Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

[Beefbisquit]

Best to do raw feed. Why quote a newspaper when the next link is the source? Newspapers Lie.

Just because the information has been compiled, doesn't mean it's inaccurate. The 'Wall Street Journal' is a trusted news source, and has no reason to falsify FBI records. They provided links to their sources for verification. This isn't an opinion piece.

I know how to cite proper sources, I did it for my undergrad extensively.

 

[Doer]

Oh no doubt. And rocks are way down there, but there indeed.

So, the argument is that no guns no murder. Or less guns less murder. But, if you show the pattern as I did over the years, all murder is decline as gun ownership through the roof. And we have been in the deepest jobless recovery ever.

So, that is a real fact, is it not?

 

[Doer]

Just because the information has been compiled, doesn't mean it's inaccurate. The 'Wall Street Journal' is a trusted news source, and has no reason to falsify FBI records. They provided links to their sources for verification. This isn't an opinion piece.

I know how to cite proper sources, I did it for my undergrad extensively.

Did you check the USA today story. Nothing accurate about the FBI records either. But, the FBI is not selling advertising and the newspapers are.

That's a fact, is it not?

 

[Doer]

Are you telling me for undergrad a newspaper is an accepted source of reference?

What was it, journalism?

 

[Beefbisquit]

Oh no doubt. And rocks are way down there, but there indeed.

So, the argument is that no guns no murder. Or less guns less murder. But, if you show the pattern as I did over the years, all murder is decline as gun ownership through the roof. And we have been in the deepest jobless recovery ever.

So, that is a real fact, is it not?

Rocks might be under blunt objects.

By default, if there were less guns, there would be less deaths from guns. That's common sense.

There would most likely need to be less illegal guns to stop/halt/slow gun murder.

There's no question that gun homicides have shown a decline since 1993, the last peak. Those are facts.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Are you telling me for undergrad a newspaper is an accepted source of reference?

What was it, journalism?

The Wall Street Journal Database that in this case, is using information form the FBI is an acceptable source.

Philosophy actually. Using bad sources, or in other words, exercising bad critical thinking skills, is definitely frowned upon when attaining a Phil degree.

 

[Harrekin]

Rocks might be under blunt objects.

By default, if there were less guns, there would be less deaths from guns. That's common sense.

There would most likely need to be less illegal guns to stop/halt/slow gun murder.

There's no question that gun homicides have shown a decline since 1993, the last peak. Those are facts.

Not necessarily correct, we have one of the lowest rates of private gun ownership on the planet, yet gun murders account for a statistically high level of our homicide rate.

And when all armed violent crime is taken into account, our crime rate is similar to the US, just more people get stabbed, ran over (funnily enough only happened the other day, considering the conversation here a day or two ago about a "death-plow") or beaten to death.

From my experience...Id rather have a gun to shoot the guy with the weapon, but I don't have that option...unless they invade my home

 

[Doer]

The Wall Street Journal Database that in this case, is using information form the FBI is an acceptable source.

Philosophy actually. Using bad sources, or in other words, exercising bad critical thinking skills, is definitely frowned upon when attaining a Phil degree.

So, in Philo. you could use a newspaper as a source?

 

[Doer]

Rocks might be under blunt objects.

By default, if there were less guns, there would be less deaths from guns. That's common sense.

There would most likely need to be less illegal guns to stop/halt/slow gun murder.

There's no question that gun homicides have shown a decline since 1993, the last peak. Those are facts.

That isn't common sense. It is a logic fallacy. It is disproven by the fact in evidence.

Or are you trying to tell us, there are less guns and that is the less murders? No there are more gun and less murder.

Do you see the Pitard? Don't get hoisted.

 

[Beefbisquit]

That isn't common sense. It is a logic fallacy. It is disproven by the fact in evidence.

Or are you trying to tell us, there are less guns and that is the less murders? No there are more gun and less murder.

Do you see the Pitard? Don't get hoisted.

People will still murder one another regardless of if they are armed with guns or not. It's just more difficult to do so with other instruments (this means rocks too). No other weapon offers the same combination of benefits (again, this includes rocks).

If all guns, illegal and legal, were removed from society, would the gun death rate be higher or lower than it is currently? I don't advocate this, just trying to show how more guns = more gun deaths, not just homicides, but suicides and accidents as well.

If everyone in the USA was mandated to carry a firearm on their person at all times, the amount of accidental discharges would go up as a result. To assume that the % of accidental discharges per capita wouldn't change when the amount of guns per capita goes up, doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Doer]

Well, can't you stop dancing?

More guns less murder.

You blindly ignore the saves. You did not balk at 5x saves. And that is low. It is somewhere between 150K and 1000K saves per year, and that means saving the situation and for me that was always at least 5 people.

OK? That is a lot, and you will not even being to acknowledge the VAST importance of that. THAT IS WHY THIS FACT EXISTS IN THE FBI RECORDS:

More guns less murder.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Well, can't you stop dancing?

More guns less murder.

You blindly ignore the saves. You did not balk at 5x saves. And that is low. It is somewhere between 150K and 1000K saves per year, and that means saving the situation and for me that was always at least 5 people.

OK? That is a lot, and you will not even being to acknowledge the VAST importance of that. THAT IS WHY THIS FACT EXISTS IN THE FBI RECORDS:

More guns less murder.

You didn't answer my question.

If all guns, illegal and legal, were removed from society, would the gun death rate be higher or lower than it is currently?

