Reply to Re: My opinion on the school shootings in the US
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Tanks are vehicles that have weapons built in. Doesn't make the whole think a weapon, just part of a weapon.
You should have to get a hunter's permission or something, get the guns from the police and then when you're finished with the hunting, return the guns back. And yes, I do agree that the police should have guns. Now if we would just get decent cops, but that's another debate altogether.
In theory, that could work, but when it comes to just theory, I find that things never go the way they seem.
I cannot argue this just yet, as I've never seen nor heard of something like this happening. Any further discussion would be conjecture on both of our parts.
I must say, I'm impressed you came up with that idea.
Yes, but they'd be likely caught before they get their hands on guns. They'd also be stopped if they were spotted with a gun. Plus, they'd have to be extremely determined if they wanted to get one. And a small crime such as robbing the local market or breaking into someone's house isn't gonna have them determined enough to actually go through the trouble.
Yes, I'm sure that there are no criminals out there with illegally attained weaponry because they get caught the moment they obtain it. I'm also sure that all of the drug peddlers and other criminals who sell illegal items are all rotting in prison the moment they switched whatever they sold for money.
The main reason the black market is still alive today is because people are willing to own an illegal object, or an object that they cannot legally get because of something they've done in the past. Now, if someone is trying to attain a gun illegally, chances are they're going to do more than just rob a store or break into someone's house. (Reasons why they wouldn't do it coming up.)
Chances are, they'd get it to do something bigger than that.
(Now, reasons why someone wouldn't need a gun for breaking into a person's home. Burglars typically go for targets that are empty of people, anyone who would break into a home while someone is there is either really stupid or really desperate. As with stores, stores here typically only have a small amount of cash on hand. Again, really stupid, or desperate.)
While I admit that certain guns are aesthetically thrilling, I don't want to own one because it's 'cool'. The only 'cool' weaponry that I want to but for the coolness factor are swords. Things like katanas and claymores. Swords that are not only made for decoration, but would either break upon use or would be too heavy/impractical for me to even use.
Regarding that last bit, you're putting words in my mouth, and I thought you were being sarcastic. I have to remember that other people typically don't read subtext, or even know what subtext is.
I'm not suggesting that you chop off a person's hands, I was reiterating that a person will kill if they really want to. You didn't even pay attention to But hands, like any other object that can kill, is a tool, and inherently not able to kill on their own. It is the force behind them, the person who owns those hands, that can kill.
Though, to mirror your words to me, 'You are an absolute person, aren't you? "If guns exist, then obviously innocent people are going to die because they exist".
I'm starting to think that you're not doing this for the enjoyment of a good debate, but rather are trying ineffectively to sway my viewpoint with emotional conjecture.
Though, I will still admit that hunter's license thing was a touch of brilliance that could be tested for effectiveness. But I will reiterate once more, I don't hold stock to theory alone, and if it were to fail due to some unforeseen consequence, I would not be surprised.
You should have to get a hunter's permission or something, get the guns from the police and then when you're finished with the hunting, return the guns back. And yes, I do agree that the police should have guns. Now if we would just get decent cops, but that's another debate altogether.
In theory, that could work, but when it comes to just theory, I find that things never go the way they seem.
I cannot argue this just yet, as I've never seen nor heard of something like this happening. Any further discussion would be conjecture on both of our parts.
I must say, I'm impressed you came up with that idea.
Yes, but they'd be likely caught before they get their hands on guns. They'd also be stopped if they were spotted with a gun. Plus, they'd have to be extremely determined if they wanted to get one. And a small crime such as robbing the local market or breaking into someone's house isn't gonna have them determined enough to actually go through the trouble.
Yes, I'm sure that there are no criminals out there with illegally attained weaponry because they get caught the moment they obtain it. I'm also sure that all of the drug peddlers and other criminals who sell illegal items are all rotting in prison the moment they switched whatever they sold for money.
The main reason the black market is still alive today is because people are willing to own an illegal object, or an object that they cannot legally get because of something they've done in the past. Now, if someone is trying to attain a gun illegally, chances are they're going to do more than just rob a store or break into someone's house. (Reasons why they wouldn't do it coming up.)
Chances are, they'd get it to do something bigger than that.
(Now, reasons why someone wouldn't need a gun for breaking into a person's home. Burglars typically go for targets that are empty of people, anyone who would break into a home while someone is there is either really stupid or really desperate. As with stores, stores here typically only have a small amount of cash on hand. Again, really stupid, or desperate.)
While I admit that certain guns are aesthetically thrilling, I don't want to own one because it's 'cool'. The only 'cool' weaponry that I want to but for the coolness factor are swords. Things like katanas and claymores. Swords that are not only made for decoration, but would either break upon use or would be too heavy/impractical for me to even use.
Regarding that last bit, you're putting words in my mouth, and I thought you were being sarcastic. I have to remember that other people typically don't read subtext, or even know what subtext is.
I'm not suggesting that you chop off a person's hands, I was reiterating that a person will kill if they really want to. You didn't even pay attention to But hands, like any other object that can kill, is a tool, and inherently not able to kill on their own. It is the force behind them, the person who owns those hands, that can kill.
Though, to mirror your words to me, 'You are an absolute person, aren't you? "If guns exist, then obviously innocent people are going to die because they exist".
I'm starting to think that you're not doing this for the enjoyment of a good debate, but rather are trying ineffectively to sway my viewpoint with emotional conjecture.
Though, I will still admit that hunter's license thing was a touch of brilliance that could be tested for effectiveness. But I will reiterate once more, I don't hold stock to theory alone, and if it were to fail due to some unforeseen consequence, I would not be surprised.
