Woman attacks boyfriend with katana for playing too much PUBG

[wiyosaya]

The simple minded term used to fool the weak minded is knives kill more people then RIFLES, rifles being the key word, in reality GUNS kill far more people the knives.....

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20

Great reference, but many on this board think the FBI is deep state and they are ready and willing to stand up against them with their cache of 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[wiyosaya]

lol, one guy got a bomb compared to the weekly school shootings in America. Totally comparable

Oh yeah, murder still goes on even though it's banned, according to your logic we should just get rid of all muder laws. What you did is take a one off occurrence and compare to something common, aka shootings in America. The funny part is you could pick at least 10 other shootings in America just this year (and it's still a young year at that) that were worse than that bombing.

Also arms are defined as "weapons and ammunition; armaments."

If you are reading the constitution as it was written, nukes are clearly a weapon. Just thought I'd point out the silliness of interpreting a document that's over 200 years old as it's written. Clearly the 2nd amendment didn't take into account nuclear weapons or even the extremely deadly guns we have now. Guns should not be a right for every ***** yokel, they should only be given to those with proper training. It's a sham that it requires much more effort to get a car than it does to get a gun.

No matter how much you and I cite verifiable facts or present valid arguments, there will always be those who twist those facts to fit their alternate reality. However, you and I both will likely try to present a reality that is verifiable. Unfortunately, we can lead these horses to water, but we cannot make them drink.

Perhaps we should pity those in that alternate reality as they act as if the 2nd Amendment is the only thing worth anything in their lives. I would not be surprised if at least some of those have their 2nd Amendment right under their pillow at night.

Because she bought a samurai sword rather than a gun, both she and her ex-boyfriend will have a next chapter to their lives.

You got that right.

 

[wiyosaya]

When has a missile been considered a rifle / pistol?
How do the bad guys get bombs over in Europe? Even though They are banned...

lol, one guy got a bomb compared to the weekly school shootings in America. Totally comparable

Oh yeah, murder still goes on even though it's banned, according to your logic we should just get rid of all muder laws. What you did is take a one off occurrence and compare to something common, aka shootings in America. The funny part is you could pick at least 10 other shootings in America just this year (and it's still a young year at that) that were worse than that bombing.

Also arms are defined as "weapons and ammunition; armaments."

If you are reading the constitution as it was written, nukes are clearly a weapon. Just thought I'd point out the silliness of interpreting a document that's over 200 years old as it's written. Clearly the 2nd amendment didn't take into account nuclear weapons or even the extremely deadly guns we have now. Guns should not be a right for every ***** yokel, they should only be given to those with proper training. It's a sham that it requires much more effort to get a car than it does to get a gun.

The constitution also didn't take into account electronic communication and global communication. The first amendment is responsible for a far greater degree of bloodshed as a catalyst compared to the 2nd which is extremely minor in comparison. If someone wants to take away my self-defense and sporting rifles they can also start jotting down their crappy opinions on pieces of paper and we can call it good.

Perhaps you should exercise your 1st Amendment rights and tell us all why you are such a good gun owner and why you need any guns in the first place. Your input just might sway popular opinion in your favor.

Whether either side likes it or not, the 2nd Amendment was conceived at a time where things were significantly different than they are now. Typically, once something like the 2nd Amendment is written, whether it is actually the 2nd Amendment or a law that has no relation to the 2nd Amendment, people will follow it with an almost religious fervor even though it might make no sense in modern context. Challenging something that has been followed traditionally creates an opportunity for dialog to improve things. Perhaps, humanity will learn and adopt something more appropriate for the current context, perhaps not.

As much as I might think current law enforcement in the US is corrupt, I would trust far less a group of 2nd Amendment militia men to dispense equitable justice as there are those on that edge of things that seem to think that the law is what they decide and nothing else matters.

Pun intended, it is a catch-22 situation for both sides; however, I think that humanity needs to find a way forward. As I see it, that way forward will not come without significant changes to the economic systems of the world as if you look closer at those like the last school shooter, it is easy to see that he felt disenfranchised from opportunity in the world and was willing to pick up the false narratives of others who choose to blame that disenfranchisement on everyone else.

