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).
Compare that to the number of homicides by, say, a kitchen knife
And I bet if you compared the rates of homicides by weapons that were made for killing, taking into account the number of them out there, and compared that to the number of kitchen knives that have been used to kill, and compared that to the number of them out there, we'd see a vastly different number.
tell me how to disarm the country so criminals won't have guns without violating the constitution or starting a civil war.
Demonstrate to the people, over time, that having and more importantly, enjoying weaponry is not normal, and make the police force more effective by raising tax on bullets and guns. America has a huge culture problem whereby guns are fetishised and normalised in daily life. Remove that, and you'll be better off. We do have gun crime in the UK, but it's difficult to acquire guns and ammo, and the most firepower is held by farmers and gamekeepers, but as a necessity, not a desire. We are tough on all forms of weapon, and so gun murders are 6.2% of all murders, compared to 67% in the US.
What I find interesting is that there is less gun crime in iceland than there is in the UK, but more guns.
I believe you are confusing a sword with a shield. Generally, when one draws a sword, one means to attack another person with it.
I'm not advocating (Lethal edged) sword ownership. I'm merely stating that it's easier to defend with a sword than a gun. Defending is not the same as preventing attack, which is what killing an assailant with your gun does. Swords are long things. Like many long things, you can use them to stop swings from another weapon, or to push weapons out of the way. You could do the same thing with a rifle, but if you have a rifle you're likely to go in all guns blazing anyway.
Having finished this post, I find I've talked a lot about guns. My defence for this is that they are the modern worlds' "standard" weapon, so talking about weapons in general gets you there in the end.
Alright then. Ignore the "comparison" section of my argument and just provide the number of homicides per year involving a balisong as the murder weapon.
That wasn't really my point. I do not know how many people are killed per year by a balisong specifically - if as you say it is not easier/good to use for fighting, I doubt many.
My point was that non-weapons (objects not designed to kill) are not controlled because they are typically not used in that fashion. Whereas other weapons are controlled, because they are weapons. Weapons are designed to cause personal harm and are very good at it. If you look at the total number of kitchen knives in circulation and contrast that to how often they are used in violent crimes (not defending oneself) the rate will be extremely low. The balisong rate might be just a low, or maybe not (I haven't looked) but I imagine it would be higher because they are not used for anything other that sport (as you seem to use them for) or as a weapon, because they have no other purpose.
Demonstrate to the people, over time, that having and more importantly, enjoying weaponry is not normal, and make the police force more effective by raising tax on bullets and guns. America has a huge culture problem whereby guns are fetishised and normalised in daily life. Remove that, and you'll be better off. We do have gun crime in the UK, but it's difficult to acquire guns and ammo, and the most firepower is held by farmers and gamekeepers, but as a necessity, not a desire. We are tough on all forms of weapon, and so gun murders are 6.2% of all murders, compared to 67% in the US.
i don't know if you noticed this yet, but most homicides resulting in the death of the victim occur when the victim is unarmed. if the victim has a weapon of some sorts, it drastically increased the survivability of the victim. just look at the statistic, compare the death toll of the victims unarmed vs armed during a homicide attempt. I'd love to add the link, but i don't really know how to add it, so help me.
So I'm going to argue that we don't need any bans on weaponry or guns. instead, just armed the whole populace and the populace is just going to make Swiss cheese of any psychopath or criminals. you'll have a self repair population and as a bonus, if the government is corrupted, just kill them all and make a new one :P
if the victim has a weapon of some sorts, it drastically increased the survivability of the victim.
No it doesn't.
just look at the statistic, compare the death toll of the victims unarmed vs armed during a homicide attempt.
Compare the death toll of armed vs unarmed homeowners during an armed robbery attempt.
instead, just armed the whole populace and the populace is just going to make Swiss cheese of any psychopath or criminals.
They tried that already. Astonishingly, it didn't work.
if the government is corrupted, just kill them all and make a new one :P
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.
Why must you always leave your points unexpanded/unsupported? I agree though; having a weapon will just make your assailant more afraid and thus more likely to use lethal force to save their own skin.
instead, just armed the whole populace and the populace is just going to make Swiss cheese of any psychopath or criminals.
Thus making the whole populace criminals. Also, are you advocating mob rule?
Why must you always leave your points unexpanded/unsupported?
I don't.
Joking aside. The supporting argument is after the next quote. I don't need more than that, because it directly negates his supporting argument, which is good enough for my position.
Thus making the whole populace criminals. Also, are you advocating mob rule?
I find it particularly strange how one person will argue that we need weapons to prevent armed despots from overthrowing the government, while another will argue that we need weapons to become the armed despots overthrowing the government, without any apparrent disagreement between the two.
Interesting that the student who stabbed 21 people falls within your criteria. He used two kitchen knives from his house.
