"Guns are only usable as weapons!"
- Thread starter RyanM
- Start date
- Status
bannign bats and hockey sticks seems far fetched and extreme utnill you see things like this
The Home Office has confirmed plans to outlaw the weapons in England and Wales after putting forward the idea earlier this year.
Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said there was a clear danger to the public posed by easily-available swords.
The proposal is expected to stop short of banning genuine Japanese swords held by collectors or genuine enthusiasts.
In March 2007 the Home Office proposed banning imitation Samurai swords after representations from both MPs and the public. Ministers in Scotland had proposed a similar move in 2006.
In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons
Vernon Coaker,
Home Office minister
Defending the sword
Calls for a ban came after a number of high-profile incidents in which cheap Samurai-style swords had been used as a weapon.
The Home Office estimates there have been some 80 attacks in recent years involving Samurai-style blades, leading to at least five deaths.
While genuine Samurai swords are part of Japanese history and change hands for large sums of money, there is a trade in imitation blades which can be bought over the internet for as little as £35.
Jail threat
Under the proposals, the government will ban the import, sale and hire of Samurai swords from April 2008.
Anyone breaching the ban will face six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.
However, ministers say they have recognised there is a special case for exemptions for genuine collectors of the original weapons and acknowledge there is a legitimate role for the blades in some forms of martial arts.
Vernon Coaker said: "In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons - there have been a number of high profile, serious incidents involving samurai swords in England and Wales in recent years.
"It is therefore crucial that we take this action to tackle the menace of violent crime.
"We recognise it is the cheap, easily available samurai swords which are being used in crime and not the genuine, more expensive samurai swords which are of interest to collectors and martial arts enthusiasts
The Home Office has confirmed plans to outlaw the weapons in England and Wales after putting forward the idea earlier this year.
Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said there was a clear danger to the public posed by easily-available swords.
The proposal is expected to stop short of banning genuine Japanese swords held by collectors or genuine enthusiasts.
In March 2007 the Home Office proposed banning imitation Samurai swords after representations from both MPs and the public. Ministers in Scotland had proposed a similar move in 2006.
In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons
Vernon Coaker,
Home Office minister
Defending the sword
Calls for a ban came after a number of high-profile incidents in which cheap Samurai-style swords had been used as a weapon.
The Home Office estimates there have been some 80 attacks in recent years involving Samurai-style blades, leading to at least five deaths.
While genuine Samurai swords are part of Japanese history and change hands for large sums of money, there is a trade in imitation blades which can be bought over the internet for as little as £35.
Jail threat
Under the proposals, the government will ban the import, sale and hire of Samurai swords from April 2008.
Anyone breaching the ban will face six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.
However, ministers say they have recognised there is a special case for exemptions for genuine collectors of the original weapons and acknowledge there is a legitimate role for the blades in some forms of martial arts.
Vernon Coaker said: "In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons - there have been a number of high profile, serious incidents involving samurai swords in England and Wales in recent years.
"It is therefore crucial that we take this action to tackle the menace of violent crime.
"We recognise it is the cheap, easily available samurai swords which are being used in crime and not the genuine, more expensive samurai swords which are of interest to collectors and martial arts enthusiasts
Cannonball888
Member
Not true. You can make a leg splint from two M16s and a few trouser belts.
You can use a gun as bottle opener if you're a good shot.
I've also heard that you can use a shotgun as a lug wrench
"In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons"
In the wrong hands, a cotton ball is dangerous. You know how many people have died from pillow smothering?? How about instead of banning every inanimate object know to exist, let's just ban "the wrong hands" .
A gun is a weapon, yes, it's a tool. A fishing pole is essentially a weapon since it's objective is the same as guns and hunting.
Go one further, a fly swatter is a weapon. It's intended purpose is to kill. What all this means, I don't know, but it's sad that people are being paid to tell us "guns are weapons".
