or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Take all of the guns. All of them. - Page 12

post #166 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post

Depends upon the intent snd purpose no? For example a stiletto is an offensive attack blade as is ghukri and karambitshould they be banned because there only use is to kill?
Are there not still illegal knives ? There certainly were at one time
post #167 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Let's stipulate that's a guns only purpose. Having stipulated that my question to you is, "So?"
Not directed to me I realize but I would say because listening to endless arguments to the contrary is tiresome,a distraction and besides the point in an argument about controlling gun violence
post #168 of 1722
Have the guns been taken yet? All of them?
post #169 of 1722
Yes and yes^^^
post #170 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

Not directed to me I realize but I would say because listening to endless arguments to the contrary is tiresome,a distraction and besides the point in an argument about controlling gun violence

But you also brought something up about a gun's sole purpose is to put a hole in someone. I asked you the same sort of question. So? So what that's a gun's purpose. Does that mean putting a hole in a person is always bad?
post #171 of 1722
What are the three main bugaboos w guns (*esp pistols or military style non hunting stuff that really bugs the average Dem)?

1 illegal gun violence
2 accidental maiming/death
3 mass shootings

Proposed solutions (*note none of these require the Stalinistic confiscation of legally owned firearms)

1 legalize all narcotics. (b) also possibly stricter violent crime felony check and enforcement of loss of "gun priviliges"
2 mandatory trigger locks per purchase, (b) also possibly some regs on gun safety training courses
3 better mental health inquiry on purchaser

*3 is the weakest (ie most difficult to enforce) of all solutions above. That being said, "mass shooting deaths" is a ridiculously small number, annually. It just happens to rank on the news shock level alongside a plane crash for freaking people out.

Seriously tho if your #1 motive as an anti-gunner is "saving lives" you should probably jump on the anti-fast food bandwagon first. Also higher speed limits for drivers. Better anti-slip surfaces in bathrooms. Criminalize tobbaco. There's a bunch of "more pressing issues" over some yoyo with a legally owned pistol in your community if your thing is saving lives.
post #172 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

But you also brought something up about a gun's sole purpose is to put a hole in someone. I asked you the same sort of question. So? So what that's a gun's purpose. Does that mean putting a hole in a person is always bad?
I think what I said was that some guns are undeniably made for the sole purpose of puttin holes in people and yes if I or my family , innocent bystanders , or children are the people having holes put in them it is always bad
post #173 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

I think what I said was that some guns are undeniably made for the sole purpose of puttin holes in people and yes if I or my family , innocent bystanders , or children are the people having holes put in them it is always bad

You did not originally limit the people with possible holes to these groups so this is rather ad hoc. Please answer the question as you originally formulated the statement.
post #174 of 1722
Ethan has convinced me, but I want to go a step further. I think we should ban tonfas and batons (because they're used to disproportionately beat minorities to death), mace (there is no reason for that other to harm people), and tazers (disproportionately kill minorities).

We would have much less violence in this country if we just took away the implements of violence.
post #175 of 1722

^^^ don't leave out nunchaku. i presume those are mostly used on minorities as well.

post #176 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

You did not originally limit the people with possible holes to these groups so this is rather ad hoc. Please answer the question as you originally formulated the statement.
what I said was that when guns are used for the purpose of putting holes in people " therein lies the rub " . Surely you can't belive we'd even be having this discussion were that not the case . It would render it even more idiotic and meaningless than it already is
post #177 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

^^^ don't leave out nunchaku. i presume those are mostly used on minorities as well.
Are those not already banned in the us because people were afraid of gangs of ninjas like they saw in karate movies
post #178 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post



Are those not already banned in the us because people ethanm were afraid of gangs of ninjas like they saw in karate movies

FTFY.


you made me look this up... turns out it parallels this thread:

 

no federal ban, but yes outlawed in a few states (including NY, CA surprise surprise), with exceptions in CA for chaperoned recreational use

 

pending a 2nd Amendment challenge in NY, even tho it's a state issue the 2nd amendment flows through to the states by virtue of due process clause of 14th amendment

post #179 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

what I said was that when guns are used for the purpose of putting holes in people " therein lies the rub " . Surely you can't belive we'd even be having this discussion were that not the case . It would render it even more idiotic and meaningless than it already is

It's only idiotic and meaningless because you won't answer the question: is putting a hole in people always bad? I would submit it's not. There's the real rub.
post #180 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

FTFY.


you made me look this up... turns out it parallels this thread:

no federal ban, but yes outlawed in a few states (including NY, CA surprise surprise), with exceptions in CA for chaperoned recreational use

pending a 2nd Amendment challenge in NY, even tho it's a state issue the 2nd amendment flows through to the states by virtue of due process clause of 14th amendment
Guess who signed the ban in in california.... the great hero of freedom reagan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.