Ban Assault Knives

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

If a ban on explosives and flame throwers are common sense due to the danger they pose, that should tell you why we have bans on some types of firearms and restrictions on others vs. full access to knives. Because guns are far more dangerous.

Whenever I see this type of thread, I think “good thing the killer didn’t have a gun!” Because if he did, odds are good there would be more fatalities. 

I’m not saying we should ban guns, just pointing out the logical flaws in Ray’s straw man argument. He seems to think he’s very clever though, which is cute. 

If only he was half as clever as he thought he was. 

[RLLD 4,230]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

If a ban on explosives and flame throwers are common sense due to the danger they pose, that should tell you why we have bans on some types of firearms and restrictions on others vs. full access to knives. Because guns are far more dangerous.

Whenever I see this type of thread, I think “good thing the killer didn’t have a gun!” Because if he did, odds are good there would be more fatalities. 

I’m not saying we should ban guns, just pointing out the logical flaw in Ray’s straw man argument. He seems to think he’s very clever though, which is adorable. 

Awww, well, thanks sport.

Hey, by the way, which assault rifle would you prefer for urban insertion and clearing, asking for a firend.

[MDC 7,407]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Awww, well, thanks sport.

Hey, by the way, which assault rifle would you prefer for urban insertion and clearing, asking for a firend.

Can’t help you friend-o. All I know about guns is that they’re much more dangerous than knives.  

[RLLD 4,230]

5 minutes ago, MDC said:

Can’t help you friend-o. All I know about guns is that they’re much more dangerous than knives.  

Right, not knowing is a common theme with you. Your uninformed positions are reliably wrong.  

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

24 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Explosives seem like common sense, right?  Flame thrower? Also common sense.  

Another part of the problem are the conservatives who love to push that line with weapons.  I get that it's fun, but come on.

I would argue that one should be able to possess all of the weaponry that an infantry soldier can carry or use.  The intent of the second amendment was that the people could rise up against tyranical government and be equally armed against those government agents.  Further, at the time of the adoption the Constitution also allowed for privateers to be granted letters of marque and reprisal.  Basically we understood that ship of war could be in private hands and we not only tolerated that, but encouraged them, through the letters, to attack and capture enemy ship of war.

Now I would agree that in our technological age the second amendment has become anachronistic, but you don't throw it away.  If it has become anachronistic you amend or revoke it through the Constitutional process, not through nibbling away at it through legislation or court fiat.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

15 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Awww, well, thanks sport.

Hey, by the way, which assault rifle would you prefer for urban insertion and clearing, asking for a firend.

I might go with the MP 5 due to my familiarity with it.  Alternatively I like the AA 12 shotgun.  Regardless, for urban warfare i would not go with a rifle, a carbine maybe, but not a rifle.

[MDC 7,407]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Right, not knowing is a common theme with you. Your uninformed positions are reliably wrong.  

At least I know that guns are more dangerous than knives.  

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I might go with the MP 5 due to my familiarity with it.  Alternatively I like the AA 12 shotgun.  Regardless, for urban warfare i would not go with a rifle, a carbine maybe, but not a rifle.

It might depend on that urban area as well.   There could be some deference to a shotgun, but what if you have long avenues of approach to your area of operation, well, then you might want something that can hit distance shots as well. 

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

At least I know that guns are more dangerous than knives.  

Are they?  What is your proof?  Or are you assuming that is true?  Start with this, think about it not in terms of what some random liberal moron has told you what to think, but instead think for yourself.   Does your logic work in all instances?  And if that is true, are you then suggesting we should not worry about knives? Why?

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

8 minutes ago, RLLD said:

It might depend on that urban area as well.   There could be some deference to a shotgun, but what if you have long avenues of approach to your area of operation, well, then you might want something that can hit distance shots as well. 

I presume i am not clearing an urban area alone.  I would want someone in my squad or on my team to be able to reach out and touch someone at distance.  i like the Sako for that chambered in .338 Lapua.  Others would certainly like  .50 to at least deal with non armored vehicles.  I was only speaking as to what I might want to carry, not what I would want those with me to have.  My choice is now predicated on the fact that I am old and no longer confident I can hit something beyond 600 yards consistently.  My eyesight is going and my hands are not steady anymore. I did take an antelope this year at 500 yards so i can still shoot a bit, but that antelope was not going to shoot back if I missed.

