You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

6
-4

[–] Bill_Murrays_Sandals 6 points -4 points (+2|-6) ago 

Grouping together hands, pencils and knives with guns is just silly. Wars aren't fought with knives and pencils. You can't assassinate someone from 300 feet with a pencil. If you pointed a pencil at someone in the street and asked for money they might laugh.

0
8

[–] beren 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

"Wars aren't fought with knives and pencils." and arguments aren't won with straw man arguments either. His point is not about pencils or hands, it is about BANS NOT WORKING.

4
-3

[–] Bill_Murrays_Sandals 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

I am merely pointing out that you should not forget that guns are insanely dangerous. And to give insanely dangerous weapons to anyone who wants one is an insane act.

0
3

[–] ABitStiffyInHere 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I'm pretty sure more people are stabbed each year than shot. I'm also sure there is a very small section of that which is pencils.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

0
2

[–] Unreasonable 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm fairly sure wars were only fought with knives and pencils up until the invention of gun powder. Knives being inclusive of swords and pencils being inclusive of all sharp pointy sticks, including spears and arrows. So yes, a bolt action "pencil" crossbow may in fact get someone to give up their lunch money for you.

Point being, banning tools of violence won't do anything to reduce violence in and of itself.

2
-2

[–] Bill_Murrays_Sandals 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

"banning tools of violence won't do anything to reduce violence in and of itself."

Wrong.

Hear me out. Seung-Hui Cho went into Virginia Tech one day and left 32 dead because he shot everyone. With guns. I am not saying that banning guns would make people like Seung a better person, or stop him from unleashing his hate indiscriminately, the death toll would be MUCH less. Guns are more dangerous than swords, pencils and fists and banning tools capable of extreme violence would undoubtedly reduce the death toll of massacres and therefore reduce the violence that happens from the unfixable problem of angry assholes going crazy.

0
1

[–] CurkyHangles 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well, the argument could be made that the majority of people couldn't assassinate someone from 300 feet with a gun either. Hitting a target at 100 meters with a gun requires more than just pointing it in the general direction and pulling the trigger.

2
-2

[–] Bill_Murrays_Sandals 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I thought all bullets were heat seeking