Here's an interesting definition of weapons:
"A weapon is a tool employed to injure, defeat, or destroy an adversary.[1][2] Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile"
In the wrong hands, a cotton ball is dangerous. You know how many people have died from pillow smothering?? How about instead of banning every inanimate object know to exist, let's just ban "the wrong hands" .
A gun is a weapon, yes, it's a tool. A fishing pole is essentially a weapon since it's objective is the same as guns and hunting.
Go one further, a fly swatter is a weapon. It's intended purpose is to kill. What all this means, I don't know, but it's sad that people are being paid to tell us "guns are weapons".
Here's an interesting definition of weapons:
"A weapon is a tool employed to injure, defeat, or destroy an adversary.[1][2] Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile"
Anonymous Coward
Member
esq_stu said:
That's my response, also.
tasco 74
Member
i guess my primary use for my guns is to shoot at targets because i find it fun to do... that's because i live in a small community where i don't feel all that threatened by anything... if i need the gun to put holes into a threat at high velocity i do have that capability........ i suppose if i lived in detroit or some other city where there is more of a threat things might change but for now i like shoot at a target to see just small a group i can get! but i still believe THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!
Ed Ames
Member
To me shooting is like any other martial art. Judo, fencing, or whatever. You can be an extreme enthusiast, practicing several times a week and enjoying every minute of it, and never want to hurt anyone. In fact the people you practice and compete with develop into dear friends and you would feel terrible if a mistake left them injured. You would be devastated if anyone was killed. Same with shooting. You shoot at paper and practice breath control and self control for the same reason another person goes into a dojo and practices judo throws. In both cases you are practicing fighting and the skills you learn can also be used against people who try to kill, rape, or rob you. In both cases a sensible person hopes never to be forced into using those martial arts against another in earnest. In both cases the real gains come not from skill in the dojo/shooting range but from the self-discipline and attention -- the self-mastery -- needed to become good in your chosen martial art.
Anonymous Coward
Member
I don't know if you'd change any minds with the "cotton ball" argument, but let it be said there's no legal demand you should make a fight for your life a fair one. Lots of people get strangled with their own underwear.
Weapons
MMM, my Dad, 55 years ago, after recently recovering from a heart attack, was attacked by 5 teenagers with a baseball bat while walking our dog, and sent to a hospital. He died years later and possibly this aggrivated his condition. The culprits recieved only a legal slap. Once I was 16 and driving, always had a lug (tire)wrench under the seat. Now I carry at 65.
WINSTON CHURCHILL:
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
MMM, my Dad, 55 years ago, after recently recovering from a heart attack, was attacked by 5 teenagers with a baseball bat while walking our dog, and sent to a hospital. He died years later and possibly this aggrivated his condition. The culprits recieved only a legal slap. Once I was 16 and driving, always had a lug (tire)wrench under the seat. Now I carry at 65.
WINSTON CHURCHILL:
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
Well, if you want to go down that road, the sperm can be the bullets, and the "tool" can be the gun. The gun was invented as a better way to kill. No doubt. However, it is not the only use for it. We can't argue the fact that even though the male 'body part' was there for the sole reason of reproduction, that isn't to say there aren't "recreational" uses for it
It just depends on what "target" we want the "bullets" to hit. A "Human" target, or a non-human target. This goes for both bullets and sperm if you didn't get it
RobMoore
Member
I would agree that the PRIMARY purpose of a gun is as a weapon, so what?
We shouldn't have to use sporting purposes to defend our rights to gun ownership. We were meant to posses the tools of resistance equal to any standing government army, so that we'd be greater when in mass numbers.
We shouldn't have to use sporting purposes to defend our rights to gun ownership. We were meant to posses the tools of resistance equal to any standing government army, so that we'd be greater when in mass numbers.
.Join the International Drilling Practice Association. On each stage, you will run up to a 2 by 4 with a sheet of plywood attached. Drill two holes in the plywood and then one in the top of the two by four.
