inches in length?

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, we should totally ban knives. We can use our handguns to cut up vegetables for dinner, and we can use our AR-15s or AK-47s to carve up the turkey at Thanksgiving. roll

      1. Clint Ward profile image61
        Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You obviously don't care about the children.

  7. peeples profile image90
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    Everyone says being stabbed and living is better than being shot and being killed. While logically that makes sense I think there are many victims of crimes who could disagree. After all living with the memories of a horrific crime aren't always easy.
    Taking away guns all together will do very little. Before we know it people will be blowing up schools instead of shooting them up.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ah... but the key is... living

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    But no one... not one single person... is talking about taking all guns away...

    1. Seth Winter profile image85
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Problem here Univited Writer is complete gun control starts somewhere. You pass an anti-gun law and you have to understand that the laws will only get stricter. (Give a Mouse a cookie, and He'll ask for a glass of milk).

      While the current administration claims it won't go for peoples guns, it has made many other campaign promises that have been broken...including Obama claiming he won't enact any new gun laws if re-elected.

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Textbook use of the Camel's Nose fallacy, invalid by it's own nature.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose

        1. Seth Winter profile image85
          Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You mean Josak you can't think of a single example of snowball effect lead to more restrictions?

          We've argued before Josak. I'm a fan of using History from WW2 era...more specifically the Nazi party...why? Well that era has it all, gun control, mass discrimination, snowball effect/Camel Nose (interesting read btw I didn't know about that specific phrase). But I digress..

          Since the snowball effect is clearly a fallacy care to explain that to anyone living during the Holocaust? More specifically the restrictions the Jews underwent once they were alienated by the government..it seems that at least in that example it started off small and grew to a much bigger problem...

          So how exactly is the Snowball effect a fallacy?

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Its probably because we live in a democracy. There is a YouTube video talking about how Muslims immigrating to France and England will turn the countries into Islamic republics. Clearly, that hasn't happened.

            If anything, I'd be more worried about living in a Christian theocracy in 20 years the way conservatives want things done in this country.

            1. Seth Winter profile image85
              Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And what exactly do you fear Cody about living in a Conservative America?

              More people with guns? Countries with less strict gun laws show to have less crime then those who have banned guns.

              http://christopherfountain.wordpress.co … hats-next/

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'll try to keep this under 300 pages.......there are just too many reasons why conservatives should stay miles away from politics.

                Let's see...

                Conservatives brand themselves as compassionate people who think that everyone should have the same rights except for when they....

                -Ban Gay Marriage

                -Try To Circumvent Voting Laws and Tell Wild Stories About Voter Fraud When They Don't Win

                -North Carolina Wants To Pass A Bill That Would Violate The Constitution

                -North Dakota Is Passing Legislation That Would Ban Abortion In The State Once Again Circumventing The Constitution

                -Don't See Any Reason Why Background Checks Should Be Necessary To Purchase A Gun In ALL Cases

                A group that has no clue why everyone deserves the same rights under the law regardless of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation. A group that cries bloody murder when they can't concepts from the Bible into the law of the land....


                Should I continue?

                1. Seth Winter profile image85
                  Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Google the difference between conservative/libertarian values and Republican. You stated lots of Republican examples. And I'm curious what North Carolina law are you talking about.

                  "A group that has no clue why everyone deserves the same rights under the law regardless of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation. A group that cries bloody murder when they can't concepts from the Bible into the law of the land...."
                  -This would be the liberals defense over racial discriminating law of Affirmative Action?
                  -Guess who started the KKK?

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Confederate loyalist soldiers started the KKK let me guess they were liberals right? tongue

                  2. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ugh.....the democrats were the conservatives back then

                2. Clint Ward profile image61
                  Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Banning abortion is circumventing the constitution, is abortion mentioned in the constitution?

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You ever heard of Roe v Wade?

          2. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Seth, the comparison of the U.S. government in 2013 to the Nazi party in 30's Germany, and your suggestion that modern gun safety measures equate to the restrictions on Jews before the Holocaust is despicable and idiotic. Despicable not only because Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle no doubt have relatives who fought and died fighting the Nazis (giving you the freedom to make such a silly comparison) but also because it uses the genocide of 10 million people for political points scoring. And foolish because it displays an ignorance of historical facts.

            The Allies instigated gun control in Germany after WWI (the Germans had just caused a war that killed 16 million people) as part of the Treaty of Versaille. It had already been implemented by the Weimar Republic when Hitler came to power. Hitler's own gun policy relaxed controls on gun ownership for German citizens. The 1938 "German Weapons Act" deregulated the buying and selling of all rifles, shotguns and ammunition.

            What the debate needs is sensible people, with an appreciation of both sides of the argument, making useful contributions. From your comment it seems you think the exact opposite is true.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Facts, ftw!

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Nope, but that doesn't stop idiots from pretending that some communist boogeyman is "comin' fer yer gunz!"