Please tell me you don't believe kitchen knives were made to harm others.
Your idea of "controlling" things designed to kill or harm others will inevitably lead to more "creativity."
The kid got "creative" and managed to injure 21 people. Only 1 person might die. But no, it's better to leave things the old boring way where over a dozen people get shot and die. Right?
Are you seriously arguing that the usage of kitchen knives were just as deadly as a gun when they obviously were not? The kid had targets all throughout the hallway because people were going around during a firealarm, where things like screams would be muted by the blaring alarms. Yet he still didn't manage to kill anyone. A gun in that situation? There would have been over twenty deaths easily, firing into packed hallways.
This kid would have stabbed just as many people whether combat knives or balisongs were banned or not.
I don't know exactly what type of knives he used, because "kitchen knife" ranges anywhere from a dull butter knife to a butcher's knife. The thing about combat knives is they are -made- to be used in combat (duh) and thus are going to be better at what they do (duh) than a knife made to cut vegetables and chicken (duh).
Let's assume the kid used combat knives (vague term) instead of kitchen knives (vague term). If we replace the kitchen knives with comparably sized combat knives, which do you think will be...
1) Sharper 2) More durable. 3) Have a better grip 4) Heavier 5) Balanced
I want to clear some things up...since, once again, this has become an issue.
CONTROL DOES NOT MEAN BAN. REGULATE DOES NOT MEAN BAN. Stop using this strawman already. I'm absolutely sick of it, and I know I've called you out on it before Matt and blk.
Guns are more lethal than knives, of any kind. Guns are more lethal than most kinds of weapons, especially those a "common" person could acquire. Not all weapons are equal. I realize it would be extremely convenient for your argument if that were the truth, BUT IT'S NOT. You are either lying by saying knives are just as dangerous as guns, or so hopelessly lost in your agenda that you've closed yourself off to any arguments whatsoever and it's pointless to talk.
Just because guns are banned does not mean everyone will suddenly flock to more dangerous weapons. THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. If, as you say, they will find a way to do what they want, and these more dangerous weapons are ALREADY THERE, then why do we not see them using those INSTEAD OF GUNS?
We should ban any and all weapons so that we are forced to defend ourselves with our hands and feet (so long as our shoes don't have soles that are too hard) Also we should regulate people that hit too hard like Dwayne Johnson or Manny Paquio (I don't know how to spell his name) Or even me since I clock in at over 600 psi that's totally reasonable. Seriously has any body even heard of martial arts which basicly turns the body into either a weapon or your armor either way the creative mind of humans can use almost anything as a deadly weapon so don't flip and punish stupid and crazy people. FYI I have used a butterfly knife and I love them.
Because you certainly couldn't kill someone with a steak knife, or even a regular knife. Considering the fact that he injured 21 people, I highly doubt that he used a butter knife.
I never said you couldn't, and I never implied he used a butter knife. As usual, you've completely missed my point. A combat knife is more dangerous than a kitchen knife. Combat knives are made for combat. Weapons are different than tools. Exactly why is this so hard for you to understand?
No, it doesn't, you're right about that. It simply "implies" ban.
Control/regulate = Ban. Gotcha. Please go read a dictionary.
I have a question for you. Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "Non-gun weapons control"?
I suspect he mistook this for the gun control thread.
No, it doesn't, you're right about that. It simply "implies" ban.
No. It doesn't do that either.
"Quick; there's a family of skunks nesting under the porch. Go call Animal Ban before they get settled in." "Yup, I see the problem here. One of the circuits has fused onto the voltage banner."
Makes sense? I didn't think so.
Control/Regulate -> Ban This has happened quite frequently in the past.
I suspect he mistook this for the gun control thread.
I didn't, but it slipped my mind because they use the exact same ridiculous arguments. All weapons are equally deadly, control/regulation is the same as banning, criminals don't follow laws, less of a certain weapon somehow leads to more of a more dangerous one, and infringement on freedoms.
I suspect he mistook this for the gun control thread.
I suspect blk simply did not want to answer this. Any idiot can see that the same people are behind both weapon control threads, gun or non-gun.
I also said this before and I still hold that weapons, which were made to hurt/kill, should not be handled the same way than everyday items. Pretty simple in my opinion.
Of course simply controlling weapons will not prevent rampages to happen, it is irrealistic to assume that so don't use it as an argument against it. But it will have an impact, I'm sure of it, and even one life spared is worth stopping with a completely careless handling of the sales of weapons. Now to stop rampages to happen completely, or mostly, you would have to find out what exactly in the American culture provokes that, and act there. But it might be really difficult; in other countries for example, the notion of honour is still so pronounced that they will kill others, even people of their own family, as revenge for slander, and some silly stuff like that. That's often cultural and difficult to make them understand how stupid it is.
