Anti-gun activist killed . . . with a knife. [Archive]

Funkula

06-06-2008, 06:54 PM

This sounds horrible, but thank goodness she wasn't shot. It'll keep anyone on her side of the issue from exploiting her death to further their own agenda.

This would be a more accurate statement.

Jason McCullough

06-06-2008, 07:14 PM

The important question for both sides is if it really did take longer, as is often discussed, to kill her with the knife.

Anti-Bunny

06-06-2008, 07:42 PM

This would be a more accurate statement.

No, both sides would try. It always happens that way.

Rollory

06-06-2008, 08:31 PM

Where's Rollory to cackle about this when we need him?

You don't need me anymore. Recognizing that someone thinks this is funny is the first step to truly perceiving the humor in the situation yourself.

When you're ready, come to the dark side, son. I'll be waiting.

Funkula

06-06-2008, 08:35 PM

Oh shit, I know about Darfur too! Someone stop me before I commit genocide!

Anti-Bunny

06-08-2008, 02:22 PM

On that note...

Some guy in Japan just went on a suicidal rampage with a knife and killed seven people (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4089998.ece).

Yes, the only rational response is to ban all sharp and pointy things.

Kraaze

06-08-2008, 02:27 PM

The fact that it was Japan's worst murder rampage ever and still only had seven fatalities says something about the efficacy of gun control laws I think.

Anti-Bunny

06-08-2008, 02:45 PM

The fact that it was Japan's worst murder rampage ever and still only had seven fatalities says something about the efficacy of gun control laws I think.

Except, it wasn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuyama_massacre) Also, you're wrong.

Kraaze

06-08-2008, 02:45 PM

Ryan A

06-08-2008, 03:08 PM

Dude, the story you yourself linked said it was, so don't get on my case about not fact checking your links.

Also, the massacre you linked to on wikipedia wasn't a random rampage, it was a planned series of killings. And it involved a gun. Yet another argument for gun laws.

You're pretty much the epitome of a mindless intertard idealogue pedant if you're going to try to parse the Tsuyama massacre as a different type of "murder rampage" based on the level of planning involved.

I'm all for regulating firearm sales in America, but am sick to death of the annoying anti-gun types that point to Japan as an exemplar of gun control. It's a different culture, so comparisons of crime rates and gun laws are irrelevant at best.

Anti-Bunny

06-08-2008, 03:16 PM

Dude, the story you yourself linked said it was, so don't get on my case about not fact checking your links.
Dude, I'm not getting on your case, I'm just correcting you where you're wrong.

Also, the massacre you linked to on wikipedia wasn't a random rampage, it was a planned series of killings. And it involved a gun. Yet another argument for gun laws.
Or maybe you're comparing apples with oranges? It's rarer in Japan because most Japanese who snap kill themselves due to different cultural imprinting, and because suicide has a long and somewhat honorable history there. Additionally, Japan has extremely low crime statistics, a history of extensive police authority and a government with limitless power and a mandate to do whatever it wants all the time whenever it feels like it, making gun violence pretty rare.

My point was that society shouldn't look at a single freak incident and try to extrapolate from that far reaching laws that affects every individual. But hey, that didn't stop you! Let's ban making fun of people on the internet, too!

Tankero

06-08-2008, 03:27 PM

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyakuza?

Kraaze

06-08-2008, 07:54 PM

You're pretty much the epitome of a mindless intertard idealogue pedant if you're going to try to parse the Tsuyama massacre as a different type of "murder rampage" based on the level of planning involved.

I'm not trying any fancy parsing, though perhaps I'm not using the best terms. There is a fundamental difference between a situation where a nutcase goes somewhere public and starts killing people and a situation where someone commits a lot of planned murders. The former is the situation you want gun controls in effect for, the latter it wouldn't make much difference.

Kraaze

06-08-2008, 07:58 PM

Dude, I'm not getting on your case, I'm just correcting you where you're wrong.

I was just saying what was in your link, so you are correcting yourself. Thank you for the correction though, duly noted.

My point was that society shouldn't look at a single freak incident and try to extrapolate from that far reaching laws that affects every individual. But hey, that didn't stop you! Let's ban making fun of people on the internet, too!

Err, when did I do that? You really need to stop reading more into what I say that what is actually, you know, there.

Ryan A

06-08-2008, 08:16 PM

I'm not trying any fancy parsing, though perhaps I'm not using the best terms. There is a fundamental difference between a situation where a nutcase goes somewhere public and starts killing people and a situation where someone commits a lot of planned murders. The former is the situation you want gun controls in effect for, the latter it wouldn't make much difference.

