Skip to main content

View Diary: Eerie: knife attack in Chinese school, also today, 22 *wounded* --- your move, MSM (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  NR enAblers (18+ / 0-)

    Not only are you right, but what I can't stand is all the people who come out of the woodwork and pipe in and say: but a knife can kill people too!

    Who are all these bots who seem to think it is their duty to nip any talk of gun control in the bud? What motivates them to hijack the conversation before we can even begin to talk about solutions?

    For the record, as a parent of young children, I'd much rather have a psycho with a knife in their school than one with two Glock semi-automatics. And I think all parents would agree -- with of course the standard exception of brainwashed NRA members and sociopaths.

    "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

    by MarkC on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 12:22:32 PM PST

    •  exactly (11+ / 0-)

      It's a continuum ---

      No one is suggesting there's nothing more lethal than a gun.  As a society, we do ban TONS of things from private ownership -- grenades, bombs, tanks, land mines, etc. etc. etc.  It's a long list.  Culturally there's agreement that certain things are too lethal for any single person to own -- too dangerous because that person could go crazy, or because they could be stolen, etc.

      So there's no argument about whether or not, in a free society, certain things are too dangerous for individuals to own.  The answer is yes.  The only debate is about where to draw the line.  Right?

      I know it sounds like I'm in denial but I'm not.

      by Save the clock tower on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 12:28:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. And we're urging drawing it (7+ / 0-)

        at a far less barbaric place than it has currently been drawn in this country.

        Someone in a comment on an article elsewhere noted that with this one shooting, we exceeded the number of people killed by guns in the entire country of Japan over the last three years combined.

        Japan has a population more than one third the size of ours. Even if you proportionally adjust our populations, that still indicates that if our country had the population of Japan's, we would still have lost more people to gun violence in this one shooting than they would have in a full year.

        That is insane.

        "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

        by progressivist on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 12:54:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emidesu, sagesource, FogCityJohn, MarkC

        Does everyone have the right to a nuclear bomb? Why not?

        "Today is who you are" - my wife

        by I Lurked For Years on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 01:27:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I want one of the gun rights (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA, FogCityJohn, MarkC

          people to answer that question. Also why not chemical or biological weapons?

          Stay fired up: now is the time to focus on downticket change! #Forward

          by emidesu on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 01:53:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not a gun nut. Don't own any. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emidesu

            But the distinction is between arms v. ordnance. The RKBA folks could likely explain it better, but arms are what you would expect an average soldier to be equipped with such as a firearm, knife, and bayonet. "Ordnance", such as bio/chemical weapons, missiles, and rockets, is not the same as "arms" and thus not included in the 2nd Amendment. Traditionally ordnance is any weapon that requires one or more personnel to operate and maintain or a weapon that is not readily man portable.

    •  I'd rather have no pycho in a school (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      If your solution involves taking rights away from law abiding innocent people, then yes I will nip that in the bud.  If your solution involves understanding why people go crazy and trying to do something about it, then I'll listen.

      If I could snap my fingers and disarm the entire world I would.  But I can't and neither can you.  And that's why I won't disarm only the law abiding.  

      If you think that a gun ban is going to keep your kids safe from a psyco with a gun, then you probably also think that the Patriot Act is keeping you safe.  Do you agree with that?  Did the loss of your 4th Amendment rights and the torture of innocent Muslims keep you safe?

      •  Before 1864..... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrkvica, Tonedevil

        ....owning a person was a "right" of law-abiding innocent people.

        After a certain date in the future, owning a gun will go the same way as owning a slave.

        The only question is how many people get killed before that point.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 02:36:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the problem with this rhetoric (6+ / 0-)

        clearly lies in the sharp, high-contrast distinction being made between "law abiding innocent people" and either "criminals" or "crazy people."

        People in the real world do not have white hats and black hats, so that they're easy to tell apart.

        Views Differ On Shape Of Planet

        by nota bene on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 03:32:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem (7+ / 0-)

        is that the lines between the "law abiding" and the "criminal" are more skewed than most are willing to admit. All criminals were once law abiding, and most perpetrators of gun crime were law abiding citizens when they decided to buy their guns (and most of the time, those guns were bought for law-abiding purposes).

        Also, people seem to overestimate their own ability to protect themselves (or anything) with a gun. If someone wants to kill you bad enough, you are going to be dead. The majority of gun owners do not have anything near the training and judgment that they think they have. These are not Seals acting with precision. In reality, most of these people are only able to defend themselves with weapons in their wildest dreams.  

        "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." ~Bobby Kennedy

        by Grizzard on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 03:38:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Find a Libertarian forum (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RockyMtnLib

        Norm, you say I want to take "rights away from law abiding innocent people". No. They can still serve in a well-regulated militia. No person has an intrinsic right to kill innocent children in school.

        Then you jump to torture and the Patriot Act, and I realize that we're in backwards world. You're equating left-leaning gun control with a right-leaning police state. The only perspective these two look the same is from an extreme Libertarian point of view.

        The Constitution never guaranteed anything like the right to have the guns that boy used today, and the specious argument that it does is exactly why we had the tragedy we did today.

        "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

        by MarkC on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 05:20:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure most of you remember this: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MarkC

      I saw someone just the other day on the Freeper site state that Archie was right. People actually still think this way. They'd probably say this too:

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 08:20:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site