Forums → WEPR → Non-gun weapons control
| 114 | 50451 |
There are many forms of non-firearm lethal weapons: knives, blunt instruments, bows/crossbows, etc. Since all of these can be and are used to commit crimes such as murder and armed robbery, should they be made illegal? At what point/and or what should weapons such as tactical/killing knives should be made illegal? Are these specialized knives useful tools for self defense, or should they be made illegal by the government? Since these weapons are much easier to obtain than guns (many can be made fairly easily too), what steps would be needed to enforce more restrictive laws against these weapons.
Finally, I will state my position. I believe that like just with guns, these weapons in question are only as bad or as good as the person that is holding it. I own many different types of tactical knives for self defense: machetes, kerambits, hunting knives, butterfly knives, etc..
I have no desire to use them unless when necessary to save myself from death or severe personal injury from an attacker(s).
- 114 Replies
No it doesn't.
prove your point man, or at least give me a more explaining sentence.
Compare the death toll of armed vs unarmed homeowners during an armed robbery attempt.
surprisingly, the death toll of armed homeowners is lower than their unarmed counterparts during an armed robbery attempt. so i don't see your point
They tried that already. Astonishingly, it didn't work.
Who's "they"? when did "they" tried this? i'm completely lost here
You know the government controls the police and the military, right? You'd be helplessly overpowered until the UN takes over, and even they would have a hell of an ordeal subduing the US government
US is just one country, what do you really think would happen if both the majority of the US citizen AND the rest of the world is fighting the US government? Just look at the middle eastern countries which now are undergoing civil revolution. it would be equivalent to a super sized Syrian conflict. Many parts of the military and police would defect if they are against the rest of the nation. that alone doesn't include interventions from the UN or other nations armies.
Thus making the whole populace criminals. Also, are you advocating mob rule?
1.Hmmm........ maybe not. if you arm the whole populace it would not instantaneously make all of them criminals. that implies that all people with weapons ARE criminals, including police and the military.
2. No, i'm not advocating mob rule or warlords or other similar kind of stuff. i'm just saying that it would create a self correcting population that would just kill anyone that is criminals or killers and the like.
Control/Regulate -> Ban
This has happened quite frequently in the past.
Please go read a history book of some sort.
well then let me shine some light on this one.control /regulate CAN mean a ban but usually it's not even close to a ban. i'll give example to both cases
Control/regulate means ban:
1. any human under the age of 18 would be "banned" from watching porn, more specifically, blocked from watching it from youtube and the like. some countries like mine even ban it completely. but in your country, after a certain age, the "ban" is lifted. Why the ban exist? well, it is to regulate the said "after effects" of watching porn
2. you can't hunt animals in a nature reserve. in other words, you are "banned" from hunting animals. in some cases however, the rangers would sometimes hunt and kill some animals. in both cases, the goal is to control/regulate the population of the animals.
Control/regulate does NOT mean ban
1. if you have ever read the bible, then you would know this one ( I regard this as an actual event, except for some details that is clearly exaggerated. as a bonus, i'll highlight the ones i think that are exaggerated ). when Joseph (jacob's son) rose to power, he was instructed to control and regulate the food stockpiles during the 7 years famine. but that doesn't mean that Joseph is going to let all the people of Egypt starve to death. he is just controlling the amount eaten and taken from the food granaries, clearly not a ban.
2. Fisherman s are regulated today to catch a certain amount of fish by a certain method specified by the law of ones country. but that does not mean they can;t fish or are banned from fishing right?
as a side note to Fish, please stop negating my arguments without any basis, you're annoying me with that attitude, and that also completely ignored the attempts i made to give my opinion in the most complete way i can, which i dislike
prove your point man, or at least give me a more explaining sentence.
Why? Am I the only one who isn't exempt from the burden of proof? Do you expect me to spend hours poring over news reports and statistics in order to invalidate every erroneous, bizarre, or irrational claim that crops up? When you give a groundless point, I am entirely justified in negating it with an equally groundless point.
surprisingly, the death toll of armed homeowners is lower than their unarmed counterparts during an armed robbery attempt.
Actually, it isn't. The exact reverse is true. This much has already been verified statistically (a few places in Gun Control, I believe).
US is just one country, what do you really think would happen if both the majority of the US citizen AND the rest of the world is fighting the US government?
You're arguing the wrong point. A UN majority could defeat it, although with great difficulty. The US citizenry would likely have no appreciable effect upon the outcome, regardless of their armaments.
I think it's safe to say that the majority of the US population, with its general lack of sufficient combat training, comparatively mundane weapons, weak or nonexistent centralized command (as the government is the opposition), and limited budget, poses minimal threat.
Many parts of the military and police would defect if they are against the rest of the nation. that alone doesn't include interventions from the UN or other nations armies.
1 On what grounds do you predict that they will defect?
2 Why would non-UN nations get involved? Why should they stick their metaphorical necks out?
1.Hmmm........ maybe not. if you arm the whole populace it would not instantaneously make all of them criminals. that implies that all people with weapons ARE criminals, including police and the military.