To me, it is not as easy as 2nd Amendment rights alone.

 

[Prosercunus]

Perhaps you should exercise your 1st Amendment rights and tell us all why you are such a good gun owner and why you need any guns in the first place. Your input just might sway popular opinion in your favor.

Whether either side likes it or not, the 2nd Amendment was conceived at a time where things were significantly different than they are now. Typically, once something like the 2nd Amendment is written, whether it is actually the 2nd Amendment or a law that has no relation to the 2nd Amendment, people will follow it with an almost religious fervor even though it might make no sense in modern context. Challenging something that has been followed traditionally creates an opportunity for dialog to improve things. Perhaps, humanity will learn and adopt something more appropriate for the current context, perhaps not.

As much as I might think current law enforcement in the US is corrupt, I would trust far less a group of 2nd Amendment militia men to dispense equitable justice as there are those on that edge of things that seem to think that the law is what they decide and nothing else matters.

Pun intended, it is a catch-22 situation for both sides; however, I think that humanity needs to find a way forward. As I see it, that way forward will not come without significant changes to the economic systems of the world as if you look closer at those like the last school shooter, it is easy to see that he felt disenfranchised from opportunity in the world and was willing to pick up the false narratives of others who choose to blame that disenfranchisement on everyone else.

To me, it is not as easy as 2nd Amendment rights alone.

Let us break it down step by step. I don't need to justify rather I am a good gun owner or not .(I am, seeing as how I volunteer at a gun club, have my carry permit, etc). I reject the notion of "need" when it comes to my firearms in the first place, it's a constitutionally protected right so I have what I have, other people don't have what they don't have or want.

The 2nd amendment was conceived at a time to combat tyranny, the point is to be able to protect yourself and to protect against a tyrannical government. People can think it's all fairies and unicorns out there but tyranny is possible even now. I see the 2nd as being as relevant back in the 1700's as it is now so traditionalism doesn't even factor in for myself.

Guys dressing in camo is often used as a tool to discredit 2nd amendment supporters. In reality the militia is your neighbors and your friends and anyone that is willing to take up arms against a foreign or domestic enemy. I don't feel the need to address some guys larping in the woods, that is their prerogative as long as they aren't causing physical harm to others in a direct fashion.

I think there is a lot to be said about gun control and what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. The Constitution is a baseline and essentially the laws we pass are interpretations on how far we can go before it is "generally agreed upon" that a certain law is violating whatever particular amendment and since the view on that will almost always be subjective that is an ongoing process. I also pay little attention to those that don't want to address other factors such as mental illness and societal norms.

It's a no wonder that gun owners and/or 2nd amendment supporters become defensive when they see laws and regulations passed based on nothing but emotions. I rather we not run our country like a grade school where little timmy ruins it for the rest of the class. That's not how our republic should work.

 

[GeforcerFX]

Perhaps you should exercise your 1st Amendment rights and tell us all why you are such a good gun owner and why you need any guns in the first place. Your input just might sway popular opinion in your favor.

Because I live 30-40 min away from a law enforcement reaction, I have to protect my self from dangerous animals that live in my area (Mtn Lions, Bears, wolves). I also use it to help mitigate overpopulation of animals in the forest, with the blessing of my states gov and provide food for me and my friends to eat.


I get that most of the anti-gun people have never set foot in a town that's more than 2-3 hours from a major metro area, but almost half the country lives in rural areas. Those areas have there own security problems (mainly drug issues) but most weapons are used hunting. Home/Personal defense is second, because as I stated above we don't have 5-10 min police response times, and I have never heard of someone having to defend themselves on there property in LA from a 1,000lb momma grizzly. Wide sweeping gun laws while maybe helping those in cities (depends on illegal gun control, which is bad in the USA) but it takes away from rest of the nation's rights. I have no major issues with states or even counties/cities doing what's best for them law wise, the people that live in those areas have a much closer connection to the representation. That might mean some states need to work out deals with neighboring states, should someone from California be able to buy a weapon that is not allowed for sale in Cal in Nevada, then take it home to Cal? Prob not, Cal and Nevada need to work that out, California(or insert other states) and it's reps in the federal level shouldn't be pushing there gun law's agenda onto every other state through federal laws.