[RLLD 4,230]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

I presume i am not clearing an urban area alone.  i would want someone in my squad or on my team to be able to reach out and touch someone at distance.  i like the Sako for that chambered in .338 Lapua.  Others would certainly like  .50 to at least deal with non armored vehicles

Yes, you would not be alone.  But if I am inserting, I will take all of this into consideration. I actually prefer the shotgun in most cases. When we were clearing trenches and bunkers it was rather useful.   

[MDC 7,407]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Are they?  What is your proof?  Or are you assuming that is true?  Start with this, think about it not in terms of what some random liberal moron has told you what to think, but instead think for yourself.   Does your logic work in all instances?  And if that is true, are you then suggesting we should not worry about knives? Why?

Sure: Firearms are the weapon of choice in about 12,000 murders per year in the US, versus around 1,500 fatal stabbing per year. Despite the fact that less than half of US households have a gun, but presumably all of them have a knife that could be used as a fatal weapons.

I can’t believe I had to post that, but here we are. 

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Sure: Firearms are the weapon of choice in about 12,000 murders per year in the US, versus around 1,500 fatal stabbing per year. Despite the fact that less than half of US households have a gun, but presumably all of them have a knife that could be used as a fatal weapons.

I can’t believe I had to post that, but here we are. 

Outstanding.  Not sure the last time you demonstrated a modicum of understanding, but this really good.  Great job!

Now, lets assume, for a moment, that you ban assault weapons, just those for now.  Might you suggest what would happen next?  Anything?

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Outstanding.  Not sure the last time you demonstrated a modicum of understanding, but this really good.  Great job!

Now, lets assume, for a moment, that you ban assault weapons, just those for now.  Might you suggest what would happen next?  Anything?

If this leads MDC to requiring me to get a background check before I can buy a 16 ounce claw hammer I am going to be pissed.

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

If this leads MDC to requiring me to get a background check before I can buy a 16 ounce claw hammer I am going to be pissed.

Hey, stop messing with my game!  I was actually going to use that later,,,,,dammmbit...  

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Hey, stop messing with my game!  I was actually going to use that later,,,,,dammmbit...  

Backing away slowly.  And with apologies.

[RLLD 4,230]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

Backing away slowly.  And with apologies.

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

I'd assume MDC is referring to the amount of damage that can be done in an equal amount of time with a gun versus a knife.

For example- the Ikeda school massacre in Osaka lasted several minutes- that person entered an elementary school and stabbed 23 people, killing 8.

Sandy Hook lasted 5 minutes. He killed 26 and himself. He also injured 2 others.

In the Ikeda one they were able to wrestle the attacker to the ground. In Sandy Hook he offed himself.

 

The Vegas shooter shot and killed 59 people and injured at least 413 people from additional gunfire and everything. That attack lasted 10 minutes. 

Also, not sure we should call someone a liberal moron- I know how much RLLD hates name calling a media organization because we can learn from them. But if we can call organizations liberal morons now than maybe MDC can find a source from The Young Turks to use since we know it's okay to use their stuff as long as they agree with you. 

 

[MDC 7,407]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Outstanding.  Not sure the last time you demonstrated a modicum of understanding, but this really good.  Great job!

Now, let’s assume, for a moment, that you ban assault weapons, just those for now.  Might you suggest what would happen next?  Anything?

Thanks - you should try it!  

I wasn’t calling for a ban on any weapons. I was pointing out the fact that three people got knifed to death has nothing to do with whether any other weapon should be restricted or banned.

As me and @Hawkeye21 noted, the government already restricts and bans many types of “arms” because they are much more dangerous than others. That’s why you’re allowed to own a hammer but not allowed to own a canon. 

Now, unless your argument is that we should ban anything that could potentially be used as a fatal weapon (hammers, paper weights, scissors etc.) OR that there should be no restrictions at all on bombs, flame throwers, bazookas, etc., then we seem to agree that the government should have some reasonable restrictions on arms based on public safety.

Get it now? 

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

then we seem to agree that the government should have some reasonable restrictions on arms based on public safety.

The problem is that we are getting dangerously close to unreasonable restrictions.

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Thanks - you should try it!  

I wasn’t calling for a ban on any weapons. I was pointing out the fact that three people got knifed to death has nothing to do with whether any other weapon should be restricted or banned.

As me and @Hawkeye21 noted, the government already restricts and bans many types of “arms” because they are much more dangerous than others. That’s why you’re allowed to own a hammer but not allowed to own a canon. 

