Knife Control Legislation

[Guest]

Many people have been saying that guns are not the cause of violence, people are. If someone intends to do harm to others, they will always find a way to do it. If they can’t get a gun, they’ll use knives, bombs, poison, baseball bats and a whole list of other items that could be used.

Timothy McVeigh had access to guns, but chose to use a massive truck bomb to commit the greatest act of domestic terrorism in our nation’s history. A number of Muslim extremists also use bombs, including ones strapped to their bodies to kill others. In World War I, poison gasses were used to kill thousands of soldiers.

In countries that have already banned most private ownership of guns, they still have mass killings and violent attacks. Last December, 36 year old Min Yingjun carried out an act of violence on a Chinese primary school. By the end of his rampage, he had stabbed 22 children and one adult. In April of 2010, 47 year old Xu Yuyuan attacked a Chinese kindergarten, stabbing 28 kids. The day before this attack, 33 year old Chen Kangbing stabbed 15 fourth and fifth graders at another Chinese school. In March of 2010, 42 year old Zheng Minsheng stabbed and killed 8 primary school kids at yet another Chinese school.

In the wake of all of the mass shootings in our country over the past few years, it seems that someone followed the lessons learned from China and went on a stabbing spree on Tuesday. Dylan Quick, 20 years of age, entered the CyFair campus of Lone Star College and began wielding a utility razor knife. When he was finally subdued, 14 people were injured. After his capture, Quick told authorities that he has fantasizing about stabbing people from the time he was 8 years old and that he had been planning and looking forward to Tuesday’s stabbings for quite some time.

Now I’m waiting for President Obama to quickly introduce knife control legislation, calling for a ban on all utility razor knives, including those equipped with more than two extra blades. Every store stocking clerk and warehouse worker has to be worried about Obama’s anti-knife legislation as it will make their jobs a lot more difficult, but hey, knifes kill, right?

This just goes to prove that all of the anti-gun legislation is not about guns and it won’t stop the violence. It’s an agenda that spells disaster for our freedoms and our nation’s future and must be stopped at all costs!

video:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/10328/texas-college-stabbings-prove-guns-arent-the-problem/

[Planey]

Knives:

Min Yingjun: None of the victims were fatally wounded.

Xu Yuyuan the state agency did not mention any deaths, only that 29 children and three adults were injured.

Chen Kangbing wounded 16 students and a teacher.

Guns:

January 17, 1989: Stockton, California, Cleveland School massacre. Patrick Edward Purdy, 26, killing five children and wounding 29 other students and a teacher.

April 20, 1999: Columbine, Colorado - Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, killed 12 students and one teacher, and wounded 21 others.

March 21, 2005 Red Lake, Minnesota - Jeff Weise shot and killed five students and one teacher.

October 2, 2006 Charles Carl Roberts IV shot to death five Amish girls and wounded five others.

April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech massacre: - Seung-Hui Cho, age 23, shot and killed 32 students and faculty members, and wounded another 17 students and faculty members.

December 14, 2012 Adam Lanza, aged 20, killed 26 people and himself at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. According to the state's chief medical examiner all of the victims were shot between 3 and 11 times.

Graeme

[Guest]

You obviously haven't heard about the incident two days ago here in the states. And you are missing the point. If someone wants to do violence, they don't need a gun. It is not the weapon that does the violence, it is the person.

[Guest]

Liberals.

People who automatically think along liberal political lines are astounding to me. Even though I realize that is the way they were raised and taught to think, through no fault of their own.

It's all such basic common sense when you strip away the propaganda, and the indoctrination. The fact that it (common sense) doesn't rise to the surface on it's own, simply because of what one has been taught, just blows me away.

[Planey]

And you are missing the point. If someone wants to do violence, they don't need a gun. It is not the weapon that does the violence, it is the person.

No I don't think I am missing the point.

Obviously if someone wants to do violence, it will be less likely to be fatal on a large scale if they are armed with a knife rather than a military-scale assault rifle.

Graeme

[phkrause]

No I don't think I am missing the point.

Obviously if someone wants to do violence, it will be less likely to be fatal on a large scale if they are armed with a knife rather than a military-scale assault rifle.

Graeme

Great post, I got your point right of the bat. Just looking at the ad and reading it, your point came right across, I had a good laugh, actually a little more than the original post, which I thought was pretty funny in and of itself. Again great post Planey.

[joeb]

The only reason there aren't more deaths from knife attacks is because of the knife chosen. Let one of these idiots choose to use something like a razor sharp bowie knife with a 10 or 12 inch blade, or a 24-30 inch long Japanese style sword, and there will be a lot of fatalities.

So far it's only the luck of the draw that's prevented a lot of fatalities.

[lazarus]

The only reason there aren't more deaths from knife attacks is because of the knife chosen. Let one of these idiots choose to use something like a razor sharp bowie knife with a 10 or 12 inch blade, or a 24-30 inch long Japanese style sword, and there will be a lot of fatalities.

If we follow your reasoning the armies across the world should ditch their m16's and get 30 inch long knives. The point is that automatic riles are more efficient killing machines than knives.

[Guest]

The real point is this Graeme, my new friend from down under:

"Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin

____________________

"And will end up losing both"

Richard Lee Holbrook

[Guest]

. The point is that automatic riles are more efficient killing machines than knives.

So what? Not much of a point at all. The question is, how does disarming the honest law abiding citizens help the matter in any way? IT DOESN'T!

The criminals are always going to have whatever guns they want. Making them illegal for the law abiders is just plain stupid.

[lazarus]

The criminals are always going to have whatever guns they want. Making them illegal for the law abiders is just plain stupid.

Are you saying that there should be no control over weapons at all? Should people be allowed to buy anything they want?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: RLH

The criminals are always going to have whatever guns they want. Making them illegal for the law abiders is just plain stupid.

Are you saying that there should be no control over weapons at all? Should people be allowed to buy anything they want?

If the person qualifies as a law abiding citizen, why not? As long as it's not nuclear. The nuke weapons ought to be in the hands of the gov't only.

[lazarus]

If the person qualifies as a law abiding citizen, why not? As long as it's not nuclear. The nuke weapons ought to be in the hands of the gov't only.

Why stop at nukes? People should be able to defend themselves against the government. The government has nukes. If people had nukes then there would be mutually assured destruction. It worked during the cold war, right?

You would allow SAM's, rocket launchers, C4, biological weapons, tanks, mortars, cruise missiles etc?

[Guest]

Those things are pretty hard to get Laz. I don't think you have to worry about tanks or cruise missiles showing up in the hood any time soon.

If this is your argument for gun control, then you have no argument.

[lazarus]

Those things are pretty hard to get Laz.

Those things are hard to get because there are strict controls. Surely you agree that ordinary people should not access to SAM's?

[Guest]

Those things are hard to get because there are strict controls.

Exactly. And since military weapons of mass destruction are already controlled, they have no place in the gun control debate. But people like you will go there anyway, because you have no place else to go. But it doesn't make you look any smarter when you do.

[lazarus]

Exactly. And since military weapons of mass destruction are already controlled, they have no place in the gun control debate. But people like you will go there anyway, because you have no place else to go. But it doesn't make you look any smarter when you do.

So you are saying that Americans should only be allowed to defend themselves with guns? Why?