In the case of the Columbine school shootings, better regulation of firearm sales and distribution could have prevented the killers from getting their hands on automatic weapons. I don't know the details of how that piece of crap that did the West Virginia shootings got his gun, but that would be another example of a pre-planned shooting spree that stricter gun control could have mitigated or maybe even prevented.

Sarkus

06-08-2008, 10:36 PM

In the case of the Columbine school shootings, better regulation of firearm sales and distribution could have prevented the killers from getting their hands on automatic weapons. I don't know the details of how that piece of crap that did the West Virginia shootings got his gun, but that would be another example of a pre-planned shooting spree that stricter gun control could have mitigated or maybe even prevented.

I'm not sure better regulation would have solved anything at Columbine. Didn't those kids get all their weapons illegally? And I know for a fact that a school shooting in Oregon a few years before involved guns the kids parents had bought for him.

If you want to shut down general gun ownership just say so, but don't pretend that a few more laws are going to solve things. We have plenty of laws, we just aren't enforcing them well enough.

Not One Of Us

06-08-2008, 11:37 PM

Ryan A

06-09-2008, 04:16 PM

None of the weapons they used were automatics. Some of the weapons were purchased illegally.

Maybe I meant semi-automatic? All I know is their guns could shoot lots of bullets very quickly.

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 04:24 PM

Maybe I meant semi-automatic? All I know is their guns could shoot lots of bullets very quickly.

So... what are you recommending? If you define semi-automatic as "one pull of the trigger = one bullet fired until the gun is empty", then nearly all guns sold today are semi-automatics.. The only other type of guns in production for civilians are bolt-action and pump shotguns.. You're basically saying no gun technology invented since 1885.

Edit: I forgot lever-action rifles, which are still awesome and available.

Anaxagoras

06-09-2008, 04:31 PM

You're basically saying no gun technology invented since 1885.

Are you saying the idea of a bunch of gangs using Old-Timey Colt .45's isn't awesome?

Because man... if I'm going to die in a firefight, I want it to be one with a bunch of antique weapons. Go out in style.

Ryan A

06-09-2008, 04:31 PM

You're basically saying no gun technology invented since 1885.

I don't think I've actually advocated banning any guns at all.

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 04:42 PM

Are you saying the idea of a bunch of gangs using Old-Timey Colt .45's isn't awesome?

Because man... if I'm going to die in a firefight, I want it to be one with a bunch of antique weapons. Go out in style.

Yes, it's awesome, but why would they buy the old-timey guns at the gun store, given other (and also illegal) options? Gang bangers don't shop at the gun store in the first place.

Funkula

06-09-2008, 04:45 PM

So... what are you recommending? If you define semi-automatic as "one pull of the trigger = one bullet fired until the gun is empty", then nearly all guns sold today are semi-automatics.. The only other type of guns in production for civilians are bolt-action and pump shotguns.. You're basically saying no gun technology invented since 1885.

Edit: I forgot lever-action rifles, which are still awesome and available.

Do modern revolvers pull the hammer back via the trigger, or do you have to cock them? I've only ever shot clip-fed pistols so I don't really know.

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 04:48 PM

Do modern revolvers pull the hammer back via the trigger, or do you have to cock them? I've only ever shot clip-fed pistols so I don't really know.

Yes, since 1851 (sorry, correction on my earlier date there), revolvers have been 'double action', which means that the trigger will both cock the hammer and release.

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 05:15 PM

I don't think I've actually advocated banning any guns at all.

Sorry, correct, you said 'better regulation of firearm sales and distribution'. However, the columbine kids had broken over two dozen local, state, and federal laws before they even showed up on campus... So, I do not think more regulations would've stopped it, the laws are already on the books.

Ryan A

06-09-2008, 05:27 PM

Sorry, correct, you said 'better regulation of firearm sales and distribution'. However, the columbine kids had broken over two dozen local, state, and federal laws before they even showed up on campus... So, I do not think more regulations would've stopped it, the laws are already on the books.

According to this (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm), better regulation of firearm sales would have kept three out of the four guns used out of the Columbine killers' hands.

Machfive

06-09-2008, 05:41 PM

The fact that there are so many people who honestly don't understand what "semi-automatic" means both shocks and astounds me.

Sarkus

06-09-2008, 05:41 PM

According to this (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm), better regulation of firearm sales would have kept three out of the four guns used out of the Columbine killers' hands.

Where does it say that? What I see is another article supporting what I and Anti-Bunny already said, which is that they got the guns because the laws weren't enforced, not because there needed to be more laws.