Something I don't get is looking at the FBI numbers you have my state, Montana, there's just over a million of us here in Montana, but there is around 4-5 million guns in Montana (lots of big collectors). We only had 17 firearm murders for a million people with access to 5 million guns. But then looking at California, you have 40 million people that did almost 1200 murders with firearms, even if you take our 17 and multiply by 40 your only half of California's firearm murders. What the heck is causing the huge growth in firearm murders in Cal? Is it the cramped city life, diversity in the population, massive crime? Just strange, and Cal is one of those states that's cracked down on guns as much as they can while still making decent money off them. They are one of the states the ATF and Border Patrol are heavy in so I would hope illegal firearms control is getting better there. I think it boils down to space, you get people on top of each other all the time and they snap more often, can't handle the stress of the city life or something, or maybe it's all gangs and Cal really needs to crack down on gang violence.

 

[Evernessince]

What? School shootings are not weekly? Not even close. Not even monthly. Unless you get your news from CNN which counts people committing suicide near a school (and not shooting anyone else) a "school shooting."

Your murder point argues stronger for the other side. No one is arguing that laws against murder don't stop crime. However, if someone is willing to violate murder laws (the most strongly punished of all crimes), will another law stop them? No. Someone who has decided to commit murder has already chosen to violate the law.

I know statistics aren't what people want to hear, but children are still very safe at schools. They are much more likely to die in a car accident than be shot at school. In fact school violence has decreased significantly since the early 1990's, contrary to what the media would lead you to believe. Hey, school shootings sell ad space, gotta make that dollar!

But, I'm sure all this will fall on deaf ears. It doesn't fit the narrative of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" If I can stress one point, please always use caution when a group wants you to make a decision with your heart instead of your brain. Salesman do it, the media does it and politicians do it, but it will often bite you.

Ya know, I strictly remember additional laws being added to increase the sentences of certain types of murders that have been effective. You are arguing against the deterrent affect of laws, which has been proven time and time again. If more people were willing to murder before a law was enacted and that number suddenly drops then obviously "someone who has decided to commit murder" was deterred by the law. This isn't debatable, it's the basis for many laws we currently use and it's proven to work time and time again.

"I know statistics aren't what people want to hear, but children are still very safe at schools. They are much more likely to die in a car accident than be shot at school. In fact school violence has decreased significantly since the early 1990's, contrary to what the media would lead you to believe. Hey, school shootings sell ad space, gotta make that dollar!"

Yeah great, we have less geeks being shoved in lockers and more bullets in bodies, what a trade-off! The key word here is violence. The lethality is way up. Also, what statistics are you referring to? I don't see any numbers.

"But, I'm sure all this will fall on deaf ears. It doesn't fit the narrative of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" If I can stress one point, please always use caution when a group wants you to make a decision with your heart instead of your brain. Salesman do it, the media does it and politicians do it, but it will often bite you."

I can see you've been groomed well. So I guess the only way you win an argument in your mind is to invalidate other's opinion by placing a rhetoric template on them they never even used. FYI, if you wanted to use your brain, as you put it, you would use gun control similar to countries like Switzerland, which have a national gun identity just like America but effective strong gun control. But nope, every other country is wrong, Typical American.

 

[Duke9192]

In my humble opinion, it always seems that when I talk to someone of the "guns should be banned" mentality its as if they completely omit the the fact that a gun is the number one way a person can defend themselves from an attacker. This is especially so during a home invasion. I bet the victim in this article would have benefitted from having a handgun at arms reach to shoot the attacker. The article states he tried to defend himself. Some will argue that she would have used the gun to kill him and that could be true, but what if the attacker was an intruder and the two of them lying in bed? One victim could have grabbed the gun and fired at the assailant. If you support a gun ban, you support taking away the fundamental right of a human being, who is under brutal attack, to defend themselves with a proven effective firearm. One thing that is key, and people don't think of this it seems, is that when guns become outlawed we will still have guns but they will no longer be registered to individuals. They will then be smuggled in and be used to commit crimes without any trace to who purchased that firearm. With an increase in gun smuggling you would likely see full auto machine gun style rifles because the gun would already be illegal in the first place so why not? People are just crazy and that's why we have guns, to protect ourselves from them. We just have to have suitable laws to keep guns from them. The fbi was informed several times about the Florida school shooter, why do you think they allowed it to happen? That's the question that needs to be answered. Make no mistake, they allowed it to happen.

