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.
Um, this "argument" is so lame I don't know quite how to deal with it. I guess I'll just ask a simple question: in what actual universe is it possible to strangle, bludgeon, stab, or kung fu close to thirty victims to death in under three minutes? The problem is not the wide diversity of methods that can be used to effectively kill people, it is rather the speed and efficiency with which high capacity assault rifles with external magazines can do so. The fact that there are other ways to kill people in no way mitigates the fact that some guns remain the most efficient means to actually do so. While arguably, bombs and other methods might be more efficient, the fact remains that most American mass murderers choose the aforementioned weapons. Should some other both super-efficient and preferred method emerge in the future, then we can discuss it further.
So, if a martial arts trained man or woman goes on a rampage and only kills four or five people, that's okay?
The argument is completely water tight and I have never heard a single liberal answer it effectively:
Guns kill people, and there are HUNDREDS of regulations already on the books for guns...hands and fight also kill people, and martial arts can make you an effective killer with your hands and feet. And yet, there is not a single solitary regulation on martial arts....huh?
So, if a martial arts trained man or woman goes on a rampage and only kills four or five people, that's okay?
The argument is completely water tight and I have never heard a single liberal answer it effectively:
Guns kill people, and there are HUNDREDS of regulations already on the books for guns...hands and fight also kill people, and martial arts can make you an effective killer with your hands and feet. And yet, there is not a single solitary regulation on martial arts....huh?
46 states regulating martial arts = not a single solitary regulation. ????
Um, this "argument" is so lame I don't know quite how to deal with it. I guess I'll just ask a simple question: in what actual universe is it possible to strangle, bludgeon, stab, or kung fu close to thirty victims to death in under three minutes? The problem is not the wide diversity of methods that can be used to effectively kill people, it is rather the speed and efficiency with which high capacity assault rifles with external magazines can do so. The fact that there are other ways to kill people in no way mitigates the fact that some guns remain the most efficient means to actually do so. While arguably, bombs and other methods might be more efficient, the fact remains that most American mass murderers choose the aforementioned weapons. Should some other both super-efficient and preferred method emerge in the future, then we can discuss it further.
^^ This. The OP poses a stupid argument and doesn't understand what is coming in terms of gun restrictions. The technology has advanced to the point where many guns should be considered weapons of mass destruction. A kung fu master can't kill 30 people at once.
^^ This. The OP poses a stupid argument and doesn't understand what is coming in terms of gun restrictions. The technology has advanced to the point where many guns should be considered weapons of mass destruction. A kung fu master can't kill 30 people at once.
Again, so you would be okay with a kung fu master just killing four or five kids?
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.