Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,129 posts, read 31,130,987 times
Reputation: 6920

Advertisements

We have laws against some bladed weapons here in Virginia such as throwing knives. The sword equivalent of assault weapons?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:07 PM
 
3,598 posts, read 4,931,561 times
Reputation: 3169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow View Post
But we're not talking criminal law here. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Perhaps in some certain legal context, which I am anything but an expert in, and therefore can not comment on.

I'd be arguing intent in that context if I were to proclaim that people who crash their cars should be tried as murderers. Which would be ridiculous.

What I am arguing here is societal impact.

When liberals take this hard stance against guns, and imply that one death is too many, it's blatantly hypocritical.

My argument in short is this: Society allows death on a daily basis, for things as ridiculously stupid as the right to freely eat cheeseburgers.



I've actually voiced my ability to compromise on these things on this very forum, referencing the exact same thing you are now. Again, I'm trying to make a broader point here.



Okay.

Would you care to explain how 200 million guns only cause 40,000 deaths per year?

What a huge difference!
Oops! You forgot the other half of the argument.... now give us the number of CAR murders and compare them to gun murders. Go ahead, we'll wait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:09 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,843,744 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline View Post
Oops! You forgot the other half of the argument.... now give us the number of CAR murders and compare them to gun murders. Go ahead, we'll wait.
I've already established why intent is not relevant when judging societal impact. I took the full numbers (suicides included), and posted them.

If you still don't get it, I really can't help you.

Were you to demonstrate a little more ability to discuss this logically, I would try to dig up statistics on the number of automobile fatalities that were not the deceased's fault, but I really don't care to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
We have laws against some bladed weapons here in Virginia such as throwing knives. The sword equivalent of assault weapons?
Yes I believe the web site that lays out the concealed carry laws in VA also covers nunchaku lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:19 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,843,744 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbobobbo View Post
I just gave you evidence countering your assertion that liberals are uncaring about those who suffer from auto related deaths, and you say it's irrelevant.

What do you have to back your assertion that liberals wouldn't give a crap about a family dying in a car accident?
Looking back I must apologize for not making myself clear enough.

My contention is not that liberals do not care about death, and will not try to prevent it.

What I'm saying is that if someone is shot, and their family demands gun control, liberals will gladly stand by them.

But someone who's family was killed in a car wreck, demanding car control, would be ignored at best.

Because just as most do, liberals consider a certain number of deaths every year to be a worthy price to pay for the ability to own cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:19 PM
 
13,289 posts, read 9,819,932 times
Reputation: 14254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow View Post
Of course. Do you think I don't feel the same way? But rationality must prevail. Emotion must be put aside, these are serious issues. And once emotion is put aside, the facts are clear. Society accepts death for a myriad of reasons. Tens of thousands of deaths, every year. Adults, children, etc.



And there you bring another point to the table.

But let's take two allowed items here. Are the intermediate factors really relevant, when we're considering the end result of these items' existence within society? At the end of the day,



There I must disagree with you.

You take a risk every time you leave your house. You can be driving, walking, crawling. You can get in a car accident, get shot by a psycho, fall down a well, anything can happen.

There is nothing that sets driving apart besides the level at which the risk is present.
Sure there does. Driving serves a purpose, and I can decide to take the risk of dying in a car accident - in other words, I mitigate my own risk to suit my purpose.

If I'm shot sitting in a coffee shop (which in itself is an extremely low risk exercise) - then the risk is out of my hands and placed solely in the hands of the person with the gun. Less risky people that own guns, less over engineered ammo in their hands, less risk of me getting shot.

I mitigate my risk of getting killed for no purpose by restricting guns in the hands of risky people. Or by restricting the most powerful weapons which kill a lot of people in short order.

Same as we do by suspending the driving license of someone that has a DUI.

Nobody should be walking around in their everyday lives risking getting shot. It's pointless.

