Swords don't kill people
 

Swords, epees, and foils were made for one thing only - killing people. Do you realize how many people have been stabbed, sliced, or diced by these evil assault weapons?? Fencing is nothing but people training to kill someone.

I propose a ban on all blades greater than 3 inches. This is in line with concealed weapon laws already passed in many states

We have quite strict laws about carrying knives, with heavy sentencing introduced a few years ago. The reason? We had a minor epidemic of knife crimes, particularly amongst the young.

Sarge, it's a slippery slope. Next thing only criminals will have Veg-o-matics®

Of course, Veg-o-matics® are really just your average killin' knife covered with a lot of plastic.

Well that's just a mini wood-chipper really. Sure, it'd take a bit longer for them to die, but is that a good thing?

When was the last time someone killed 26 people in a short time with a sword?

The brave little tailor killed seven flies with just one stroke. Of a cloth, even. It CAN be done.

Wood-chipper are just for getting rid of accomplices.

swords are up close and personal, mothafkka. Cowards can shoot from far, far away. I'd prefer a sword death anyway. It would be more...romantic.

Like Donnie.


(shut up, Donnie)

you mean I should never have put M**c through that one? darn, I wondered why it's never been right since......

I'd like to see more swordplay, but inside the construct of "first blood". Someone gets cut, honor is served, participants shake hands, and get on with life.

I have no idea what that is.

You need to brush up on your cryptanalysis. Here's a refresher,

Don't you think this is the same violence that would be happening if they had guns? So now take away their knives how will they kill each other now? :eyebrow:

marc? murc? OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Merc. :lol2:

Funny effer.

OMG I totally had that book. It sounded familiar and I looked at it on Amazon and YEP...same book.

Me too. I loved it and wanted to get it for my son but couldn't remember the name. Thanks Wikipedia!

I'm sure I still have it somewhere. Now I'm trying to remember the name of some kind of brain booster or brain teaser book I had (and still have...somewhere.) GAWD I loved me some Scholastic Book Club. Mom always had to make me scale back a few books, every order.

Exactly.

I don't know but we could make it an Olympic sport.

It happens more often than you think. The liberal media never reports it because most swords are foreign made. They don't want to upset the global economy

I thought this was going to be the penis size thread.



I have used all three fencing weapons and it would be bloody hard to kill someone with one. The debate comes up occasionally in fencing clubs, the conclusion is usually that you'd do better to take of your mask and beat them with that.

This man stabbed a total of 26 people. 23 were elementary school kids. We have to do something about these horrible assault knives!! Do you think there is anyway they could make a knife that couldn't stab more than 10 times??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2329511.html

But your thread title was correct, though. Swords/knives don't kill people. Well, not very effectively. All 26 lived.

Guy needs to work on his action.

Brooms, people, ASSAULT BROOMS! They are bristling with danger. They NEVER need reloading.

Pro-tip: Don't bring a knife to a broom fight.

I think I counted 24 or 25... and a bouquet of flowers....

With a light blade I can easily kill 20 ish people , and children would not be physical hard. The same is true for gas or cars or bleach, ect.
It is not ability that stops but the fact that
IT IS FUCKING SUPREME EVIL
UNFORGIVABLE FUCKING EVIL

Huffington Post is liberal news media, so you're wrong.

As Dr. Zen said, no one was killed.

If you use children as weapons you can increase your odds of survival
http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakeinafight.com/

32 five year olds. Not bad for an old guy (thanks for the tip).

Sadly, I die on the moon; 0% chance of survival when marooned 200 miles from base.

I expected better since I'm 86% Geek.

Tor is correct. Take guns away, a bad guy will use a bomb. Or an airplane.

O. M. G. !

I hadn't even thought of the cars...How many young lives have been snuffed out...by cars.

We simply must have armed guards in every car.

We simply must have car-proof guards on the roofs of all skyscrapers.

Cars that can go for hundreds of miles on just one high-capacity tank of fuel?

I propose strict fuel tank limits.

We need to outlaw high-capacity fuel tanks. NOW!

Why would anyone need to go more than ten miles?

Only to kill someone. Only to kill someone.

Water. People choke to death and drown in water every day. Throw all your guns into the water!!!

