General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIF you ban guns people will just use knives...
...sharp sticks, and harsh language...
I hate gun nut arguments...
ramikin
(20 posts)sticks, rocks, bats, pipes, rope, ect. and we can all ride unicorns across the rainbow roads that will magically appear.
tridim
(45,358 posts)And then a bigger one! Bigger boards with bigger nails! And soon they shall make a board
with a nail so big that they shall destroy themselves! Aha! Ahahaha! Mwuhahahahaaa!
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)The problem, of course, is that there is already a gun for every adult in the U.S. and some thousands or millions of them will remain functional for hundreds of years to come. So any solution has to deal with that unfortunate reality.
They're sort of like herpes. We can try to control the symptoms, but the underlying problem is currently incurable.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Those arguments are so silly!
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)For the record I'm not a gun nut and I've never owned a gun, but I'm afraid that without changing the culture, banning guns would be as effective as banning drugs.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... in civilized societies right here on this planet. I'd suggest not listening to the bullshit NRA propaganda. It is lies to protect their profits and they don't give a flying fig how many innocent people have to die to preserve it.
Fuck the NRA.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Bumbling along, listening to the NRA and all. We have to change the culture, you can't do that from the top down. The NRA is definitely part of the problem, but for me it's because they continue to push the traditional American "gun culture", not because they stand in the way of your well intentioned but worthless gun ban. When we decided that whiskey was killing people, we didn't change the drinking culture. We banned whiskey. It didn't work. The culture remained and drinking continued. Not only that, the market became more profitable and an even more efficient, though illegal, distribution system sprang up. Stopping gun violence is a long and complicated process. We have 50 years of work to do in social justice, mental health and our culture in general to get a handle on this problem. It's far more complicated than "ban guns" vs. "arm everybody", which is always were the discussion immediately devolves.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... false equivocations, but thanks for playing.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)it's okay. You aren't the only American that prefers simple over complicated whenever possible.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. extremists on the other side of this are winning and they sure as fuck didn't get there by being "reasonable." if you, your wife, your kids, your grandkids, your friends, your clients have to be slaughtered going about their day to day, completely legal and legitimate lives, THEY DON'T CARE. I've watched attempts at "reasonable weapons laws" get shot down for over 5 decades and I've had my fill. I'm done being "reasonable." So, be "reasonable" and let the insanity continue from those will NEVER be "reasonable" back.
But that must be "too simple" of a concept to grasp.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)isn't that what happened in the U.K.?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035798/Thugs-committing-350-knife-assaults-EVERY-DAY-menace-spreads-rural-areas.html
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)and oldie but a goodie in the dreary recitation...
permatex
(1,299 posts)show me where I'm wrong?
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)standard issue for the gun lobby.
But let's say that it is true, and more knives are used in violent attacks for the reason that the "proof" suggests. Knives are simply too inefficient to be used by the James Holmes and the Jared Loughners of our time. Sure, they could go on a rampage with a knife, but they wouldn't cause the mass slaughter, and thus not the notariety and fame that they could cause with the guns. And attacking a mass of people with more than one knife would be pretty difficult, if not impossible.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Vercotti: Doug (takes a drink) Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug.
2nd Interviewer: What did he do?
Vercotti: He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious.
Presenter:By a combination of violence and sarcasm, the Piranha brothers by February 1966 controlled London and the Southeast of England. It was in February, though, that Dinsdale made a big mistake.
TlalocW
(15,381 posts)I told him it would be good for the country as we would all be in better shape. If everyone was carrying a knife around, and there were a fight, you would have two choices - fight or flight. Either way, your assailant is going to have to work to kill you - either by fighting you with a weapon you also have or chasing after you and then fighting you with a weapon you also have. And then for hunting, when you actually killed a deer or a bear or whatever with just a knife, then you could have some macho bragging rights. Doing it from hundreds of feet away with a gun is weak sauce.
He went away from the conversation convinced I was serious.
TlalocW
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Putting some corn or doe scent in a field and shooting a deer from your camouflaged tree stand, when it comes to investigate, is just as much a 'sport' as Napcar.
They're making a left turn!
TlalocW
(15,381 posts)Hide in a tree and wait for them to come by then drop down and wrestle it to the ground and snap its neck with your bare hands if you're a real man! (Said to the same guy)
TlalocW
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Yeah, that's the ticket.