Merion, PA man, 23, kills mother, father and twin brother...with sword...no gun involved...

[old mark]

http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-07/news/28664861_1_police-cars-twin-brother-nathan-gorenstein

It is the person, not the tool - they are no less dead because they were not shot.


mark

[villager]

1. and the number of sword deaths this year vs. gun deaths will be....?

n/t

[lawodevolution]

17. how about automobile accidents or doctor negligence compared to guns.

[villager]

19. yeah, autos are lethal - hence licensure, insurance, et al

We wouldn't want a device so easily lethal to fall into just anybody's hands, at any time, and to be used without training or practice, right?

[PavePusher]

23. "hence licensure, insurance, et al"

None of which do anything to prevent accidents.

As for the "training or practice", for most folks those are rudimentary at best. And no national push to increase training or have testing for licence renewal, etc.

[villager]

32. so you are *for* the revocation of all licensing for driving, drivers training, license plates, etc.

one assumes?

Given that your ultimate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is amped-up Libertarianism -- guns for all, no questions asked!

[PavePusher]

35. There's no overlap between political parties? At all?

Huh, guess, I missed the policy memo, eh?

And yes, I would change the current driving requirements. Remove all the stupid state licencing. Require insurance and leave the training standards up to the insurance companies. They would strike a balance between safety and revenue in the market place. Cause damages/injuries/deaths in a collision without coverage, and all your assets are turned over to the injured parties to cover their costs/damages and/or you go to jail.

Your licence plate would be issued by your insurance company and display company, policy number and level of training.

[villager]

36. Ah, you'd privatize the entire thing -- leaving it to insurance companies

Telling. Randian, even.

[PavePusher]

39. So, point out the shortcomings in the idea.

This vague associational fallacy you ascribe to is... meaningless.

[Glassunion]

33. We have been informed by others(pro-gun control)

here that you cannot compare firearms with automobiles. They are designed for different purposes.

But that said, since you brought it up...

Advocates of increased gun restrictions like yourself try to promote the automobile model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely applied.

First is that you cannot overlook the fact that no license or registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property.

Another thing that is mostly overlooked when making the comparison is that no proof of "need" is required. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age restrictions(I bought my first car at 12) for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse - that is regulated.

Even though the total of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no arsenal license equivalent(registering collectors as firearms dealers) is asked of automobile collectors(Jay Leno) or motorcycle racing enthusiasts.

Also, I have yet to see anyone suggesting that we should have laws in place for the ability to sue the manufacturers of automobiles when they are misused by criminals, or cause harm from their negligent use.

Would you care if someone suggests banning motor vehicles because they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the speed limit?

But since you brought up the comparison, I feel that I was given the green light to actually do that. So here is my comparison... Cars have good uses and so do firearms. I do not think that either should be regulated solely on the acts of criminals.

[HopeHoops]

2. My 17 year old daughter is quite skilled with a sword (kumdo) and has several.

She even has a double-edged sword that can slice paper. She used the expired sunflower stalks as targets last fall. Nasty-ass weapon. Usually she uses a wooden sword for practice, but they have to use a metal one for testing and most of hers are really sharp.

[Remmah2]

4. I'll bet that sword was a pre-ban with a barrel shroud.

IBTL

[old mark]

8. Protected by the sword lobby.....nt

[RSillsbee]

12. swords as a solution to swords

Is your daughter a member of the evil right wing NSA?

[HopeHoops]

13. No, but she does have a silencer for the double-sided blade.

:evilgrin:

[WatsonT]

27. I assume she's licensed and it's registered with the state

and she keeps a sword lock on it at all times.

Oh god, it isn't military style is it?

[HopeHoops]

30. She at least keeps the safety on.

I don't think any of them are US military style, and not quite samurai, but definitely long, sharp, and lethal.

[GeorgiaPeach]

3. So what? Does this mean guns DON'T claim thousands of victims?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kennah]

16. Only those full of evil thoughts and inclinations, and accompanied by a willing human accomplice

[lawodevolution]

18. exact.y, guns don't kill many people. People kill people.

I havn't heard of a gun being thrown at someone and killing someone.

[Euromutt]

37. The point is that, as the slogan goes, "people kill people"

When one person uses a firearm to unlawfully injure another, the gun is not the actor; it is the tool used by the actor. Strictly speaking, it is true that it's not the guns that claim victims, it is the people who wield them, and that kind of person is perfectly capable of inflicting injury, up to and including fatal injury, by means other than a firearm. A couple of years ago, a guy in New Jersey beat his girlfriend's mother to death with a TV tray table, to name one extreme example.

The upshot of that is that if you want to reduce violent crime, and particularly homicide, you have to address the actors, not on a particular category of weapons.

[ileus]

5. did it have a bayonet attachment?

[old mark]

6. Yes-it was an assault sword.....nt

[Kennah]

14. Machine sword - never needs reloading, just kills, and kills, and kills

[WatsonT]

28. My goodness, it's like a clip with an unlimited number of rounds

Swords should only be able to slice 10 times in a row, no more.

[guitar man]

9. sigh, another "anomaly"

everyone knows people can only be murdered with guns....but these damned "anomolies" keep cropping up. :banghead:






(do I really need this?) :sarcasm:

[jpak]

10. If the victims carry concealed swords they could have defended themselves

yup

[Starboard Tack]

11. Why is this in the gun forum?

[Kennah]

15. Because the sword forum is down

[WatsonT]

29. Someone hacked up the servers

[PavePusher]

31. Scroan....!

:toast:

[Kennah]

34. Hackers take notice! Remember that it cuts both ways!

[Euromutt]

38. Because it's relevant to "discussion of gun-related public policy issues"

In that it is an example of a familicide that would not have been prevented by more stringent firearms laws, because it was committed with blades.

[VoteProgressive]

20. Why is this news?

[PavePusher]

21. Why is any murder news? n/t

[Remmah2]

24. but only gun murders seem to make the news.

I wonder why???

[Remmah2]

22. Did ya figure it out yet?

??

yup?

[VoteProgressive]

25. No I did not. Explain it to me.

[RSillsbee]

26. Clearly, the sword emboldened the crime

Make swords scarce, that's the ticket