 

[Evernessince]

In my humble opinion, it always seems that when I talk to someone of the "guns should be banned" mentality its as if they completely omit the the fact that a gun is the number one way a person can defend themselves from an attacker. This is especially so during a home invasion. I bet the victim in this article would have benefitted from having a handgun at arms reach to shoot the attacker. The article states he tried to defend himself. Some will argue that she would have used the gun to kill him and that could be true, but what if the attacker was an intruder and the two of them lying in bed? One victim could have grabbed the gun and fired at the assailant. If you support a gun ban, you support taking away the fundamental right of a human being, who is under brutal attack, to defend themselves with a proven effective firearm. One thing that is key, and people don't think of this it seems, is that when guns become outlawed we will still have guns but they will no longer be registered to individuals. They will then be smuggled in and be used to commit crimes without any trace to who purchased that firearm. With an increase in gun smuggling you would likely see full auto machine gun style rifles because the gun would already be illegal in the first place so why not? People are just crazy and that's why we have guns, to protect ourselves from them. We just have to have suitable laws to keep guns from them. The fbi was informed several times about the Florida school shooter, why do you think they allowed it to happen? That's the question that needs to be answered. Make no mistake, they allowed it to happen.

No one here is advocating for a gun ban, you are just pandering to the extreme to garner support from gun nuts. What people want are effective guns laws. A mental background check needs to be mandated on the federal level, something we don't do right now. In addition, training and gun discipline should be a requirement, there are zero excuses why guns require less training than cars. If they are as important to you as you say, that's the least you can do. As the old saying goes, if you are going to brandish a weapon, you should know how to use it.

Instead we got people like you busting moderate's nuts for fixing our screwed system.

 

[Evernessince]

No it just makes it harder for the good guys to protect themselves. Bad guys already dont care about the law.

There is a difference with your logic and what's real. You want to take away a choice in this case being able to protect ones self. Your comparison to children and tacks to guns is silly. Is it illegal for a parent to leave a tack out in your home? And should we even think about making laws inside a persons home like that? Noooo

Logic, you should practice what you preach. How do people in Japan or Switzerland protect themselves with their strict gun laws? Oh, that's right, they don't need to in the first place and even if they did the worst a robber can bring is a knife. What are you going to do against a robber with a gun, kill each other? Brilliant solution but then again you are the one advocating for that robber to have that gun in the first place.

Your thinking is "Hey guys let's get more guns to stop people from potentially hurting me sometime in the future all the while making it easier for those potential people to do so!" /facepalm. Unlike you misconceptions, it's nearly impossible for any criminal to get a gun in Japan, let alone a small time robber. The Yakuza are even fading away. Fact: The "Bad Guys" do care about the law. As I've pointed out numerous times, the law has a deterrent effect, as proven by the drop in murders when you make murdering illegal or when you ban counterfeiting.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

You are sacrificing other people's lives for your temporary safety, if you can even call it that. Of course, we would have to assume that you will even use the gun to protect yourself but then again thanks to that very choice it's probable the perp also has a gun. Hell you aren't even for common sense gun laws that prevent wackos from getting guns.

You have so little faith in public institutions like the police to protect you that you are willing to let people die so that the mentally insane, teenagers, and yourself can continue to use guns. Comparing a tack to a gun is laughable at best, it's as logical as saying an elephant and a grape have around the same weight.

 

[Evernessince]

Because I live 30-40 min away from a law enforcement reaction, I have to protect my self from dangerous animals that live in my area (Mtn Lions, Bears, wolves). I also use it to help mitigate overpopulation of animals in the forest, with the blessing of my states gov and provide food for me and my friends to eat.


