OK, Let's Take It From The Top - One More Time On Guns Vs. Knives

Mr. Pro Gun blogger didn't waste any time getting back - and claiming he didn't do anything "dishonest" as far as quoting me - but again, leaving out a key segment,  referencing Vester Flanagan with a knife - isn't exactly kosher so let's agree he was at least borderline dishonest in portraying my quote.

Anyway, after delivering a full seminar on the lethality of military and other knives (including reaction times)  he at least finally DID accept my hypothetical, based on a knife (intended generic, but ok, I didn't clarify that so we let him have his way with all these exotic knives, reaction times etc.) He comes away then concluding that Flanagan "sure as shit" could have killed those two reporters - Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Ok, I will be generous and grant the outside chance that might have happened, using one of his exotic knives and assuming  Flanagan at that time possessed the skill and dexterity he assumes. (Which I doubt because Flanagan wasn't in an intact state of mind - but let's not quibble.)

The question remains: Is there a case for mass shootings or killings (he cites a mass killing in China using knives that took out 29), in the U.S. context where knives would prove as deadly as high powered weapons?  This is the key question and let's also admit that Vester Flanagan's act only barely meets the standards of a mass shooting - which hitherto had been defined as four or more victims shot. Hence, we need to find a better example (not marginal) to prove the point that guns are more lethal than knives - even big ones!

I submit that only one case is needed to disprove his contention, and that would be the Aurora movie theater massacre from July, 2012. There, James Eagan Holmes, using assorted high power rifles and a Glock, killed 12 and badly injured 59.  Now, had Holmes ONLY been armed with knives - even lethal ones like Mr. Pro Gun displays - could he have done as much damage? I argue absolutely not!

For one thing, the theater was dark. Holmes' wound and death toll occurred because he was firing blindly into a crowd and given the semi-automatic and automatic  nature of his weapons was sure to kill more than a handful of people and devastatingly wound many others. Unlike with a knife, he didn't need to take careful aim to rack up a death toll - a point many of these gun guys forget. (Sure there will be exceptions like in China, but in the U.S. those perps would likely have been taken out by ex -military or others, while the Chinese remain largely a passive people in their belief systems.)

Even wielding two big knives there is NO damned way in hell James Holmes could have done an equal amount of damage. Even thrusting as fast as Pro Gun argues, he'd have been taken down before he got very much past  the first row (a number of military guys were in the crowd).  The darkness would also have impeded accuracy and obviously, lethality. Hell, you can't very well kill what you can't see! (Though a gun surely can - even firing it wildly- as in a dark cinema.)

As a further note on the original story, Holmes' weapons' lethality basically halted when the clip jammed from his last semi-automatic rifle. Many people by that point were diving behind the rows of seats. To have used a big knife instead, Holmes would've had to ferret out each victim row by row and stab to hit a vital organ. Again, this wouldn't have been a piece of cake as it would've for powerful weapons which can easily rip through seats and find their targets.

The crux of the argument then rests on just one case where knives would not be able to do the damage of guns, and that case is the Aurora theater massacre.

Mr. 'Pro Gun' can now parse this any way he wants, or portray his own takes - i.e. invoking "magic" knives that automatically find their way to vital organs even in a darkened theater.  Or bestowing super x-ray vision on the perp. But I'd say 'case closed.'

If people could only get knives there'd be significantly less than 90 plus killings a day in this country and thirty thousand suicides a year. We'd enjoy similar low gun death stats to the sane world. It's a lot easier mentally to put that barrel up to your noggin and pull the trigger than to put that blade to your jugular and thrust it.

If You're Going To Quote My Blog - Do It HONESTLY!

I have no problem, none at all, with other bloggers quoting my words from one or more blog posts. If they want to use them to try to show I have a "lame" argument, fine. Just do me one favor and make sure the quote is: a) correct and complete, and b) unchanged from the context intended.  If either or both of those isn't done then I don't consider the tactics used to be "cricket"  and I don't regard the counter arguments as valid. Instead, they are egregious and based upon a distortion of the original.

A case in point concerns a post of mine on gun insanity from several days ago, in which I argued that had the Roanoke killer Vester Flanagan  ONLY been armed with a knife, he'd never have been able to inflict the level of damage he did with his Glock 9mm. Evidently, a pro-gun enthusiast blogger didn't cotton to my take and tried to use my own quote against me - to show my argument was "lame".

Problem is, his method was dishonest. For while he correctly quoted the first segment, i.e. "If gun sales were as limited in this country as in others, Flanagan might not have been able to carry out his foul deed", he totally left out the context and the specific hypothetical condition: i.e. that Flanagan was armed only with a KNIFE.  That was the hypothetical I applied, not that he could get a "bomb" or do anything else, like "getting a gun from a ghetto" (?!) Hence, it wasn't kosher or cricket to change the conditions to try and shoot down the argument in a more facile way! (Resorting to the "straw man" fallacy.)

It's tempting, of course, to interject red herrings like "bombs" - gun types do it all the time.  But they either take the rest of us for lacking common sense, or they lack it. A bomb, after all, has to be carefully assembled and one screw up and kA-BOOM. The guy is blown to bits without completing his goal. In the end, given the complexities, it'd always be easier to choose a knife than a bomb. So, it's a red herring to drag a bomb into the mix when the hypothetical condition sets out a knife.  Obviously, Mr. Pro Gun couldn't squirm out of the given hypothetical so dragged in a bomb. (And compounding the original offense even more egregiously, dragged in a "gun from the ghetto" in the next breath!)

As I noted, given THAT hypothetical condition - which the gun blogger carefully excluded- it is doubtful Flanagan would be able to kill two people and severely wound a third. The time factor, as well as the inconvenience of having to use a manual weapon up close and personal - as opposed to neatly discharging a powerful firearm from a distance -would likely have prevented it. And I stand by that.

As I noted in my corollary to the pet chant: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

Yes, BUT IF guns didn't make killing so easy then people wouldn't kill so many people.

And, like it or not, Mr. Pro Gun was not able to disprove that, again using the hypothetical given and without resorting to 'add ins' that I never cited.

The hard, logical fact that gun aficionados refuse to accept is that guns DO make killing easier. Expeditious is probably the best word. Also, from the stats I cited, 70 percent of gun murders happen in the home, not outside it. - or done by nuts. The persons doing the killing were always originally in the proper state of mind but "lost it" in a fiery argument. Then turned the gun on one or more loved ones. These are stats the gun guy has yet to refute, and also, whether HE personally would do such a thing or not is immaterial. He is one guy - I am writing of thousands of documented, actual cases from  2009-2014.

Again, I don't mind anyone contradicting me, or arguing in an opposite way - but I do expect if you use any quotes from my blog you do so honestly, and not twist them around - or omit sections- to try and make your own arguments less onerous.

I don't believe that's asking too much!