In the United States, Knives, Fists, and Feet are More Dangerous Than Rifles

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Well, years of over funding in military matters, and underfunding of programs for health, education, lack of support for those suffering mental illness as a result of the wars that have reaped so much money from the taxpayer in America... It's all added up. Many places which house the mentally ill are having to close, it's becoming rarer and rarer to see new facilities opening up, the ones that do cannot do more than remove a drop from a river.

And yet, Sandy Hook, the theatre massacre involving that Joker wannabe, and many others from right around that time were entirely down not to ease of gun availability, but down to persons who should not have been walking around in public, being allowed to slip through the cracks for no good reason, particularly in the case of the fellow who committed the Sandy Hook atrocity. The guy was even on the mental health radar, but it wasn't enough, because the systems in place to deal with that sort of threat are underfunded and have been since war became a money spinner, rather than an unfortunate necessity.

My guns never shot at anything living or biological. My fists swung a few times though

Its our rights.
What else will they take away for our own good?

Solutions never come in the form of bans, or prohibitions. Never.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

sir, I don't really take you seriously ever since I witnessed you repeatedly allude in various medical and drug threads that we should legalize all drugs. Legalize all drugs, but ban guns?? Sure buddy, that makes sense.

My op was based on renewed calls to ban "assault type" weapons and "assault rifles" . These definitions unfortunately are based on the ignorant identifying mostly cosmetic features as a threat to the population.

Shotguns and handguns do kill more people though. And it is more often criminals killing criminals, or people exercising self defense.

I prefer that we retain lower rates of violent crimes, unlike Australia and many of the states in Europe in which gun ownership and the right to self defense is severely regulated or restricted and lead to higher rates of violent crimes. I suppose it is ok that more rapes, robberies and assaults occur as long as scary guns go bye bye.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Why are you comparing bare handed and knives to a type of gun? Why not compare bare handed and knives to just guns in general? Oh wait that would blow your narrative out of the water wouldn't it?

This whole thread is abusing statistical analysis to try to make it look like rifles are less harmful than knives and fists then use that evidence to argue that guns are less harmful than knives or fists. Propaganda detected...

I think you missed another point. They (they being Obama) are talking about banning assault rifles. Not fists, not glock pistols, not dirty socks, assault rifles. Never mind they aren't smart enough to understand that term. I think you need to pay attention a bit better.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So you mean to say you can show us a example where one man has walked into a night club and killed 50 people with his bare hands???

wow ok then.

ohhhh wait now this is just that stupid argument guns vs knifes again isnt it?

www.cnn.com...

Is the magic number 50 now?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Separate thread but there are 3 300 000 muslims in America or 1 per cent of the population 350,000 of them are in the prison system or 20 per cent of that population where they recruit about 40,000 per year...yes theres an issue there with these people having access to weapons also

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So you mean to say you can show us a example where one man has walked into a night club and killed 50 people with his bare hands???

wow ok then.

ohhhh wait now this is just that stupid argument guns vs knifes again isnt it?

www.cnn.com...

Is the magic number 50 now?

That was 29 with a knife and I did say with bare hands.

Also I could show you probably 10 mass shootings in America over the last decade where 10s have died how many can u show me where knifes have been involved......

People don't really mass murder/massacre people with their fists and feet, now do they?

Considering how many of the mass killings involve firearms (most?), your premise is faulty.

Nice try.

**Disclaimer: I am not advocating banning guns, just showing the flaw in your argument.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

#BanFists #BanFeet #OnlyButterKnifes

It's never the object, it's always the person with the object... If person isn't deranged, then object will never be used as weapon...

a reply to: AmericanRealist

You are correct, however...

Total murders= 11,961
Total firearms= 8,124
Handguns= 5,562
Rifles= 248
Shotguns= 262
Firearms (type unknown)= 2,052
Knives or cutting instruments= 1,567
Other weapons"= 1,610
Hands, fists, feet, etc.2= 660

Source FBI Uniform Crime reports, 2014.

So guns are really still "King of the Murders" here in the USA.

We've all always known this. The statistics are always avaliable, people just choose to ignore it because that doesn't fit their agenda.


Willfull ignorance

If the government could ban/restrict/license fists and knives they would. They'll probably be next once they finally get their no (legal) gun utopia.

Oh, when will our government do the right thing and pass sensible regulations on fists and feet?

