Armed and safe

VMAX  Forum

Help Support VMAX Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hey....the Kali stick video that I posted yesterday. Their sole purpose is to main and kill.....and I have several pairs.

In Okinawa around 1477 a new Sho dynasty was established. The new king, Sho Shin, in order to deal with rebellious warlords banned the carrying of weapons. Much later Okinawa was invaded by the Satsuma Clan from Japan who also re-enforced this law resulting with the native Okinawans developing their hands and feet as lethal weapons, later to be known as Karate around 1905.

Bottom line....if guns are no longer accessible....people will find other ways to protect themselves...and kill each other too.
 
I remember after Sandy Hook, the news was saying that it was the worst mass murder tragedy that had ever hit a school. It wasnt.

The Bath School disaster was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe killed his wife and firebombed his farm, then detonated a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder to take place at a school in United States history.[1][2]

A total of 45 people died. Not a single gun used.
 
If properly motivated, somebody can kill their enemy with a pair of nail-clippers, but this is irrelevant to the greater regulatory scheme. Just because there are other ways for people to kill one another, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t in the public interest to restrict the most common way people currently kill each other.

Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing people—even large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be far more difficult to accrue high body counts.

There is a good reason why guns have become the mass murderer’s weapon of choice; they are simply the most efficient way of getting the job done. Weapons other than guns can be used to kill large numbers of people, but none are as easy to obtain or use as guns:

Bombs may be lethal to large numbers of people, but they take expertise to build and are very risky for an amateur to handle (just look at the number of people who manage to mangle themselves playing with fireworks).

Knives are lethal in the right hands, but they can only kill one person at a time and have no ability to kill at a distance.

Cars can be used to kill people, but they are far too large and unwieldy to replace guns (you can’t exactly put one in your backpack to sneak into a school).

A tool may simply be a shortcut to a desired result, but it isn’t fair to say that the tool has no part in achieving a result. A man with a hammer and a man with a gun could kill an identical number of people, but the gun certainly makes it more likely that the person will succeed, faster in their killing spree, and more likely to kill their specific targets.
 
There is a difference. Guns have no other purpose than to kill. It is what they were designed to do, and do well.

Maybe in your world, not in mine. Did you ever trap shoot or target practice. Guns provide fun and entertainment for tens of thousands of people, with nothing being killed except a piece of paper or a clay bird. I would say its a rather large percentage of the gun in the US have never taken a life of any kind. A local school near me is just offering a trap league to the students. They're having a fund raiser at the gun club to buy shotguns for the kids to use. You could use the word "potential" to kill, but the for the most part, that potential is what keeps a criminal from walking into my house.
 
Maybe in your world, not in mine. Did you ever trap shoot or target practice. Guns provide fun and entertainment for tens of thousands of people, with nothing being killed except a piece of paper or a clay bird. I would say its a rather large percentage of the gun in the US have never taken a life of any kind. A local school near me is just offering a trap league to the students. They're having a fund raiser at the gun club to buy shotguns for the kids to use. You could use the word "potential" to kill, but the for the most part, that potential is what keeps a criminal from walking into my house.
OK, I did target shoot once as a boy scout. I'll concede your point that some guns may have a second purpose.
 
Whew!
Eleven pages and counting. Emotions seem to be in check now, some great arguments both pro and con being put forth.
Is there an award for "Knowing the right buttons to push"
If so, Forestdaledave should win , without question!

As for me, I'm still trying to come to terms with the comparison of guns to....... donuts:ummm:
Does the hole size determine the caliper?
Would a box of Timbits be the equivilent of a assault rifle with a large clip?
Cheers!:biglaugh:
 
Whew!
Eleven pages and counting. Emotions seem to be in check now, some great arguments both pro and con being put forth.
Is there an award for "Knowing the right buttons to push"
If so, Forestdaledave should win , without question!

As for me, I'm still trying to come to terms with the comparison of guns to....... donuts:ummm:
Does the hole size determine the caliper?
Would a box of Timbits be the equivilent of a assault rifle with a large clip?
Cheers!:biglaugh:
This made me laugh.....this is one thing that I like about this forum 99% of the people here can put forth an intelligent argument....and defend it well.

Sent from my SCH-R890 using Tapatalk
 
Where should I even begin?

