https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

For those too lazy to read: A group of guys with knives killed nearly 30 civilians in China.

They fire from the hip because who needs the accuracy when you're simply spraying bullets into crowds of dozens of unarmed people?

Unarmed, gee I wonder why so many died. If only someone had been there to take action, such as a citizen with a .22 who took classes on Keeping calm and shot placement :o

Somehow, I think a person consumed with hatred, will be far more likely to pull a trigger, than a normal civilian, who has likely never been in such a situation before. Unless said civilian is a former police officer or soldier, who has done more than attend a few classes. The average person is not wired to kill, frankly. If they go down, you just gave the terrorists another gun. If they saw a citizen with a gun, who do you think they will target? Also, at least in the city (where this stuff seems to be primarily happening), most people don't really need a gun to hunt, just as they don't need their big trucks to go off roading. Not really. Sure, a few people probably shoot deer or rabbits or something. But most people? I doubt it.

I know people who bought guns just so that they would feel safer walking into racially tense neighborhoods, for the sake of an app that shall go unmentioned. *cough*

Btw, this is probably why some people think gun restrictions should be more of a priority over the NRA version of the second amendment. restrictions =/= control. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/on-terrorist-watch-list-but-allowed-to-buy-guns/8927/

Edited 11/18/2015 03:31:24

Bwahahahahah! Eklipse you crack me up! KNIVES can be used to carry out terrorist attacks of the same scale? What kind of bullshit is that?! Yes, 8 terrorists killed 29 people once with knives. Then a terrorist attack of the same number of attackers killed over four times that many people with guns!

that's somehow worse than being a panicked civilian with no defense at all?

Unarmed, gee I wonder why so many died. If only someone had been there to take action, such as a citizen with a .22 who took classes on Keeping calm and shot placement :o

Maybe you could, oh I don't know, read the fucking topic I wrote telling you exactly why arming the population is a shitty idea :o

Relevant pic

Are you really one of those people who think that a handful of armed citizens alone can overthrow a modern government.
If so please refer to that Spain guy's post:

if a certain government of a pro-gun nation were to become so shitty that it would warrant a rebellion, the civilians would have a certain percentage of the military fighting alongside them, as can be seen in the American Civil War.

Giving less people guns equals less deaths.

You try to knife someone to death, its a hell of a lot harder than shooting.

You try to knife someone to death, its a hell of a lot harder than shooting.

You just need to know how to do so properly. It's really not hard in theory. The only thing that could possibly botch a good knifing murder is being able to feel the puncture of your blade stabbing into human flesh, while your brain goes crazy because you're too p*ssy and cop out at the last second, leaving the victim only injured.

Trust me, its easier to kill with a gun. For one thing, you have to get close enough to them to let them have a chance to block you.

KNIVES can be used to carry out terrorist attacks of the same scale? What kind of bullshit is that?! Yes, 8 terrorists killed 29 people once with knives.

Yes, which proves that when deprived of guns people will find other means to kill. It's pretty darn easy to carry out attacks against UNARMED civilians. Whenever your target is defenseless you could commit murder with a CLUB. Of course, you're going to dismiss this point as "bullshit" because it runs counter to your agenda. I understand, don't worry.

Maybe you could, oh I don't know, read the fucking topic I wrote telling you exactly why arming the population is a shitty idea :o

Maybe you could, oh I don't know, read the fucking counterpoints people wrote in response to your topic.

Are you really one of those people who think that a handful of armed citizens alone can overthrow a modern government.

I'm pretty sure the situation Lawlz is referring to would involve far more than a handful of citizens. Plus, you entirely missed the point of his picture. This "Oh, we'd just fail anyways so why even bother?" is a stupid attitude.

Edited 11/18/2015 04:14:07

For one thing, you have to get close enough to them to let them have a chance to block you.

Not if you do it properly, albeit you're screwed completely once the cops arrive.

Are you really one of those people who think that a handful of armed citizens alone can overthrow a modern government.

Well more then a handful, but yes, armed citizens can overthrow a modern government. (Modern as 1900 onward) Cuba(1953), Iran(1979), Libya(2011), Russian Empire(1917(twice)), China(1912). There are more but , yes, I do believe armed citizens can overthrow a government.

What you don't take into account, my dear Luna, is that if a certain government of a pro-gun nation were to become so shitty that it would warrant a rebellion, the civilians would have a certain percentage of the military fighting alongside them, as can be seen in the American Civil War.

a) If Bush's 8 years don't count as shitty enough for Americans to put an early end to it, then the argument for armed rebellion is moot: Even if they got such a shitty gov't modern Americans just won't have the will to fix it. b) If the civilians have the military fighting alongside them during some hypothetical rebellion, then the military has plenty of guns to go around, no need for the general populace to be armed to militaristic levels all the time during peace time.

