Knives Account for 3 Times as Many Murders as Rifles Do According to the FBI

After every mass shooting, politicians on the left clamber for increased gun control measures. They tell Republicans to “do the right thing” and “get something done.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/knives...3ib5bu6Ukg

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

I wasn't kidding. In Britain they're actually trying to ban certain knives.

---

Knives Account for 3 Times as Many Murders as Rifles Do According to the FBI

After every mass shooting, politicians on the left clamber for increased gun control measures. They tell Republicans to “do the right thing” and “get something done.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/knives...3ib5bu6Ukg

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not necessarily in favor of gun control, sort of on the fence about it, but I do want to point out that the argument, "more people are killed by knives than by guns, therefore we should [not have gun control or whatever it is you're saying]," is not a good argument.  Because you could just as well say, more people are killed by falling coconuts than by nuclear weapons, therefore trying to control nuclear weapons is a waste of time.  It's not a good argument.   

A crazy person probably can't kill 200 people with a knife, but with a gun, it's easy.  That's why people focus on finding some way to get some sort of control over who has  really deadly weapons.

---

I wasn't kidding. In Britain they're actually trying to ban certain knives.

We already ban certain types of knives in the US.
Many cities have bans on retractable knives.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

One thing we can do that is cheap, quick and effective is to BAN GUN-FREE ZONES.
97% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones.
How many school shootings in the school districts that allow teachers to carry concealed? ZERO
Make it a felony for any business to ban legally carried firearms unless they are prepared to provide armed security and carry lots of liability insurance.

---

I wasn't kidding. In Britain they're actually trying to ban certain knives.

We already ban certain types of knives in the US.
Many cities have bans on retractable knives.

Yes, another violation of the Constitution, as is the ban on swords.

---

One thing we can do that is cheap, quick and effective is to BAN GUN-FREE ZONES.  
97% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones.  
How many school shootings in the school districts that allow teachers to carry concealed?  ZERO
Make it a felony for any business to ban legally carried firearms unless they are prepared to provide armed security and carry lots of liability insurance.

The logical thing to do would be for the victims to sue the crime scene for creating an unsafe environment. But we have too many bleaters who think that they can outsource their duty of personal protection to the government and that the government can protect them from the lawless.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not necessarily in favor of gun control, sort of on the fence about it, but I do want to point out that the argument, "more people are killed by knives than by guns, therefore we should [not have gun control or whatever it is you're saying]," is not a good argument.  Because you could just as well say, more people are killed by falling coconuts than by nuclear weapons, therefore trying to control nuclear weapons is a waste of time.  It's not a good argument.   

A crazy person probably can't kill 200 people with a knife, but with a gun, it's easy.  That's why people focus on finding some way to get some sort of control over who has  really deadly weapons.

Let's assume you can effectively ban guns and make them impossible for private citizens to obtain.  The crazy person who wishes to do harm to others will simply switch to another tool, most likely a car.  You don't need a special event, any cluster of people will do.  A crowded sidewalk, a bunch of kids waiting for a schoolbus...…....they're easy targets.  What's your solution then?  Do we ban cars?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not necessarily in favor of gun control, sort of on the fence about it, but I do want to point out that the argument, "more people are killed by knives than by guns, therefore we should [not have gun control or whatever it is you're saying]," is not a good argument.  Because you could just as well say, more people are killed by falling coconuts than by nuclear weapons, therefore trying to control nuclear weapons is a waste of time.  It's not a good argument.   

A crazy person probably can't kill 200 people with a knife, but with a gun, it's easy.  That's why people focus on finding some way to get some sort of control over who has  really deadly weapons.

Let's assume you can effectively ban guns and make them impossible for private citizens to obtain.  The crazy person who wishes to do harm to others will simply switch to another tool, most likely a car.  You don't need a special event, any cluster of people will do.  A crowded sidewalk, a bunch of kids waiting for a schoolbus...…....they're easy targets.  What's your solution then?  Do we ban cars?

That's why I said I am on the fence about gun control.  But you still have to make some effort to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of crazy people.  You say, if they don't use this, they'll use that, but does that mean we should just give up?

---

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not necessarily in favor of gun control, sort of on the fence about it, but I do want to point out that the argument, "more people are killed by knives than by guns, therefore we should [not have gun control or whatever it is you're saying]," is not a good argument.  Because you could just as well say, more people are killed by falling coconuts than by nuclear weapons, therefore trying to control nuclear weapons is a waste of time.  It's not a good argument.   

A crazy person probably can't kill 200 people with a knife, but with a gun, it's easy.  That's why people focus on finding some way to get some sort of control over who has  really deadly weapons.

