1. Post #401
    Gold Member
    Xenomoose's Avatar
    September 2006
    5,604 Posts
    No it doesn't, a bow or a sword can't kill a person as efficiently as a gun.
    That doesn't matter. Did you know the weapon of choice for criminals in the UK and Malaysia (where Firearms are harder to come by) is a Katana? It turns out that they're a common collectors item in those places, so it's easy for criminals to get their hands on them and use them for more malicious purposes. The UK had to ban the sale of mass-produced Katanas because of their use in criminal attacks.

    My point? If a criminal wants a weapon, they will get their hands on a weapon. Banning firearms will not do anything because a criminal will find something else to use.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 3Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  2. Post #402
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    That doesn't matter. Did you know the weapon of choice for criminals in the UK and Malaysia (where Firearms are harder to come by) is a Katana? It turns out that they're a common collectors item in those places, so it's easy for criminals to get their hands on them and use them for more malicious purposes. The UK had to ban the sale of mass-produced Katanas because of their use in criminal attacks.

    My point? If a criminal wants a weapon, they will get their hands on a weapon. Banning firearms will not do anything because a criminal will find something else to use.
    And yet people think this doesn't matter because firearms are more effective for killing people.

    Which, yes, it's true. But the source for violent crime still exists. Don't give people a reason to kill each other and your gun crime rate will plummet.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  3. Post #403
    Gold Member
    Lolkork's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,316 Posts
    That doesn't matter. Did you know the weapon of choice for criminals in the UK and Malaysia (where Firearms are harder to come by) is a Katana? It turns out that they're a common collectors item in those places, so it's easy for criminals to get their hands on them and use them for more malicious purposes. The UK had to ban the sale of mass-produced Katanas because of their use in criminal attacks.

    My point? If a criminal wants a weapon, they will get their hands on a weapon. Banning firearms will not do anything because a criminal will find something else to use.
    So you're saying that a school massacre would be possible with just a katana?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  4. Post #404
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    So you're saying that a school massacre would be possible with just a katana?
    15,000 firearm related homicides a year aren't the product of massacres.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  5. Post #405
    Gold Member
    RR_Raptor65's Avatar
    February 2006
    3,225 Posts
    Holy shit it is very very simple.
    I would rather have nothing, because I have no exceptional training with a bow and arrow, he's probably better at it than me, and all I'd do if I had to try and stop him, is drop the bow and arrow and try and run at him, because wielding a bow and arrow is actually fucking impractical if you're using one that actually have the force to kill someone

    what are you even arguing at this point
    I honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove with these scenarios
    You sure want to go down this road?

    If I wanted to do a mass killing with a bow on par or better than the Aurora shooting I could do it easily. First I'd pick a sports stadium and take a position at the top away from everyone, maybe above an exit or something, and then I'd be shooting down on them with these:


    No one is going to be able to 'rugby tackle' me while I still have arrows. You see I'm a very practiced archer with a Longbow, I've been doing it for most of my life, I am as close as you are going to get to a Medieval Longbowman and have practiced for speed and long range accuracy.
    I can nock and loose an arrow in one smooth fluid movement while compensating for range and windage, it's all done in about half a second and I am a very good shot even at the sort of range you would see someone using a rifle.
    The arrows I have will not wound you, they will kill you, that's what they were designed to do almost 1,000 years ago and they're just as good at that job as they are today, if I were to use them for that purpose that is. Not only that, but unlike a gun the bow is practically silent, the only indicators anyone would have that something is wrong is if they heard the yell of someone being hit or saw the arrow flying or sticking out of someone.


    Now, say I have a sword instead, I have several of these myself and like my bow I've practiced with them too so I know how to use a sword.

    If I wanted to go on a mass killing with a sword, like the bow the setting would have to change, instead of a theater or a stadium I'd pick a bus, train or subway. Somewhere where people are cramped together and unable to escape. I'd take a seat at the rear of the train and proceed to turn the entire train into a butcher shop starting from the back.
    Oh right, the rugby tackle. Anyone who believes they can attack a swordsman with their bare hands is either a fool or Bruce Lee, and Bruce Lee is dead. The sword is practically an impassable wall between you and the person wielding it, attempting to cross that wall with your bare hands will cost you a limb or your life, to that swordsman you are just a fresh link of sausage waiting to be sliced into pepperoni. A sword is fully intended to be used in extremely close quarters, stepping up to a swordsman without a weapon of your own is stepping into the fire.