I'm not saying which side would win, just that people wouldn't give up straight away.

Realistically, if the US ever became a dictatorship which controlled the military's purse-strings, which is the most likely scenario of course, then the civilians would have zero chance against the gov't with their puny civilian grade armaments. A couple of tanks or helicopters against 100s or even 1000s of guys with even fully automatic rifles would be more than enough to quell them.

Besides, I guarantee you that most of the gun nuts of today would be the ones on the side of the dictatorship in the first place. They are far more politically right-wing, authoritarian, totalitarian, blind-faith patriotism bordering on nationalism than any of the folks of the American Revolution.

Like Hitler, the dictator would be voted in by these nuts.

Ummm, can I please point out the obvious?

If knives and clubs are sufficient for all your killing needs, .... ummmm, ... why the big fuss over gun laws? Just stock up on knives and clubs. Bonus, you'll never run out of ammo!!!

On the flip side, if we go the other way and say no weapons should be restricted, then why not let anyone own a Bazooka (or the modern equivalent)? After all, if the gov't suddenly turns into a dictatorship, someone will need to shoot down all those helicopter gun-ships and you'll need some anti-tank weapons too. Heck, even granny needs one.

Kid, its not fucking spetznaz. Its a religious nut who got ahold of a gun. Someone who goes to a range and practices daily, takes classes and learns proper shot placement know how to deal with the situation. And guess what else classes teach you? How to stay calm in situations like that :o

Lawlz your ignorance about the Paris attacks truly amazes me.
The terrorist were heavily armed with kalashnikov, grenades and explosives, they were also seasoned warriors fighting in Syria for 2 years and trained there for the war.
I agree with you about the fact that he is a real "religious nut" but that does not mean they werent heavily armed and trained, stop underestimating it and I highly advise you to read more about these attacks this was well planned and there could have been way more deaths if the security did not stop them for example in the Stade de France, where the French President and the French and German national teams of football + 80.000 people in the Stadium were at the same moment while the explosions occured.


Also for gun supporters bringing the fact that knives could kill as much as a kalashnikov, are you all serious here? Stop being insane and think about what you just said, war weapons are way more deadly than just knives, it took 1 hour for the police to stop the terrorists in the Bataclan and secure it, why? Because they were trained (they fought for 2 years in Syria) and HEAVILY ARMED, what do you think, hundreds of people wounded and killed during a concert, you really believe 2 guys with knives could commit this massacre?

On the other hand we know how deadly guns are, when used by mad civilians, here a "small list" of shootings (only in schools, just reminding since 2013, 160 school shootings occured):

* 9 killed - June 17, 2015 - Dylann Roof, 21, shoots and kills nine people inside the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Charleston, South Carolina. Eight die at the scene; a ninth dies at a hospital. Roof is arrested the following day; according to police, he confesses and tells investigators he wanted to start a race war.

* 12 killed - September 16, 2013 - Shots are fired inside the Washington Navy Yard killing 12. The shooter, identified as Aaron Alexis, 34, is also killed.

* 12 killed - July 20, 2012 - Twelve people are killed and 58 are wounded in a shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater screening of the new Batman film. James E. Holmes, 24, is taken into custody outside of the movie theater. The gunman, dressed head-to-toe in protective tactical gear, set off two devices of some kind before spraying the theater with bullets from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene.

* 27 killed - December 14, 2012 - Sandy Hook Elementary School - Newtown, Connecticut. Adam Lanza, 20, guns down 20 children, ages six and seven, and six adults, school staff and faculty, before turning the gun on himself. Investigating police later find Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, dead from a gunshot wound. The final count is 28 dead, including the shooter.

* 8 killed - October 12, 2011 - Eight people are killed during a shooting at the Salon Meritage in Seal Beach, California. The suspect, Scott Evans Dekraai, 41, of Huntington Beach, is arrested without incident as he is trying to leave the scene. The eight dead include Dekraai's ex-wife, Michelle Fournier, 48. He was armed with three guns -- a 9 mm Springfield, a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum, and a Heckler & Koch .45 -- and was wearing body armor during the shooting rampage.

* 8 killed - August 3, 2010 - Manchester, Connecticut - Omar Thornton kills eight co-workers at Hartford Distributors before turning the gun on himself. Thornton had been asked to resign for stealing and selling alcoholic beverages.

* 13 killed - November 5, 2009 - Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13 people and injures 32 at Fort Hood, Texas, during a shooting rampage. He is convicted and sentenced to death.