The one guy illegally bought two of the guns for them. The other guy illegally sold them a third gun. Note that it was already illegal. In other words, the regulations were already in place. We don't need better regulation of firearm sales, we need better enforcement of the existing regulations that cover firearm sales.

You can write all the laws you want but that doesn't mean anything if no one is out there enforcing them.

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 05:52 PM

According to this (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm),

Wow.. According to the Violence Policy Center, a TOTALLY non-biased and impartial source of policy recommendations... For extra hilarity, they call it an 'Assault Pistol'.

better regulation of firearm sales would have kept three out of the four guns used out of the Columbine killers' hands.
Come on, Ryan. You're being silly here. The VPC's argument here is that gun-shows should be shutdown, which is completely ridiculous. They hate them because they're high visibility, popular events where lots and lots of people can get together and enjoy a hobby the VPC disapproves of.

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 06:06 PM

The one guy illegally bought two of the guns for them. The other guy illegally sold them a third gun. Note that it was already illegal. In other words, the regulations were already in place. We don't need better regulation of firearm sales, we need better enforcement of the existing regulations that cover firearm sales.

Actually, I am not sure the first three (hi-point pistol and two shotguns) purchases from the gun show are illegal (in that state). Giving the gifts of guns (in that state) isn't illegal, even to someone under 18 (in that state), either, AFAIK.

Tankero

06-09-2008, 06:10 PM

Come on, Ryan. You're being silly here. The VPC's argument here is that gun-shows should be shutdown, which is completely ridiculous. They hate them because they're high visibility, popular events where lots and lots of people can get together and enjoy a hobby the VPC disapproves of.

Aside from, you know, being a major venue for unregulated and often illegal weapons trafficking (in a small scale, albeit).

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 06:22 PM

Aside from, you know, being a major venue for unregulated and often illegal weapons trafficking (in a small scale, albeit).

Being unregulated doesn't make it illegal. In fact, that's pretty much a contradiction.

Secondly, "major venue"?

Edit: I looked it up. About 10% of the guns used in crimes come from gun shows. So, yeah, a real major venue....

Funkula

06-09-2008, 07:25 PM

Wow.. According to the Violence Policy Center, a TOTALLY non-biased and impartial source of policy recommendations... For extra hilarity, they call it an 'Assault Pistol'.

I can't blame them too much for referring to it as such, since it's adapted from a submachine gun, has full auto variants, and looks like this:

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/777/intratectec9vh2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

On the other hand, I do think that overusing the assault designation makes it harder to take regulation advocates seriously. In particular, there's one writer I really like who spends most of his time covering white supremacist and nativist movements in the Pacific Northwest, but consistently refers to "assault-style rifles." I can't think of a phrasing that undermines his authority on the subject better than that, other than maybe "scary loud guns."

Trashcan

06-09-2008, 07:36 PM

In particular, there's one writer I really like who spends most of his time covering white supremacist and nativist movements in the Pacific Northwest

Orcinus?

Funkula

06-09-2008, 07:40 PM

Yup, aka David Neiwert. I recently found his book about the Patriot movement (In God's Country) at my library. Cool, since it apparently didn't have a lot of copies printed, but also sad, because it was filed literally right next to Black Helicopters and Black Helicopters II. That was where he kept using "assault-style rifles" and it bugged the shit out of me.

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 07:40 PM

Yes, I think I've stated before that what a gun looks like isn't a good way to approach it for legislation....
http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/9886/duracoatpinkarsightovereq0.jpg

Also, 'assault' is a matter of functionality. If it doesn't have a select fire switch on it that moves from semi-automatic to burst or automatic fire, it's not an assault weapon.

Funkula

06-09-2008, 07:48 PM

Somewhat true, although there's an argument to be made that pistol grips, forward grips, expanded clips, and collapsible stocks (as well as various modifications that I'm no doubt forgetting) are as important in classifying assault weapons. Also, I'm not entirely sure that looks can be ignored. If you're talking about a massacre, a situation where one person is causing havoc and confusion in a crowded area, I'd think more people would be likely to panic if they saw him brandishing an M16, regardless of whether it's firing single shots or bursts, than if he had a semi-auto hunting rifle. The more panic is sowed, the higher the damage is likely to be.

Anti-Bunny

06-09-2008, 08:03 PM

Somewhat true, although there's an argument to be made that pistol grips, forward grips, expanded clips, and collapsible stocks (as well as various modifications that I'm no doubt forgetting) are as important in classifying assault weapons. Also, I'm not entirely sure that looks can be ignored.
Uhm, no. I just explained to you what an assault weapon is, you're getting ridiculous here. This isn't something to be debated, the phrase "assault rifle" has a very specific and limited definition.