20 Kids Stabbed

Your point?

Apparently not, because comparing a close range weapon that leaves the wielder open to getting *** up to a weapon you can shoot from yards away is a dumb argument - gun debate aside. Tactical advantage, full stop. Guns deal more damage, faster damage, allow the user to be a safe distance from the carnage and make any attempt to counter dangerous.

The argument that banned guns would just revert us to using composite crossbows makes more sense than scoring points off a knifing. Hurray, it wasn't a gun guys! *pats backs all around*

No, no it isn't.

You're confused.

Not to mention that your premise of that they deal more damage is certainly not 100% true.

You don't understand the comparison being made, comes as no surprise.

There's that word again.

Which word.

Liberal. It's just funny how often it gets thrown around on this forum anytime someone disagrees with another point of view.

What's even funnier is that they agree with most everything.

Funnier still is that the word "liberal" is mentioned, and KN is the next to respond.

Touché.

Wait, what? What's wrong with saying empathy is a pillar of liberal ideology?

The word 'liberal' is thrown around a lot? Since when? And what relevance does that have?

And it's demonstrably true, since the left tends to be more for gun regulation than the right. It's not a black-and-white split down the middle like other issues, but a strong correlation is there.

can't we all agree that flamethrowers are superior

Nothing brings two different ideas together than somebody insulting them both.

Nukes > Flamethrowers.

Ffxi translation: all he is saying is with a paladin tanking a range is gonna take less damage and lose less dps worrying about the occasional shadow cast or -dt swap set than if you were a Sam up there hacking stuff away! Sure you will do the same damage but in the context rngers are just worry free slaughter... Ban Annihilators!

You better watch out! Unfortunately, even when asking that question here, you will be railed. (Example: Sandy Hook thread.) Exploratory thought and understanding is not welcome here, you heartless so-and-so!

Only slightly less since ironically you can't block ranged attacks... Go figure as historically, that's the primary use of shields.

It's actually even more complicated than that.

A friend on probation had to get rid of some replica weapons he owned. You could call them swords, but they had the cutting power of a plastic spoon. However, he can have as many huge, heavy knives as his butcher block will hold.

The law (and those who write it) really does not seem to correspond with reason sometimes.

However, I'll point out once more that it's much harder to kill a person with a knife. "Blah blah blah, stab in the throat." Go ahead and try it some time. If you've never been hunting and never had to stab a deer in its throat, you probably have no idea how not-easy it is. In deference to the people who wank off nightly with their Desert Eagles, though, people also regularly misjudge the kickback of firearms and the huge effect it has on accuracy.

American kids are pretty annoying though.

Very bad example.

For one thing, how in the world can you sneak up to a deer? There is a reason why the most successful hunters used projectile weapons and not close combat weapons on game animals.

Second, you assume that anyone who would commit mass murder hasn't at least practiced with the weapon they choose to mass murder with. Kickbacks only greatly decrease accuracy to those who never fired a gun before. The decrease in accuracy is minimized as you get more experienced with it.

Third, we are talking about humans, not animals. You can sneak up to somebody to kill them as long as you don't wave around the weapon you choose to kill them with. And knives are much easier to hide than, say, an AK 47.

I live like 20-25 minutes from that school. Never think something like that will happen close to home.

So the point goes whoosh over your head like usual. That's nice.

Practiced killers have difficulty executing someone with a knife. I can only assume you've never spoken to prison guards else you'd stop arguing this point. It doesn't matter how much you try to sneak up, the stopping power of a knife is nothing like the organ-shredding potential of a ballistic missile. A well-thrown pilum or war javelin has a better chance of killing and it really has nothing to do with whether the victim is surprised or not.

k

mmm... Better start securing my sword collection.

If knives are so much deadlier than guns why aren't people walking around with knives to protect themselves and forgetting about the guns?

I'm pretty sure that you are the one being whooshed here. Which is par for the course.

Practiced killers also don't go around screaming on the top of their lungs like a maniac. Even your example of a hunter with a knife would try their best to be as quiet as possible. Besides, prison guards knows that there are killers there. Are you to assume that everyone you ever meet today is a killer out to get you? Only if you are a prison guard, that is part of their job.

But go ahead with your very bad examples. Keep comparing ballistic missiles to kitchen knives, it just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

BTW, life doesn't give you points or levels you up after you get so many points from killing people...just a heads up.

My congressman said no we can't ban knives and to stop calling.

You obviously haven't been to Texas. There are more people with knives on them at all times than there are with guns on them at all times...

actually knives are more deadly than guns themselves, it's the combination of gunpowder and bullets that make the gun more functional instead of just a bludgeoning object.

People are the most dangerous, but let's ignore that fact.

Edit: we're back to the argument of people wanting to ban guns because they think they're nothing but scary killing machines and they think cosmetic alterations make it deadlier because it looks scarier.

At least yours answered to you.