I can tell you, Irish, that in the year 1309, murders involving firearms throughout Europe and the were exactly zero.
However, murders with arrows, daggers, cutlasses, lances, javelins, darts, maces, axes, halberds, balls and chains, morning stars, crossbow bolts, and big fucking rocks dropped from walls and hurled from catapults were quite high.
There was, in fact a very vocal group that thought that these terrible weapons should be taken out of the hands of the general public. And just as vocal group on the other hand declared that it was the God-given right of a free man to own them.
Seven hundred years from now we’ll be killing each other with hand-held weapons that shoot microwaves and ultrasound, that can burt your organs or boil your brains at 5000 meters. And the argument will continue: one side will want to outlaw blasters for the good of society and the CHILLLLLL-DRUN; and the other side (our side) will say, “when blasters are outlawed, only outlaws will have blasters.”
Oh, and the crossbow, the bow, and the sling were all derided as “cowards’ weapons” when they first came into use.
But face it, if (god forbid) any of the women in my life were attacked by a rapist or robber or murderer, I would hope that they had a “coward’s weapon” like a .45 pistol on them at the time.
You contradicted yourself in the same post.[/quote]
I know, I didn’t mean to. I’m saying that while crimes involving knives did go up, the overall violent crime rate was reduced.
I don’t know why I remember this, I may be wrong.
And push- Gun control could stand a chance on this board if anyone actually agreed with it. That’s all I’m saying. But on a site devoted to weightlifting and bodybuilding, I would not expect the outcome on this particular issue to be different then what it is.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I can tell you, Irish, that in the year 1309, murders involving firearms throughout Europe and the were exactly zero.
However, murders with arrows, daggers, cutlasses, lances, javelins, darts, maces, axes, halberds, balls and chains, morning stars, crossbow bolts, and big fucking rocks dropped from walls and hurled from catapults were quite high.
There was, in fact a very vocal group that thought that these terrible weapons should be taken out of the hands of the general public. And just as vocal group on the other hand declared that it was the God-given right of a free man to own them.
Seven hundred years from now we’ll be killing each other with hand-held weapons that shoot microwaves and ultrasound, that can burt your organs or boil your brains at 5000 meters. And the argument will continue: one side will want to outlaw blasters for the good of society and the CHILLLLLL-DRUN; and the other side (our side) will say, “when blasters are outlawed, only outlaws will have blasters.”
Nothin’ changes.[/quote]
I know what you mean. And again- i ain’t for outlawin’ blasters.
However, times were different then. There were no cops, and it was a thin line between life and death. Again, it’s not comparable to today’s situation.
However, times were different then. There were no cops, and it was a thin line between life and death.
And precisely where are the cops nowadays in any of the situations I mentioned? Are they capable of being summoned by a wiggling nose and magically appearing in front of the prospective victim?
Does a cop stand vigil in front of every NJ and NYC home 24/7?
I would surmise that the number of NJ cops per capita exceeds the TX, OK, and MT per capita number. And yet???
[/quote]
And again, I’m not fucking arguing against having a gun in the house. You been drinking today or what?
Are you really trying to tell me that this world, in this first-world, developed country, is as dangerous as Europe in 1309?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and the crossbow, the bow, and the sling were all derided as “cowards’ weapons” when they first came into use.
But face it, if (god forbid) any of the women in my life were attacked by a rapist or robber or murderer, I would hope that they had a “coward’s weapon” like a .45 pistol on them at the time.[/quote]
Exactly, because it allowed brokeasses to kill knights, ie, the rich guys of royal lineage.
I know, I didn’t mean to. I’m saying that while crimes involving knives did go up, the overall violent crime rate was reduced.
I don’t know why I remember this, I may be wrong.
And push- Gun control could stand a chance on this board if anyone actually agreed with it. That’s all I’m saying. But on a site devoted to weightlifting and bodybuilding, I would not expect the outcome on this particular issue to be different then what it is. [/quote]
Gun control always will lose Irish because it has been proven not to work. If you research and reputable, well referenced academic studies of the issue, they all come to the same conclusion. Kind of like how the earth rotates around the sun, not vice versa.
The advocates of gun control have no serious data or data to back them up that hasn’t been thoroughly debunked.
I have to admit that I used to be anti-gun. I have, however, changed my opinion in recent years. As I mulled the issue over in my head, I could not find a really good argument, a good, logical argument, that is, to support my former opinions. Oh well, nothing wrong with changing your opinions over time right? My grandfather is a hunter and responsible gun owner, and there have been some serious infringements on his rights in recent years. Look at the supposed “handgun ban” that we have here in Ontario and the gun registry in Canada. It’s ridiculous.
The Canadian gun registry has done nothing other than trample on the privacy rights of responsible gun-owners and cost them money. Criminals are not buying hunting rifles to commit crimes, and they certainly aren’t registering them legally. As for the “handgun ban” in Ontario, it’s nothing more than political posturing; “banning” guns that can not be legally bought in the province seems kinda redundant doesn’t it?
[quote]jx_alain wrote:
I have to admit that I used to be anti-gun. I have, however, changed my opinion in recent years. As I mulled the issue over in my head, I could not find a really good argument, a good, logical argument, that is, to support my former opinions. Oh well, nothing wrong with changing your opinions over time right? My grandfather is a hunter and responsible gun owner, and there have been some serious infringements on his rights in recent years. Look at the supposed “handgun ban” that we have here in Ontario and the gun registry in Canada. It’s ridiculous.
The Canadian gun registry has done nothing other than trample on the privacy rights of responsible gun-owners and cost them money. Criminals are not buying hunting rifles to commit crimes, and they certainly aren’t registering them legally. As for the “handgun ban” in Ontario, it’s nothing more than political posturing; “banning” guns that can not be legally bought in the province seems kinda redundant doesn’t it?[/quote]
Just politicians trying to get grandma and soccer mom’s vote.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and the crossbow, the bow, and the sling were all derided as “cowards’ weapons” when they first came into use.
But face it, if (god forbid) any of the women in my life were attacked by a rapist or robber or murderer, I would hope that they had a “coward’s weapon” like a .45 pistol on them at the time.
Exactly, because it allowed brokeasses to kill knights, ie, the rich guys of royal lineage.[/quote]
There were bans on commoners owning crossbows in the middle ages because they would penetrate a knight’s armor and it made it harder for a knight to safely come rape your wife or daughter.
Has anyone bothered to consider how hard it will be to ban guns when we’re no longer using firearms? I mean, at some point, the battery technology will improve to the point where any kid with a soldering iron can put together a coil gun that accelerates a slug to 1000fps (silently, I might add). Firearms are much hard to construct because you need welding equipment and a lathe at the very least.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and the crossbow, the bow, and the sling were all derided as “cowards’ weapons” when they first came into use.
But face it, if (god forbid) any of the women in my life were attacked by a rapist or robber or murderer, I would hope that they had a “coward’s weapon” like a .45 pistol on them at the time.
Exactly, because it allowed brokeasses to kill knights, ie, the rich guys of royal lineage.
There were bans on commoners owning crossbows in the middle ages because they would penetrate a knight’s armor and it made it harder for a knight to safely come rape your wife or daughter.
Has anyone bothered to consider how hard it will be to ban guns when we’re no longer using firearms? I mean, at some point, the battery technology will improve to the point where any kid with a soldering iron can put together a coil gun that accelerates a slug to 1000fps (silently, I might add). Firearms are much hard to construct because you need welding equipment and a lathe at the very least. [/quote]