Psychos shouldn't have guns, everyday people don't need military grade weapons, drunks shouldn't drive, blind people shouldn't do Air Traffic Control. It's quite simple, I reckon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:21 PM
 
11,531 posts, read 10,253,336 times
Reputation: 3580
I'll settle for banning trolls from the internets
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,661 posts, read 21,803,307 times
Reputation: 13600
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Here are some shocking and tragic headlines for all you bleeding heart Obama loving sheeple:

Campus Officer Injured In Sword Attack, Suspect Shot & Killed « CBS Denver

Police: Man Injured In Frankford Sword Attack « CBS Philly

Student is suspect in samurai sword attack - Watertown Daily Times Online : News: jefferson high school, sword attack,

Homeless Woman Killed By Samurai Sword in San Jose: SFist

Now, guns are already regulated...but swords? Anyone can buy one, even online:

Collectibles > Knives, Swords & Blades > Swords | eBay

So why not regulate them too? Why not have a waiting list for a sword or ban them all together? I mean, what law abiding citizen would ever need a samurai sword anyway?

And spare me, SPARE ME the old, tired "well, ahh, swords don't kill people as quickly" line. So what you are saying is that you are okay with one or two people dying from a sword as long as it isn't five people from a gun? So you would shrug at the grieving mother of a child who just had his/her little head cut off by a psycho doing his best "Highlander" impersonation and say "well, it was just your one kid and it wasn't a gun, so I don't care."

"After the first death there is no other"-Dylan Thomas

Once one innocent person dies, it doesn't matter how many more die, the tragedy has already happened.

*I can predict the future*

I will get a bunch of ad hominem and appeal to ridicule fallacies about this, says my crystal ball, because the liberals HAVE NO GOOD ANSWER AND HENCE FALL BACK ON FALLACIES.
Along with pipe bomb control, fertilizer truck-bomb control.

We can run around and control everything, letting the federal government regulate away most of our freedoms, while we ignore the real problem, the crazy people who keep killing us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:25 PM
 
1,684 posts, read 1,179,955 times
Reputation: 349
The libs can have my sword after they kill me first.

That's the only way they will get it.

Marine NCO Saber - Cold Steel Knives
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:26 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,843,744 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
Sure there does. Driving serves a purpose, and I can decide to take the risk of dying in a car accident - in other words, I mitigate my own risk to suit my purpose.

If I'm shot sitting in a coffee shop (which in itself is an extremely low risk exercise) - then the risk is out of my hands and placed solely in the hands of the person with the gun. Less risky people that own guns, less over engineered ammo in their hands, less risk of me getting shot.
As does leaving your house. I decide to take a risk every time I leave the house. Sure, the risk may be lower, but it still exists.

If you're referring to the risk you yourself take, it's the same in a car. You take a risk that someone may jump into your lane going 60 in the wrong direction. Not likely, but a risk.

In both situations, you take a risk. You could crash, you could trip and break your face, you could be crashed into, you could be attacked by a psychopath.

All human activity is risky.

I understand your second point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
I mitigate my risk of getting killed for no purpose by restricting guns in the hands of risky people. Or by restricting the most powerful weapons which kill a lot of people in short order.

Same as we do by suspending the driving license of someone that has a DUI.

Nobody should be walking around in their everyday lives risking getting shot. It's pointless.

Psychos shouldn't have guns, everyday people don't need military grade weapons, drunks shouldn't drive, blind people shouldn't do Air Traffic Control. It's quite simple, I reckon.
I understand, and I can agree that we should attempt to keep drunks from driving, and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally insane.

My original point was much more foundational. And to put it into non-abstract terms, I believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is worth a price. I also believe that the price is substantially lower (if not negative) than any figures I've quoted on this thread, which as I said are all predicated on the assumption that guns are solely responsible for every gun death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:27 PM
 
11,531 posts, read 10,253,336 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Victor View Post
The libs can have my sword after they kill me first.

That's the only way they will get it.

Marine NCO Saber - Cold Steel Knives
Nobody wants your sword , so keep your paranoid fantasies in check
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top