China knife attack leaves at least 33 dead and 143 wounded

[Eric]

It is believed that more than 10 people took part in the attack. As well as the four who were shot yesterday, one was taken alive. The rest are still being hunted.

According to CCTV, the Chinese state broadcaster, at least two of the attackers were female. One was killed by police and the other was the woman who was captured. She has been taken to hospital for treatment.


The death toll stands at 29 bystanders and four attackers who were shot dead by police.


Witnesses described assailants dressed in black charging through station, slashing indiscriminately with large knives and machetes.

The Chinese authorities have blamed the attack on militants from the remote far western region of Xinjiang, which is home to tensions between the government and Muslim separatists.


The state news agency Xinhua, quoting local government sources, said: 'Evidence at the crime scene showed that the Kunming Railway Station terrorist attack was carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces.'


The Xinjiang region borders Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and the Chinese government has blamed several attacks on militants there.
The region is home to a large Muslim Uighur minority who are angry at the treatment of their beliefs by the authorities.


Most attacks blamed on Uighur separatists have taken place in Xinjiang itself, but the train station was more than 620 miles away.

An earlier estimate of 162 injuries which was reported by state media was reduced.


The death toll makes the attack one of the deadliest in recent Chinese history.


full : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html

[-:Undertaker:-]

Clearly what needs to happen here is that knives need to be banned. In the UK and US too.

We just can't trust people with knives. Only the state should be allowed knives and guns because we can only trust in the state... *glazed over eyes*

[The Don]

Clearly what needs to happen here is that knives need to be banned. In the UK and US too.

We just can't trust people with knives. Only the state should be allowed knives and guns because we can only trust in the state... *glazed over eyes*

Now imagine if they had guns, the fatality rate would have risen greatly. The westgate shopping mall springs to mind.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Now imagine if they had guns, the fatality rate would have risen greatly. The westgate shopping mall springs to mind.

Yes but it's surely bad enough with knives too! That's why knives need to be banned.

Licences for sharp knives should be issued by the Politburo in Peking.

[The Don]

Yes but it's surely bad enough with knives too! That's why knives need to be banned.

Licences for sharp knives should be issued by the Politburo in Peking.

The purpose of knives is not solely to kill as it is with guns. Plus it's far easier to make a knife than it is guns so banning it would be pretty pointless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The purpose of knives is not solely to kill as it is with guns.

But they are still dangerous and need to be banned or heavily regulated. Like passive smoking.

[The Don]

But they are still dangerous and need to be banned or heavily regulated. Like passive smoking.

Plus it's far easier to make a knife than it is guns so banning it would be pretty pointless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Plus it's far easier to make a knife than it is guns so banning it would be pretty pointless.

No no no because that's just what the pro-gun lobby say, that criminals will still get hold of guns (as they do). And we can't listen to the pro-gun lobby even though what they say is true.

Nope, we need to ban all dangerous things and have the state heavily regulate/control them. Only then can we be safe. Of course our dear leaders will still be allowed to defend themselves with armed guards.

[The Don]

No no no because that's just what the pro-gun lobby say, that criminals will still get hold of guns (as they do). And we can't listen to the pro-gun lobby even though what they say is true.

Nope, we need to ban all dangerous things and have the state heavily regulate/control them. Only then can we be safe. Of course our dear leaders will still be allowed to defend themselves with armed guards.

We should legalise duelling & ****, restore the wild west. I mean I totally need a weapon that's sole purpose is to kill! I mean, it's not as if this greatly increases the homicide and crime rate.... It's not as if Detroit has the 8th highest murder rate for a city in the entire world. But yeh, let's legalise guns because FREEDOM.

[-:Undertaker:-]

we should legalise duelling & ****, restore the wild west, i mean i totally need a weapon that's sole purpose is to kill! I mean, it's not as if this greatly increase the homicide and crime rate.... It's not as if Detroit has the 8th highest murder rate for a city in the entire world. But yeh, let's legalise guns because FREEDOM.

Oh yeah Detroit which has some of the toughest gun laws in America.

Look! Peasants like us clearly shouldn't be allowed to be armed with either guns or knives, both are very dangerous. Only state officials like Chairman Mao, Her Majesty, Deng Xioping, Hu Jintao, George W Bush or Obama should be allowed to be armed because their lives are much more important than those of the people.

Just trust in the state *wipes corner of mouth*. The Chinese did in the 1950s, and it worked out great for them.

[The Don]

Oh yeah Detroit which has some of the toughest gun laws in America.