We actually just had a high speed chase that ended peacefully after 10 minutes when the teenage dickhead in the Nissan Skyline ... ran out of fuel. :lol:

What's your proposal to reduce mass shootings?

It sounds as though your perspective is "since people's deaths result from cars and water, we just have to accept mass shootings".

No. My perspective is to be a smartass every chance I get. Please don't be sincere with me.

I really don't see gun control as limiting mass shootings. There is no "Sound bite" way to address what is essentially a cultural problem.

.

Since this thread is clearly no place for even semi-serious debate...


Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So why do they always give guns to people when they go off to war? Why not just send the people, and save money on the guns?

Conversely, if guns kill people, why not just send the guns and let the people stay to enjoy other pursuits?

I have solved the mass shooting problems. We can limit the gathering of people to no more than 10 at any location to include schools, churches, malls, .etc

I think I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for this

Drones, sir. Then armed autonomous drones. Until they turn against us. Then it will turn out that guns don't kill people, and people don't kill people, giant laser-wielding rocket-shooting transforming battlebots kill people.

Brilliant, but the penalty for exceeding the 10-person limit will have to be very very severe for the proposal to work. The only option is summary execution by firing squad. Fortunately, this will keep employed all the gun and ammunition manufacturers who would otherwise end up unemployed, causing them to go on gun rampages ...

Of course, it's so simple a child could see it, suicidal programmers kill people.

I guess that proves programmers aren't people, then, doesn't it? :lol:

Programmers arent people, they're corporations, silly.

Thus proving that corporations aren't people!


Holy shit, we did it.

Whoomph! We did at that :P

of course it's people who kill people.

Now let's talk about the 560 billion (or is it trillion?) we've spent "rebuilding" the shithole that is, and will remain, Afghanistan. Wouldn't that be better spent on the crazies here?

just a random thought.

More than three 9/11 every year die from cars , and we are doing piss about it

we addressed the drunk driving laws.

That has slowed the issue but there is still slaughter on the highway and we seem to be blind to these deaths, whom are mostly young . The Highway system kills more people than guns, it kills move people than cigarettes, and we still have 70 mph roads and cars that go 120mph.


In total ford has killed more children than S&W ever will

AND...you have to have to be insured and licensed to own and operate that weapon.

eta...this was to be an adjunct to Tril's post, not tor's. So it sounds like Im saying that doing so hasnt changed anything with cars so why would it change for guns. But what I wanted it to sound like is..why is there a system of accountablility for a cars but not guns?

I've got young drivers in my house. PA has upped the requirements for hours spent driving with a more experienced person riding shotgun. People still drive for shit though.

As a rabid gun owner myself, I'm all for a system like licensing and or registering firearms in a manner similar to vehicles. Not yearly, but once per firearm and then have a title that would need to be presented to sell or transfer.

I draw the line at insurance.

It's important to remember that half the people out there are below average. It explains so much.

Not to mention that nearly 1/3 of all drivers on the roads are caused by accidents.

•snort•

Nicely played sir, nicely played.

Not so, sir. Half the people are below median.
I'm not sure how to measure driving skill, but when it comes to personal wealth, something like 99% are below (mean) average.
If that translates to driving skill, no wonder there's so many crashes.

Wasn't licensing and registration of all firearms mandated by Stalin and Hitler? This later led to confiscations. Anyway it goes, good luck trying to figure out how many I have and where they all are.

Oh puhlease. Stalin and Hitler. For goodness sake .

I'm sure many Jews expressed your thoughts in the early 20th Century. Why does it matter to you? You have already lost your rights.

As far as the numerous references to required licensure and insurance for automobiles, most of you are clueless. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilige, not a right. This is how the implied consent laws are used. Legally, you don't have to have a license or insurance to operate a motor vehicle on private property.

My firearms are on private property. I hunt on private property. Why should I have to license them? The motor vehicle laws actually set a precedent. Plus, I haven't even touched on trucks or vehicles identified for agricultural use and how they can be operated on public roads without a license.

So if you don't have a firearm or ever even owned a firearm, you don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't harangue anyone on here about their usage of marijuana. Marijuana has led to the violence of MS 13 and the Mexican drug cartels.

It doesn't have the same ring when you put it that way. Besides, it's considered impolite to respond to full-on snark with logic.