Thursday, August 2, 2012

But I thought knives weren't as deadly as guns?!

Here's an interesting story, especially since so many gun-regulation nuts told me that "knives don't do as much damage as guns."

A Chinese teen killed 9 people in a knife attack, and injured 4 more.

What was that number?


Sure, that's 3 people shy of how many James Holmes killed with a gun, but do numbers really matter?  And yes, Holmes injured way more people, but still, this kid came close to Holmes' body count with only a knife.  So what do we do now?  Regulate all knives?  This kid could have used a steak knife for all we know.

This should serve as an example to everyone who thinks that guns are the problem.  Guns are not the problem: people going off the deep end are the problem.  So please stop kidding yourselves.


Anonymous said...

Jackie, that is the heart of most of the problems of humanity.

We are all going off the rails in some fashion.

Silverfiddle said...

There is no talking sense to gun-grabbing liberals.

I even showed them that gun violence rates were higher in gun control cities like Boston, DC and Chicago than they were in gun-friendly Denver, but it didn't matter.

They were proud that their cities had enlightened laws praised by the liberal intelligentsia, and said low-violence Colorado should be ashamed of itself.

Talking sense to them is hopeless

Always On Watch said...

Silverfiddle is absolutely correct. There is no reasoning with the Left. **sigh**

Harrison said...

If only other people had had knives they could have put a stop to it!

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, I'm really disappointed. I was hoping you weren't so easy a fool as to fall for the spurious, specious gun-nut arguments.

Face reality. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife or a baseball bat. It's a lot easier to buy a gun than to build a bomb, let alone to use that gun to kill multiple victims.

And it doesn't matter what the gun laws are in one place or another if they are lax in another.

Come up with a real argument.


Anonymous said...

My good man, if you ease up on what way is "faster" and "easier" to kill people and focus instead on people that clearly break the law against murder to begin with... that is if they murder with poison, vehicles, guns, knives, barehands, M1A1 abrams tanks, chemical weapons, killer attack dogs, killer attack ferrets, unleashing the kraken, torture someone of intelligence to death with Kim Kardashian's life story... stop focusing on the way and focus on the why.

It's easier to kill a bunch of people on the sidewalk with a lexus than it is a revolver, but you don't see anyone calling for automotive bans because the automotive industry makes money!

I get your argument that it is easier to kill someone with a loaded gun than it is the sunday new york times and I agree with you!!! The Fact remains that less than 1% of "Legal" guns would ever be used to commit any crime let alone murder, and less than 25% will ever be used in a situation where they were defending their owners. Simply having a gun as a good and responsible citizen is enough to diffuse crime. You don't see these mass murders happening at police stations, gun shows, or military bases, because they got freakin guns!

Guns in the hands of the good and the responsible citizens are the single biggest deterrent to violent crime that there is, if you have a gun yourself you have a fighting chance to turn the tables on the aggressor.

If someone breaks into your home and they hear a shotgun racking, they know instantaneously it is time to flee at great speed. It is the universal signal for "GTFO or else"

Widespread disarmament of so many for the actions of the so many few will negate any chance we had against our government being held in check. You can have all the guns you want, you still aren't defeating an Apache helicopter or an AC-130 with any firearm.

I would think these arguments have some validity.

Jersey McJones said...

Who the fuckin' hell is talking about "Widespread disarmament" of anyone? Why are you gun screwballs so fuckin' ludicrous?

There are limits on all rights. Grow up and face that.


Anonymous said...


"And it doesn't matter what the gun laws are in one place or another if they are lax in another."

sir, I would call the gun laws in Chicago or Washington DC widespread disarmament. I agree with you and that statement you made on it's surface only, however if you live in chicago you really don't have the right to properly defend yourself unless you bunker down in your house or apartment for the rest of your days. So yeah it does matter.

Limits on rights, yes I can see the need for that and acknowledge there are several, some of them are an overall good thing, some of them are grey areas, and some of them are downright bullshit.

Speed Limits- good thing : people are dumb

Abortion- grey area : what do you define as life

Gun Laws- Downright Bullshit: gun laws can't stop gun violence.

Japan has a countrywide ban on firearms and there is still gun violence.

Jersey McJones said...

"Japan has a countrywide ban on firearms and there is still gun violence."


Only a moron would think we should simply have no laws or regulations on firearms. ONLY A MORON.


Jack Camwell said...

Thank God there aren't any morons here, Jersey . . .

No one here is saying that there should be zero gun control or laws. What we're saying is that MORE gun control laws than what we have right now are going to do nothing to curb the violence.

More gun control won't even do anything to tone down the scale of violence.

Look at Chicago and DC. Both have hand-gun bans, and violent crime are pretty rampant in both cities.

More restrictive gun laws would only make owning guns more difficult for law abiding citizens. That's all we're saying.

It's disappointing that you automatically lump me and others into the "gun loon" group simply because we say that more gun control will not solve anything.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I am a moron about many things. Life has not had proper time to teach me all it's lessons.

More senseless gun laws? That will solve nothing.

With that being said, if someone wants to blaze while I am around, he better be a better shot than I am. Unless of course I would go to jail for carrying a weapon into said area though, then only the criminals are safe.

To paraphrase the joker, their code, their rules... its a bad joke. They systematically make it illegal for you to carry a firearm in certain areas, and most people will follow the law. When someone goes off the rails and say... brings an AR-15 to a gun free zone and murders a bunch of people, they use it as an excuse to try and ban more guns in more places.

When anything like this goes down, they call the police. Why call the police? Think about it.

Jack Camwell said...

Because the police will stop the murderers with hugs and sunshine! DUH!

Jersey McJones said...

Why then argue about how others want to "ban" guns?

Look, there are lots of ways we could better regulate the militia, but you gun buts refuse to do anything new or different whatsoever.


Silverfiddle said...

Excellent and astute comments, Anon!

That's what Jersey does when trapped by the truth: He blusters and blathers and goes on vulgar tirades. Notice he couldn't rebut your arguments? So we went off on tangents.

And Jersey, building a bomb is way easier, and cheaper, than buying a gun.

Anon checkmated you.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, no. It is easier to kill people with a gun. Period. There is no counter argument to that. It doesn't matter. No smart person would even bother to try to disarm the populace, nor would they want it. But it would be nice to know who owns a given gun at a given time. What are you hiding? You have the right to bare arms, just as the society has a right to a well regulated militia. What you gun-psychotics don't get about that, I'll never know.


Jack Camwell said...


Guns have serial numbers on them. You've got to register that shit. The problem comes in when people file off the serial numbers.

It's illegal to do that, but so is murder.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: Silver, no. It is easier to kill people with a gun. Period. There is no counter argument to that.

You are ignorant. One home-made bomb could have killed or injured everyone in that theater. Much easier than shooting everyone.

And Anon owned you. You didn't even address his other well-made points, which is telling. Whining for more government is all you liberals have.