Look! Peasants like us clearly shouldn't be allowed to be armed with either guns or knives, both are very dangerous. Only state officials like Chairman Mao, Her Majesty, Deng Xioping, Hu Jintao, George W Bush or Obama should be allowed to be armed because their lives are much more important than those of the people.

Just trust in the state *wipes corner of mouth*. The Chinese did in the 1950s, and it worked out great for them.

Lol, i'm reading the Michigan state gun laws right now and it looks pretty easy to get a gun? But there you go, just saying things and hoping it's true is greatttt. Pretty laughable if you think having a couple of guns would put a scratch on the military if they did try anything.

[Kardan]

Oh yeah Detroit which has some of the toughest gun laws in America.

Look! Peasants like us clearly shouldn't be allowed to be armed with either guns or knives, both are very dangerous. Only state officials like Chairman Mao, Her Majesty, Deng Xioping, Hu Jintao, George W Bush or Obama should be allowed to be armed because their lives are much more important than those of the people.

Just trust in the state *wipes corner of mouth*. The Chinese did in the 1950s, and it worked out great for them.

What relevance do gun laws have when you are talking about murder? Criminals clearly don't follow gun laws.

"Oh yes, better tell the police I have a gun before I carry out my murder"

[FlyingJesus]

How difficult is it to realise that there's a gigantic difference between a tool being used wrongly and a tool that is built specifically for harm? Making snide comments that show a complete lack of understanding about an issue that's not even what the thread's about isn't particularly useful nor clever.

RIP to those who were killed, and here's hoping for a speedy recovery both physical and mental for the wounded masses

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lol, i'm reading the Michigan state gun laws right now and it looks pretty easy to get a gun?

It is in comparison to UK, but not in comparison to rest of the US of A.


But there you go, just saying things and hoping it's true is greatttt. Pretty laughable if you think having a couple of guns would put a scratch on the military if they did try anything.

Then why do most dictators ban them? Do you know why gun rights were put into the US constitution?


How difficult is it to realise that there's a gigantic difference between a tool being used wrongly and a tool that is built specifically for harm? Making snide comments that show a complete lack of understanding about an issue that's not even what the thread's about isn't particularly useful nor clever.

Hey there's a slight difference there, but what does it matter? Both are dangerous. I'm thinking of all the people harmed by knives here and whilst it's true that the vast majority of knife owners are sensible (as the same with guns) we just cannot take the risk. China and this country need to introduce stricter knife regulations which will save lives, and that's worth it isn't it for just a bit of freedumb?

Think of the children who are victims of knife attacks. If China had tougher knife laws, this wouldn't have happened.


What relevance do gun laws have when you are talking about murder? Criminals clearly don't follow gun laws.

"Oh yes, better tell the police I have a gun before I carry out my murder"

Exactly.

[The Don]

It is in comparison to UK, but not in comparison to rest of the US of A.

Why put "toughest gun laws in america" then? Ridiculous argument anyway if you can't tell the difference between the uses of a gun and knives. Tom has put it far more eloquently than myself anyhow.

As to your dictator comment, one would assume that they have a far worse military compared to technologically superior nations such as the US and UK.

[FlyingJesus]

Aaaand again just mocking the victims rather than having any idea what you're actually on about. Here's a clue: guns have no purpose other than to do harm and that is why there is no need for them in society. Potential doesn't come into the argument at all and never has except from idiots who can't comprehend simple facts. Also city or state gun laws in the US mean nothing because you can literally drive out of town and get a gun then bring it back with no problems at all

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why put "toughest gun laws in america" then? Ridiculous argument anyway if you can't tell the difference between the uses of a gun and knives. Tom has put it far more eloquently than myself anyhow.

As to your dictator comment, one would assume that they have a far worse military compared to technologically superior nations such as the US and UK.

An armed people can bring down the most modern military. The American Revolution itself was only fought by an estimated third of the population who would have had very simple weapons for farming purposes - pitted against the British army which was the most powerful in the world. The people won and brought down the tyranny of King George III and his thirteen colonies.

And guns aren't just to 'kill people' - the mere act of firing a gun without the intent to kill somebody, as many yanks do, can scare away evil people wishing to do harm because they know you have a gun. It's mainly a deterrant just as it acts as a deterrant against a tyrannical and out of control government.