No person needs assaults fists..... well, except law enforcement officials.

a reply to: khnum

I never really been on the blame Islamic terrorism bandwagon, but I certainly recognize the threat potential. I do believe regular people, those who falsely identify as Christian, or those even who identify as Atheist have killed more people in America than Muslims have. This is the case every year actually.

However we should be focusing more on the connections G4S, the UN, and Bilderberg has to these events. They will utilize Islamic terrorists to further their gun control agendas.

Mass shootings are horrific and similar to airplane crashes. People freak out because large numbers of people die at one time, but in aggregate both are extremely rare. No one would every say we should ban airplanes because one plane crashed and 100 people died.

I find it telling that the gun grabbers won't acknowledge the fact that semi-auto rifles barely register as a statistic when it comes to murder weapons yet that is the one gun they want to ban. While I'd never support it, I'd actually have more respect for their position if they were trying to ban handguns as these the true weapon of thugs and mass murders being responsible for probably 95% of all gun deaths.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So you mean to say you can show us a example where one man has walked into a night club and killed 50 people with his bare hands???

wow ok then.

ohhhh wait now this is just that stupid argument guns vs knifes again isnt it?

www.cnn.com...

Is the magic number 50 now?

That was 29 with a knife and I did say with bare hands.

Also I could show you probably 10 mass shootings in America over the last decade where 10s have died how many can u show me where knifes have been involved......

Are those goal posts heavy? you could get some help moving them.

Bad people do bad things. As the example I offered, a bad guy killed 30 people and wounded 130 others. Why did he do that? was it becasue the knife was easily accessible? I'd like you to answer this without emotional attachment, think about it for a minute. Is it possible this guy did this becasue he was........nuts? I am not certain, but I know quite a few sane folks and none of them ever killed 30 people. I have more than 1 gun, I even own at least 1 AR-15. Yet I have not killed anyone. How on Earth is that possible?

You guys make your fish and chips all wrong. We have much better over here.

originally posted by: Rapha

Fists

Maybe this is why guns were given the alias 'Arms'.

So when men are left with their fists on their flesh arms, the elite will ban their fleshy 'arms' as well.

This is why it is set that the Mark of the Beast will function in the forehead because when the elite remove everymans arms, there is only the head left.

"Arms", or "armament" is derived from "armare", Latin for essentially, to furnish with weapons, with derivations equivalent to any equipment meant or used for resistance.

Knives, baseball bats, bombs, spoons, forks... all are "arms", as in they can be used as weapons to attack or resist attacks.

The "beast" will try to convince me to, or demand by force I, give up my "arms", my weapons of self defense.

originally posted by: paradoxious

The "beast" will try to convince me to, or demand by force I, give up my "arms", my weapons of self defense.

Forgot to say: My MIND will resist all attempts to do so.

a reply to: jjkenobi

I am sure that some professional fighters' hands and feet are considered
weapons.
They will never get our guns without a lot of bloodshed.I will never give
up mine.Any gun confiscation would result in some type of civil war.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

sir, I don't really take you seriously ever since I witnessed you repeatedly allude in various medical and drug threads that we should legalize all drugs. Legalize all drugs, but ban guns?? Sure buddy, that makes sense.

For one, what's wrong with legalizing drugs? For two, my position on guns in ATS is purposely kept vague. I have at no point came out in favor of banning guns. At the MOST I've been in favor of increased restrictions on them. For three, because you have the gall to say this idiocy to my face, I don't take you seriously anymore either.

My op was based on renewed calls to ban "assault type" weapons and "assault rifles" . These definitions unfortunately are based on the ignorant identifying mostly cosmetic features as a threat to the population.

Shotguns and handguns do kill more people though. And it is more often criminals killing criminals, or people exercising self defense.

I prefer that we retain lower rates of violent crimes, unlike Australia and many of the states in Europe in which gun ownership and the right to self defense is severely regulated or restricted and lead to higher rates of violent crimes. I suppose it is ok that more rapes, robberies and assaults occur as long as scary guns go bye bye.

I think that there is nothing wrong with having a frank conversation about guns, gun ownership, and gun purchasing that will lead to all parties happy. A happy middle ground so to speak. Gun owners would be able to keep their guns and people worried about guns would feel safer. Unfortunately every time someone starts talking about restricting gun purchasing or even hinting at gun measures the right starts yelling and screaming that the government is coming for their guns. Yet no one has uttered the phrase "gun ban" in a serious context in decades.

But then again you don't take me seriously anyways. So why am I even responding to you? Your bias against me already clouds your sound judgement in this conversation.