* 13 killed - April 3, 2009 - In Binghamton, New York, Jiverly Wong kills 13 people and injures four during a shooting at an immigrant community center. He then kills himself

Edited 11/18/2015 10:37:55

Off Topic and important news!

Currently another assault is occuring near Paris, in Saint Denis with a squad composed of the army and elite police officers (RAID and GIGN) they already shot 2 terrorists including a kamikaze woman trying to explode herself, and arrested 3 other people.
No civilian casualities fortunately, the entire town of Saint Denis is now closed with thousands of police officers and soldiers, good luck for them, we trust in you! :)

Edited 11/18/2015 10:27:32

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/18/paris-attacks-police-hunt-ninth-suspect-as-germany-on-alert-after-hanover-bomb-threat-live

Alright Eklipse, here we go.

Let's go over your post:

the enemy is a group of trained killers wielding Kalashnikov assault rifles, and you're just a panicked civilian with a handgun.

And that's somehow worse than being a panicked civilian with no defense at all?

Roughly 33,000 people die in America annually due to guns. (Yes, this figure includes suicides, accidental deaths n stuff, the important part is the gun, not the cause)

Would the death toll really be lowered by banning/restricted guns? All the things you mentioned can easily be carried out by other means. Knives can be involved with suicide and mass killings. One can rig up an explosive using legal chemicals.

I really don't understand why so many people would rather be totally helpless than have guns. Armed citizens won't always prevent tragedies, but they can give the common folk a CHANCE, and that's better than nothing.

"And that's somehow worse than being a panicked civilian with no defense at all?"
Yes, because that's what the topic is about. The sole purpose of the topic is to prove to you that arming citizens is a bad idea, despite the possible short-term gain. Either lose 120 in an occasional terrorist attack, or lose 5,000 every year to guns.

"Would the death toll really be lowered by banning/restricted guns? All the things you mentioned can easily be carried out by other means. Knives can be involved with suicide and mass killings. One can rig up an explosive using legal chemicals."
Bombs were also used during the terrorist attacks. They did not kill nearly as people. However that is something we will see more in terrorist attack rather than school attacks by some insane guy.
As for knifes, please refer to Angry Panda's post:

Also for gun supporters bringing the fact that knives could kill as much as a kalashnikov, are you all serious here? Stop being insane and think about what you just said, war weapons are way more deadly than just knives, it took 1 hour for the police to stop the terrorists in the Bataclan and secure it, why? Because they were trained (they fought for 2 years in Syria) and HEAVILY ARMED, what do you think, hundreds of people wounded and killed during a concert, you really believe 2 guys with knives could commit this massacre?

"I really don't understand why so many people would rather be totally helpless than have guns. Armed citizens won't always prevent tragedies, but they can give the common folk a CHANCE, and that's better than nothing."
I'm not refuting that armed citizens could MAYBE help stop an ongoing terrorist attack.
But the long-term effect of having armed citizens is not worth it. As I keep trying to tell you.

Yes, which proves that when deprived of guns people will find other means to kill. It's pretty darn easy to carry out attacks against UNARMED civilians. Whenever your target is defenseless you could commit murder with a CLUB. Of course, you're going to dismiss this point as "bullshit" because it runs counter to your agenda. I understand, don't worry.

Don't worry, I understand you're going to keep spewing the same shit over and over again instead of directly refuting any of the points made against you.

I'm pretty sure the situation Lawlz is referring to would involve far more than a handful of citizens. Plus, you entirely missed the point of his picture. This "Oh, we'd just fail anyways so why even bother?" is a stupid attitude.

Is it?
Please read:

Realistically, if the US ever became a dictatorship which controlled the military's purse-strings, which is the most likely scenario of course, then the civilians would have zero chance against the gov't with their puny civilian grade armaments. A couple of tanks or helicopters against 100s or even 1000s of guys with even fully automatic rifles would be more than enough to quell them.

Besides, I guarantee you that most of the gun nuts of today would be the ones on the side of the dictatorship in the first place. They are far more politically right-wing, authoritarian, totalitarian, blind-faith patriotism bordering on nationalism than any of the folks of the American Revolution.

Also +1 to Thomas, wct, Angry Panda

I can't remember if this has been covered, but...
if I was a gunman, and I had unarmed hostages, I wouldn't kill them. I can use them to ransom things like buses and a plane ticket to (insert poor country).
If my opponents had handguns, I'd shoot them without mercy, knowing at least one would manage to hide their gun as the fighting broke out and would shoot me later.

Wanna know why people need guns?

Because they're too fucking stupid to use what they have around them. Everything, literally everything is a weapon. The only difference is how fast it would take me to kill you with my laptop, than it would be with the .22 revolver at my hip.

Kill someone with a spoon...