Aaaand again just mocking the victims rather than having any idea what you're actually on about. Here's a clue: guns have no purpose other than to do harm and that is why there is no need for them in society. Potential doesn't come into the argument at all and never has except from idiots who can't comprehend simple facts. Also city or state gun laws in the US mean nothing because you can literally drive out of town and get a gun then bring it back with no problems at all

I'm not mocking anybody. I'm mocking you lot who post exactly what I am posting whenever there is a gun attack in America - you all go nuts and start calling for guns to be banned or tougher gun laws. Ironically though, barely anybody had anything to say (even though they read it) when I posted a thread a few weeks back on a woman who defended herself and her property using a gun against vile scumbags. Ain't that strange - just as nobody ever had anything to say when I bring up the examples of guns in Switzerland. The VAST majority of Americans use guns sensibly just as the majority of Chinese use knives sensibly.

It's like the people on here who will argue for very tough anti-smoking laws but are absolutely 100% against any tighter controls on the internet for protecting children. Hypocrites.

[dbgtz]

No no no because that's just what the pro-gun lobby say, that criminals will still get hold of guns (as they do). And we can't listen to the pro-gun lobby even though what they say is true.

Nope, we need to ban all dangerous things and have the state heavily regulate/control them. Only then can we be safe. Of course our dear leaders will still be allowed to defend themselves with armed guards.

These guys clearly weren't able to get hold of them...

[-:Undertaker:-]

These guys clearly weren't able to get hold of them...

Depends entirely on circumstances. There are a lot of knife attacks, fist fights and baseball attacks in pro-gun America yet nobody ever turns around and puts forward the same argument only in reverse.

The mere act of legalising guns does not mean you will get everyone shooting one another. It's deeper than that.

[Inseriousity.]

I read that sentence wrong and thought police had shot 29 bystanders in their attempts to kill the attackers. Had to reread it lmao. RIP to all the victims. Interesting choice of weapon, still seems to have caused heavy damage before they were dealt with which is slightly surprising but I'm guessing the claustrophobia of train stations where everyone squishes together might have led to making it slightly easier for them.

[FlyingJesus]

How do you still not understand the simple principle that guns are built to harm people and nothing else? That runs true whether it's offensive or defensive

MAD is not an effective way to run the world, it just becomes tyranny of the majority

[The Don]

An armed people can bring down the most modern military. The American Revolution itself was only fought by an estimated third of the population who would have had very simple weapons for farming purposes - pitted against the British army which was the most powerful in the world. The people won and brought down the tyranny of King George III and his thirteen colonies.

And guns aren't just to 'kill people' - the mere act of firing a gun without the intent to kill somebody, as many yanks do, can scare away evil people wishing to do harm because they know you have a gun. It's mainly a deterrant just as it acts as a deterrant against a tyrannical and out of control government.



I'm not mocking anybody. I'm mocking you lot who post exactly what I am posting whenever there is a gun attack in America - you all go nuts and start calling for guns to be banned or tougher gun laws. Ironically though, barely anybody had anything to say (even though they read it) when I posted a thread a few weeks back on a woman who defended herself and her property using a gun against vile scumbags. Ain't that strange - just as nobody ever had anything to say when I bring up the examples of guns in Switzerland. The VAST majority of Americans use guns sensibly just as the majority of Chinese use knives sensibly.

It's like the people on here who will argue for very tough anti-smoking laws but are absolutely 100% against any tighter controls on the internet for protecting children. Hypocrites.

As far as i'm aware the redcoats didn't have remote controlled drones which could kill indiscriminately from above. Pretty silly comparing 19th century technology to that which the military uses today. If you think a couple of hillbillies with rifles stand a chance against the US army then I suggest you get your head examined.

[sexpot]

"couple of hillbillies with rifles" way to generalize all gun owners..

[-:Undertaker:-]

How do you still not understand the simple principle that guns are built to harm people and nothing else? That runs true whether it's offensive or defensive

How or what it was built for it entirely irrelevent. You can be against the firing of nuclear weapons until you absolutely must have to and still support having a nuclear deterrent. In a similar way, the mere sight or shot of a gun can deter an intruder in America: and it's saved thousands of people from being either killed or living in fear of break-in's.

It's all about how you use it. A gun after all does not commit murder, a person does. Just as a person can commit murder using a knfie, a baseball bat or his bare hands. Why is it then that only with guns the blame is placed with the weapon whereas it is not with other weapons used?


As far as i'm aware the redcoats didn't have remote controlled drones which could kill indiscriminately from above. Pretty silly comparing 19th century technology to that which the military uses today. If you think a couple of hillbillies with rifles stand a chance against the US army then I suggest you get your head examined.

If the American people are ever threatened to such an extent whereby they rise up, then a third of the country would be able to take the military down - absolutely. The Egyptian armed forces along with the Syrian armed forces have/nearly fallen to some rifle wielding terrorists and both armies had spending in the billions per year using Soviet/US technology. The American army - the most advanced in the world with billions worth in bombs, information and weapons - failed against the Vietcong in Vietnam who were just a network of armed peasants firing from underground tunnels.

