In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
Then a butter knife is the same thing as a katana.
So you can't kill anyone with a shooting range gun? Is that what you're saying?
For the 1000th time personal protection is only part of the equation.
But you knew that, it’s been discussed ad nauseam in this thread.
But it's the same thing. You only need so many guns to do everything you want to do.....but that's not your goal. Your goal is unlimited sales.
You can't kill someone with a butter knife? Is that what you're saying?
By your definition, a pneumatic nailer meets the criteria for a killing machine, and let me assure you there have been homicides committed with them.
This is one of those tangents I spoke about. Something can be both inanimate and used for murder.
Isn't that what the thugs/terrorists in London have been using, butter knives?
A killing machine is something specifically designed to kill. An electric chair. A guillotine. A gun.
You can kill someone with a nailer but it wasn't designed for that purpose. Same with a car or baseball bat.
Yes.....'inanimate' is meaningless in this discussion.
So you're saying if someone kills someone with a butter knife, you don't hold it against the butter knife, cause it wasn't designed to kill someone. So you blame the person. But if someone kills someone with a gun, you blame the gun, cause you think it WAS designed to kill someone.
Ok, that sounds grounded in reality.
I feel embarrassed for you that I have to explain this.
Butter knives aren't going to kill 10 people in Chicago this weekend. There's no uproar over butter knives because they're not presenting a problem.
So you're saying butter knives are 'safe' and guns are 'dangerous'? And it's all based on how you think they were designed to be used?
Yes. A butter knife isn't going to help much when the government attacks.
Ok. So you say the butter knife is 'safe' because it's designed to be safe, and the gun is 'dangerous' because it's designed to be 'dangerous'.
So if we give a trained assassin a butter knife and give a law-abiding citizen a gun, who is more dangerous to you?
You said "those aren't killing machines.....they are designed for other purposes."
Guns designed for competitive shooting are NOT designed for self defense. Even the rounds they fire are designed for competitive shooting. No one buys one of these guns, which are extremely expensive btw, for the purpose of shooting people or even animals. That would be moronic.
It's a hole in your logic. A more secure person would have admitted as much. I knew you wouldn't. Almost everyone here knew you wouldn't. You aren't a reasonable person making a reasonable argument. You are a troll.
A special forces unit had a competition, with money in the pot, for whichever member of the unit could make a kill with a regular spoon. A spoon like you'd eat soup with. Someone collected the money from the pot. Yikes.
Because @fatman76 cares about gun sales...since he is a member of the gun cult and is therefore a slave to the gun companies. 😂
You just aren't a serious person.
This gun fires a 4.5mm/.177 caliber round. LOL...not designed to kill. But yea, it can kill.
THE thing that defines any gun is that it shoots something out.
Yes, there are red guns and blue guns but the job they were designed to accomplish is shooting something.
You guys need to quit reaching so far to try to defend guns. Just say you want unlimited gun sales and you don't care about the consequences. That would be honest.
You could certainly kill 10 people in Chicago this weekend with a Katana. Unless of course a law abiding citizen stops you with his gun, lol.
A butter knife is to a Katana as a subcompact 9mm is to an AK-47.
I honestly don't care at this point...beyond making fun of your lack of logic. It's hysterical.
They aren't designed to be a killing machine. Those were your words.
From the ground up, they're designed for target shooting...including the projectiles that they fire.
A better man would admit the logic fail. And yet here we are.
So if it's effective at defending against governmental overreach then it should be infringed?
😂🤣😂
I believe someone has brought this up but I'm going to "circle back. " 😁
A criminal with a gun can harm you.
A criminal cannot commit gun violence without a gun.
However, if you remove the gun from the equation, he can still commit violence on your person.
Meanwhile, without the criminal, the gun can't do anything.
So what makes more sense, dealing with the criminal or the gun, especially since guns aren't only used by criminals.
Incidentally I looked up mass knifings. There are a disturbing number of them in, wait for it, places where guns are hard to come by.
Nobody in Chicago is going to use a knife when they have a gun.
The switchblade was a common tool of gang members for a very long time. Switchblades are now illegal in most large cities so usually only law enforcement and military have them these days.
This is an example of unintended consequences, personally I'd rather Chicago drug gangs were using knives because there's no collateral damage.
And yes, most of the violence in Chicago is not directed specifically at the victim, or rather the hail of gunfire had an intended victim but there were other people in the area or in the way.
Funny thing is when gangsters were shooting at each other in the 20s with fully automatic weapons, they only shot at each other and law enforcement.
Same with the mob. That speaks to culture.
No, my goal is freedom.
Again, do my guns threaten you? Would you rather me have them or someone else (since they are going to exist anyway?
I mean, doesn’t everyone have an NRA tramp stamp?
Mouse traps, fly swatters, rat poison, ant traps, etc. are all killing machines then right? Do Orkin and Terminix qualify as mass murders then?
The United States Constitution already does this...why in HELL do you think we need to? We just enjoy them! Thrilling to be around such "dangerous" inanimate objects! LOLOLOL
No...but you would, apparently. This (they are designed to kill) is your ridiculous position, not mine. I'm merely making fun of that ridiculous stance.
You like to make fun of others for their inability to debate...and then you drop this gem? lol
How many people were murdered last year by abortion? You support abortions.
How many people were murdered last year by guns? You are against guns.
Far more were murdered via abortions. Just say you are protecting your politics and don't care about how many people are murdered by either tool.
The extreme left wants to shield criminals and deal with guns.
The extreme right wants to shield guns and deal with criminals.
You deal with both.
Neither guns nor criminals should be sacred cows.
Gee, I guess guns aren't so bad if more are killed by abortion.
I guess cancer's not so bad since more people are killed by heart disease.
You don't support cancer. Do you?
You support abortion.
Abortion kills far more than guns do.
But you obsess over guns, and support abortion.
Explain yourself.
