Current Events > 'Banning guns will preve mass shootings, but there will be more mass stabbings.'

(+) Yeah! (+)

prevent*

God damn 80 character count

Whats stupider than very stupid?

Mass stabbings are significantly less deadly

Even if knife attacks increased, knives are inherently less dangerous than guns and people are far more likely to survive those kind of attacks.

How many mass stabbings are there in a year anyway? Probably more shootings in one week

CE_gonna_CE posted...

Whats stupider than very stupid?

The United Kingdom

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/7/AAEhCpAAEcSL.jpg

Even if they did increase, it wouldn't increase by an equivalent level. Guns are preferable to these sorts of people because they're easy. They're far more lethal, and perhaps more importantly to these people, they work at a distance. It's less easy for a gunman to be stopped until other people who also have guns are on the scene, whereas it's far more likely for a knife wielder to get incapacitated by people (without knives) because of the necessity of getting up close and personal.

It's like saying if people were no longer able to talk shit and pick fights on the internet, they'd just become equally more violent in real life to compensate. No, they wouldn't. People do that on the internet because, again, it's easier and "safer" for them to do so.

I feel it's all a moot point, though. Guns are simply too easy to get, whether or not they get "banned".

Questionmarktarius posted...

The United Kingdom

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/7/AAEhCpAAEcSL.jpg

Th... that isn't a routine thing you know, right?

Whether it's guns, knives, or fists, banning weapons doesn't get to the root of the problem. If the number of attacks doesn't significantly drop the body count shouldn't matter. Mental health support and the media are the problems.

It's accurate; and also stupid in the sense that it misses an important point. A mass shooting will injure more people than a mass stabbing, and more of those people will die. You can't prevent every crime; doesn't mean attempts to prevent crimes shouldn't be made, but what it does mean is that if you can't eliminate it, reducing the impact and/or frequency of it is valuable too. If we can turn some of those mass shootings into mass stabbings, well, that isn't as good as them not happening at all, but it's better than all of them still being shootings.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Obviously. But people act like banning guns is going to make people stop having violent thoughts.

If a society got a need for mass murder, perhaps we need to fix that as well?

It wouldn't be 1:1, but we'd definitely see a fairly massive increase in knife incidents from criminals, for sure. I think anyone with a mass-shooter mentality would probably switch to running people down in cars or bombs.

specialkid8 posted...

If the number of attacks doesn't significantly drop the body count shouldn't matter

I think the number of casualties should matter, personally.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The United Kingdom

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/7/AAEhCpAAEcSL.jpg

Holy shit thank god they got there when they did. Looks like they had enough weaponry to attack a whole garden!

I think an uptick in acid attacks would be more likely.

I dare someone try to mass stab me. I'd fuck em up

ThyCorndog posted...

I dare someone try to mass stab me. I'd fuck em up

That's how orgies work.

It's hard to tell

On one hand there may be more mass stabbings simply by virtue of that being available. (Of course "more mass stabbings" would still be far less deadly than our current amount of mass shootings)

On the other hand, a lot of mass shooters are bitches who only do what they do because it's easy. If they can't get guns they might not try stabbings because they're fucking worthless cowards who piss themselves and get their shit stomped in if they had to actually confront another person face to face.

realistically there would be more, but no where enough to make up any difference. id be more worried about everything else. the real crazies will turn to other more destructive measures that are both more risky for them, but can carry harsher tolls. more arson, poisons, bombings ect. atleast with someone shooting you can hear it and potentially run. its harder (if impossible) to defend your self against the other methods. even something like vehicular assault/murders. on top of that other crimes will most likely increase drastically like home invasions, assaults, robbery ect. especially when criminals can still have access to guns thanks to the internet, 3d printing and a little extra ingenuity not to mention how many that are already out there to begin with which would probably take 1-2 generations just to make a dent in.

i think certain things would be improved in some areas while others get turned into a dumpster fire and in general nothing good ever really comes from disarming the general population while the system who is still in control is already corrupt as hell.

Kim_Seong-a posted...

On the other hand, a lot of mass shooters are bitches who only do what they do because it's easy. If they can't get guns they might not try stabbings because they're fucking worthless cowards who piss themselves and get their shit stomped in if they had to actually confront another person face to face.

I agree with this. Guns have extremely long range + lethality. An unarmed untrained person can't defend against one, and even someone trained for situations like that is in big danger. Knives are a lot less lethal, and require you to be within physical range of the target. While knife violence may go up, "mass" stabbings are pretty unlikely, since any lone mass stabber would likely get his ass handed to him by the room full of people he's trying to stab.

Tell you what, if I had to choose between being in a mass shooting or a mass stabbing I'd choose the stabbing every goddamn time

ThyCorndog posted...

I dare someone try to mass stab me. I'd fuck em up

Quote from man stabbed.

Average Americans have had access to clip fed semi automatic firearms for over a hundred years. But Columbine style mass shootings were incredibly rare before the 1990s I wonder what changed?

Australia had 13 mass shootings in 18 years before they reformed their gun laws, and none for at least 10 years afterwards.
How many mass stabbings do they have?

thekosmicfool posted...

Quote from man stabbed.

Someone trying to stab you is likely to have multiple openings to counterattack.

thekosmicfool posted...

Quote from man stabbed.

rip man stabbed