Now, unless your argument is that we should ban anything that could potentially be used as a fatal weapon (hammers, paper weights, scissors etc.) OR that there should be no restrictions at all on bombs, flame throwers, bazookas, etc., then we seem to agree that the government should have some reasonable restrictions on arms based on public safety.

Get it now? 

Agree to disagree on what should and should not be banned.   The logic of banning, once extended fails, which tells us the logic is flawed.  The inclination to "ban" is more than lazy.  Once you sacrifice your liberties you are not likely to get them back.

Now, if you think sacrificing liberty now and taking away the rights of millions of good people is the solution, you are mistaken.

This lazy approach to problems only results in people like YOU feeling good, for now, and then later, not so much.  My problem with people like you is that too many people have to first be harmed for you to later change your mistakes.   

[MDC 7,407]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

The problem is that we are getting dangerously close to unreasonable restrictions.

That’s fair. Im not sure what “knives are dangerous too!” contributes to that debate. 

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

Just now, MDC said:

That’s fair. Im not sure what “knives are dangerous too!” contributes to that debate. 

It's an exaggeration to make fun of the people who want to unreasonably ban guns.

[MDC 7,407]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Agree to disagree on what should and should not be banned.   The logic of banning, once extended fails, which tells us the logic is flawed.  The inclination to "ban" is more than lazy.  Once you sacrifice your liberties you are not likely to get them back.

Now, if you think sacrificing liberty now and taking away the rights of millions of good people is the solution, you are mistaken.

This lazy approach to problems only results in people like YOU feeling good, for now, and then later, not so much.  My problem with people like you is that too many people have to first be harmed for you to later change your mistakes.   

You should use “I” statements and only speak for yourself. I didn’t call for a ban. I said your argument is a straw man.

The fact that a knife can be used as a fatal weapon has nothing to do with whether a partial or total ban on guns makes sense. Unless you think our 2 options are a total ban on any potentially fatal weapon OR unrestrained access to any weapon.

HTH but I know from years of experience it won’t.  

[BunnysBastatrds 2,438]

 Fawk! No more knives. I love my Rambo knife. A compass and stitches when this biotch needs a stitch.

[MDC 7,407]

7 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

It's an exaggeration to make fun of the people who want to unreasonably ban guns.

Why don’t we ever make fun of the people who want to unreasonably ban homemade bombs?  

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Why don’t we ever make fun of the people who want to unreasonably ban homemade bombs?  

This isn't working for you.

[RLLD 4,230]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

You should use “I” statements and only speak for yourself. I didn’t call for a ban. I said your argument is a straw man.

The fact that a knife can be used as a fatal weapon has nothing to do with whether a partial or total ban on guns makes sense. Unless you think our 2 options are a total ban on any potentially fatal weapon OR unrestrained access to any weapon.

HTH but I know from years of experience it won’t.  

I will speak as I see fit, the liberal game of word play, son that is over.....if you did not learn that from this last election you need to start learning it today......

It makes sense in than the act of banning is a lazy and ultimately ineffective way to deal with a problem, one would think the drug war was enough to help you understand this, but alas, learning is not your strength.

SO....the idea of banning....flawed.....and later, after enough people have been harmed, maybe its pulled back....but only after people like you ensure good people are first harmed enough.

So yeah, if I seem suspicious or outright amused by your stupidity its only because we have seen liberal solution likes yours fail time and again, you all just got b!tch slapped in the election because your ideas are so deeply flawed.

Liberal stupidity has done more to unite this nation than a focking foreign attack, congrats. 

[MDC 7,407]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This isn't working for you.

You agree that we ban some types of firearms and weapons because they’re potentially much more dangerous than others, right? 

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

Just now, MDC said:

You agree that we ban some types of firearms and weapons because they’re potentially much more dangerous than others, right? 

Of course.  There needs to be a line drawn though.  We are right around where that line needs to be drawn right now.

[MDC 7,407]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I will speak as I see fit, the liberal game of word play, son that is over.....if you did not learn that from this last election you need to start learning it today......

It makes sense in than the act of banning is a lazy and ultimately ineffective way to deal with a problem, one would think the drug war was enough to help you understand this, but alas, learning is not your strength.

SO....the idea of banning....flawed.....and later, after enough people have been harmed, maybe its pulled back....but only after people like you ensure good people are first harmed enough.

So yeah, if I seem suspicious or outright amused by your stupidity its only because we have seen liberal solution likes yours fail time and again, you all just got b!tch slapped in the election because your ideas are so deeply flawed.