Also, your 'more guns less murder' is only true of strictly legal guns. I think we can both agree the problem is illegal guns.

 

[Beefbisquit]

You'd have to figure out if the 'saves' were life threatening or not. If you want to count anytime a gun was used to stop anyone from doing anything illegal, than you need to count the times a gun was used to do anything illegal.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to know what 'could have' happened in regards to saves. If you want to count every save as a guaranteed life saved, you're not being honest.

If you want to look @ all 'saves' vs all gun murders and gun crimes, that's something we can look at.

Here's something interesting about stolen guns;

Overall, about 1.4 million guns, or an annual
average of 232,400, were stolen
during burglaries and other property
crimes in the six-year period from
2005 through 2010. Of these stolen
firearms, at least 80% (186,800) had
not been recovered at the time of the
National Crime Victimization Survey
(
NCVS) interview.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

 

[Doer]

No, no, no. Slow song, OK? Take it easy.

Saves are, saved from horror. I don't think it is complicated. Home invasion or assault defeats. OK? Your life is at stake? Intruders in the home. Assault. Defend. What is wrong that this seems so complicated?

And I guess you have seen no horror. It is Unmistakeable when it is happening, and though it is with the element of surprise against you, it can turn into slow sick fun, and not for you. I have been it it.

One time, I yelled SHOTGUN. It worked...barely. Gun save. Why do you resist absorbing this? Seriously, it is so simple.

 

[Ace Yonder]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/15/mass-killings-main/3821897/

Mass killing is not even tracked with 60% accuracy by the FBI. Make sure you watch the video
USA tdday, has no axe to grind

.............mass killings account for just 1% of all murders nationally.

It was a school based rampage with fire bombs, dynamite, etc in 1927.

Bath Consolidated School before the bombing
Location	Bath Township, Clinton County, Michigan, USA
Date	May 18, 1927
Target	Bath Consolidated School, house, farm and wife
Attack type	School bombing, mass murder, murder-suicide, suicide truck bombing, arson, uxoricide
Weapon(s)	Dynamite Pyrotol Firebombs Winchester Model 54 rifle
Deaths	45 total; 44 at the school (including the perpetrator) and the perpetrator's wife at home
Non-fatal injuries	58
Perpetrator	Andrew P. Kehoe
Motive	Revenge for defeat in local election Personal and financial stress

A gun was used in that attack, but you conveniently chose to include that in the "etc." part of your statement. But way to shoot down your own point (I made a pun, get it?)

Are you trying to say that there were not 8 people hacked by blades in the USA recently. It is part of immigrant angst murder syndrome. They kill their family with a cleaver or something.

I think you just need to consult Uncle Google. Guns are not the mass murder weapon of most death. Never have been.

Rampage killing by blade

there you go

Once again, you site no sources, and 8 people is nowhere near the death toll from single perp gun attacks. Also, not sure what kinda racist bullshit "Immigrant angst murder syndrome" is, but I don't see any cited sources, just another vague anecdote. Cite sources for your single perp, blade only massacre, and prove that the highest kill count from a single perp using only a blade come anywhere near close to the highest kill count by a single perp using a gun. Because your vague, racist garbage doesn't hold water. You are grasping for straws with the same reckless blindness with which you usually conduct yourself. I should have realized by now that your ignorance and stupidity are limitless and irreversible. But whatever, you've made it clear to everyone that you can't handle yourself in a real intellectual debate, so keep spewing your garbage to whoever is still willing to listen. Anyone with even a minor grasp on logic will see through it, but I suppose that's why you have to spend so much time vainly trying to give your point even the slightest shred of credence.

 

[NoDrama]

just another vague anecdote.

An anecdote is a short story about a real person. Do you see a story about a real person being given by Doer?

 

[Ace Yonder]

An anecdote is a short story about a real person. Do you see a story about a real person being given by Doer?

Well, supposedly he was referring to real people killing other real people, so yes. Or did you forget what I was referring to? If you're gonna be snippy about semantics, you should make sure you're correct first

 

[Doer]

A gun was used in that attack, but you conveniently chose to include that in the "etc." part of your statement. But way to shoot down your own point (I made a pun, get it?)


Once again, you site no sources, and 8 people is nowhere near the death toll from single perp gun attacks. Also, not sure what kinda racist bullshit "Immigrant angst murder syndrome" is, but I don't see any cited sources, just another vague anecdote. Cite sources for your single perp, blade only massacre, and prove that the highest kill count from a single perp using only a blade come anywhere near close to the highest kill count by a single perp using a gun. Because your vague, racist garbage doesn't hold water. You are grasping for straws with the same reckless blindness with which you usually conduct yourself. I should have realized by now that your ignorance and stupidity are limitless and irreversible. But whatever, you've made it clear to everyone that you can't handle yourself in a real intellectual debate, so keep spewing your garbage to whoever is still willing to listen. Anyone with even a minor grasp on logic will see through it, but I suppose that's why you have to spend so much time vainly trying to give your point even the slightest shred of credence.

You asked me to look it up. He used a firebomb to kill himself? No.

44 kids. The gun he used on himself.

Did you find the wikipedia on Rampage Killing?

 

[Ace Yonder]

You asked me to look it up. He used a firebomb to kill himself? No.

44 kids. The gun he used on himself.

Did you find the wikipedia on Rampage Killing?

I hadn't, but now I have. And it overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that firearms were used in the VAST majority of the top kill count incidents.

 

[Doer]

And yet the top kill counts are not firearms.