Some call me... Tim
- Sep 13, 2010
- Reaction score
- Cheongju, SK
Alright so how about "all things that were designed for killing human beings"? Not that I'm advocating such a thing but still, there's a distinction. A bow and arrow or a long rifle carry utility as a tool for hunting, which for some, is a necessity for survival. As far as a "bow and arrow" that's designed for killing people, the one that comes to mind is the crossbow and that is (at least was...?) banned.
Not that I think all guns should be banned but (at the risk of putting words in somebody's mouth) I think the argument is about guns that are designed to excel at killing people.
That seems more to the point, yes, and harder to argue against.
I can't speak for any specific states, but I think crossbows are still perfectly legal most places.
I think it's odd how you seem to have a pretty balanced opinion on the issue, but you only chime in to debate the semantics of statements by gun control advocates in this thread.
It isn't intentional, I promise. If anything, it could be a subconscious bias toward either side of the issue. The red blooded ex-military American side of me that pops up in this subforum so often does bristle whenever gun control debates arise, sure, so perhaps I'm subconsciously leveling most of my arguments against the gun control crowd. On the other hand, I agree with most of the points the more reasonable gun control advocates (ie not the "ban all guns" crowd) make, so perhaps I'm poking at the semantics of their arguments to hammer them out and make them stronger, more defensible, like tempering steel. Probably a little bit of both, I suspect .
I do think I've at least tried to point out to those saying "We can't ban all guns" that nobody in this thread is arguing that we should once or twice, but I don't feel like going through all 18 pages of the thread to see if you're right that most of my arguments are nitpicking the gun control side of things, so I'll take your word for it .