Get Yer Guns.

[Duff Ostrich]

This forum seems like a hotspot for various political/philosophical discussions, and so I figured I would take a stab at one.

You see, I like to get involved in political debates, and at times I can come off as arrogant and overbearing, but rarely ever do I not concede that the opposition has at least some modicum of a reasonable basis. At least, as long as the people with the opposing opinion have any skill in discussion at all, they can make an argument based off of logic even if I disagree with them.

And yet, there are some topics that it seems to split the two arguing camps into very distinct 'reasonable vs unreasonable' people. I.e., one groups is exclusively making the well reasoned argument while the other groups is making an argument from an illogical base, many times from unreasoned emotion.

Gun rights is one of these topics. There are people who believe that guns should be banned and there are those who believe that guns should not be banned. There are, of course, shades of gray inbetween (only ban assault rifles, or handguns, or have longer waiting periods before a gun can be purchased) but typically people try to distinguish themselves as either pro gun or anti gun.

I'll make myself clear right here: I believe in gun rights. I believe that they are required to be considered free from state tyranny and I believe that an armed populace is a dangerous enemy for those who would take our rights away.

And then, I believe that in order for anything to be banned there must be a very good reason. And the only very good reason is if the legality of some thing or act somehow steps on the rights of others. Slavery is an example of this. So is arson.

But then, just saying the anti gun lobby makes bad arguments is to strawman them. I wish to justify my position by giving common arguments of the anti gun opinion and then critique them and explain why they are illogical. If after this you feel that I have misrepresented the anti gun argument, let me know! A strawman is a logical fallacy in and of itself, and I do not want to make that mistake.

I will try to address the common anti gun arguments in as fair a way as I can. I am not claiming to be infallible, but this is my argument nonetheless. Also, keep in mind that this is a United States centric argument.

#1 The second amendment does not account for technological progress or the current state of affairs today.

This is one of the most common arguments made for why gun laws should be made tighter. How could our founding fathers have known about the AK-47? How could they have known of the Uzi? How could they have known that any firearm the citizenry can gets its hands on is anything but a single shot musket or pistol? Certainly, they were not aware of this, and so the second amendment is outdated.

The problem with this argument is that it undermines the basis behind the pro gun position. Who cares what the founding fathers knew? It's irrelevant to the point: The populace can use these guns just as they did the old ones to protect themselves. It's about liberty, and banning guns is taking some of that liberty away. It doesn't matter that the gun is an AK-47.

#2 The need for the right to bear arms has since passed. There is no fear of invasion from a foreign nation anymore, since our military is more than capable of protecting all of us. Militias are no longer needed.

Considering the popularity of President Bush, I am surprised anyone would make this argument. Certainly we would not trust the institution that enacted the Patriot Act enough to also give away our gun rights. And it should be noted: Most people who are anti gun are also anti Patriot Act. My question is: What gives? Of course, anyone who is anti gun and pro Patriot Act is not being contradictory, and I acknowledge that. Both positions involve the taking away of rights.

#3 Gun violence is horrible. Certainly removing gun rights would prevent tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech, and all of the inner city violence that happens on a daily basis.

This one is often answered with the classic pro gun line: "If gun rights are taken away, then only criminals will have guns since they are willing to break the law to begin with." It's a classic, almost cliche retort. It makes sense regardless. But the more correct answer is this: Only your government and criminals will have guns. I'm not sure which of the two I trust less.

#4 What worth do gun rights even have? It's a useless right, considering how seldom they're actually used for self defense.

I've heard this one a lot lately. And to be honest, it is true that people seldom ever need them for self defense. But again, this is regardless of the point. The ownership of guns should be a right simply because we are a free people who can do whatever we want as long as it does not step on the rights of others, or so we are taught to believe growing up in a western society. Owning guns does not harm anyone's right to life, liberty or property.

And plus, something being (supposedly) useless is not enough reason to ban it.

#5 If we are to allow people to own guns, then why not nuclear weapons?

We've all heard this one before. However, it is the classic slippery slope argument, and so is a logical fallacy. Need I say more?

Now I could go on and address all of the low IQ arguments out there (the NRA is racist!) but I am addressing the anti gun arguments that I see intelligent people make, and I do not want to strawman them by throwing the more ridiculous arguments on them. Again, that's something I've tried very hard to avoid.

There is, however, one argument the anti gun camp can make without being self contradictory. If you believe in authoritarianism, the anti gun position makes sense. Authoritarians believe that the state comes before the individual person, and so the need of the person to overthrow the state is a ludicrous notion. It is the state that must prosper, even if it is at the unfortunate expense of the people.