You will have to have an appropriate tool belt from Home Depot and be able to carry an extra battery. All drills will be carried with a battery installed. The DO (drill officer will tell you when to insert the battery on the line). The drill diameter will be a minimum of .35 inches.
This competition is not protected by the Constitution. It is approved by Joe Biden.
You will have to have an appropriate tool belt from Home Depot and be able to carry an extra battery. All drills will be carried with a battery installed. The DO (drill officer will tell you when to insert the battery on the line). The drill diameter will be a minimum of .35 inches.
This competition is not protected by the Constitution. It is approved by Joe Biden.
WinchesterAA
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 870
It's simply an improvement on an ordinary hole puncher to allow you to work at a distance. How can you get more innocent than that?
Two Cold Soakers
Member
Weapons.
Yes, weapons.
No apologies, no regrets.
Yes, weapons.
No apologies, no regrets.
tell em how wonderful guns are. i love mine and can't wait for tax returns, this year+ has been my most heavily taxed and my best earning, so i'm hopeful i'll be able to get a decent AR 15, a carry gun (G27, P2KSK or CZ RAMI) and mebbe a little ammo to go with... at the least i know i'll be able to get an AR from CMMG, looks like great service grade weapons
wjustinen
Member
Firearms are useful because they are dangerous.
They are used as weapons because they are useful.
Anyone who thinks they are only useful as weapons has no imagination.
Sport is fine, but there is no better reason for any tool than to protect life.
They are used as weapons because they are useful.
Anyone who thinks they are only useful as weapons has no imagination.
Sport is fine, but there is no better reason for any tool than to protect life.
doc2rn
Member
My firearms are tools used to end sufferring like a horse with a broke leg, protect my investment in cattle from coyotes, eradicate vermin infesting my land like gofers who make those pitfalls, and to put food on the table. I see them as just another useful implement like a tractor or a hammer.
ZeSpectre
Member
I read this yesterday and today I'm STILL laughing.
I like to think of having a gun as keeping up with the criminals. If I ever have to fight for my life, I want to be fighting on, at worst, an equal playing field, and at best: him running away without anyone dying and without any of my stuff that I paid hard-earned money for.
also, as someone said: "so what?" I honestly dont see the problem. Some people take guns too seriously in my personal opinion and overlook actual important issues (like actually refining our culture and systems other than just blaming it on a gun). Besides, the only difference between a knife and a gun is that...if you're a good runner...you never run out of ammo with a benchmade.
also, as someone said: "so what?" I honestly dont see the problem. Some people take guns too seriously in my personal opinion and overlook actual important issues (like actually refining our culture and systems other than just blaming it on a gun). Besides, the only difference between a knife and a gun is that...if you're a good runner...you never run out of ammo with a benchmade.
Tarvis
Member
It seems that everyone here is agreed that guns are weapons when they are employed as such, and that my/your guns are for hunting, and/or self defence, and/or competition.
This brings me to my next point: Why are the anti-gun sheeple still anti-gun sheeple? Where is the breakdown in communication.... do they seriously seriously think that the statistics are wrong? That a gun ban would actually stifle crime, that making it harder to buy guns will actually keep criminals from being able to get guns, that CCW carriers are a threat to everyone around them, even though they went through a background check and voluntarily put themselves on the grid by submitting thier fingerprints? Do they really think that terrorists currently have no access to .50 BMG rifles and ammunition but if they did they would be shooting down planes left and right?? It is absolutely stupifying that they could walk around feeling so highly of themselves with thier noses in the air and tell me that no matter what proof is put infront of them, no matter how many people save lives with guns, that they are still evil and must be removed from the planet. I feel like a Jew in Germany. I believe it was Heinrich Himmler that said something to the effect of "Civilians don't need guns. If you want to shoot guns, join the military." I feel like the left-wing SS is coming after my guns in a round-about way to TAKE my liberty away. You don't see them going after child molesters the way they go after guns. Am I ranting, or does this make sense? God Bless America for giving them the right to do whatever they want, but damn them to hell for trying to take away my right to defend myself and live a free happy life.