Let's assume you can effectively ban guns and make them impossible for private citizens to obtain.  The crazy person who wishes to do harm to others will simply switch to another tool, most likely a car.  You don't need a special event, any cluster of people will do.  A crowded sidewalk, a bunch of kids waiting for a schoolbus...…....they're easy targets.  What's your solution then?  Do we ban cars?

So what you’re saying is you don’t what would happen if there was a ban on guns.

This is like when people said “well you can’t let gay people get married because what’s next?! A man marries a pineapple?!” 

No one knows what would happen if there was serious gun control but plenty try to act like they do.

I’m not saying to ban all guns but to act like you know what would happen if they were to be banned is hilarious.

---

Unless you're amazingly skilled with throwing, never mind retrieving, knives, you can't kill multiple people with knives from a distance within seconds. Apples to oranges.

The last thing we need is gun owners with no training or experience in chaotic, crowded situations trying to discern who is a threat or who is some other gun owner with no training or experience in chaotic, crowded situations.

I wonder how fast gun control legislation would get through Moscow Mitch if dark skinned citizens, some wearing clothes associated with people from the Middle East, started showing up in increased numbers at Walmarts to purchase guns, then open carried where allowed.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Let's assume you can effectively ban guns and make them impossible for private citizens to obtain.  The crazy person who wishes to do harm to others will simply switch to another tool, most likely a car.  You don't need a special event, any cluster of people will do.  A crowded sidewalk, a bunch of kids waiting for a schoolbus...…....they're easy targets.  What's your solution then?  Do we ban cars?

So what you’re saying is you don’t what would happen if there was a ban on guns.

This is like when people said “well you can’t let gay people get married because what’s next?! A man marries a pineapple?!” 

No one knows what would happen if there was serious gun control but plenty try to act like they do.

I’m not saying to ban all guns but to act like you know what would happen if they were to be banned is hilarious.

Are you seriously saying we have no historical accounts of what happens to a people when they have their means of self-defense confiscated? We can't find a single example in the entirety of the history of humans, much less just in the last, oh, 75 years or so to give us pause?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So what you’re saying is you don’t what would happen if there was a ban on guns.

This is like when people said “well you can’t let gay people get married because what’s next?! A man marries a pineapple?!” 

No one knows what would happen if there was serious gun control but plenty try to act like they do.

I’m not saying to ban all guns but to act like you know what would happen if they were to be banned is hilarious.

Are you seriously saying we have no historical accounts of what happens to a people when they have their means of self-defense confiscated? We can't find a single example in the entirety of the history of humans, much less just in the last, oh, 75 years or so to give us pause?

We don't.  A lot of internet memes have circulated saying there's a strong correlation, but I'd suggest taking a skeptical eye before posting one. Don't waste anyone's time unless you can explain in detail the legal situation and the actual distribution of guns and ammo in each location, before and after.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So what you’re saying is you don’t what would happen if there was a ban on guns.

This is like when people said “well you can’t let gay people get married because what’s next?! A man marries a pineapple?!” 

No one knows what would happen if there was serious gun control but plenty try to act like they do.

I’m not saying to ban all guns but to act like you know what would happen if they were to be banned is hilarious.

Are you seriously saying we have no historical accounts of what happens to a people when they have their means of self-defense confiscated? We can't find a single example in the entirety of the history of humans, much less just in the last, oh, 75 years or so to give us pause?

I don't think anyone (except maybe a very few on the far left) is advocating confiscating your means of self-protection.  What most gun control discussions are about is the kind of weapons that can kill a whole bunch of people within seconds.   Unless you're planning to defend your house against an army, do you really need that kind of weapon?

---

Are you seriously saying we have no historical accounts of what happens to a people when they have their means of self-defense confiscated? We can't find a single example in the entirety of the history of humans, much less just in the last, oh, 75 years or so to give us pause?

We don't.  A lot of internet memes have circulated saying there's a strong correlation, but I'd suggest taking a skeptical eye before posting one. Don't waste anyone's time unless you can explain in detail the legal situation and the actual distribution of guns and ammo in each location, before and after.

You're skeptical of actual facts and a multitude of historical representation? 

So, shouldn't the same standard of data collection and interpretation (skeptical eye as you call it) hold true if attempting to add another gun law or ban altogether? Sounds like you are all for throwing [BLEEP] against the wall and just seeing what happens, not understanding once you give an inch of freedom in hopes of additional safety through government control, you will not get it back.

---

Are you seriously saying we have no historical accounts of what happens to a people when they have their means of self-defense confiscated? We can't find a single example in the entirety of the history of humans, much less just in the last, oh, 75 years or so to give us pause?