I get that most of the anti-gun people have never set foot in a town that's more than 2-3 hours from a major metro area, but almost half the country lives in rural areas. Those areas have there own security problems (mainly drug issues) but most weapons are used hunting. Home/Personal defense is second, because as I stated above we don't have 5-10 min police response times, and I have never heard of someone having to defend themselves on there property in LA from a 1,000lb momma grizzly. Wide sweeping gun laws while maybe helping those in cities (depends on illegal gun control, which is bad in the USA) but it takes away from rest of the nation's rights. I have no major issues with states or even counties/cities doing what's best for them law wise, the people that live in those areas have a much closer connection to the representation. That might mean some states need to work out deals with neighboring states, should someone from California be able to buy a weapon that is not allowed for sale in Cal in Nevada, then take it home to Cal? Prob not, Cal and Nevada need to work that out, California(or insert other states) and it's reps in the federal level shouldn't be pushing there gun law's agenda onto every other state through federal laws.

Something I don't get is looking at the FBI numbers you have my state, Montana, there's just over a million of us here in Montana, but there is around 4-5 million guns in Montana (lots of big collectors). We only had 17 firearm murders for a million people with access to 5 million guns. But then looking at California, you have 40 million people that did almost 1200 murders with firearms, even if you take our 17 and multiply by 40 your only half of California's firearm murders. What the heck is causing the huge growth in firearm murders in Cal? Is it the cramped city life, diversity in the population, massive crime? Just strange, and Cal is one of those states that's cracked down on guns as much as they can while still making decent money off them. They are one of the states the ATF and Border Patrol are heavy in so I would hope illegal firearms control is getting better there. I think it boils down to space, you get people on top of each other all the time and they snap more often, can't handle the stress of the city life or something, or maybe it's all gangs and Cal really needs to crack down on gang violence.

Guns murders don't occur as often in rural areas. The distance serves as a buffer and a "cooling off" period. By the time they reach said person's house they would have had time to think things through and reconsider.

I don't see any problem with the use of guns you described and only radicals want to completely take guns away. You can enact universal mental health checks with zero additional effort on the part of guns owners, something that is currently only done in some states. It is very possible to improve the laws we have without affecting people in your state. America was built on compromise and we can come up with something that works for everyone.

 

[Reehahs]

Ban assault swords.

Yes because they have been used so often to commit mass murder.

knives kill way more people than guns....

One at a time rather than dozens.

 

[davislane1]

America was built on compromise and we can come up with something that works for everyone.

No it wasn’t. Both the Revolutionary and Civil wars were fought precisely because no compromise was possible. Same with various states rights issues during both post-war periods.

Guns were a big part of this as well, esp during the months before the revolution. The British said, “give up your military-grade weapons.” The colonists shot them, wrote a letter about it, then proceeded to defeat a superior adversary in war.

Here’s gun control compromise.

End gun free zones and award cash prizes to anyone who kills an active shooter. Furthermore, erase said shooters from history. No photos of the attackers, no names, no publicity.

 

[Angga B]

Female character. Sword. PUBG.

Ultimate irony. Or sarcasm. Pick your poison.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Oh look, politics in the comments again. And I think I counted one source link..... smh.
Opinions aren't worth arguing in the comments over. Facts are. Just saying.

 

[Duke9192]

No one here is advocating for a gun ban, you are just pandering to the extreme to garner support from gun nuts. What people want are effective guns laws. A mental background check needs to be mandated on the federal level, something we don't do right now. In addition, training and gun discipline should be a requirement, there are zero excuses why guns require less training than cars. If they are as important to you as you say, that's the least you can do. As the old saying goes, if you are going to brandish a weapon, you should know how to use it.

Instead we got people like you busting moderate's nuts for fixing our screwed system.