However, as free people living in free nations, we are taught that the individual comes first and that the state exists only to protect our rights from those who would tread upon them. It is my argument that, if we truly believe in these ideals, having an anti gun stance is entirely incompatible.

[Destiny Hero]

Fuck guns. All they'll lead to is even more shootings, murders, gang violence, and freak accidents which are all over the news. And fuck anyone who thinks they need a gun to protect themselves. All anyone needs is a knife or sword and they're fine.

Approving gun rights means more shootings and gang violence, and "protection" to people, who are likely to go on shootings themselves.

[Shuuda]

Fuck guns. All they'll lead to is even more shootings, murders, gang violence, and freak accidents which are all over the news. And fuck anyone who thinks they need a gun to protect themselves. All anyone needs is a knife or sword and they're fine.

Approving gun rights means more shootings and gang violence, and "protection" to people, who are likely to go on shootings themselves.

Lol... okay.

First of all, if you remove guns, it will not remove the violence: people will just move on to using knives. And if you were to remove the knives, they would then move on to clubbing each other. At the end of the day, it is not the weapons that kill people; people kill people.

Secondly, if you only get your information from the news, then of course you will get a bad image. The news always go rampant with big negative stories, negativity is the one of the highest priorities for national news. To put it in other words: the media will never report on anything that puts guns or knives in a good light.

I personally am not against guns, in the right hands they can actually protect people. However, I think it is stupid to let anyone have them, there needs to be strict rules and regulations.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Shuuda

[Destiny Hero]

Lol... okay.

First of all, if you remove guns, it will not remove the violence: people will just move on to using knives. And if you were to remove the knives, they would then move on to clubbing each other. At the end of the day, it is not the weapons that kill people; people kill people.

Wrong. Guns are the most violent weapons there are. Take away guns, and every gun incident will not turn into a knife incident. And no. It's not people killing people. It's weapons killing people. For instance, when you shoot a hoop in basketball, what goes in? The ball, or the one who threw it? The bullets are what kill, not the ones who shoot them.

Secondly, if you only get your information from the news, then of course you will get a bad image. The news always go rampant with big negative stories, negativity is the one of the highest priorities for national news. To put it in other words: the media will never report on anything that puts guns or knives in a good light.

So, the news looks at guns negatively. I wonder why.

I personally am not against guns, in the right hands they can actually protect people. However, I think it is stupid to let anyone have them, there needs to be strict rules and regulations.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Destiny Hero

[borkborkbork]

Got nothing else to do, so I'll take a stab at this. Note though that I can't say anything about the purely American points, since I don't know, nor care too much about it.

#3 Gun violence is horrible. Certainly removing gun rights would prevent tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech, and all of the inner city violence that happens on a daily basis.

This one is often answered with the classic pro gun line: "If gun rights are taken away, then only criminals will have guns since they are willing to break the law to begin with." It's a classic, almost cliche retort. It makes sense regardless. But the more correct answer is this: Only your government and criminals will have guns. I'm not sure which of the two I trust less.

Firstly, that "I don't trust my government line." You elect the government. The government supposedly stands in fear of getting ousted if they piss you off too much. An untrustworthy government is grounds for an ousting. Sure, if America was communist, then that would be valid. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about here.

Secondly, it does NOT make sense regardless. I don't know much about the Columbine case, but as I remember it, the Virginia Tech kid was not a criminal before the shooting. If guns were indeed banned, where do you think a normal guy gets the guns from?

*Walks down to the local gansters*

"'Sup, gimme a gun!"

Right...

Thirdly, the "only criminals will have guns part". Again, wrong. By simply banning guns, gun availability goes down. They'll have to be smuggled in from across borders, where if the guards are doing their job right, they'll get caught. Or they'll have to be robbed from those who have guns, who are trained in using them. Of course, I agree that it still is possible to get guns through either of these two avenues, but the amount of guns still drops. Drops to the point where a criminal gang has 1 or 2. The Police have 1 EACH. The army can also be called in for another what? 2 each?

#4 What worth do gun rights even have? It's a useless right, considering how seldom they're actually used for self defense.

I've heard this one a lot lately. And to be honest, it is true that people seldom ever need them for self defense. But again, this is regardless of the point. The ownership of guns should be a right simply because we are a free people who can do whatever we want as long as it does not step on the rights of others, or so we are taught to believe growing up in a western society. Owning guns does not harm anyone's right to life, liberty or property.

And plus, something being (supposedly) useless is not enough reason to ban it.