A career felon could walk out of prison, and purchase a full-auto AK-47 from Walmart
If the justice system was not loaded with liberal judges and politicians pandering to a liberal base then, these "career" criminals would never see the outside of a prison wall again. Those who commit the more egregious crimes would receive the ultimate punishment and would be removed as both a blight and burden on society. Additionally they would not sit on death row for 20 years or get appeal after appeal. You get your trial, you get your appeal. If by that time you are not acquitted then the sentence is carried out in a timely fashion. There would be no such thing as life without parole. If someone is too dangerous to ever consider releasing back out into society that should automatically be commuted to a death sentence. Why keep someone around who you don't have any intention of ever letting out? Also prison shouldn't be 3 hots and a cot for your entire incarceration. You shouldn't get all the time you want in a weight room or the ability to set up your own little drug enterprise inside the prison walls. There would be no TV, no A/C. It should be a hateful place that is both physically and mentally exhausting. It should be horrible enough that any human being who has ever been on the inside should never want to go back....ever. If prisons were more like this you wouldn't have nearly as high a rate of recidivism.

Your psycho ex could buy a sniper rifle and silencer from “some guy” for $100
Yup, you are correct, she might, but how would your idea prevent this? Just because you say someone is psycho does not mean they have been adjudicated as mentally unstable. Once you start drawing "mental health" into the issue now you are on that slippery slope again. What is the definition of mentally unstable? How is it quantitatively defined? If you can't define it in purely logical terms then you are allowing the opinion of someone to determine whether another's rights may be stripped of them. Maybe a new political administration would view your liberal views as a mental illness and strip you of your right to vote without due process. Ahhhh, that pesky double edged sword again.


A mentally handicapped child could get a pistol from a vending machine
Is that supposed to be a remotely serious answer?
Knives are perfectly legal yet we don't see vending machines filled with knives. Hell you don't see vending machines filled with fishing lures and there isn't a single law anywhere in this country that regulates that.

Known terrorists and those with terrorist affiliations could easily purchase Stinger missile launchers to shoot down airliners
Known terrorists should be scooped up as soon as they enter our country. If you are not a citizen and have ties to terror groups, or even if the intelligence suggests you might, we don't want you in the country at all. No visa, no entry. Period.
Get caught inside the country as a known terrorist, then get treated like an enemy combatant. That ties into the illegal immigration. That **** needs to stop pronto. No visa, no entry. Get caught here illegally (i.e. sneaking over the border, see the first answer).

Any nutjob could walk out of the asylum, buy a grenade launcher and flamethrower, and visit your kids at school.
Well, flamethrowers are already legal so that could happen today but I digress. I am sure that all of those "Gun Free Zone" signs would stop them right in their tracks....oh wait....


Let me put it this way. There is evil in this world. There always has been, and there always will be. That evil does not care whether the means to the end is a gun, or a machete, or a baseball bat. It favors the physically larger, younger, and faster. A firearm gives a 105lb woman or your 75 year old father a more even chance at surviving than being beaten to death by a 19 year old punk.


I have a little experiment I'd like you to try.

You and a friend of mine are going to come to my backyard. You two are going to stand ten yards apart. Then, when I give the signal, he is going to point his hand in the shape of a gun. He is going to point his hand at you and by the mere act of pointing at you, try to kill you. He will not be allowed to send any physical object of any sort in your general direction, nor will he be permitted any sort of explosives with area-of-effect damage or anything else that could physically harm you. His only weapon will be his bare hand, which will not be allowed to come anywhere near you. You will not be allowed to move or hide.

In part two of this experiment, everything will be done exactly as before, with one single change: He will be given a loaded .45, and he will be allowed to shoot at you. You will not be given body armor, a firearm, or any other way to defend yourself. Again, you will not be allowed to move or hide.

If you truly and sincerely believe that "guns don't kill people," then you should have no problem participating in this experiment.
This may be the most ******** statement I have ever heard made in the entire firearms debate....ever.

A gun is an inanimate object. A simple machine. It has no will, desire, malice , intent. It is not evil, it has no feelings. It is merely the instrument of the person pulling the trigger.
If you were to beat your friend in the head with a chunk of cinder block would it be the cinder block that killed your friend or would it have been you?

In closing, this argument will continue to rage on. I don't see the chasm between your view and my view getting any smaller so I will leave you with the words of someone much more eloquent than myself.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin
 
I think Miles is correct....Dave is enjoying the hornets nest he has stirred up. I appreciate the fact that you guys have kept this topic civil thus far.
 
I think Miles is correct....Dave is enjoying the hornets nest he has stirred up. I appreciate the fact that you guys have kept this topic civil thus far.

Thanks. I would like to think that adults of differing opinion can have discussions....with out it going too far. unfortunately if it does go too far, then the :stir pot: wins......and I REALLY dont like the thought of that.
 
I've stated my position. I don't want to offend anyone, and I accept everyone's rebuttals. Thank you all for a spirited debate. I will also let the subject rest. Oh, and Miles & Eric, I also got a laugh about the comparison to donuts. That was hilarious!! :)
 
Back
Top