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?
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
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.
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?
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.
Wood-chipper are just for getting rid of accomplices.
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.
[youtube]uL9BWkN-Wcg[/youtube]
you mean I should never have put M**c through that one? darn, I wondered why it's never been right since......
I have no idea what that is.
I have no idea what that is.
You need to brush up on your cryptanalysis. Here's a refresher,
Herbert S. Zim, in his classic introductory cryptography text "Codes and Secret Writing", gives the English letter frequency sequence as "ETAON RISHD LFCMU GYPWB VKJXQ Z", the most common letter pairs as "TH HE AN RE ER IN ON AT ND ST ES EN OF TE ED OR TI HI AS TO", and the most common doubled letters as "LL EE SS OO TT FF RR NN PP CC".[1]
We had a minor epidemic of knife crimes, particularly amongst the young.
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:
You need to brush up on your cryptanalysis. Here's a refresher
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.
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.
When was the last time someone killed 26 people in a short time with a sword?
Exactly.
When was the last time someone killed 26 people in a short time with a sword?
I don't know but we could make it an Olympic sport.
When was the last time someone killed 26 people in a short time with a sword?
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/2012/12/19/china-school-attack-video_n_2329511.htmlBut 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.
Then, dozens of students flee out of the gate before several men armed with brooms walk in. The man in blue later is seen being chased out of the school.
Brooms, people, ASSAULT BROOMS! They are bristling with danger. They NEVER need reloading.
Pro-tip: Don't bring a knife to a broom fight.
When was the last time someone killed 26 people in a short time with a sword?
[YOUTUBE]GJoM7V54T-c[/YOUTUBE]
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
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
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/2012/12/19/china-school-attack-video_n_2329511.html
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.
...The same is true for...or cars...
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!!!
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!
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:
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!!!
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
Conversely, if guns kill people, why not just send the guns and let the people stay to enjoy other pursuits?
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.
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
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
More than three 9/11 every year die from cars , and we are doing piss about it
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.
People still drive for shit though.
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.
Not to mention that nearly 1/3 of all drivers on the roads are caused by accidents.
•snort•
Nicely played sir, nicely played.
It's important to remember that half the people out there are below average. It explains so much.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
Not so, sir. Half the people are below median.
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.
Dana - please don't take this as a personal attack on you. I know it sounds harsh, but I have been using Maker's Mark tonight. This tends to let me put thoughts in very direct terms. I do respect your opinions. I was just speaking from an open and passionate heart
I wonder how many sword swallowers have died as a result of their occupation?
And how many Scotsmen have been kilt by their national dress?
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.
Doesn't matter either way _ you invoked Hitler and Stalin, by Godwin's Law you just lost the argument :P
Doesn't matter either way _ you invoked Hitler and Stalin, by Godwin's Law you just lost the argument :P
Guilty as charged. I concede
*grins*
And, I didn't take your previous post as a personal attack btw :)
good. i didn't want to offend you.
Doesn't matter either way _ you invoked Hitler and Stalin, by Godwin's Law you just lost the argument :P
Nah, he lost the argument the moment he began making false equivalences between swords and firearms.
[youtube]4DzcOCyHDqc[/youtube]
I wonder how many sword swallowers have died as a result of their occupation?
I'll ask my son!
At the risk of being impolite AND pedantic, average is usually defined as 70%. A grade of C in college is considered average. B is above average, A is outstanding. D is for Do you want fries with that? or Daddy better be rich.
That only applies to college grades where the kiddies get upset and whinge to mummy and daddy if their grades don't make them feel good.
50% of people are below median height/wealth/IQ etc.
Should I take this to the maths thread?
The average human has less than two legs.
That only applies to college grades where the kiddies get upset and whinge to mummy and daddy if their grades don't make them feel good.
50% of people are below median height/wealth/IQ etc.
Should I take this to the maths thread?
I can barely keep up in this thread.
I can barely keep up in this thread.
Simple: This thread is about the inherent danger of assault swords. What did you think we were talking about??
Double edged assault swords should be banned. What does the average person need with a sword that was designed for just one purpose ... slaying dragons. Swords should be limited to one sharp edge and the tip should be blunted. Only blood thirsty Black Knight wannabes need to both slash AND thrust.
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.
Interesting... Noted; should be cross-posted in Protip thread.
Double edged assault swords should be banned. What does the average person need with a sword that was designed for just one purpose ... slaying dragons. Swords should be limited to one sharp edge and the tip should be blunted. Only blood thirsty Black Knight wannabes need to both slash AND thrust.
*snort*
I don't know about the rest of the women here but I like both slash and thrust.
The average human has less than two legs.
True or false: A person has one arm.
True, but usually a person has a second one, as well.
The average human has less than two legs.
It's fewer! :mad2: The average human has FEWER than two legs. ARGH!!
Wait. What?
Only if you assume they're missing one whole leg. I propose that in the case of partial limbs, it is, in fact, "less" leg.
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?
And titles, training classes...
Only if you assume they're missing one whole leg. I propose that in the case of partial limbs, it is, in fact, "less" leg.
... but as soon as you put the "s" on "legs" you're treating it as countable.
1.8 legs is fewer than 2.0 legs.
Oh and most swords are honest, law abiding swords. It is only a small few callous and cruel swords which do this.
Swords don't kill people, only bastard swords kill people.
[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]On a roll of 14 or higher on a d20[/COLOR].
True or false: A person has one arm.
True, but usually a person has a second one, as well.
I deny your definition of person.
I deny your definition of definition.
I reject your definition of deny.
I object to you subjecting rejecting to objectification.
YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Sorry.....got a bit carried away with the courtroom scene...
... but as soon as you put the "s" on "legs" you're treating it as countable.
1.8 legs is fewer than 2.0 legs.
1 and 8 tenths of a LEG is less than 2 legs. Wholes are countable, partials are partial. YOU WANT TO TUSSLE?!
Oh snap grammar throw down!
Oh snap grammar throw down!
ooohhhhh.... grammar and maths tussle with Clodfobble's brain
.... shivers with anticipation ...
This is going to be a Pay Per View event not available in Australia.
Sorry.
Nah, he lost the argument the moment he began making false equivalences between swords and firearms.
[youtube]4DzcOCyHDqc[/youtube]
No it is still valid against unarmed people.
But they're good exercise... just ask Griff.
I object to you subjecting rejecting to objectification.
Objection denied!
Obfuscation!
1 and 8 tenths of a LEG is less than 2 legs. Wholes are countable, partials are partial. YOU WANT TO TUSSLE?!
Someone show some more leg.
But they're good exercise... just ask Griff.
And that is most true