While I agree that it's a silly point, most of that is how you've phrased it. I would guess what that point should be, or at least how I'd put it, is:

Number of occasions guns used for self defense <<<<<<< Number of occasions guns used for offense

Banning the would cut down on the numbers of both sides, but since the one on the left is so small anyway, it should just be a one-sided drop. And before you say that banning guns would make the right hand side RISE instead of drop, read my point above on gun availability.

#5 If we are to allow people to own guns, then why not nuclear weapons?

However, as free people living in free nations, we are taught that the individual comes first and that the state exists only to protect our rights from those who would tread upon them. It is my argument that, if we truly believe in these ideals, having an anti gun stance is entirely incompatible.

Indeed, the state exists to protect our rights, should someone try to tread on them. Thus, the individual should not have to carry the burden of protecting ourselves. Seems compatible to me.

Lol... okay.

First of all, if you remove guns, it will not remove the violence: people will just move on to using knives. And if you were to remove the knives, they would then move on to clubbing each other. At the end of the day, it is not the weapons that kill people; people kill people.

Classic arguement. If you remove the guns, people will use knives. While the Police still have Guns. Gun > Knife.

Though the fact that people kill people still stands. That's a problem for the education system to fix, while they're teaching morality and ethics. But even with knives, you have a chance of survival. Kitty Genovese took over 30 minutes to get stabbed to death. Should have been enough for the police to arrive, were the onlookers not braindead.

[Esau of Isaac]

Fuck guns. All they'll lead to is even more shootings, murders, gang violence, and freak accidents which are all over the news. And fuck anyone who thinks they need a gun to protect themselves. All anyone needs is a knife or sword and they're fine.

Approving gun rights means more shootings and gang violence, and "protection" to people, who are likely to go on shootings themselves.

Banning guns only leads to harming the law-abiding citizens. Do you think those that don't give a shit about the law be incapable of getting ahold of weapons?

Wrong. Guns are the most violent weapons there are. Take away guns, and every gun incident will not turn into a knife incident. And no. It's not people killing people. It's weapons killing people. For instance, when you shoot a hoop in basketball, what goes in? The ball, or the one who threw it? The bullets are what kill, not the ones who shoot them.

The people are the ones that use the guns for the wrong reason. It is the people that give the command to kill, not the gun. Guns are not intrinsically good or evil, it's the people that wield the weapon that decide its use.

And yes, banning guns does lead to crime with another form of weaponry. I'll look around for a few pages and post them in a few minutes.

So, the news looks at guns negatively. I wonder why.

Because they concentrate on the negative aspect of the world to get views.

Secondly, it does NOT make sense regardless. I don't know much about the Columbine case, but as I remember it, the Virginia Tech kid was not a criminal before the shooting. If guns were indeed banned, where do you think a normal guy gets the guns from?

*Walks down to the local gansters*

"'Sup, gimme a gun!"

Through illegal means, or from outside sources. Such as buying the pieces of the weaponry from another area and then assembling it later on.

Thirdly, the "only criminals will have guns part". Again, wrong. By simply banning guns, gun availability goes down. They'll have to be smuggled in from across borders, where if the guards are doing their job right, they'll get caught. Or they'll have to be robbed from those who have guns, who are trained in using them. Of course, I agree that it still is possible to get guns through either of these two avenues, but the amount of guns still drops. Drops to the point where a criminal gang has 1 or 2. The Police have 1 EACH. The army can also be called in for another what? 2 each?

The police are not fucking ubiquitous, and often don't arrive at the scene until it's too late. By completely banning guns, you're leaving the people incapable of sufficiently defending themselves against people that plan on harming others.

Do you think that the amount of people that will harm others with a gun is higher than those that would defend themselves?

Indeed, the state exists to protect our rights, should someone try to tread on them. Thus, the individual should not have to carry the burden of protecting ourselves. Seems compatible to me.

It seems logical to hand over all ability to protect yourself to someone else that you don't know that well? Really?

Classic arguement. If you remove the guns, people will use knives. While the Police still have Guns. Gun > Knife.

And everyone knows when a criminal breaks the law, they make a point to do it in the presence of the police, right?

Though the fact that people kill people still stands. That's a problem for the education system to fix, while they're teaching morality and ethics. But even with knives, you have a chance of survival. Kitty Genovese took over 30 minutes to get stabbed to death. Should have been enough for the police to arrive, were the onlookers not braindead.

How can you dare to act as though we should increase education after banning guns, when the clearly more logical solution would be to educate people on proper gun use and how to defend themselves sufficiently?