I don't think anyone (except maybe a very few on the far left) is advocating confiscating your means of self-protection.  What most gun control discussions are about is the kind of weapons that can kill a whole bunch of people within seconds.   Unless you're planning to defend your house against an army, do you really need that kind of weapon?

That is a narrow point of view and naive. Kind of funny (ironic) how that is the same thought process with each and every "gun control" measure for each an every emotional reaction to highly publicized shooting. Not every mass shooting, just the ones that meet an agenda.

Not that type of gun, this one. Not that magazine type, this one. Not that bullet type, this one. Rinse and repeat until there is precedence to ban everything. And Yes, staying true to the 2nd Amendment you have the right to access for that type of weaponery.

---

I don't think anyone (except maybe a very few on the far left) is advocating confiscating your means of self-protection.  What most gun control discussions are about is the kind of weapons that can kill a whole bunch of people within seconds.   Unless you're planning to defend your house against an army, do you really need that kind of weapon?

That is a narrow point of view and naive. Kind of funny (ironic) how that is the same thought process with each and every "gun control" measure for each an every emotional reaction to highly publicized shooting. Not every mass shooting, just the ones that meet an agenda.

Not that type of gun, this one. Not that magazine type, this one. Not that bullet type, this one. Rinse and repeat until there is precedence to ban everything. And Yes, staying true to the 2nd Amendment you have the right to access for that type of weaponery.

You think that because of the 2nd Amendment, there is no limit on what type of arms you are allowed to own?

---

We don't.  A lot of internet memes have circulated saying there's a strong correlation, but I'd suggest taking a skeptical eye before posting one. Don't waste anyone's time unless you can explain in detail the legal situation and the actual distribution of guns and ammo in each location, before and after.

You're skeptical of actual facts and a multitude of historical representation? 

So, shouldn't the same standard of data collection and interpretation (skeptical eye as you call it) hold true if attempting to add another gun law or ban altogether? Sounds like you are all for throwing [BLEEP] against the wall and just seeing what happens, not understanding once you give an inch of freedom in hopes of additional safety through government control, you will not get it back.

That's not true.
Our ancestors gave up their right to drink alcohol, hopefully to get more safety, more productivity, and better health.
They didn't like how that deal was working out, so they undid it.
We could do the same... unless you think amending the constitution is too hard...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Knives Account for 3 Times as Many Murders as Rifles Do According to the FBI

After every mass shooting, politicians on the left clamber for increased gun control measures. They tell Republicans to “do the right thing” and “get something done.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/knives...3ib5bu6Ukg

Let's get rid of vehicles since they cause 20x the amount of deaths as knives.

---

You're skeptical of actual facts and a multitude of historical representation? 

So, shouldn't the same standard of data collection and interpretation (skeptical eye as you call it) hold true if attempting to add another gun law or ban altogether? Sounds like you are all for throwing [BLEEP] against the wall and just seeing what happens, not understanding once you give an inch of freedom in hopes of additional safety through government control, you will not get it back.

That's not true.
Our ancestors gave up their right to drink alcohol, hopefully to get more safety, more productivity, and better health.
They didn't like how that deal was working out, so they undid it.
We could do the same... unless you think amending the constitution is too hard...

There is always an exception. But let us use that old example of reacting based on emotion with limited thought given to repercussions. Learn from mistakes not create more. So, we should just ban guns on emotion with no thought behind it? Why do we continue down the same path over and over with no measurable, positive result? It's assinine. Yes, I do think amending the Constitution is hard, damn near impossible at this point. I don't support it either as there is no reason for it.

---

I don't think anyone (except maybe a very few on the far left) is advocating confiscating your means of self-protection.  What most gun control discussions are about is the kind of weapons that can kill a whole bunch of people within seconds.   Unless you're planning to defend your house against an army, do you really need that kind of weapon?

That is a narrow point of view and naive. Kind of funny (ironic) how that is the same thought process with each and every "gun control" measure for each an every emotional reaction to highly publicized shooting. Not every mass shooting, just the ones that meet an agenda.

Not that type of gun, this one. Not that magazine type, this one. Not that bullet type, this one. Rinse and repeat until there is precedence to ban everything. And Yes, staying true to the 2nd Amendment you have the right to access for that type of weaponery.

So because people are emotional after innocent lives are taken, we can’t use that to try and better this country?

You think the gun laws are perfect the way they are now? 

I’m not saying I know the answer here but I don’t think anyone knows. it seems to me that what we have now isn’t working. The wrong people are getting a hold of some serious ammunition. 

I would also take my chances against a man with a knife than a man with a gun.

---