BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The OP is showing that guns are not the only weapon that can be used to murder, which is touted as a reason to not ban guns. So, your response would have been quite on target had you responded to the OP. It wasn't even a FR, as Bama had 2 responses to the post you've quoted within 30 minutes, and your response was 4 hours after Bama's second one.
No one on here is stating firearms are the only weapon that can be used for murder. That is the silliest argument in this thread!
No, the OP's agenda is to promote the idea that if people were armed, things would have been much different. Yet leaves out something very obvious. If the citizens are able to obtain firearms easily, why not the criminals? The attack with firearms would have been much more devastating, since firearms are much more efficient mechanical devices of destruction. That if one or two people whipped out their firearms, they would have hosed down all ten attackers like some Modern Warfare game. Its a complete fantasy of the Op's underlying agenda. Its not based on any actual scientific evidence.
Those attackers were operating in a squad like fashion. They had the element of surprised. An it was in ANOTHER COUNTRY. Those are the facts. Yet, OP basically hijacks the news story to insert their political agenda. Then tries to stack the events and evidence heavily in favor that his one gun would have taken down all ten firearm users. If he can have a firearm, THEY, can have firearms. Lets test it out scientifically.
Place three people with pistols into a group of thirty unarmed individuals that are confederates (in that they know what will happen and told to scurry away quickly). A narrow corridor similar to a train platform or tunnel. Place the three individuals in different spots (front of the group, back of the group, mixed in, etc.). Have one group with individuals with firearms in hip holsters, another with concealable holsters, and a control group of US NAVY SEALs that know the direction of the attack and when it will happen. And we see what happens when the action takes place. Could even set it up that the three 'defenders' are not told who else has a firearm in that crowd and is 'on their side'. Now if we could do it safely it would be quite an interesting amount of data to collect and understand, wouldn't it? I'm all for doing such a study.
You might ask the OP about his agenda rather than engaging in a left wing fantasy.
To the extent that there was a gun related agenda it was that evil people don't need guns
to kill.
This appears, if Chinese reports are to be believed, an act of terrorism.
That makes it much different from "normal" crime.
It seems that even the Chinese are attacked by Muslim extremists.
< Message edited by BamaD -- 3/3/2014 11:29:14 AM >
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine
People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|
RE: 29 killed in Chinese Kife attack - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread