| Forum Index > Closed |
|
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On June 27 2008 03:41 Hippopotamus wrote: So... stabbing is just as easy and destructive as shooting someone? Depends on what you mean by "easy" and "destructive." On June 27 2008 04:00 CDRdude wrote: Hell with guns, I want a sword. Now that's a man's weapon. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On June 27 2008 03:24 rpf wrote: Carrying a concealed weapon doesn't make you safe; it simply gives you the option to defend yourself (as opposed to being defenseless [i.e. the perfect victim] against an armed aggressor). I'd much rather go down trying than not trying at all. :/ So what you're saying is, the fucker's gonna end up with deep wounds if he tries to mug you? | ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
Why shouldn't it be harder to get to own a gun? It's a potential danger to society if in the hands of the wrong person, so people should be deemed minimally responsible in order to get to own one. That's fairly standard logic in american traditional law isn't it? | ||
|
UmmTheHobo
United States650 Posts
| ||
|
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On June 27 2008 04:18 Bill307 wrote: So what you're saying is, the fucker's gonna end up with deep wounds if he tries to mug you? Haha.  If his intent is to kill me to take my money, yes. It's either me or him. If he just wants the wallet, he can have the wallet. I've photocopied everything in it, so in five minutes the credit card will be useless, and I don't carry much cash. I can get another license. It depends on the situation. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
http://www.goemaat.com/Images/lightsaber.jpg But seriously, I couldn't care less. | ||
|
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On June 27 2008 04:18 zobz wrote: It's a safety/freedom balance issue. Why shouldn't it be harder to get to own a gun/sword/knife/baseball bat/hockey stick/golf club/tire iron/gasoline/kerosene/fertilizer/wrench/screwdriver/automobile/blender/pillow/rope? It's a potential danger to society if in the hands of the wrong person, so people should be deemed minimally responsible in order to get to own one. That's fairly standard logic in american traditional law isn't it? Fixed. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
Depends on what you mean by "easy" and "destructive." Well... gun = point and shoot from what is usually a comfortable distance and it tends to kill the target good and any weakling who can handle the recoil could inflict wounds through bone. Even at close range a gun is superior to a knife. So you get to a target with a knife, what now? Where are you going to swing? If you just slash their arm they may escape or disarm you; if you try to stab them in the face not only are you unlikely to score a fatal hit, but you will also probably miss and put yourself literally in their arms; if you try to go for the heart you'll need to stab with considerable force and the chances you'll get them there directly are low. The only real effective way to murder a decently strong target with a knife 1 on 1 is to get them from behind. Honestly, why do I even need to explain this? Claiming that knives are as good as guns is like theorycrafting that BC are as good as Carriers. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
So you think guns are about as dangareous as pillows :p? | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32152 Posts
On June 27 2008 03:24 rpf wrote: Reasoning? How does the legal sale and use of firearms have anything to do with crime? (I assume you're saying we need tighter gun restrictions with regards to an effect on crime. If your statement wasn't about crime, ignore this part of my post.) Is that necessarily a bad thing? Why? Since when have the law-abiding been the problem? Waiting periods do nothing. They were designed to prevent people from going out and buying a gun while angry to kill their neighbor, wife, etc.; If someone intends to kill another person, is the method in which they do so really the important part? They could just as easily do it with a knife from the drawer, or the phone cord. Waiting periods are a sham; they are nothing more than an illusion designed to make the general population think that public officials have done something. Background checks don't need to be tighter; I already was forced to waive civil liberties to exercise another so-called "liberty." And, of course, I agree with restricting the criminals and crazies; too bad they don't see it my way. Make it illegal for the principle; but intend on enforcing the law, not expecting the law to prevent criminal behavior the way many people do. So you recognize the purpose of a firearm in society, but would restrict it to only the military and the police; Does that not contradict the Second Amendment? "[T]he right of the people shall not be infringed. Does "the people" mean something different in the Second Amendment than it does in the First, Fourth, etc.? Restrictions: The ones buying them legally aren't necessarily the ones using them criminally always, but there's no nation-wide regulation of it. Some states are tight as hell on who can own, and others, more or less any assclown can own one. People with any prior mental health issues, etc etc. And if you don't think that having guns ingrained into our society is a bad thing, maybe you should double check the amount of deaths by guns here. Machine guns: At what point in time are you going to need an uzi or an AK to defend your home? Are you fighting the Taliban? Waiting periods: Those are so that you don't give a guy a gun, and then later realize that the people who compile the info didn't give you John A. Doe's info instead of John D. Doe's info. And yes, if someone wants to go kill their neighbor, waiting periods are effective. Yes, you could devise 101 ways to kill someone, but which is more efficient, a semi automatic hand gun, or having to get close enough to someone to choke em out with a phone cord? concealing: When the US starts dropping paratroopers out of the sky to round us up into camps to interrogate us, then you might have a point about the purpose of a firearm. And the argument about IT'S AN AMMENDMENT!! is so old. There's tons of shit that was written into the BOR and Declaration thatt have been amended. Its a 200+ year old living document that is tailored from time to time to keep with the modern world. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32152 Posts
...because outside of swords, everything on their has a purpose besides killing shit? | ||
|
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote: LOL @ 5-4 Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Lol... if it's like that then you better also be ready to say good-bye to abortion rights. | ||
|
Dknight
United States5224 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20166 Posts
 | ||
|
nepeta
1872 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
I'm going to go out today, buy a gun, and shoot some supreme court justices! | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
| ||
|
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On June 27 2008 04:53 Hawk wrote: ...because outside of swords, everything on their has a purpose besides killing shit? And your point is what, exactly? You're trying to arbitrarily control the possession of firearms by the law-abiding without reason. Sounds to me like you're a control freak. The FBI, BATFE, and MA State Police all said I'm not a fucking criminal. What you think means absolutely squat. On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote: LOL @ 5-4 Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! No kidding, right? Did they even read the fucking thing? Maybe they need to take a course in the origins of the US (and not just about an armed populace remaining free). On June 27 2008 05:28 Dknight wrote: Thank god the current DC law was shot down. I had done an op ed that got published in a few local newspapers (Lowell Sun, Salem News) and got criticized by my view. What? When was this? (Wait, I thought you were anti-gun.) On June 27 2008 05:28 L wrote: Gun culture loves guns? No shit. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with "gun culture." Jesus. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
