Piers Morgan Deports? for what you may be offended

chris7375 · Dec 31, 2012

clax said:
This is a bait and switch really purile tactic. He was saying that a gunshot wound is more lethal than a stab wound. That isn't true, he was caught in a fabrication and he then said this vapid statement which had nothing to do with the discussion.

nobody should even entertain this nonsense.

Agreed I can stab someone twist the knife while inside of them and it can make them bleed out make the wound unclosable even if they live. If one knows where the kill spots are you can easily dispatch a person with a knife with little effort.

Though I will concede if there were men in the group his efforts may have been met with a lot more resistance and he probably may not have gotten as far.

clax · Dec 31, 2012

chris7375 said:
Agreed I can stab someone twist the knife while inside of them and it can make them bleed out make the wound unclosable even if they live. If one knows where the kill spots are you can easily dispatch a person with a knife with little effort.

Though I will concede if there were men in the group his efforts may have been met with a lot more resistance and he probably may not have gotten as far.

It is no contest between a knife and a gun. A tiny pebble of lead going through you verses a sharp five inch blade that can cut organs and mangle up innards its obvious what is more deadly.

The disadvantage of a knife is a tactical one, only. You have to get close. A gun is easier to kill from a distance. But I could find a much more effeciant way to kill more people. A bomb. Easier than that poison.

This killer wanted to make an impression.

myp · Dec 31, 2012

clax said:
You weren't talking about that. You said you would rather be stabbed than shot. Are you 27 people now.

Collect your thoughts prior to responding or use these bait and switch tactics.

again your terrible debate skills have encumbered your intelligence. I said typically stab wounds are more fatal than gunshot wounds, you out of nowhere pulled this nonsense not even related to your first statement in which I responded to.

Once again you have successfully made a fool out of yourself. I have no interest in continuing this discussion because of your inability to hold onto a thought.

Haha, I am the one that is not focused and has thoughts rambling everywhere? Go look at the context of the discussion and see which one of us two went off on a tangent. I said head-to-head I would face a knife over a gun. Not once did I say a gun makes a deeper wound, etc. etc. It is still easier to fight someone with a knife considering they have to come up with you whereas the guy with a gun can be across the room and just press the trigger. But again, a tangent started by you.

Whenever you find yourself in a corner you resort to asking me to self-reflect and think about how I debate. And then you make like 5 posts crying about my debating. Stop your whining for once and accept you are wrong when you are wrong. Grow up.

chris7375 · Dec 31, 2012

clax said:
It is no contest between a knife and a gun. A tiny pebble of lead going through you verses a sharp five inch blade that can cut organs and mangle up innards its obvious what is more deadly.

The disadvantage of a knife is a tactical one, only. You have to get close. A gun is easier to kill from a distance. But I could find a much more effeciant way to kill more people. A bomb. Easier than that poison.

This killer wanted to make an impression.

You are correct. The right bullet tip could be just as damaging as a knife though I will concede that point.

The 22 caliber gun does a lot of damage to ones insides to. Though the bigger caliber do damage not as extensive as a 22.

myp · Dec 31, 2012

chris7375 said:
It was 26 you are failing to see that all were women again with little to no experience with violence. So yes it would have been easy.

As easy with a knife as a gun though? I don't care if they were women- I'll take a few women over a 20-something year old civilian kid anyday. Some probably had pepperspray or could finds knives, etc. of their own. Doing something against a gun is much harder.

chris7375 · Dec 31, 2012

myp said:
As easy with a knife as a gun though? I don't care if they were women- I'll take a few women over a 20-something year old civilian kid anyday. Some probably had pepperspray or could finds knives, etc. of their own. Doing something against a gun is much harder.

Yes I believe it very well could have been. None of the woman knew violence all felt safe a knife would have given him a tactical advantage. It would have been quiet unlike a rifle. He could have easily dispatched the few women in the office with no one wiser to what was going on. So yes I believe it could have happened.

myp · Dec 31, 2012

chris7375 said:
Yes I believe it very well could have been. None of the woman knew violence all felt safe a knife would have given him a tactical advantage. It would have been quiet unlike a rifle. He could have easily dispatched the few women in the office with no one wiser to what was going on. So yes I believe it could have happened.

Well, the numbers in countries like the UK just don't agree with you. I don't know what else to say...

clax · Dec 31, 2012

Cerise said:
What it boils down to though surely is that there were firearms in his home and he knew where to find them. Presumably he would have been told their whereabouts so as to defend himself against whatever it is everyone fears will happen?
If the weapons should have been locked away then what is the point of having them then? You can't have it both ways...either they are a danger or they are not.

I have a person in my care that is at times severely depressed. I like to be there to console him in his depression but I can't always. When I am not there the guns are behind lock and key or under the control of my dp.

this person is a minor so we like to limit the time he is actually alone but he is an older boy and does need his alone times. There are other children that come over do the guns must be handled with the up most care and responsibility.

chris7375 · Dec 31, 2012

myp said:
Well, the numbers in countries like the UK just don't agree with you. I don't know what else to say...

What that violent crimes don't occur. The UK actually tops the US in violent crime. What dictates a violent crime in the UK since firearms are banned it has to be other things.

myp · Dec 31, 2012

chris7375 said:
What that violent crimes don't occur. The UK actually tops the US in violent crime. What dictates a violent crime in the UK since firearms are banned it has to be other things.

