All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > We Need Knife Control Laws - STAT!!!
4/11/2013 9:52 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/11/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
scores would mean at least 2 score and that would be 40.
I am glad that we finally have Swamp on board; that words have specific meanings and it is important to know what they mean and to use them correclty. In this case, Mr. Pedantic is correct...a score = 20, and therefore if any single shooting killed scores, it would have to be at least 40. Of course, the larger point is still lost on Swamp but hey, baby steps.
4/12/2013 8:29 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 4/11/2013 9:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 8:52:00 AM (view original):
Do tell the point.

Seems to me the "point" of this thread is that a crazy can injure a lot of people without a firearm.
The point dunderhead, is that if he had used a gun he undoubtedly would have killed people, and those injured would have been hurt more seriously. Using a knife he had to get up close and personal, and was able to be taken down by those who were unarmed.

As I said...Scott Norwood style--wide right.
Undoubtedly?   More?

First, a bullet isn't instant, guaranteed death.
Seconds, guns make noise.    Scared people run in the other direction, good guys run toward the noise.

I get it.  You hate guns.  Just don't be stupid while you're at it.
4/12/2013 9:07 AM
I stand corrected MikeT...if he had used a gun he would have undoubtedly killed and injured fewer people, because everyone knows a knife is a deadlier and more lethal weapon than a gun. I bow before your superior intellect. FYI, I don't hate guns at all. I just think a little common sense is in order...obviously a commodity in short supply.
4/12/2013 9:33 AM
I have no idea if he would have killed or injured more or less.   I just think "undoubtedly" in either direction is borderline retarded.   Congrats.
4/13/2013 4:51 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 4/11/2013 9:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/11/2013 9:07:00 PM (view original):
scores would mean at least 2 score and that would be 40.
I am glad that we finally have Swamp on board; that words have specific meanings and it is important to know what they mean and to use them correclty. In this case, Mr. Pedantic is correct...a score = 20, and therefore if any single shooting killed scores, it would have to be at least 40. Of course, the larger point is still lost on Swamp but hey, baby steps.
The larger issue is what is the best way to avoid future shootings.

1 Gun Bans

2 Increaded school based security employing trained school employees.

3 More Gun Bans
4/14/2013 12:20 AM
increased awareness of mental health disorders and how to properly treat and diagnose them, as well as increased public awareness of said issues and better education for helping these people.
4/14/2013 6:25 AM
BAN EVERY GUN EXCEPT SHOTGUNS AND .22'S

IF YE WANT TO PLAY WITH GUNS JOIN THE MILITARY AND KILL ENEMIES, TOUGH GUYS
4/14/2013 3:07 PM
Does .223 count as a .22?

What about fully automatic shotguns?



4/14/2013 6:59 PM
If you are talking about the AA12, no that should not be legal for civilians to have.
4/14/2013 8:58 PM
A good example but not the only one...

Here is a .22 with a 3 at the end...

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=336659460

Should this be legal?

http://www.gunsamerica.com/974078245/Barrett_Model_99.htm

If not why?





4/14/2013 9:01 PM
4/14/2013 10:37 PM
Actually I think we tried banning the guns. You can do some research on the massive Clinton gun ban.

It just didnt work so it didnt get renewed.

Again gun bans dont work.
4/14/2013 11:20 PM (edited)
and clearly the little red riding hood ban was not a success either...

Seriously has anyone actually read the gun bill that was submitted and still have a problem with it?

I can't imagine what legitimate objection could possibly be raised to that bill as written.

A quick summary:

 http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

The actual bill in its entirety:

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

4/15/2013 12:17 AM
there's very little to no problem with the bill. the problem is, its not the correct way to solve the problem. tighter background checks don't tell you anything if people with unreported or undiagnosed mental illness don't have anything on their backgrounds to check, much like many of the recent mass shooters.
4/15/2013 1:20 AM
I realize the Tea Party and the NRA are going to come down against this bill.

I find it fairly innocuous.

The problem is if we let this be the solution when it doesnt work we get the infamous slippery slope.

What about the "ban guns" group on this board.

Are any of you happy with this?
of 4
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > We Need Knife Control Laws - STAT!!!

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.