    Guns don't sound that bad now do they? Sure you can get shot, but you can also shoot back in an attempt to save your life and really, getting shot with a bullet is not nearly as bad as being sliced or run through by a sword. You don't need to spend years practicing with a bow, and you certainly don't have to go toe to toe against someone who may or may not be better or luckier with a sword than you are. No, a couple days on the range and you've learned everything you need to know to adequately defend yourself against someone using any other weapon, and then you can single handedly stop the stadium archer or the subway butcher.

    Medieval weapons like the sword and the bow are what created the disparity between the upper and the lower classes up until the end of the middle ages. Having soldiers experienced and capable of using those weapons made it extremely easy to oppress those who did not have the experience.
    That is until guns came around, and to a lesser extent crossbows. Notice how swords and bows and those that use them have a reputation of being brave and honorable while the crossbow and gun and those that use them have a reputation of being cowardly and dishonorable, it's leftover propaganda from the middle ages.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 7Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  6. Post #406
    What fun is there in making sense?
    Dennab
    October 2007
    9,274 Posts
    So you're saying that a school massacre would be possible with just a katana?
    I think it's doable. Probably not in the US, where there are cops with guns present on campus. But in a country with strict gun control measures. Blades are sharp, and people aren't going to be able to grab onto it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  7. Post #407
    Gold Member
    Lolkork's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,316 Posts
    15,000 firearm related homicides a year aren't the product of massacres.
    That wasn't my question, would a person be able to do a proper massacre (Say one person killing 5 others at location such a school) with nothing but a katana?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  8. Post #408
    Gold Member
    Xenomoose's Avatar
    September 2006
    5,604 Posts
    So you're saying that a school massacre would be possible with just a katana?
    If there's a will, there's a way. Sure, it won't be as "efficient" but does that really matter when people are still going to get hurt or killed? And before you ask me how a guy could manage to hide a Katana without getting caught, I should remind you that the Columbine Shooters managed to hide a shotgun by wearing Trenchcoats.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  9. Post #409
    Gold Member
    SpaceGhost's Avatar
    December 2010
    4,744 Posts
    So, let me get this straight. When you're robbed, instead of just giving your wallet or whatever he ask, like every normal, sane self defense instructor would advise you, you just shoot the robber? What if you miss, and he kills you? What if you miss and hit someone else? What if he was just some poor guy with no home try to get something to eat and you kill him because you couldn't allow yourself to lose 20 dollars?

    What's up with this vigilante attitude? When someone enters your house, call the fucking police, they are there for a reason. If you're attacked, defend yourself with non-lethal weapons, like pepper spray, tazers, run, or call for help.

    You need weapons to defend yourself against armed aggressors; but in America there are so many armed aggressors walking around the streets because it's so easy to just buy a gun with the excuse of defending yourself against, guess what, armed aggressors. It's just circular logic. It's not like the lax weapon laws in the USA are the cause of all evils. But certainly, they are doing more bad than good.
    You have the right to use lethal force if someone breaks in your home, and what if they are drugged up? Non-lethal measures wont do shit, then you might end up dead, or fucked up for life. The FBI estimates 11 of 13 firearms used in crimes are illegal. Gun trafficking is a huge business and a massive part of the problem. I do agree more criminal background checks should be in place for buying guns legally still, and psych evaluations.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  10. Post #410
    Gold Member
    Lolkork's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,316 Posts
    I think it's doable. Probably not in the US, where there are cops with guns present on campus. But in a country with strict gun control measures. Blades are sharp, and people aren't going to be able to grab onto it.
    Most people would be able to run away.

    Edited:

    If there's a will, there's a way. Sure, it won't be as "efficient" but does that really matter when people are still going to get hurt or killed? And before you ask me how a guy could manage to hide a Katana without getting caught, I should remind you that the Columbine Shooters managed to hide a shotgun by wearing Trenchcoats.
    But you can't just run in to a room and kill 10 people with a katana.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Dumb Dumb x 2Disagree Disagree x 2 (list)

  11. Post #411
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    That wasn't my question, would a person be able to do a proper massacre (Say one person killing 5 others at location such a school) with nothing but a katana?
    That's not a valid point because you don't get to 15,000 firearm homicides in the US through school massacres. Holmes killed 12. Loughner, as well as the Sikh temple shooter, each killed 6. Columbine resulted in 13 deaths.