Either way, an armed people face a better chance than an unarmed people.

[The Don]

"couple of hillbillies with rifles" way to generalize all gun owners..

Was being hyperbolic...

[Kardan]

An armed people can bring down the most modern military.

I'd like to see casual gun owners in America try and take down the American military with nukes.

- - - Updated - - -


How or what it was built for it entirely irrelevent. You can be against the firing of nuclear weapons until you absolutely must have to and still support having a nuclear deterrent. In a similar way, the mere sight or shot of a gun can deter an intruder in America: and it's saved thousands of people from being either killed or living in fear of break-in's.

It's all about how you use it. A gun after all does not commit murder, a person does. Just as a person can commit murder using a knfie, a baseball bat or his bare hands. Why is it then that only with guns the blame is placed with the weapon whereas it is not with other weapons used?



If the American people are ever threatened to such an extent whereby they rise up, then a third of the country would be able to take the military down - absolutely. The Egyptian armed forces along with the Syrian armed forces have/nearly fallen to some rifle wielding terrorists and both armies had spending in the billions per year using Soviet/US technology. The American army - the most advanced in the world with billions worth in bombs, information and weapons - failed against the Vietcong in Vietnam who were just a network of armed peasants firing from underground tunnels.

Either way, an armed people face a better chance than an unarmed people.

All these 'civilians can take down military' examples are either not with 1st world country examples, or 21st-century examples.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'd like to see casual gun owners in America try and take down the American military with nukes.

The Vietcong did it in Vietnam.

If it ever got serious in America then the millions of armed people would be able to organise themselves into militas and would have a chance of bringing down a tyrannical government. Entirely possible and that's exactly why guns were put into the constitution to protect against both foreign powers (ie the British) and their own government.


All these 'civilians can take down military' examples are either not with 1st world country examples, or 21st-century examples.

Er hello? Pay attention. The Vietcong vs the American military might in the 1960s and 1970s.

One was a ranshackle army made of third worlders vs the most powerful military power on the planet.

[FlyingJesus]

How or what it was built for it entirely irrelevent.

How on earth is it irrelevant? If you have something with ONE purpose then 100% of its uses will be for that purpose, it's not like people also use guns to make a sandwich or fix their electrics

As for "guns don't kill people" neither does a drawing pin but I know which is easier to kill someone with and oddly enough it's the one which is was designed to

[Kardan]

The Vietcong did it in Vietnam.

If it ever got serious in America then the millions of armed people would be able to organise themselves into militas and would have a chance of bringing down a tyrannical government. Entirely possible and that's exactly why guns were put into the constitution to protect against both foreign powers (ie the British) and their own government.



Er hello? Pay attention. The Vietcong vs the American military might in the 1960s and 1970s.

One was a ranshackle army made of third worlders vs the most powerful military power on the planet.

The Vietcong didn't take down the American military, the American military wasn't able to take down the Vietcong. It was a stalemate rather than the American military being wiped out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How on earth is it irrelevant? If you have something with ONE purpose then 100% of its uses will be for that purpose, it's not like people also use guns to make a sandwich or fix their electrics

But as I have outlined, guns are also used as a deterrant factor. How many times do I have to keep repeating the example of many US gun owners who will fire a warning shot prior to shooting an intruder? If the intruder refuses to back down after that, then of course the gun will be used for killing/harming the intruder. That's kinda errrrrr......... the point in self defence.


As for "guns don't kill people" neither does a drawing pin but I know which is easier to kill someone with and oddly enough it's the one which is was designed to

A gun will kill somebody when somebody picks one up and fires it. A knife will kill somebody when someone picks one up and plunges it into another human being. Whether killing is the right thing to do entirely depends on the content - that's the real debate, not what weapon was used. A weapon does not commit murder, a person does.


The Vietcong didn't take down the American military, the American military wasn't able to take down the Vietcong. It was a stalemate rather than the American military being wiped out.

Yes it did. It drove the yanks out of Indochina.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg

The most powerful military in the world defeated by armed peasants. It can and it did happen.

[The Don]

But as I have outlined, guns are also used as a deterrant factor. How many times do I have to keep repeating the example of many US gun owners who will fire a warning shot prior to shooting an intruder? If the intruder refuses to back down after that, then of course the gun will be used for killing/harming the intruder. That's kinda errrrrr......... the point in self defence.

A deterrent due to the threat of death...

[-:Undertaker:-]

A deterrent due to the threat of death...

