Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Wow. My post above is wrong. THIS . . . (14+ / 0-)

    is the biggest red herring I've ever seen.  No one -- not the diarist or anyone in these comments -- is suggesting we'd "be better off under fascist Communist [sic] China style rule."  In fact, if you'd read the diary, you'd have seen this sentence:

    No one wants this to be a communist state.
    All the diarist is doing is using this comparison to make the indisputable point that knives are less lethal than guns.  You're doing nothing to address that issue.  Instead, you're simply trying to deflect attention from the diarist's argument.  I suggest you engage that argument rather than attempt to create a mini Red Scare here in the comments.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 01:16:38 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Of course guns are more lethal than knives (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That's the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. That if the American people are disarmed of guns and left with nothing but knives, that we are then lambs to the slaughter of the men who do have guns - illegally.

      Pointing out that knives are less deadly does nothing to remove the necessity of the 2nd Amendment for self-defense reasons.  It says nothing of the reasons why American citizens are Constitutionally allowed to own guns.

      I did see that sentence, but did you see the entire paragraph it was in?

      Look: I know it's never, ever, ever, ever ok to discuss gun laws in this country.  But when the media is presented with such a ready-made comparison I hold out some hope that some outlets will pick it up and put it before the public for examination.  No one wants this to be a communist state.  No one wants knife licenses.  But too often anyone advocating for stricter gun laws is told that they won't solve anything.  Killers will still find a way, we're always told.  Keeping guns away from law-abiding people won't translate into fewer gun crimes, we're always told.

      Look at these two stories side-by-side -- same day -- and tell me that.

      What the diarist is saying is that if only we'd had China's laws instead of American laws, then these children would all still be alive.  The problem is that forcibly disarming all Americans would require a communist state.

      So if the diarist isn't advocating for that, why daydream about how great it would be to live under Chinese law?

      •  The choice is not what we have versus (7+ / 0-)

        what China has. The point being made was that the Chinese madman didn't kill tens of children.

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

        by emidesu on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 02:00:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because he didn't have a gun, right? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And why didn't he have a gun?  Because Chinese law doesn't allow him to own one.  So how do we be more like China and not have children die here?

          Well, you see where this is going.  This diary is not a scientific study comparing knife mortality to gun mortality.

          •  Hey Norm, let's say we ban plastic grocery bags (10+ / 0-)

            like China did a few years ago. Do we have to adopt the rest of their regulatory apparatus in order to do so? Do we have to become Communist and institute a one-child policy? If not, why not?

            You're making a slippery slope argument that makes absolutely no sense. Potentially adopting one individual policy from China does not make us communist or necessitate that we become communist, in the same way that California's potential imposition ofa carbon tax does not mean they have to adopt an Australian-style parliament and make the Queen of England their head of state. Your reasoning just does not make sense.  

            "In an individual, selfishness uglifies the soul; for the human species, selfishness is extinction." -Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell

            by rigcath on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 02:23:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are plastic bags protected by the Constitution? (0+ / 0-)

              The point I am making is that there is no way to implement Chinese gun legislation that would forcibly disarm Americans in an attempt to prevent future tragedies like this, without violating the 2nd Amendment.

              Implementing a single Chinese policy does make us a communist state if that policy is unconstitutional.

              There is one avenue open, and that is to get the majority of Americans to vote to overturn their own rights and end individual gun ownership. Good luck with that.

              •  Yeah, we're not talking repealing the 2nd Amdmt (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Oh Mary Oh, Tonedevil, Drobin, emidesu

                At least I'm not advocating an overturn of the 2nd Amendment here. That has little to do with this diary.

                We're discussing whether or not the easy access to guns made this situation worse than it could have been under different regulations (ie, different enforcement of the Constitutional right to bear arms), and whether the shooter's use of a gun instead of another potential weapon is at least part of the high death toll. And the answer is obvious.

                The actions we take based on conclusions made from this discussion may have to do with the 2nd Amendment. But we're not there yet.

                "In an individual, selfishness uglifies the soul; for the human species, selfishness is extinction." -Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell

                by rigcath on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 02:47:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Define easy access (0+ / 0-)

                  For the purposes of gun control, there are two main types of gun crime:  The crime of passion, and the premeditated murder.

                  The crime of passion is caused by a sudden, very emotional event.  A person snaps, reaches for a gun at hand and acts.  Quickly, and with little thought.

                  Premeditated murder is planned.  And a person who plans is prepared to wait.

                  Background checks and cooling off / waiting periods for a gun purchase are reasonable, fully constitutonal safeguards.  No one should sell a gun to an angry/scared looking man at 11:30pm.  It's not a good idea, like giving keys to a drunk person.

                  However, if a person passes all background checks, then gun ownership must be permitted as the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

                  That right is not absolute, it can be taken away from individuals by due process.  But we are assumed innocent and assumed to have our full rights unless deprived of them in court.

                  So assuming that Adam Lanza legally owned his guns by say 6 months, and 100 rounds was all he owned, and that's a rational household number, my uncle is a deer hunter, that's the season for a party of 5.

                  So if Adam Lanza yesterday was a legal gun owner, then none of the cooling off laws mattered.  He was going to kill people, lines on maps don't stop anything.  

                  So they only way that today's tragedy could possibly have been averted is if absolute gun access was abolished, not just easy access.

                  Given the details, I don't suspect this will be a case where easy access is an issue.  Most likely the only way we could have been assured a gun wasn't at hand would be by full repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

                  Call it to a vote then.

              •  Do you know what "communist" means? (6+ / 0-)

                Maybe you should give this page a read.  Here's part of it:

                Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.
                See, there's nothing about guns in there.  It's all about public ownership of the means of production.

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 03:30:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  There are lots of things right about China (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn, emidesu, stunvegas

            And a lot of them have to do with how they handle their crime. Anyone who thinks the United States has some sort of authority on proper crime initiatives is foolish. We have executed innocent people. We routinely sentence innocent people to death. We sentence 13-year olds to life in prison without parole.

            Your assumption begins with the proposition that if it's done by China, it must be bad. Which isn't true. China gets a lot of things wrong, but they get some things right. Just because China limits the shit out of all rights of its people does not mean that in order to be "right," we have to have no limits on rights.

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

            by Grizzard on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 03:48:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You seem to like hyperbole as much as guns: (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rigcath, k9disc, Tonedevil, Drobin
        The problem is that forcibly disarming all Americans would require a communist state.

        Of course, since no one here is talking about "forcibly disarming all Americans" (whatever that may mean), I'm not sure how this is relevant.  But even if it were, it would be a ridiculous argument.  There are lots of very democratic countries with very strict gun control laws.  Think Japan and the U.K. for starters.  Last I checked, those weren't "communist states," but they did have tight controls on guns.  

        Your argument is a version of ad hominem, except you're not trying to discredit the argument by attacking the person making it, but rather by attacking a country.  As I said elsewhere, you're trying to deflect attention from the diarist's comparison by shouting, "China is bad!"  (And you can't even decide whether China is fascist or communist.  Those aren't the same thing, Teabagger claims notwithstanding.)  Another example of your argument would be claiming that we shouldn't look at the link between smoking tobacco and cancer because that link was first identified by doctors in Nazi Germany.  

        What the diarist is talking about really has almost nothing to do with China, its government, or its policies, save perhaps to the extent that China's gun control laws prevented this particular wacko from being able to use a gun in his attack.  Of course, if those laws did have that effect, that would be a powerful argument in their favor.  As you admit, guns are more lethal than knives, and if the Chinese attacker had had one, many of those Chinese children would likely be dead now.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 03:25:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site