Which is invalid, because he never implied that. He was responding to this:
instead, just armed the whole populace and the populace is just going to make Swiss cheese of any psychopath or criminals.
As near as I recall, poking holes in people, vigilante style, is a federal offense.
2. No, i'm not advocating mob rule or warlords or other similar kind of stuff. i'm just saying that it would create a self correcting population that would just kill anyone that is criminals or killers and the like
I think this is a sound conclusion, although there may be better solutions to crime than self-extermination.
1. any human under the age of 18 would be "banned" from watching porn, more specifically, blocked from watching it from youtube and the like. some countries like mine even ban it completely. but in your country, after a certain age, the "ban" is lifted. Why the ban exist? well, it is to regulate the said "after effects" of watching porn
2. you can't hunt animals in a nature reserve. in other words, you are "banned" from hunting animals. in some cases however, the rangers would sometimes hunt and kill some animals. in both cases, the goal is to control/regulate the population of the animals.
I'd like to mention here that even these aren't direct relations, because neither the pornography nor the wildlife populations are being banned. The bans are on underage viewing of pornography and the unauthorized hunting of such wildlife.
as a side note to Fish, please stop negating my arguments without any basis, you're annoying me with that attitude, and that also completely ignored the attempts i made to give my opinion in the most complete way i can, which i dislike
Here's a tip: If you don't like the result, stop being the cause. Complaining to the go-between will achieve nothing.
In my opinion, the best way of giving an opinion is by first clearly indicating that what you are about to say is an opinion, and not an assertion.
surprisingly, the death toll of armed homeowners is lower than their unarmed counterparts during an armed robbery attempt. so i don't see your point
Actually, it isn't. The exact reverse is true. This much has already been verified statistically (a few places in Gun Control, I believe).
You're four times more likely to be shot if you're a gunowner than otherwise.
Source 1
Source 2
This is about guns though, so we're in the wrong thread. As such I'll be ignoring everything else related to guns in your post. I just addressed this because Fish mentioned there were statistics and you pulled your claim right from your nether regions.
Control/Regulate does not mean ban. That's really all there is to it. They will not, as a matter of course, lead to a total ban.
Scenario: No one but gubmint(military, police, etc...can have any weapons)
Barack Obama watches 1984
"Hey, we could probably do that."
Scenario: No one but gubmint(military, police, etc...can have any weapons)
Barack Obama watches 1984
"Hey, we could probably do that."
Classical straw man, if I'm not mistaken, followed by gratuitous slandering of a politician you don't like, which has nothing to do with the topic. Try better next time.
The point is that your premise is flawed; weapon control does not mean that civilians cannot possess weapons.
Would it be fair to say that the US has a culture of glorifying weapons?
Classical straw man, if I'm not mistaken, followed by gratuitous slandering of a politician you don't like, which has nothing to do with the topic. Try better next time.
Oh, I'm sure that you would do it to a conservative politician.
Oh, I'm sure that you would do it to a conservative politician.
1) wut is Tu Queque fallacy
2) Sincerely doubt he would. Would be odd seeing him do such a childish act
3) Even if he did, someone would point out the poor move as he did.
1) wut is Tu Queque fallacy
I'm merely speculating based on what I see most people do here.
2) Sincerely doubt he would. Would be odd seeing him do such a childish act
Would not seem odd to me.
3) Even if he did, someone would point out the poor move as he did....and they would be attacked with some jargonish vague rhetoric
Whether I would say it too or not has no relevance on the fact it is gratuitous; it would merely mean that I was a hypocrite. To be honest, I cannot promise not to slander on a conservative politician but I would never use it as an argument in a scenario related to the threads topic. Topic which is sneaking away from us right now. Better to catch it up again.
Knives are not evil. You use them for food preparation and for other uses. But so called "assault knives," which are used primarily used for killing, should be banned. Don't get me wrong, I would use one of those knives to protect myself or my family from a bear or dog or something, but I wouldn't carry one around with me. Crossbows and bows are used primarily for hunting, unlike some rifles, which could be used to kill people. The army doesn't use crossbows anymore, since they are ineffective against body armor. They are also single shot, and takes practice to use. I am not condoning the use of such weapons, but I am saying that when you use one, treat it as if you would treat a gun. Do not treat it as a toy. It is a weapon and can be used to kill.
Never heard of an "assault knife." Maybe because there is no such category.
The media has used this term before.
Not sure if trolling gun arguments or just being dramatic. Given the first quote, I'm thinking troll.
I am not a troll.
Now you're saying all knives are weapons.
I never said that. I said that there are some knives that are used specifically for hunting and that there are some knives that are used for cooking. A kitchen knife can be used to kill, and vice versa.
"Do not treat it as a toy. It is a weapon and can be used to kill." Is this a reference to knives or to bows/crossbows?
To both knives and bows/crossbows.
The term "assault knife" does not exist. The media coined it to inspire the same fear and hatred of them as they're injecting us with over "assault rifles," a term that also has no official definition.
I'm sorry, then, @MattEmAngel. I made a mistake when using the term "assault knife" in my argument.
:P
You must be logged in to post a reply!