The best deterrent there is.

[sexpot]

A deterrent due to the threat of death...

Most gun owners wouldn't shoot to kill if they are defending their property.

[Kardan]

But as I have outlined, guns are also used as a deterrant factor. How many times do I have to keep repeating the example of many US gun owners who will fire a warning shot prior to shooting an intruder? If the intruder refuses to back down after that, then of course the gun will be used for killing/harming the intruder. That's kinda errrrrr......... the point in self defence.



A gun will kill somebody when somebody picks one up and fires it. A knife will kill somebody when someone picks one up and plunges it into another human being. Whether killing is the right thing to do entirely depends on the content - that's the real debate, not what weapon was used. A weapon does not commit murder, a person does.



Yes it did. It drove the yanks out of Indochina.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg

The most powerful military in the world defeated by armed peasants. It can and it did happen.

They weren't 'wiped out' nor did they 'bring down' the military.

[The Don]

Most gun owners wouldn't shoot to kill if they are defending their property.

This is entirely irrelevant and doesn't remove the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill.

[sexpot]

This is entirely irrelevant and doesn't remove the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill.

..no it isn't. Why can't y'all understand that guns can be used as a deterrent and to protect one's property as well?

[-:Undertaker:-]

They weren't 'wiped out' nor did they 'bring down' the military.

It brought down the US army in Vietnam.

If poorly armed and uneducated third worlders can do it in Vietnam to the US army, then educated and well armed yanks can do it on US soil against the US army. Even if not, better to go down fighting for your freedoms than surrender them on your knees like a slave.

Maybe you'd just surrender to government goons and be dragged out of your house with your family like a Jew in 1930s Germany, but i'd rather put up a fight to the death thank you very much. So would the yanks.

If it ever comes to it in America, it'll be the anti-gun liberals cowering behind the 'gun nuts' for protection.

[Kardan]

It brought down the US army in Vietnam.

If poorly armed and uneducated third worlders can do it in Vietnam to the US army, then educated and well armed yanks can do it on US soil against the US army. Even if not, better to go down fighting for your freedoms than surrender them on your knees like a slave.

Maybe you'd just surrender to government goons and be dragged out of your house with your family like a Jew in 1930s Germany, but i'd rather put up a fight to the death thank you very much. So would the yanks.

It didn't bring down the US army. The US army retreated, it wasn't defeated. Does that mean that the UK was defeated in Iraq?

[The Don]

..no it isn't. Why can't y'all understand that guns can be used as a deterrent and to protect one's property as well?

Because a gun is designed to kill, Firing it to scare somebody away isn't why it was designed nor is its purpose.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It didn't bring down the US army. The US army retreated, it wasn't defeated. Does that mean that the UK was defeated in Iraq?

It was defeated. You don't have to destroy every single tank to defeat an army. In the Russian Revolution against the Tsarist regime, the entire Tsarist army wasn't destroyed.... but it was defeated by the reds.

Jesus, am I really having to argue this?

[Kardan]

..no it isn't. Why can't y'all understand that guns can be used as a deterrent and to protect one's property as well?

Guns are designed to be a killing weapon, there are no ifs and buts about it. You can use it as a deterrent yes, but it is still designed to kill. If it wasn't designed to kill, you'd have a nice replica gun that didn't fire bullets.

- - - Updated - - -


It was defeated. You don't have to destroy every single tank to defeat an army. In the Russian Revolution against the Tsarist regime, the entire Tsarist army wasn't destroyed.... but it was defeated by the reds.

Jesus, am I really having to argue this?

Well you did use the words 'bring down' - as I said the US army wasn't brought down, it was simply drove out.

[FlyingJesus]

But as I have outlined, guns are also used as a deterrant factor. How many times do I have to keep repeating the example of many US gun owners who will fire a warning shot prior to shooting an intruder? If the intruder refuses to back down after that, then of course the gun will be used for killing/harming the intruder. That's kinda errrrrr......... the point in self defence.

King of missing the point. None of what you've said takes away from the fact that such harm is the only
only
only ONLY
only
O
N
L
Y
thing a gun is made for


A gun will kill somebody when somebody picks one up and fires it. A knife will kill somebody when someone picks one up and plunges it into another human being. Whether killing is the right thing to do entirely depends on the content - that's the real debate, not what weapon was used. A weapon does not commit murder, a person does.

Just gonna carry around my RPG when I go shopping, wonder if anyone will say no when I want a discount. Fear is still harm


..no it isn't. Why can't y'all understand that guns can be used as a deterrent and to protect one's property as well?