They don't have school/public knifings where x-xx people die multiple times every year. I am not sure the numbers, but I would guess that their mass murder rate has gone down. Murder rate is a whole other story- but the killing on one person is very different than going to a public place and opening fire at anyone in sight.

clax · Dec 31, 2012

myp said:
Haha, I am the one that is not focused and has thoughts rambling everywhere? Go look at the context of the discussion and see which one of us two went off on a tangent. I said head-to-head I would face a knife over a gun. Not once did I say a gun makes a deeper wound, etc. etc. It is still easier to fight someone with a knife considering they have to come up with you whereas the guy with a gun can be across the room and just press the trigger. But again, a tangent started by you.

Whenever you find yourself in a corner you resort to asking me to self-reflect and think about how I debate. And then you make like 5 posts crying about my debating. Stop your whining for once and accept you are wrong when you are wrong. Grow up.

When ever you say something of pure ignorance. You relate it to something completely unrelated

You are vastly uneducated and it shows on this subject

chris7375 · Dec 31, 2012

myp said:
They don't have school/public knifings where x-xx people die multiple times every year. I am not sure the numbers, but I would guess that their mass murder rate has gone down. Murder rate is a whole other story- but the killing on one person is very different than going to a public place and opening fire at anyone in sight.

And per capita our mass murder rate is not all that high either.

myp · Dec 31, 2012

clax said:
When ever you say something of pure ignorance. You relate it to something completely unrelated

You are vastly uneducated and it shows on this subject

Again, you went on a tangent not me. Already proved it. Silly clax...

myp · Dec 31, 2012

chris7375 said:
And per capita our mass murder rate is not all that high either.

Is that a reason to stand by and not consider reform that could bring it down?

clax · Dec 31, 2012

myp said:
Again, you went on a tangent not me. Already proved it. Silly clax...

No you brought up something about 27 people completely unrelated to the foolish thing you said before.

What you said was you would rather be stabbed than shot because in your mind its more likely to be fatal.

Than in order to digg yourself out from under an ignorant statement you brought up done arbitrary 27 people.

chris7375 · Dec 31, 2012

myp said:
Is that a reason to stand by and not consider reform that could bring it down?

Reform what Feinstein's goal to abolish guns all together have you read her bill. She is basically proposing a bill to make 95 percent of Guns illegal. This coming from a woman who has admitted to carrying a concealed weapon.

Reform I don't mind though the reform is being placed on the tool used not a means to solve the problem of how people obtain them. You reform the means on how the wrong people get these guns. You don't ban the gun outright.

That is what is being proposed. So instead of solving the problem the are going to do what they did in the thirties with prohibition. I know half a dozen people up north I can buy an illegal firearm from banning them solves nothing.

So in reality the are not reforming anything but trying to strip rights completely away.

myp · Dec 31, 2012

clax said:
What you said was you would rather be stabbed than shot because in your mind its more likely to be fatal.

Yea, never said that. Like many other things you claim as true, this was nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Go read the posts if you want to double check. Here, I'll make it easy for you: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=36553&postcount=33

Says nothing about preferring to be stabbed or shot.

clax · Dec 31, 2012

Cerise said:
What it boils down to though surely is that there were firearms in his home and he knew where to find them. Presumably he would have been told their whereabouts so as to defend himself against whatever it is everyone fears will happen?
If the weapons should have been locked away then what is the point of having them then? You can't have it both ways...either they are a danger or they are not.

They are a danger, but life is risky.

myp · Dec 31, 2012

chris7375 said:
Reform what Feinstein's goal to abolish guns all together have you read her bill. She is basically proposing a bill to make 95 percent of Guns illegal. This coming from a woman who has admitted to carrying a concealed weapon.

Reform I don't mind though the reform is being placed on the tool used not a means to solve the problem of how people obtain them. You reform the means on how the wrong people get these guns. You don't ban the gun outright.

That is what is being proposed. So instead of solving the problem the are going to do what they did in the thirties with prohibition. I know half a dozen people up north I can buy an illegal firearm from banning them solves nothing.

So in reality the are not reforming anything but trying to strip rights completely away.

I am not making an argument for Feinstein's bill, but merely an argument for the possibility of positives outcomes from gun regulation (which may or may not include ban of certain guns). I don't have a bone to pick on either side at this point, but I think to not consider both sides is silly. The truth likely exists that some bans and regulation may well reduce this sort of crime, but they might also hurt other things- again comes down to costs and benefits and that will depend on the exact policy proposal at hand.

To absolutely state that all gun regulation/ban is either bad or good is probably not considering all the facts.

chris7375 · Dec 31, 2012

myp said:
I am not making an argument for Feinstein's bill, but merely an argument for the possibility of positives outcomes from gun regulation (which may or may not include ban of certain guns). I don't have a bone to pick on either side at this point, but I think to not consider both sides is silly. The truth likely exists that some bans and regulation may well reduce this sort of crime, but they might also hurt other things- again comes down to costs and benefits and that will depend on the exact policy proposal at hand.

To absolutely state that all gun regulation/ban is either bad or good is probably not considering all the facts.

I disagree banning the tool is not the answer. We are talking about a semi automatic rifle that is made to look like an M-16. It is not an M-16 but on made to look like it.

Regulations to make it harder for the wrong people to obtain these weapons hell go for it. I am willing to do a little more leg work to own my gun. Though this is not what they plan to propose that is my problem. Essentially 3/4 of my firearms will be banned.

Piers Morgan Deports? for what ** you may be offended **

Similar threads

Piers Morgan Deports? for what you may be offended