GumiBear
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Yeah it seems that a maniac wielding a knife can't do as much damage as a maniac with a gun. I'm sorry but dead is dead, whether you are the only victim or not. Try telling the family of the one dead person that was killed by someone with a knife "Hey at least he was the only one, just think if the guy had a gun there would have been more dead than just your husband". Yet if the guy being attacked with a knife had a gun to protect himself the outcome may have been different. Why is it that they want to stick their chest out and say "see since the ban gun violence has decreased", yet crime is on the rise, that is why now they are banning knives with blades longer than 3 inches.Before it is all over with they'll be eating withtheir fingers becauseplastic sporks will be banned next.So let me see, some math makes it okay for this woman to be a victim of violent crime, as long as she's just one of a few. Unbelievable. I guess it never occurs to guys like this that for the actual victims, there is 100% probability of being a victim. But hey, you know, from a social engineering standpoint, those poor devils are just a few broken eggs in the Big Omelet, right?Quite aside from the question of why she was even carrying a gun (to defend herself, she said, even though in Austin, a city of just under 750,000 people, there were just 30 murders last year, compared to, say, the London borough of Lambeth, population 273,000, where there were 23), at least she'd left it in her car.
I want to slap this man in the face.