They're a deterrent *+*BeCaUsE tHeY'rE bUiLt To KiLl*+* y'all


If poorly armed and uneducated third worlders can do it in Vietnam to the US army, then educated and well armed yanks can do it on US soil against the US army.

I thought we weren't allowed to generalise all gun owners in America or is it ok when you're claiming that they're all sane and logical upstanding members of society with Captain America-like senses of duty


If it ever comes to it in America, it'll be the anti-gun liberals cowering behind the 'gun nuts' for protection.

That's a lovely crystal ball you've got there

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well you did use the words 'bring down' - as I said the US army wasn't brought down, it was simply drove out.

The US army was defeated then by a bunch of gun-wielding third worlders. Happy?

And my point is that the same could (and was intended to happen by the Founding Fathers) and would happen in the United States of the government ever became tyrannical. So your point about 'oh some hillbillys with guns cant bring down an advanced military' is total, unsubstantiated rubbish.

[Kardan]

The US army was defeated then by a bunch of gun-wielding third worlders. Happy?

And my point is that the same could (and was intended to happen by the Founding Fathers) and would happen in the United States of the government ever became tyrannical. So your point about 'oh some hillbillys with guns cant bring down an advanced military' is total, unsubstantiated rubbish.

I never said anything about hillbillys, so might want to re-read :P

Also, the whole Vietnam thing doesn't deal with 21st century technology, and it's also worth noting they were fighting over Vietnam, which is a different story to fighting for American land itself. Do I honestly think 100m American civilians (That's about a third isn't it?) would be able to take down the US Military? No, I don't. If the military really wanted to win, they could simply nuke everything. 100m people firing their weapons at a nuke isn't going to do much.

[-:Undertaker:-]

King of missing the point. None of what you've said takes away from the fact that such harm is the only
only
only ONLY
only
O
N
L
Y
thing a gun is made for

Well it has the potential to do harm, yeah. And that's the point in having a gun in the first place as self defence (whether against the state or another individual) wouldn't work very well now would it without the harm principle?


Just gonna carry around my RPG when I go shopping, wonder if anyone will say no when I want a discount. Fear is still harm

Hiliariously funny.


They're a deterrent *+*BeCaUsE tHeY'rE bUiLt To KiLl*+* y'all

Built to kill, but aren't always used to kill. Their use is mainly a deterrent.


I thought we weren't allowed to generalise all gun owners in America or is it ok when you're claiming that they're all sane and logical upstanding members of society with Captain America-like senses of duty

The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens, absolutely.


That's a lovely crystal ball you've got there

Cheers, I pride myself on predicting my opponents because they're usually so predictable.

[FlyingJesus]

Law abiding citizens is not the same as superheros, you're pretending that if for some reason the US government started rounding up random people everyone would rise up and be like FOR FREEDOM AND HONOUR!!!!!!!!!!! and magically unite in the most cohesive and effective militia ever imagined because they'd all suddenly have the exact same values and sense of duty and obv they'd all be able to organise fully despite the fact that a government like that would shut down communications. You're then also in the same breath saying that guns are a deterrent and people wouldn't really use them for harm, amazing

[-:Undertaker:-]

I never said anything about hillbillys, so might want to re-read :P

Also, the whole Vietnam thing doesn't deal with 21st century technology

Military advances haven't actually moved on that much since that period as due to the ending of the Cold War in the 1980s, the need to keep developing at such a pace is void.

In any case, I can see you won't be happy until I can provide an example from last year (which of course I cannot) so i'll simply have to say that it's better to go down fighting tyranny and to lose than to surrender your freedoms. Do you agree? Or would you, as I suggested earlier, simply surrender yourself to a tyrannical government like a defenceless Jewish person in the 1930s? I'd take a bullet anyday than surrender myself and be turned into a lamp shade.


..and it's also worth noting they were fighting over Vietnam, which is a different story to fighting for American land itself. Do I honestly think 100m American civilians (That's about a third isn't it?) would be able to take down the US Military? No, I don't. If the military really wanted to win, they could simply nuke everything. 100m people firing their weapons at a nuke isn't going to do much.

The military wouldn't nuke everything as it would be pointless fighting then wouldn't it. What use would a dictatorship have with a piece of radioactive wasteland with no citizens left? Boy you do talk some rubbish. In any case, you don't think 100m+ Americans could bring down their armed forces. Fine. I think it's worth a shot defending our freedoms and I think it's entirely possible just as the Russian Revolution brought down a 500-year old dynasty that was seemingly immovable.

So again, you'd rather they simply gave up and handed themselves over, wouldn't you?