    Those were some of the more prominent massacres in the US - that doesn't get anywhere near even 100 deaths.

    So does it really matter if you can commit a massacre with a sword? Because the majority of firearm deaths aren't the result of a massacre.

    Edited:

    But you can't just run in to a room and kill 10 people with a katana.
    Why not?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  12. Post #412
    Gold Member
    reedbo's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,432 Posts
    No its really not, the reason being that a brand new semi-auto rifle that looks like the full-auto military counterpart is just as dangerous as a 50 year old wooden semi-auto rifle.

    Banning magazines over 10 rounds is IMO the only feasible solution in the U.S.


    Actually no, make a test for owning semi-auto rifles, hand guns, and hi-cap magazines that is similar to the concealed-carry test and includes a psychological evaluation. Then you get a license for those firearms and magazines, and if you give them to anyone without a license you face penalties.
    All you would be doing in this case is restricting the amount of firearms in the legal trade. This does NOTHING to stop criminals from owning an illegal firearm or magazines over 10 rounds. Also, anybody who knows anything about guns can tell you that having to reload wouldn't stop a murderer from continuing his rampage.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  13. Post #413
    What fun is there in making sense?
    Dennab
    October 2007
    9,274 Posts
    That wasn't my question, would a person be able to do a proper massacre (Say one person killing 5 others at location such a school) with nothing but a katana?
    5? Probably quite easily. Hell, corner one classroom and you've got 20 people.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  14. Post #414
    Gold Member
    reedbo's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,432 Posts
    Most people would be able to run away.

    Edited:



    But you can't just run in to a room and kill 10 people with a katana.
    I fail to see why you wouldn't be able to. I could probably kill 10 unarmed civilians with a slingshot if I wanted.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  15. Post #415
    Gold Member
    Xenomoose's Avatar
    September 2006
    5,604 Posts
    Most people would be able to run away.
    The killer can run, too.

    But you can't just run in to a room and kill 10 people with a katana.
    Blades are sharp and skin is weak. All one would really have to do is inflict a cut big and deep enough to incapacitate, and leave the victim to bleed to death. And the blade itself can make a decent barrier to prevent people from trying to fight back. If you block the only exit you could rack up a decent bodycount. There's a reason why the sword reigned supreme on the battlefield for thousands of years.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  16. Post #416
    Gold Member
    big_brother's Avatar
    October 2005
    174 Posts
    All you would be doing in this case is restricting the amount of firearms in the legal trade. This does NOTHING to stop criminals from owning an illegal firearm or magazines over 10 rounds. Also, anybody who knows anything about guns can tell you that having to reload wouldn't stop a murderer from continuing his rampage.
    actually it would, because then there will be a higher level of people properly storing their weapons where criminals would not be able to steal them, which is where a decent amount of illegal firearms originate from. And a shooter needing to reload could mean life or death for just one person, I think that's worth restricting them.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  17. Post #417
    Gold Member
    Lolkork's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,316 Posts
    That's not a valid point because you don't get to 15,000 firearm homicides in the US through school massacres. Holmes killed 12. Loughner, as well as the Sikh temple shooter, each killed 6. Columbine resulted in 13 deaths.

    Those were some of the more prominent massacres in the US - that doesn't get anywhere near even 100 deaths.

    So does it really matter if you can commit a massacre with a sword? Because the majority of firearm deaths aren't the result of a massacre.

    Edited:



    Why not?
    People would fight back, maybe you could kill one person. Then the other people would react and probably would start throwing heavy objects like chairs and book towards the attacker until he/she is unconscious or stopped in an other way, and if there are several exits it would be possible to flee the room quite easily

    And about the masscres, I'm just trying to tell you that firearms makes it a lot easier to kill a large number of people.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  18. Post #418
    I'm not trying to use these scenarios as evidence only as a practical explanation why having a gun would be better than not having a gun in a situation like that. Thank you for proving that being armed is better than being unarmed.
    BAHAHAHAHA
    what

    What do you mean by better.
    What do you even mean.

    That's so irrelevant to the argument my mind is blown.
    Outstanding, you've ascertained that someone with a weapon has an advantage over someone without a weapon in terms of some childish MY IMAGINARY FRIEND CAN BEAT YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND scenario.

    what relevance does that have to the legality argument
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  19. Post #419
    Gold Member
    Lolkork's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,316 Posts
    The killer can run, too.



