School attacks couldnt happen without guns? Bombs and other means of mass attacks

[Angel4Truth]

Heres some news from today:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4484471&postcount=127

A jogger out for his morning run on White Rock Creek Trail was targeted at random and hacked to death with a machete at about 7:55 a.m., witnesses and police said.

more at link from another thread

 

[Tyrathca]

I dont consider rape, assault, home invasion, robbery, kidnapping, etc a petty crime.

That wasn't the question.

I also figure if someone is going to threaten you with any of those things, they decided that day already that it might be a good day to die.

Sure if someone threatens you with a weapon I have no issue with responding with violence (self defence). I don't think I've ever said anything to suggest that self defence is bad, I have however suggested that guns aren't nearly as useful in such circumstances as suggested (and based on others examples tend to be brandished when actual use is not warranted - ie minor crimes where no one threatened anyone.)

 

[Tyrathca]

Grrrr tapatalk.... (double post deleted)

 

[Angel4Truth]

Need to add these recent mass attacks that happened without guns:

Nice attack: truck driver named as France mourns 84 killed in Bastille Day atrocity – as it happened

A truck driver mowed down over 200 people who have injuries, 52 in critical care, 25 on life support and 84 dead. Time to ban vehicles?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Japan knife attack: At least 19 dead

Sickos dont need a gun. If they want to kill a small or large number of people, they dont need a gun to do it.

 

[Tyrathca]

People don't need biological weapons to kill lots of people therefore we shouldn't try and ban access to things like anthrax and small pox?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Angel4Truth]

Irrelevant to the topic.

See the op. There was a claim that mass numbers of people cannot be killed as they can with a gun. Recent events alone show that completely false.

Your naming of those agents however lend to my point, those can kill large numbers of people too and they can do so without a gun. Thanks

 

[Tyrathca]

Irrelevant to the topic.

It's as equally relevant as cars are to gun violence. It's basically your own argument extrapolated, you can't arbitrarily pick where to apply your argument. Why is your application relevant and mine not?

See the op. There was a claim that mass numbers of people cannot be killed as they can with a gun. Recent events alone show that completely false.

But it is harder (and rarer). If you are using this argument to justify not bothering to ban guns then why can't I use it to justify not banning other weapons?

Your naming of those agents however lend to my point, those can kill large numbers of people too and they can do so without a gun. Thanks

Yes, and you solution is to then not bother banning anything? Or just not banning your own favourite weapon....?

The fact is that people without a gun find it harder to kill lots of people, particularly if they want to target specific people / types of people. Nothing you have said invalidates that, your at best trying to play a linguistic gotcha not addressing the intent of what was said.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk