zoocrew

You're not being logical but constructing s straw man. Reasonable people understand that it is impossible to stop all killings but we can enact common sense approaches to limit the number of deaths from the most dangerous weapons. But it is much harder to conceal a car and pull it out and kill people.

Because alcohol its not designed to kill or injure. Guns are. But for the record, very few are calling for a complete ban on all guns. A reasonable position are common sense controls.

The NRA is nothing more than a business aimed at people who are not all that intelligent about the history of the Constitution. That is not to say it is wrong but it is a business that plays people's emotions and ignorance. The more wacky and extreme its membership, the more extreme its position on the 2nd amendment.

Who said anything about banning all guns? Way to jump to a conclusion.

Romney said that. Even Newt blasted him for saying something that ignorant. Romney apologized for saying it and said he was wrong and never should have made such a statement.

Now you're attempting to poison the well with an extraneous argument of another source of harm, e.g., a knife. We're not talking those items. This is about guns. Other items are for another topic and another day. Let's deal with the most pressing, the most dangerous and the most open for public decision.

I'm not doubting you probably know more about murder than I do. That is not my area. I can't define what is a mass murder, but I can certainly define 29 as a mass murder with a gun and distinguish it with a mad man wielding a knife and 4 or even more die. The chances of survival and escape are much greater when the person has a knife than a gun.

There is a difference in multiple murder and mass murder.

I was not talking about just schools but all of society. It is time America had the discussion, stop its irrational love affair with guns and violence, and do something about the inadequate mental health care, poor educational funding, woefully inadequate programs for literacy amongst the poor, and begin an honest look t what will be acceptable and what is not.

You're not even rational. It will happen. As the American population changes, there will be changes in the gun laws, mental health funding, screening, licensing, etc., As the more right wing demographic ages out, history will one day look back on this era in much the same way as it does on the Civil Rights era and ask, "Why were they so adamant in holding onto something that so clearly was wrong?" History will judge this issue. Give it time.

Sure they will. Crazy people and evil people always find a way. That doesn't mean a society should give them more means and opportunity. And how many have been prevented from entering the plane with those same weapons?

If you're going to attempt to compare the murder 29 people to 4, you are not even rational.Playing semantics with such a tragedy as this?

The laws are made to show what we will not accept as a first action. That is why the laws exist, to show what a society deems acceptable on all levels, not just the final action.

And we have laws against drinking and driving, too.

Come on. You're not even being rational. Trying to equate the killing with the gun in the instances under discussion with the knife is not even remotely what a reasonable person would make. And you're missing the point in that no one was killed with the box cutters. Moreover, we made changes after wards to make sure those sort of things didn't happen again. The person broke all the laws. True. But let's make sure another can't do that in the future. Let's start working on the problem and find solutions, not excuses so more die.

That is not on the same level as a gunman. Nowhere near. No man wielding a knife killed that many people in such a short amount of time. The equivalency is not even in the same football pitch.

I'm sorry, but that is not true. The 9/11 killings were from the plane. The knives were only part of the elaborate plan. And, if you'll remember, we took action against those weapons, didn't we? So why are we not doing the same with the guns? As for the others, those are not on the same level as a gunman. The point is that any rational person will recognize the increased risk of a person with a gun verses a person with a knife. That is prima facie.

Look back to your post number 58. Sorry, but you did. You said that according to my logic, knives are next. To which I said you were jumping to a conclusion. You asked if you needed to post a link. To which I replied please post a link to where I said knives would be next because that is not my "logic" nor my position.

No. That's not a rational argument. Knives are not the topic because there are no mass killings with knives.

Go back to your primary grades and remember how you were taught to source a paper with evidence to support your opinion. Without sourcing, it is just uneducated blather. This is something everyone should have learned in their primary grades. You don't remember saying anything about knives? Are you intoxicated? It was only a few moments ago. I've linked it and copied your exact quote. Are you OK?

Yes, you did. Number 58. My link

Yes. Please provide a link where I've said knives should be banned per your post number 67. I look forward to it.

I'm not sensing you are grasping written expression. You are more than welcome to look up the information to determine if what I've said is accurate or not. My link

Have you considered the measures New York City has in place? Maybe the problem has to be attacked from a multiplicity of means, including economic development to stop the violence in the lower classes where it tends to occur more frequently. That would mean more educational programs. More mental health programs. You're being to linear and too concentrated on one aspect of the problem.

Exactly. According to the editors of Time, they chose the person who has deemed as most influential. This is well known and is not a secret. When the Iranian Khomeini was named Person of the Year, there was much consternation and Time explained its position over the years about this, just as they did then.