Liberal stupidity has done more to unite this nation than a focking foreign attack, congrats. 

Use “I” statements and only speak for yourself, pal. I didn’t call for a ban on guns. I’m just here to point out the vacuousness of your argument.  

[MDC 7,407]

4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Of course.  There needs to be a line drawn though.  We are right around where that line needs to be drawn right now.

I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m saying “knives kill people!” has nothing to do with that debate, since every reasonable person agrees that the line is somewhere way north of knives.

It’s the sort of puerile argument that dimwits make.  

[RLLD 4,230]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

Use “I” statements and only speak for yourself, pal. I didn’t call for a ban on guns. I’m just here to point out the vacuousness of your argument.  

So you failed you failed as usual.  You came in to make your point, which is actually sorta rare for you, and when you could not defend it, now you want to go back to having no position.....coward.....

[MDC 7,407]

8 minutes ago, RLLD said:

So you failed you failed as usual.  You came in to make your point, which is actually sorta rare for you, and when you could not defend it, now you want to go back to having no position.....coward.....

My point is that 3 people being knifed to death says nothing about where we draw “the line” on gun restrictions. I keep restating this simple and obvious point. 

 

[RLLD 4,230]

6 minutes ago, MDC said:

My point is that 3 people being knifed to death says nothing about where we draw “the line” on gun restrictions. I keep restating this simple and obvious point. 

 

And it is your "logic" here that exemplifies the lack of wisdom and understanding of the problem.  It is just as inane to suggest banning guns will fix anything as it is to suggest banning knives will fix anything.  But for people such as yourself, you have to do the stupid thing, see it fail, and then unwind it to every near the understanding required to have the wisdom.

The point being simply that it would be better for the nation if people as stupid as yourself, and whom exist in power in too many locations, shut the fock up about stuff for which you know nothing.

Sadly, people like you DO reach positions of power, and then they hurt alot of good people.....you are a gleaming example as to why we have so many problems, you exemplify the kind of faux intellect that delivers horrid outcomes.....but what do you care, its happening to someone else....coward

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

13 minutes ago, MDC said:

My point is that 3 people being knifed to death says nothing about where we draw “the line” on gun restrictions. I keep restating this simple and obvious point. 

 

Just tell RLLD you weren't using "you" to mean him...he inserted himself into the discussion. It's a tactic he enjoys. 

[Nomad99 742]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

If a ban on explosives and flame throwers are common sense due to the danger they pose, that should tell you why we have bans on some types of firearms and restrictions on others vs. full access to knives. Because guns are far more dangerous.

Whenever I see this type of thread, I think “good thing the killer didn’t have a gun!” Because if he did, odds are good there would be more fatalities. 

I’m not saying we should ban guns, just pointing out the logical flaw in Ray’s straw man argument. He seems to think he’s very clever though, which is adorable. 

What's adorable is you focusing on the guy with the gun. What if any of the victims had a gun? Odds are there would have been LESS fatalities. Your logic,  as usual, is one sided. 

[MDC 7,407]

16 minutes ago, RLLD said:

And it is your "logic" here that exemplifies the lack of wisdom and understanding of the problem.  It is just as inane to suggest banning guns will fix anything as it is to suggest banning knives will fix anything.  But for people such as yourself, you have to do the stupid thing, see it fail, and then unwind it to every near the understanding required to have the wisdom.

The point being simply that it would be better for the nation if people as stupid as yourself, and whom exist in power in too many locations, shut the fock up about stuff for which you know nothing.

Sadly, people like you DO reach positions of power, and then they hurt alot of good people.....you are a gleaming example as to why we have so many problems, you exemplify the kind of faux intellect that delivers horrid outcomes.....but what do you care, its happening to someone else....coward

That’s not an argument I made, pal.  

I did get a laugh out of “faux intellect” though.  

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

That’s not an argument I made, pal.  

I did get a laugh out of “faux intellect” though.  

Of course you are easily amused, and perhaps you use laughter as a defense mechanism.  The outcomes from people who think like you are not so funny.

You pretend to care, but as people are harmed by the way you think, you seem to not care.  Like a sociopath.

[MDC 7,407]

Just now, RLLD said:

Of course you are easily amused, and perhaps you use laughter as a defense mechanism.  The outcomes from people who think like you are not so funny.

You pretend to care, but as people are harmed by the way you think, you seem to not care.  Like a sociopath.

People who think guns are more dangerous than knives?