Ask yourself a question: In a situation where guns are legal and a higher population holds them in hand, how often do you think crime gets away? If a criminal walks into a bank and no one but him is holding a gun, who is holding all the power? But if he walks into a bank and pulls a gun to find that everyone else has one too, who do you think will win in a contest of arms?

Edited November 22, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Destiny Hero]

Banning guns only leads to harming the law-abiding citizens. Do you think those that don't give a shit about the law be incapable of getting ahold of weapons?

So, if guns are banned, people who don't have guns will be harmed? I don't think so. And if guns stop getting sold, people are going to have to try and smuggle them. Banning guns isn't going to harm anyone any more than if they were legal.

The people are the ones that use the guns for the wrong reason. It is the people that give the command to kill, not the gun. Guns are not intrinsically good or evil, it's the people that wield the weapon that decide its use.

What does the bullet do? It kills someone. What does a person do? They send the bullet. If a general tells someone to kill an enemy, who killed the enemy? The general or the soldeir? Obvious the soldeir, because the general didn't even go near the enemy. Now replace "general" with person and "soldeir" with bullet. Guns are not "evil" and don't think, but the gun is what kills, not the person. The person just gives the order.

And yes, banning guns does lead to crime with another form of weaponry. I'll look around for a few pages and post them in a few minutes.

Again, if you ban guns, every gun incident won't turn into a knife incident >_>

Plus, if the police have guns and most criminals don't, who wins? Take power away from the criminals and not the police, and violence goes down. And guns can do much more than knives can, so yes, violence will go down, especially since knives are already available.

And that's as far as I'm going because I'm tired, and this whole arguement is pointless since banning guns will stop lots of violence no matter how you look at it.

[Knife]

Lol... okay.

First of all, if you remove guns, it will not remove the violence: people will just move on to using knives. And if you were to remove the knives, they would then move on to clubbing each other. At the end of the day, it is not the weapons that kill people; people kill people.

Secondly, if you only get your information from the news, then of course you will get a bad image. The news always go rampant with big negative stories, negativity is the one of the highest priorities for national news. To put it in other words: the media will never report on anything that puts guns or knives in a good light.

I personally am not against guns, in the right hands they can actually protect people. However, I think it is stupid to let anyone have them, there needs to be strict rules and regulations.

Can knives be shot from a long distance easily? No. Is killing with a knife easier than killing with a gun? No. Do guns protect more people than they kill? No.

People should just use tasers if they really want protection.

[borkborkbork]

Banning guns only leads to harming the law-abiding citizens. Do you think those that don't give a shit about the law be incapable of getting ahold of weapons?

No, but banning them makes it harder to get a hold of, for criminials and normal pteople.

The people are the ones that use the guns for the wrong reason. It is the people that give the command to kill, not the gun. Guns are not intrinsically good or evil, it's the people that wield the weapon that decide its use.

The point is to remove guns from the nutcases, so that they can't use the gun as a killing tool. So how do you know who's a nutcase and who's not? You can't, so just remove all the guns. That said, you could argue then that removing all the guns affects the non-nutcases. However, the non-nutcases would have no need for a gun if the nutcases didn't have one either. Unless they become a nutcase themself See my point with the <<<<<< in it, which you forgot to address.

And yes, banning guns does lead to crime with another form of weaponry. I'll look around for a few pages and post them in a few minutes

See my note about Kitty Genovese's stabbing

Through illegal means, or from outside sources. Such as buying the pieces of the weaponry from another area and then assembling it later on.

From what area? You'd have to smuggle it in, which has a chance of getting caught and prematurely get labeled "nutcase" and thrown into jail. Only if guns were illegal though. By not making them illegal, you have missed out on the chance of catching them before they start shooting.

The police are not fucking ubiquitous, and often don't arrive at the scene until it's too late. By completely banning guns, you're leaving the people incapable of sufficiently defending themselves against people that plan on harming others.

Do you think that the amount of people that will harm others with a gun is higher than those that would defend themselves?

Stereotype alert. If an ambulance can reach a person having a heart attack quickly enough to save him, the police can reach most crimes before it's too late, provided someone witnesses the event and calls them. Which is the case for most crimes involving guns, other than random shootings by first time criminals, who wouldn't be able to get the gun in the first place if they wren't so readily available.

It seems logical to hand over all ability to protect yourself to someone else that you don't know that well? Really?

Yes it does. If you want to read the theory behind it, it's in Hobbes' Leviathan. Good read, though he's a tad long winded at times. In all seriousness though, the government should not be something we don't know. We ELECTED them.

And everyone knows when a criminal breaks the law, they make a point to do it in the presence of the police, right?

