At 4/23/11 08:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Swords fall into the same catergory as guns, however I make a distinction for knives. Knives are made to destroy by cutting, however, most knives are meant to cut constructively. Butcher knives are meant to construct meals through cutting, same with other culinary cutlery. Go ahead and say i am splitting hairs, I very well may be, but I see this distinction as very important.
It is splitting hairs, in my book. Knives are made to cut through meat and bone. Many on animals that have just been killed. If this exact same purpose is used on humans...then it's used on humans. There are, however, no shortage of knives that are made for military or other purposes.
Swords fall into the same category as knives, as they are simply bigger versions of the same thing. To counter your contention, the number one purpose swords are made for is decoration. While you can sharpen them and use them to destroy...that is not why most of them are made. Yet, you have a problem with swords, made to be useless, and not with knives, often made to kill. I find that curious.
There is a great deal of deterrents that are covered. Hammers, kitchen knives, drills, baseball bats. Essentially anything that has a primary purpose that is constructive, or at least no destructive.
Im sorry but...This is a useless distinction. No one rushes out after a bombing and says "BUT GUYS! Dynamite can be used constructively too!" It's irrelevant. The knife one is flat out incorrect, you just like the purpose. To an animal lover...butcher knives are no different than guns. Before you dismiss that as nonsense...you kinda have to think that their position is just a more extreme version of your own.
Paintball guns definitely are not in the catergory I was thinking of. As for the rest, except when used with blanks, or those practice rounds that disintegrate upon contact, both of which are minor uses, they are still involved in destruction, and not in any constructive manner like kitchen knives.
Saving a life is constructive. Police regularly use guns to force violent attackers to stand down...as do other civilians. There is nothing more constructive in the world than taking a woman who was about to be raped and saving her from that, or allowing a mother to get home to her children who would otherwise be dead in a gutter.
Don't take what I say too far. I am just setting a philosphical ground for which the decision of whether to restrict of outlaw can be properly made.
That's not how it works. Ignoring the terrible flaws in your argument so far...the most logical question is "how does this work out?" If we ban something because it causes harm, then we ban it for causing harm. Soda has no value whatsoever. It's garbage. It rots teeth, contributes to obescity and health problems. BAN IT! While you may not like that I am taking your logic to its inevitable conclusion is irrelevant. It is the INEVITABLE conclusion. Because you have retards like HeavenDuff influencing policy, where does the line get drawn. Is any harm too much, as he has idiotically claimed, "One dead child is too many?!?" Or do we subjectively say that something that causes more than a certain amount of harm is too much? Perhaps if it causes more harm than good, as knives can be argued to do, we should ban it? These aren't idle questions. And, as we see in England, where such bans on knives and baseball bats have been considered, they are not only within the realm of possibility, they are a next step that any society who adopts your conclusions will go to. Even here in America, we ban things that lead to one injury, one death. We make products have asinine labels reminding people not to swallow fishing tackles with hooks, or don't drink bleach.
If you think that I shouldn't take the state of the world, and America, into account when I consider your arguments, you're silly. Even if I dismissed everything I know about guns and self defense...I have to look at where this goes. And it's NOT pretty.
How things are used is one thing. Guns are meant to fire bullets. Bullets that are meant to destroy what they strike. Just because many people don't actually use it as intended doesn't change the purpose of the object.
Knives are meant to cut through things. What the person uses them to cut through then, doesn't matter. If the intent is to destroy meat and bone, then they MUST go.
Sorry man, your logic kinda sucks.
If there is a robbery where the robber has a gun. That robber sees the victim grab a gun. The robbery is likely to escalate beyond a simple robbery because the victim upped the ante with a gun of their own.
That's ridiculous. And it defies not only logic, but what criminals themselves tell us about armed victims. No criminal ever rapes a woman because she pulled a gun. "Hey man, I just wanted her purse. But she pulled a gun and I just got so mad I had to shove it up her ass!" The ONLY way that this works is that the robbery becomes a gun battle. And if the robber has no real intention to do more than robbery...he's going to get away if he can. So you have an extremely narrow slice of all crime that could possibly escalate. Something on the nature of one or two crimes a year. Such an unlikely scenerio is not worth seriously considering in determining overall gun policy.
I was talking scenario and you jump to guilt. And yes, getting drunk in a frat house IS a way for a girl to get herself raped. Did her conduct greatly increased the chance of her getting raped? Yes. Does this make the rapist any less guilty? No.
This doesn't work though. The comparison is invalid. The girl puts herself in a bad situation by falling asleep in a drunken frat boy party. The victim of senseless crime is a victim from the word go. Whereas, at least, we can look at the drunk rape victim and use it as a lesson to other girls, we can't do that with home invasion. The guy did not "contribute" by having a home, or a nice TV.