      It's the best ad campaign Smith&Wesson never paid for. They're laughing all the way to the bank at how these ignorant paranoids are buying up expensive, not very useful stuff they don't especially need.

      It's especially hilarious how proud they are of being played for chumps.

      1. Clint Ward profile image61
        Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The only ad campaign being bought by the least informed is the one featuring "we only want to do background checks and close the gun show loophole" that doesn't really exist. And Obama is the best gun salesman this country has ever had, he should be proud.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Then by all means, tell me what new restrictions on gun ownership have been implemented since President Obama took office in 2008.

          Seriously, list them. 'Cos I really hate being wrong. If Obama has implemented new gun regulations, I want to know about them, so I can stop saying that he hasn't implemented any new gun restrictions, and in fact has loosened gun regulations, signing legislations that allows concealed carry in our national parks.

          I've been paying close attention, but I suppose that it's possible that a new restriction on our gun rights could have been passed while I wasn't looking. Please, seriously, if you know of a new federal gun regulation that's been passed in the last 6 years, let us all know about it. Oh, and please tell us the sponsors of the bill, and who voted for it, and when the President signed it? Or if you don't want to do all that copying-and-pasting, please just link us to the bill in the congressional record.

          I'm sure someone as educated and well-informed as you are will be able to find all those new gun restrictions in a heartbeat, right?

          1. Clint Ward profile image61
            Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm educated enough to know that I never said that he had enacted any gun restrictions, would you mind very much showing me where I said otherwise?

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, so you admit that nobody's coming for your guns? Good.

              1. Clint Ward profile image61
                Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No I do not admit that, why would I? I have no crystal ball to see into the future. I know that Obama with his usual highhandedness is lying and saying we need more background checks to close the gun show loophole, the non-existent gun show loophole. Why would he do that?

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "No I do not admit that, why would I?"

                  Well, since before Obama's election, we've been warned that "they" would be "coming for our guns," but in six years (unless there's been a regulation passed that neither of us knows about), exactly nothing has been done to restrict gun sales or ownership, and in fact, we can now carry them in national parks when we couldn't do that before Obama signed the law that allows it.

                  "I know that Obama with his usual highhandedness is lying"
                  Oh, you just know he's lying, eh? How? Crystal ball? Magic mirror? Gut feeling? Ouija board? Or are you just making stuff up?

                  "Why would he do that?"
                  You're begging the question: you expect me to concede the point that Obama is lying, and you've presented no evidence to support it.

                  So my answer to your (rigged) question is this: He isn't doing that.

                  Basically, you've got no evidence to prove your claims. Ergo, your claims are garbage.

                  1. Clint Ward profile image61
                    Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes he is. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … w-loophole

                    Your ignorance of this fact is quite astounding.

              2. Clint Ward profile image61
                Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Guess you don't want to answer those type of questions.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Or, maybe I've got stuff to do other than hang around on the forum all the time.
                  smile

  9. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    Godwin's Law... argument is over smile

    1. Seth Winter profile image85
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So your response to the snowballing effect of persecution of the Jews from the Germany Government, which eventually lead to herding Jews like animals into large ovens is to state that...really? Good argument there (heavy sarcasm).

      But the true funny thing here...is well...wiki it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

      I guess you should have read the whole law before posting that... ;-)

      "The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies,"

      And it even covers what you did Uninvited Writer :-)

      "While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

      Since my post was about the snowballing effect of the persecution law against the Jews which eventually lead to their genocide I think I can safely say I didn't run afoul of Godwin Law...but stating...and then saying argument over...well foul play, try again.

    2. Clint Ward profile image61
      Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't see that in the Thatcher is Hitler thread. I guess you trot it out when it serves your purpose.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have personally never compared her to Hitler and won't, it's ridiculous. The same as people bringing up Nazi Germany any time someone wants to have better background checks on guns. Last time I looked, Canada and most other Western countries have not become members of the Third Reich.

        1. Clint Ward profile image61
          Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't say you did, but you didn't introduce Godwins law into the mix either. As for background checks there is not a single bill before congress that is solely a background check bill, they all ban some type of weapon.

  10. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    I have a question for those who are focused on the statistics for human death, my question is How Much Is a Single Life Worth?

  11. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 3 years ago

    Threads that devolve to debates about the US constitution, the bible and Adolf Hitler should trigger an forum automatic ban.

  12. Clint Ward profile image61
    Clint Wardposted 3 years ago

    Just ignore the source and watch the first video its pretty funny.

    http://www.infowars.com/californians-si … -firearms/

  13. ocbill profile image75
    ocbillposted 3 years ago

    If just 2 people (men) approached this guy wielding a box cutter (for christ's sake), I think less than 4 or 5 people would be cut. I guess these were skinny jean wearing guys who just spectate and are not athletic enough to subdue him. I just could not see this happening in a college class I attended. Like another guy here said, he would not have done that much back in our days.

 
working