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).
Violence [...] is a necessary thing for the individual who wishes to keep whats rightfully his, defend his loved ones, and defend his good name against slanderers and troublemakers.
No, actually, it isn't. Argument successfuly refuted.
Care to comment properly on the defending yourself and your loved ones part, or would you prefer to just lay down and let yourself be killed by thugs and perverts. I guess you really are "bonkers".
Argument from silence + Ad hominem â Valid refutation. The matter has been discussed ad nauseam in the gun control thread. He should not be required to explain it again.
No, actually, it isn't. Argument successfuly refuted.
Wow! That was brilliant. *extreme sarcasm* In your mind I guess you think all you have to do is declare "No" and you you've won the argument. If politics were this simple, I could become president.
In your mind I guess you think all you have to do is declare "No" and you you've won the argument.
No, I refuted the argument, hence my declaration that the argument was refuted.
If politics were this simple, I could become president.
No, actually, you couldn't.
By the way, politics often are this simple. In fact, they are nearly always equally if not more simple: Candidate A makes fallacious disparaging claims about candidate B. Candidate B denies the claims. Candidate A has more media coverage than B. Candidate A wins the election.
Unfortunately, you can't "win" this discussion as easily as A wins an election. It isn't that simple.
He didn't bother to provide any evidence for his claim [...]
Therefore his claim is baseless. The burden of proof still rests upon him.
In a "your word versus my word" argument, you cannot just claim yourself as the winner. "That's not true. I win." Yeah, no
You both appear to be labouring under the misconception that there can be a "winner" here.
To expand on the point, since when has violence been the answer? (Think about this carefully, as violence causes violence, which is the reason you want to be violent in the first place.)
You have yet to prove that you refuted his argument. Your claim is just as baseless as his.
This did not escape me. The simple fact is that I am not obligated or even inclined to disprove a claim that lacks any supporting evidence. I simply negate it with an equally valid claim to the contrary. That ball is in his court. If he wants to get it rolling, it is his responsibility to do so; not mine.
No, actually, I'm not. Argument successfully refuted.
That's the spirit.
Nazi Germany was bombing, shooting and murdering everyone they could find who was Jewish or didn't salute Hitler.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and interpret this as an extreme exaggeration.
There really isn't any other answer to "racial genocide and global supremacy" than violence in the form of armed warfare.
So to answer your question, violence is the answer to armed warfare, and it always will be.
Meaning that the solution to armed warfare is armed warfare? Or that violence begets violence? Your argument looks like something caught between Scylla and Charybdis.
I think it's time to stop playing the "Is not", "Is to!" game. We are way off topic here. Lets get back to the discussion about non-guns weapon control.
I would state the problem being that Americans have a creepy obsession with weapons. Even though some countries own more, or have equally lax gun controls, they don't have the same obsession as The US.
I think it's time to stop playing the "Is not", "Is to!" game. We are way off topic here. Lets get back to the discussion about non-guns weapon control.
Though as FishPreferred demonstrated, you didn't provide any support for why violence would be necessary yet. Since I think it is not, I am interested to see you argue your point.
Second thing, just a little food for thought. I just thought about it right now so it's not likely to be a strong argument, but: If so many objects can be used as a weapon, why would we need actual weapons? Having an object that has a peaceful purpose but which can, in need, be used to protect yourself, should make the existence of objects purely for self-protection obsolete.
Having an object that has a peaceful purpose but which can, in need, be used to protect yourself, should make the existence of objects purely for self-protection obsolete.
Which objects are "urely for self-protection"? For example, someone could use a big knife or sword to peacefully chop and slice watermelons on their property for entertainment, as well as potentially for defense.
Which objects are "urely for self-protection"?
By that I was trying to say "weapons", which excludes kevlar body armour and big kitchen knives. So you can put your kevlar back on for your next jogging, don't worry.
I'll suggest a baseball bat for the multi-purpose object, since it can easily serve both peaceful and defensive purposes.
Claims were made that weapons are necessary to enforce your safety. I am just trying to argue that other items can serve this purpose just as well. No specific weapons were mentioned by the other part, so why should I. I don't think it is truly relevant to my argument unless you want to nitpick.
I'm not sure if there are any manmade weapons like this. Most weapons that have this as a main funtion are also intended for use by police in subduing perceived hostiles (flash grenades and tear gas, for example).
Some weapons are highly offensive, like firearms, rapiers, and butterfly knives. Others are more defensive, like broadswords
I'm fairly certain broadswords are designed primarily for offensive use.