    Blades are sharp and skin is weak. All one would really have to do is inflict a cut big and deep enough to incapacitate, and leave the victim to bleed to death. And the blade itself can make a decent barrier to prevent people from trying to fight back. If you block the only exit you could rack up a decent bodycount. There's a reason why the sword reigned supreme on the battlefield for thousands of years.
    You can't chase down 10 people with a sword, they will probably run in different directions and will easily be able to get away. And people will use anything around them to defend themselves. Be realistic, I'm not talking about 10 people in an empty room with only one exit and no windows.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #420
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    People would fight back, maybe you could kill one person. Then the other people would react and probably would start throwing heavy objects like chairs and book towards the attacker until he/she is unconscious or stopped in an other way, and if there are several exits it would be possible to flee the room quite easily

    And about the masscres, I'm just trying to tell you that firearms makes it a lot easier to kill a large number of people.
    You could easily kill at least 3-4 people before everyone else in the room knew what was happening. One slash is all it takes. Then they're either too wounded to do anything or already dead.

    Gun deaths wouldn't go staggeringly down if you get get them out of massacre situations.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  21. Post #421
    Gold Member
    big_brother's Avatar
    October 2005
    174 Posts
    Blades are sharp and skin is weak. All one would really have to do is inflict a cut big and deep enough to incapacitate, and leave the victim to bleed to death. And the blade itself can make a decent barrier to prevent people from trying to fight back. If you block the only exit you could rack up a decent bodycount. There's a reason why the sword reigned supreme on the battlefield for thousands of years.
    There is an even better reason why the gun is now the master of the battlefield. There is a much higher level of difficulty in killing with a blade and killing with a gun.

    Edit: fuck me guns are easier.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  22. Post #422
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    You can't chase down 10 people with a sword, they will probably run in different directions and will easily be able to get away. And people will use anything around them to defend themselves. Be realistic, I'm not talking about 10 people in an empty room with only one exit and no windows.
    Well if the killer doesn't plan his attack for maximum effect then he's clearly going to fail
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  23. Post #423
    are you people seriously arguing what is capable of killing more people, a sword or a gun

    fucking exceptional
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 3 (list)

  24. Post #424
    Gold Member
    RR_Raptor65's Avatar
    February 2006
    3,225 Posts
    People would fight back, maybe you could kill one person. Then the other people would react and probably would start throwing heavy objects like chairs and book towards the attacker until he/she is unconscious or stopped in an other way, and if there are several exits it would be possible to flee the room quite easily

    And about the masscres, I'm just trying to tell you that firearms makes it a lot easier to kill a large number of people.
    Throwing chairs and books at someone isn't going to stop them or magically knock them unconscious, this isn't Hollywood where the Vulcan Bop On The Head knocks people out. It will piss them off while they're busy swatting the chairs and books out of the way with their free hand though.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  25. Post #425
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    are you people seriously arguing what is capable of killing more people, a sword or a gun

    fucking exceptional
    We get it. Guns make it easier to kill people.

    Here's a real zinger - they only kill people when put in the wrong hands.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  26. Post #426
    We get it. Guns make it easier to kill people.

    Here's a real zinger - they only kill people when put in the wrong hands.
    the question is do you value your right to collect/hunt or however you justify owning weaponry over the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands.

    everything in the world only kills when put into the 'wrong hands' when you define wrong as you would
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  27. Post #427
    Gold Member
    Lolkork's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,316 Posts
    Throwing chairs and books at someone isn't going to stop them or magically knock them unconscious, this isn't Hollywood where the Vulcan Bop On The Head knocks people out. It will piss them off while they're busy swatting the chairs and books out of the way with their free hand though.
    It's not easy fighting of a lot of chairs, one chair isn't enough to take a person down a but maybe 7 would be enough, and it's probably a bit hard to hold a sword while being hit by chairs and shit.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Dumb Dumb x 2 (list)

  28. Post #428
    Gold Member
    reedbo's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,432 Posts
    BAHAHAHAHA
    what

    What do you mean by better.
    What do you even mean.

