{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/16/2014 11:55:19 PM
51
I can't count the number of times something like this could have been solved with proper gun education and safety precautions. Why aren't people required to take a class before they buy a deadly weapon?
English
-
You would think common sense would tell folks to treat a deadly weapon as such and respect it's power. Yet, here we are. Stupid people gonna stupid.
-
you can't fix the stupid, something about the 8th amendment. *badum tiss* look, i make a funny!
-
Because it infringes on their freedom. NO MAH FREEDOMZZ!!
-
Edited by Mad Max: 1/19/2014 11:05:09 PMI guess money infringes on their freedom to keep and bear arms, too. Because, after all, if you don't have the means to buy a gun, you can't own one!
-
Because no one has the authorization to make such a requirement. Why don't you have to take a class before purchasing knives, forks, bats and nearly everything else you ever purchase which could be used to kill?
-
Two questions: 1. Do you believe that guns are no more dangerous than knives, bats, or toasters? 2. If so, why does anyone need a gun?
-
All are dangerous, to what degree depends on the person using it and the circumstance of the situation. We need firearms to more efficiently defend ourselves.
-
Edited by MoReCoWbELLx2x1: 1/19/2014 11:02:37 PM1. Yes guns are more deadly. Take away guns from the legal population and then you have people with only illegal guns. Or they will use other things. Look at the mass stabbings in japan. 2. Many people, including myself use guns for hunting, or even just target shooting for fun. Or even to protect live stock from coyotes or protect lakes and ponds from beavers and muskrats. To think that guns are only used for "killing people" is stupid.
-
Knives forks and bats have other uses aside from being weapons.
-
So do firearms. It's how you use the tool.
-
No, knives forks and bats are made with the express purpose of eating, playing baseball and cutting (depending on what kind of knife you're talking about). A gun is made with the express purpose of being a weapon and has much greater lethal potential than most household objects.
-
Except firearms don't have to be used as a weapon, they can be used for recreation and relaxation, and the fact that it is a weapon is irrelevant as ANYTHING can be a weapon. The fact that is has greater lethality is exactly the point ad why it is more effective.
-
Guns were originally [u]made[/u] to make killing easier and more effective. Bats were made for the purpose of a sport. One could argue knifes were made for the purpose of killing also, but I don't agree with that.
-
And? That's irrelevant to what they are capable of. And they can be used as weapons.
-
You seem to be totally missing the point. I'll give you two scenarios. Scenario 1: Somebody tries to mug you on the street with a baseball bat Scenario 2: Somebody tries to mug you on the street with a gun Which scenario do you think it is more likely for you to come off unharmed in a fight?
-
I can handle both scenarios much more efficiently with a firearm of my own. I don't enjoy taking on people holding weapons.
-
Typical that you avoided the question.
-
Because the question was senseless and irrelevant of you to ask.
-
The only purpose firearms have is to destroy the thing they're pointed at.
-
Not at all. They can be used to gain compliance or to injure.
-
[quote]Not at all. They can be used... to injure.[/quote] Thus, destroying a part of a body. Max is still right.
-
Edited by Mad Max: 1/17/2014 12:43:00 AMYou never, ever shoot to injure. Every firearm class you take teaches you to shoot to kill. The only reason it could be used for compliance is because a gun in your face is scary because if you don't comply, you die.
-
You obviously don't understand terrorism.
-
Sorry, I was making the logical assumption here that I wasn't talking to a terrorist.
-
This is the internet. Was that [i]really[/i] a safe assumption?