In Idaho, we register sex offenders, not guns.
Edited to include:
They call it a mini 14 ranch rifle for a reason. Do they think I'm mass murdering on my farm?
A friend of mine's father went on CNN a few years ago when they re-introduced wolves to Northern Idaho, he told the world he was going to kill as many wolves as possible so they would stop eating his cattle. Every tree humper in the US cried foul because "Wolves are beautiful animals." Give me a break. I would want to protect the wolves if I was blindly inconsiderate, ignorant, and they aren't eating my way of life. But I'm ranting again, appologies.
This brings me to my next point: Why are the anti-gun sheeple still anti-gun sheeple? Where is the breakdown in communication.... do they seriously seriously think that the statistics are wrong? That a gun ban would actually stifle crime, that making it harder to buy guns will actually keep criminals from being able to get guns, that CCW carriers are a threat to everyone around them, even though they went through a background check and voluntarily put themselves on the grid by submitting thier fingerprints? Do they really think that terrorists currently have no access to .50 BMG rifles and ammunition but if they did they would be shooting down planes left and right?? It is absolutely stupifying that they could walk around feeling so highly of themselves with thier noses in the air and tell me that no matter what proof is put infront of them, no matter how many people save lives with guns, that they are still evil and must be removed from the planet. I feel like a Jew in Germany. I believe it was Heinrich Himmler that said something to the effect of "Civilians don't need guns. If you want to shoot guns, join the military." I feel like the left-wing SS is coming after my guns in a round-about way to TAKE my liberty away. You don't see them going after child molesters the way they go after guns. Am I ranting, or does this make sense? God Bless America for giving them the right to do whatever they want, but damn them to hell for trying to take away my right to defend myself and live a free happy life.
In Idaho, we register sex offenders, not guns.
Edited to include:
They call it a mini 14 ranch rifle for a reason. Do they think I'm mass murdering on my farm?
A friend of mine's father went on CNN a few years ago when they re-introduced wolves to Northern Idaho, he told the world he was going to kill as many wolves as possible so they would stop eating his cattle. Every tree humper in the US cried foul because "Wolves are beautiful animals." Give me a break. I would want to protect the wolves if I was blindly inconsiderate, ignorant, and they aren't eating my way of life. But I'm ranting again, appologies.
to answer your orignal question: the breakdown begins with irrational fear, is caused by irrational fear, and thus gives you bad laws and agendas that share the same cause of communication breakdown: fear.
Such fear is obvious when they keep referring to things like Cho's VTech massacre. It's funny how they keep playing on that one incident, because, if you were to go by the laws of even distribution and probability and apply them to NJS's 2004 brief, 48 other people died in the US on that day from gun-related accidents, violence, or suicide. Then with further application from there, about four other VTECH massacres happened in the form of people dying in car accidents, but nobody ever gave prayer to those tragedies, now did they...? The whole thing is just stupid to me no matter how I approach trying to listen to them without laughing.
Such fear is obvious when they keep referring to things like Cho's VTech massacre. It's funny how they keep playing on that one incident, because, if you were to go by the laws of even distribution and probability and apply them to NJS's 2004 brief, 48 other people died in the US on that day from gun-related accidents, violence, or suicide. Then with further application from there, about four other VTECH massacres happened in the form of people dying in car accidents, but nobody ever gave prayer to those tragedies, now did they...? The whole thing is just stupid to me no matter how I approach trying to listen to them without laughing.
highorder
Member
back to the OP;
that is absolutely false, and hurt your arguement from the start. don't be anti and tug at the heart strings with over the top ranting.
that is absolutely false, and hurt your arguement from the start. don't be anti and tug at the heart strings with over the top ranting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
