|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 13, 2016 0:50:04 GMT -5
Just a little matter of linguistic fact: The phrase "knife violence" is indeed in use--in the UK. I've been hearing/reading about it for a couple years. Just Google the term. Here's a recent example: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/babb/11832805/Celtic-fans-respond-to-threat-of-knife-violence-from-Fenerbahche-fans.htmlAnd from a Washington Post story about incidents in Israel: www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20151228_Mideast_knife_violence_repetitive__puzzling.htmlThere is absolutely nothing particularly political about naming a category of violence after the instrument used. Nor does the appearance of such a phrase necessarily signal some deliberate spin-doctoring--though such things do happen, as when the anti-abortion movement rebranded itself "pro-life" and its pro-abortion counterpart settled on "pro-choice." Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, a nunnery is just a nunnery, and the PR people were on lunch break when the copy was being written. And data may not be the plural of anecdote, but the observations of an expert in a field do carry some weight. Denigrating a professional's good-faith account of what he has witnessed in the course of a long career is--well, "graceless" is the kindest description I can come up with.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 13, 2016 6:10:01 GMT -5
from way back at the end of page 6, but I was rereading some, and this struck me as a +1I can't wade into the back-and-forth mortar fire here. But I will resurrect the original posts. It saddens me that whenever some type of gun regulation is discussed by government, that so many people rush out, like the woman discussed, and buy a weapon totally unsuited for them and their life. (The woman with the .357). These are the people that are potentially much more harm to themselves and those around them than they'll ever be from a criminal. I don't want to change the constitution. I don't want to take weapons away from responsible people who know and understand the risk and will act knowledgeably and responsibly with their guns, like Kris and some here. But so many people rushing out to buy guns makes it a more dangerous world for me and my family. On the subject of the constitution and gun regulation; I've said it many times before; the country already regulates weapons. You can't own a tank. And assault weapons were legally and constitutionally banned once before. The legislation had a sunset provision. So it's not a constitutional issue to ban them again. It's merely a voting issue. "All in favor or against say yay, or nay." It would seem to me that proper background checks hurts NO responsible gun owner advocate in any way. In fact it protects them, because it allows them to be armed as they see fit, and makes it harder for nefarious people to be armed. But mostly I'm very saddened by the number of people that irresponsibly buy something out of the ability to handle. If they don't have enough sense to get something they can handle, how can we expect them to control and use it properly. They are a hazard to us all.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 13, 2016 7:23:24 GMT -5
Once again, 15 pages of nothing that says gun control is needed or would even be effective. And gun sales are doing just fine because of it.
|
|