    That's so irrelevant to the argument my mind is blown.
    Outstanding, you've ascertained that someone with a weapon has an advantage over someone without a weapon in terms of some childish MY IMAGINARY FRIEND CAN BEAT YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND scenario.

    what relevance does that have to the legality argument
    Here, let me put this in bold so you can read it easier:

    SELF DEFENSE IS EASIER WHEN YOU HAVE A GUN
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  29. Post #429
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    the question is do you value your right to collect/hunt or however you justify owning weaponry over the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands.
    The real question is why are there even wrong hands to begin with.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  30. Post #430
    Gold Member
    Lolkork's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,316 Posts
    We get it. Guns make it easier to kill people.

    Here's a real zinger - they only kill people when put in the wrong hands.
    And that's why all firearms shouldn't be available for almost everyone like they are now.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events

  31. Post #431
    Gold Member
    dogmachines's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,199 Posts
    the question is do you value your right to collect/hunt or however you justify owning weaponry over the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands.

    everything in the world only kills when put into the 'wrong hands' when you define wrong as you would
    You're argument assumes that banning guns will remove them from the hands of criminals(which it won't) and overlooks the fact that gun crime isn't all crime. The US may have more firearm homicides, for example, but it has fewer total homicides than places like Australia with tight gun laws.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  32. Post #432
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    And that's why everyone all weapons shouldn't be available for almost everyone like they are now.
    This doesn't change the fact drunk drivers kill more people than there are vehicle related homicides, especially drunk driving incidents.

    And that rape outnumbers murder 10:1.

    This is a problem with society and not with guns.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  33. Post #433
    Gold Member
    RR_Raptor65's Avatar
    February 2006
    3,225 Posts
    are you people seriously arguing what is capable of killing more people, a sword or a gun

    fucking exceptional
    Hey, you brought it up.
    Mass killing take place in setting where the shooter has two things; security and victims. For a gun, a school or a theater provide both, and while the setting may change for other weapons the formula remains the same.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  34. Post #434
    Here, let me put this in bold so you can read it easier:

    SELF DEFENSE IS EASIER WHEN YOU HAVE A GUN
    in what context.
    your point is so meaningless.
    what if you're defending against someone who also has a gun
    now it's not easier, it's no different.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  35. Post #435
    Gold Member
    dogmachines's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,199 Posts
    Here, let me put this in bold so you can read it easier:

    SELF DEFENSE IS EASIER WHEN YOU HAVE A GUN
    Since people love to play the mass murder card, I'll play it too. If anyone in that theater in Aurora had a concealed firearm, they could have used it to quickly end the shooting. They didn't, because it was a "gun free zone".
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  36. Post #436
    Gold Member
    reedbo's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,432 Posts
    And that's why everyone all weapons shouldn't be available for almost everyone like they are now.
    Average people don't go and buy guns for the hell of it. Anyone I know who owns a gun practices with it regularly and knows how to use it properly. Even then this still doesn't affect criminals who don't go through legal means of acquiring weapons.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  37. Post #437
    Gold Member
    dogmachines's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,199 Posts
    in what context.
    your point is so meaningless.
    what if you're defending against someone who also has a gun
    now it's not easier, it's no different.
    It's sounds like you're saying it's harder to defend against an armed assailant when you are armed as well.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  38. Post #438
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,737 Posts
    in what context.
    your point is so meaningless.
    what if you're defending against someone who also has a gun
    now it's not easier, it's no different.
    But there are documented cases where people with CCWs have been able to take out a homicidal person before they can kill even more than 3-4 people.

    The point isn't to stop crimes, it's to lessen their impact. Getting rid of guns doesn't stop violent crimes, especially when avenues to illegally obtain a gun still exist.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  39. Post #439
    Gold Member
    Lolkork's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,316 Posts
    This doesn't change the fact drunk drivers kill more people than there are vehicle related homicides, especially drunk driving incidents.

    And that rape outnumbers murder 10:1.

    This is a problem with society and not with guns.
    That's totally out of context, we're not talking about crime in general in this thread, we're talking about gun regulations. And rape doesn't kill people.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events

  40. Post #440
    Gold Member
    big_brother's Avatar
    October 2005
    174 Posts
    This doesn't change the fact drunk drivers kill more people than there are vehicle related homicides, especially drunk driving incidents.

    And that rape outnumbers murder 10:1.

    This is a problem with society and not with guns.
    The best way counter all this is keeping track of everyone everywhere, through cameras and w/e high tech solutions you want.

    but then everyone would bitch about their privacy. We can't win I guess, let's just kill each other more.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events