I'm not opposed to mental background checks per say, but the threshold for disqualification could be a point of contention if say, Cindy Lou is denied because she takes an anti depressant for anxiety but she's just a normal smart and kind gal. See, I'm not arguing, I'm compromising, even though you refer to my opinion as pandering to gun nuts. I won't use the word excuse, but a reason why there is more training (I assume you mean drivers ed) for cars than guns is that a 16 year old kid can drive a car and we all encounter other cars daily. When is the last time you saw someone use a gun outside a range? Surely there needs to be training for gun owners and it is out there. Concealed carry permitting requires a course in safe practices as well as laws surrounding such use. Also, you have to, atleast here, fire rounds at a target effectively and safely under the instruction of a certified instructor before receiving a carry permit. I'm not opposed to raising the legal age to purchase a semi automatic rifle capable holding a 20 plus round magazine, to 21. I think in order for us to make smart laws we need to look specifically at what laws were broken in these shootings, and find better ways to in force them. The Florida shooter had police called to his home something 50 or 60 times for domestic incidents over the years. Why was he not charged for something? Because he was a minor? You know the police had a good idea he shouldn't own a firearm. I can admit I don't know for sure, but isn't there a program that was implemented a few years back called "promise" that helped keep at risk kids from developing a criminal record so early in life? These are things we can be looking into as well as new laws, and hold the fbi accountable for choosing to not investigate a direct call from a family member that said the boy had guns and may want to shoot up a school. They were also notified by someone online that he stated he wanted to be a professional school shooter, and the fbi made the connection from the family member call and the online informant and still chose to do nothing. Sorry if I was busting your nuts for "fixing" things, but I'll believe you've fixed things once the crazies stop shooting people up and I still have all of my guns to protect my family and home front should they go crazy again.

 

[Evernessince]

I'm not opposed to mental background checks per say, but the threshold for disqualification could be a point of contention if say, Cindy Lou is denied because she takes an anti depressant for anxiety but she's just a normal smart and kind gal. See, I'm not arguing, I'm compromising, even though you refer to my opinion as pandering to gun nuts. I won't use the word excuse, but a reason why there is more training (I assume you mean drivers ed) for cars than guns is that a 16 year old kid can drive a car and we all encounter other cars daily. When is the last time you saw someone use a gun outside a range? Surely there needs to be training for gun owners and it is out there. Concealed carry permitting requires a course in safe practices as well as laws surrounding such use. Also, you have to, atleast here, fire rounds at a target effectively and safely under the instruction of a certified instructor before receiving a carry permit. I'm not opposed to raising the legal age to purchase a semi automatic rifle capable holding a 20 plus round magazine, to 21. I think in order for us to make smart laws we need to look specifically at what laws were broken in these shootings, and find better ways to in force them. The Florida shooter had police called to his home something 50 or 60 times for domestic incidents over the years. Why was he not charged for something? Because he was a minor? You know the police had a good idea he shouldn't own a firearm. I can admit I don't know for sure, but isn't there a program that was implemented a few years back called "promise" that helped keep at risk kids from developing a criminal record so early in life? These are things we can be looking into as well as new laws, and hold the fbi accountable for choosing to not investigate a direct call from a family member that said the boy had guns and may want to shoot up a school. They were also notified by someone online that he stated he wanted to be a professional school shooter, and the fbi made the connection from the family member call and the online informant and still chose to do nothing. Sorry if I was busting your nuts for "fixing" things, but I'll believe you've fixed things once the crazies stop shooting people up and I still have all of my guns to protect my family and home front should they go crazy again.

"I think in order for us to make smart laws we need to look specifically at what laws were broken in these shootings, and find better ways to in force them."

Agreed.

"The Florida shooter had police called to his home something 50 or 60 times for domestic incidents over the years. Why was he not charged for something? Because he was a minor? You know the police had a good idea he shouldn't own a firearm. I can admit I don't know for sure, but isn't there a program that was implemented a few years back called "promise" that helped keep at risk kids from developing a criminal record so early in life?"

At the very least, that sort of information should be considered when purchasing a gun. There's also the question of what his parents were doing about it. If they refuse to act after so many incidents maybe he's acting the way he did because they aren't good parents.

"These are things we can be looking into as well as new laws, and hold the fbi accountable for choosing to not investigate a direct call from a family member that said the boy had guns and may want to shoot up a school."

"These are things we can be looking into as well as new laws, and hold the fbi accountable for choosing to not investigate a direct call from a family member that said the boy had guns and may want to shoot up a school"

Yeah, it sounds like they dropped the ball on that one. I wonder if they even bothered to check if it was a directly family member that made the call. I do think that the FBI have a hard job in that regard, between the swatters and Doxxing going on, it's hard to tell which calls are legitimate and which are not. Thanks to the internet, people can mostly escape the consequences of making fake calls to the authorities.