Law abiding citizens is not the same as superheros, you're pretending that if for some reason the US government started rounding up random people everyone would rise up and be like FOR FREEDOM AND HONOUR!!!!!!!!!!! and magically unite in the most cohesive and effective militia ever imagined because they'd all suddenly have the exact same values and sense of duty and obv they'd all be able to organise fully despite the fact that a government like that would shut down communications.

Well yes, many would - that's the point in gun rights in the first place. The yanks would likely rise up just as their ancestors did against the British, just as the Russians did against the Tsar, just as the Turks did against the occupying powers and just as the peasants in Vietnam did against the United States.

It can happen. It doesn't always happen, but at least they have the option open to defeat tyranny.


You're then also in the same breath saying that guns are a deterrent and people wouldn't really use them for harm, amazing

Guns should be used for harm when you are threatened, absolutely. You are damn right.

[FlyingJesus]

Military advances are mammoth and constantly evolving, not sure where you get your facts from but as someone who knows about military simulation technology I can tell you that there has certainly been a difference in the way warfare is conducted since the 80s in a drastic way. Again spouting nonsense about things you don't truly understand

And you keep talking about fighting a tyranny that doesn't exist while advocating for enforcing a definite tyranny of the majority...

[karter]

a moment of silence for those whose death only mattered so that they could be used as an example in support of guns

[-:Undertaker:-]

Military advances are mammoth and constantly evolving, not sure where you get your facts from but as someone who knows about military simulation technology I can tell you that there has certainly been a difference in the way warfare is conducted since the 80s in a drastic way. Again spouting nonsense about things you don't truly understand

That's true, but it's also true that guns have evolved since the 1980s. So whats your point.


And you keep talking about fighting a tyranny that doesn't exist while advocating for enforcing a definite tyranny of the majority...

The tyranny doesn't exist now, no. But one day it might. And that's why the Founders put it in.

If the guns work really well, then they'll do their job and deter a tyranny from arising in the first place.


a moment of silence for those whose death only mattered so that they could be used as an example in support of guns

I simply called for tighter controls on knives in China.

[FlyingJesus]

That's true, but it's also true that guns have evolved since the 1980s. So whats your point.

That your statement was an absolute uneducated lie...

[-:Undertaker:-]

That your statement was an absolute uneducated lie...

No it wasn't.

Most countries are still using 1980s military warfare. Britain is still using or was until recently using, in terms of the RAF, 1980s and 1990s aircraft. The Nimrod was being used still until a few years ago, and that was from the 1960s. Military technology takes decades to develop and bring onto line.

Just have a look at the dates on many of these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft

[FlyingJesus]

"Military advances haven't actually moved on that much since that period as due to the ending of the Cold War in the 1980s" that was a complete lie, and you can't get around it by saying that not everyone has taken advantage of the colossal advances that absolutely have happened since that time. Also aircraft aren't the only military apparatus, or even the most used

[Kardan]

No it wasn't.

Most countries are still using 1980s military warfare. Britain is still using or was until recently using, in terms of the RAF, 1980s and 1990s aircraft. The Nimrod was being used still until a few years ago, and that was from the 1960s. Military technology takes decades to develop and bring onto line.

Just have a look at the dates on many of these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft

Just because something was created in the 60's doesn't mean it's not been updated since then. I guess everyone is still driving their 1976 Ford Fiestas then and their 1959 Minis.

[-:Undertaker:-]

"Military advances haven't actually moved on that much since that period as due to the ending of the Cold War in the 1980s" that was a complete lie, and you can't get around it by saying that not everyone has taken advantage of the colossal advances that absolutely have happened since that time. Also aircraft aren't the only military apparatus, or even the most used

Military aircraft are key for controlling uprisings. Control of the sky is a key component in putting down any uprising hence why Saddam Hussein in the 1980s/1990s had his airforce knocked out of the sky over Kurdistan in northern Iraq to prevent him from controlling the region.

You can keep repeating lie lie lie all you want, what I say it true and i've just proven it whether it's with the RAF, Royal Navy or even what the soldiers themselves carry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Force s


Just because something was created in the 60's doesn't mean it's not been updated since then. I guess everyone is still driving their 1976 Ford Fiestas then and their 1959 Minis.

To my knowledge, usually if a gun is upgraded it'll be give a different code which makes it a different model type. In any case, I don't dispute that there haven't been advances - especially in information gathering and data - but broadly overall the weapons used and the military hardware are still that from the end of the Cold War era in the 1980s.

