No, you didn’t answer the binary question, but gave a qualified answer as did those when presented with yours. Not simple enough for you? Ha.... funny. I went to a local art show today, and was asked by a fellow collecting signatures for a petition advocating banning “assault weapons”. When I inquired why I should support the petition, he didn’t give a reason, but, said, “I don’t have time to explain it to you, I have work to do”. In other words, he was telling me, if you aren’t already indoctrinated you are too stupid to explain it to... my mission is to round up signatures.
Most firearm-related deaths attributed to rifles are barely anymore noteworthy than firearm-related deaths attributed to handguns. Outside of the Las Vegas incident, which involved a situation and setup that cannot be replicated in the public venues where most mass shootings occur, death tolls regardless of the firearm utilized will remain largely unnoteworthy in comparison. And as was demonstrated in the nation of China, a mass stabbing can easily rival the death toll of most mass shootings in the united states, especially in confined locations. So ultimately what real difference would be made, when both implements have been demonstrated as possessing the capabilities of equal death tolls?
Sorry, did I make it tricky? Ok, in simple words, " I'll be unarmed". So that's option A ...as I've just said......because my gun would be locked up at home. I'm getting excited, now it's your turn - knife or assault rifle. .....you can do it
Wow, excited, eh... because you think you can snare an answer to begging your narrative? I asked a preference when facing the scenario. I and most others have answered your question, just not in the manner you want that will support your follow on objective which you think clever. News, it’s not.
I laid how a knife might tally more victims than a firearm in a mall situation. Binary hypotheticals are devoid of any value to realism and serve only to try to force an answer that supports a biased purpose, which you obviously have, and are desperate to see through so you can make a point which you’ve already made in your posting history, but think you are clever in your presentation... a transparent objective that won’t get satisfaction here. You might as well be asking what color makes the best magic wand.
Pick one, knife or assault rifle and quit the bullshit. If you can't answer a simple question, go annoy someone else.
I answered your question, so man/woman up and answer mine; knife or assault rifle? Gonna give you an added bonus to help, take all the massacres in schools, hotels, cinemas etc.. If you were at any of those, would you have wished the perpetrator to have had a knife or assault rifle? The massacre was going ahead, it's not hypothetical.
You are playing a game with a transparent objective and an attempt to be clever and finding no one will to give you satisfaction. Give it up and face that no one is playing; make the point you are desperate to make, as if it isn’t already known.
You're wasting my time. You know fine well that any sane person wouldn't want a perpetrator choosing an assault rifle to undertake a massacre but you just don't want to admit it because you are so pro gun, common sense has flown out of the window. See ya kid.
So you admit that a massacre would still take place, you just think hopefully fewer people would die. How many people in a crowd did those Islamic terrorists run down with a rental van. Aside from the Vegas massacre, it seems like most of these van attacks have been deadlier than assault rifle attacks. And we know well-funded and well-planned groups (like the Vegas killer) would very likely still be able to get assault rifles even if they were illegal. So now we're not even talking about organized crime groups or terrorist groups, but the average crazy.
Ah... the point. Only took you 8 pages to get to it. Talk about wasting time; you could have done that in your first post and then gone on to make your follow on points which have in turn been frustrated. Frustrated, eh, that no one took your bait. Too bad, that. Ah...we could spend a great deal of time on the words, “common sense”, but the way you use it here, and they way it is used frequently by most GCAs is to label someone that disagrees with you as lacking the capacity for rational thought, when it really means not accepting the dogma shared by the collective. “Common sense” used in that context is not much different than folk tales and myth.... better referred to as “common myth”. As for being Pro Gun, that is your label...meant to be derogatory and separates people into anti/pro camps... but it misses the complexities of my opinions and beliefs, all of which don’t add up to binary labeling, but form a framework of values that can be applied to far more broadly than just the question of guns.
Which does he prefer? Because generally, these attacks are planned and not "spur of the moment, never crossed my mind before, but let's do it!" events... I would imagine the weapon of choice would be whatever is obtainable. For instance, The Boston Marathon Bombers would not have had an easy time buying a gun of any kind. So they chose the Do-it-yourself build a bomb method. It would be super easy to drop a backpack or five in a mall... And your point kinda pales in comparison to : wtf is the driving force behind this Mass Killing epidemic... Killers will kill with whatever they can. Why are there so many angry young men?
Ah. Sorry I only read the first page before rendering my answer. I didn't know, (but should have) that it was a rhetorical question disguised as a "poll". You could have just made the statement : Any sane person would prefer a mass killer use a knife rather than a gun. So you were in essence, calling 2A proponents to task passive aggressively. Line forms to the left...
I know I want an assault rifle rather than a knife to deal with people like him. but I am pretty well trained with a knife
I didn't say they were coming for my guns. Nonnie says she would come for some of them. I just want her to explain the boundary of her definition of reasonableness by telling me which ones she would take and which ones she would allow me to keep.
Your follow-up question might be: "Which would you take to a knife fight -- a nerf ball or a big ring on your finger?
Very few people have even the slightest clue as to the damage a trained person with a knife can do and barely be noticed, if at all.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367 An attack by knife-wielding men at a railway station in Kunming in south-west China has left at least 29 dead, the state news agency Xinhua says. Another 130 people were wounded in what authorities said was a "premeditated, violent terrorist attack". Ultimately why does it matter what implement is used, when both are capable of equal lethality, as the above example demonstrates in conclusive terms? As was explained once before, the entire premise of the discussion is predicated on accepting the fact that random, mass killings are going to continue being a regular occurrence, and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop such incidents from occurring.
Why limit the choices unrealistically in order to get the answer you want? And if neither is handy, how about the guy uses a glass jug full of gasoline jug and a match? How about a pipe bomb made with scrap plumbing fittings and household chemicals? Massacres were happening long before the invention of firearms, and some of them in far larger numbers than you can imagine- one in Constantinople killed more than 60,000 people. People kill people. Things used as weapons are inanimate objects until a disturbed person changes them into murder weapon. Once it was rocks. Then the jawbone of an ass. It is, as it always was- an act of people. Anyone who thinks otherwise should look at the success rates of prohibition and the 50-year war on drugs.