In any case, you still haven't answered my question as to whether you'd fight in the slim chance that you would have freedom (or freedom for your people) or surrender and be turned into a lamp shade. I'd fight.

[Kardan]

Military aircraft are key for controlling uprisings. Control of the sky is a key component in putting down any uprising hence why Saddam Hussein in the 1980s/1990s had his airforce knocked out of the sky over Kurdistan in northern Iraq to prevent him from controlling the region.

You can keep repeating lie lie lie all you want, what I say it true and i've just proven it whether it's with the RAF, Royal Navy or even what the soldiers themselves carry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Force s



To my knowledge, usually if a gun is upgraded it'll be give a different code which makes it a different model type. In any case, I don't dispute that there haven't been advances - especially in information gathering and data - but broadly overall the weapons used and the military hardware are still that from the end of the Cold War era in the 1980s.

In any case, you still haven't answered my question as to whether you'd fight in the slim chance that you would have freedom (or freedom for your people) or surrender and be turned into a lamp shade. I'd fight.

How is this whole lamp shade thing relevant?

And I'm sure those drones you love to talk about haven't advanced since 1980 either, right?

[-:Undertaker:-]

How is this whole lamp shade thing relevant?

Because I want you to answer what you would do if a tyranny arose and you thought you had little chance of defeating it. Would you still fight and potentially die and *maybe* secure freedom for future generations, or would you be a coward and simply sit back and accept it and maybe end up as a lampshade or soap?

I'm perfectly honest in that I would fight as my ancestors did.


And I'm sure those drones you love to talk about haven't advanced since 1980 either, right?

If you think your going to win by picking out some examples of where the technology has moved on then you are very wrong. I did not say nothing had moved on, I stated that much of the military hardware is from the 1980s/Cold War era - which it is.... which I only had to mention to defeat your ridiculous point of Viet Cong defeating 1970s technology and that somehow governments in 2014 can no longer be brought down. Of course they can.

They [governments with technologically advanced armies] were brought down in the 1700s by the people. Even more advanced armies were defeated in the 1800s by the people. In the early 1900s the same. In the late 1900s the same. And it's the same today with Libya and today in Syria.

[FlyingJesus]

You can keep repeating lie lie lie all you want, what I say it true and i've just proven it whether it's with the RAF, Royal Navy or even what the soldiers themselves carry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Force s

I haven't looked through every single gun listed but the main issue rifles and carbines came into production in the late 90s originally. Not exactly last week's project but certainly well after the Cold War, and of course that list has nothing to do with the computer warfare advances that have rendered a lot of manpower issues obsolete - what you've really shown is that the guns which you believe will save America from the attacks that will never come anyway haven't progressed nearly as much as the equipment used at the top level of the military which the government controls. It is still an absolute and irrefutable fact that you were wrong when you said that there haven't been military advancements and I can't understand why you don't just admit to not knowing what you were on about rather than pretending that you were right because knives and aviation haven't been fitted with supercomputers


If you think your going to win by picking out some examples of where the technology has moved on then you are very wrong

omf lol IF YOU THINK PROOF THAT I WAS WRONG WILL PROVE I'M WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG

[The Don]

omf lol IF YOU THINK PROOF THAT I WAS WRONG WILL PROVE I'M WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG

Hahahaha, literally couldn't make this up. DON'T USE FACTS WHICH PROVE I'M WRONG IN THIS ARGUMENT!

[Kardan]

Because I want you to answer what you would do if a tyranny arose and you thought you had little chance of defeating it. Would you still fight and potentially die and *maybe* secure freedom for future generations, or would you be a coward and simply sit back and accept it and maybe end up as a lampshade or soap?

I'm perfectly honest in that I would fight as my ancestors did.



If you think your going to win by picking out some examples of where the technology has moved on then you are very wrong. I did not say nothing had moved on, I stated that much of the military hardware is from the 1980s/Cold War era - which it is.... which I only had to mention to defeat your ridiculous point of Viet Cong defeating 1970s technology and that somehow governments in 2014 can no longer be brought down. Of course they can.

They [governments with technologically advanced armies] were brought down in the 1700s by the people. Even more advanced armies were defeated in the 1800s by the people. In the early 1900s the same. In the late 1900s the same. And it's the same today with Libya and today in Syria.

Ok, could you tell me what you would do if a massive asteroid hit the Earth and the only two human beings left alive were yourself and Justin Bieber? I feel that my question is just as relevant about you asking me whether I would end up as a lampshade or soap.

And do any of these governments from the 1700s, 1800s, early 1900s, late 1900s, Libya and Syria have the same technology as the US Military in 2014? No. So it's pointless to compare.