See 2 points above. Random killings aside, first you get out with your life, then you get the police to go recover anything else you lose. Which they usually manage to do.

How can you dare to act as though we should increase education after banning guns, when the clearly more logical solution would be to educate people on proper gun use and how to defend themselves sufficiently?

How can you be sure that the ones you train won't become the nutjob that goes on a random killing spree?

First you remove the means for a quick killing spree, then you teach them why killing sprees are bad. One physical, one psychological barrier. The ones that break both barriers are few - I wonder when the last time we had a shooting here was...

Ask yourself a question: In a situation where guns are legal and a higher population holds them in hand, how often do you think crime gets away? If a criminal walks into a bank and no one but him is holding a gun, who is holding all the power? But if he walks into a bank and pulls a gun to find that everyone else has one too, who do you think will win in a contest of arms?

How about this situation? Criminal walks into the bank, grabs a hostage, sticks their gun against their head and demands money and hands up. What are you going to do?

[Metal Rabbit]

I dream of a world without guns. Instead people should take up the way of the sword again.

*is being quite serious*

[AceNoctali]

I come from a country where there's not a culture of weapons (and currently live in one where's the same deal), so I find hard to understand how having guns make you free. In fact, if you say you're equipping yourself with a lethal weapon for your self-defense, for me, that means you're going for the kill from the get-go to defend yourself, and that's a murder through my eyes, even if it's a legal one. They may not be as effective, but non-lethal weapons exist to defend yourself if you want to.

Edited November 22, 2008 by AceNoctali

[TLSothe]

I'm not getting too involved in this for now, but taking a citizen's right to bear arms is ASKING for trouble. Firstly, if you take the right to have guns, the only people with guns are the criminals. It isn't like criminals are just going to say "Oh, we aren't allowed to use guns anymore. Shame" They'll find a way to get guns.

[Shuuda]

Can knives be shot from a long distance easily? No. Is killing with a knife easier than killing with a gun? No.

You can still kill someone with a knife, and in some cases using a knife can be easier than a gun. Here in Britain, knife crimes are in the news more than guns, so people clearly use them.

Oh, and by the way, you can throw a knife, so there is some range there.

[TLSothe]

You can still kill someone with a knife, and in some cases using a knife can be easier than a gun. Here in Britain, knife crimes are in the news more than guns, so people clearly use them.

Oh, and by the way, you can throw a knife, so there is some range there.

Exactly! However, it's not as easy to throw a knife. Not, like, arguing there, but it is a small bit harder...But, I do see your point.

[borkborkbork]

I'm not getting too involved in this for now, but taking a citizen's right to bear arms is ASKING for trouble. Firstly, if you take the right to have guns, the only people with guns are the criminals. It isn't like criminals are just going to say "Oh, we aren't allowed to use guns anymore. Shame" They'll find a way to get guns.

I think I went through this already. When you take the right to bear guns from the people, even the criminals find it harder. They will have to smuggle them, which is infinitely harder than what it is now in America.

On an different note, we have a line from the Life of Brian.

Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

Talking about rights always makes me think of that. You can have all rights you want, just get rid of the guns.

You can still kill someone with a knife, and in some cases using a knife can be easier than a gun. Here in Britain, knife crimes are in the news more than guns, so people clearly use them.

If guns are illegal in Britain like I think they are, that's why you hear about knives more often. Because the criminals have a hard time getting a gun, so they go for the knife.

[Raven]

I can see why some argue that it's the weapon that kills people. That is true. But, the weapon doesn't have a will of it's own. The one who used the weapon of their own will is the killer. A weapon becomes an extension of the person who wields it. And in the case of guns, the bullet is from the gun which is an extension of the person pulling the trigger. It all goes back to the foot of the chain: the person holding and using the weapon.

[TLSothe]

I think I went through this already. When you take the right to bear guns from the people, even the criminals find it harder. They will have to smuggle them, which is infinitely harder than what it is now in America.

People smuggle drugs, fuck, they can smuggle PEOPLE in, I fail to see why guns are an issue. Criminals will just get rich selling guns illegally, and attaining them in anyway possible.

[Leonri]

Imaginary situation time!

Situation 1: Guy walks into bank, holds up gun, demands money

Situation 2: Guy walks into bank, holds up gun, demands money. An ordinary citizen at the bank holds up his gun, and points at the robber.

Result for situation 1:

Criminal viewpoint: It worked! I have the money! There all lying down, afraid of my gun. I'll just back off slowly, and put the safety on the ol' gun. After all these guys ain't gonna do anything, and I don't wanna have a murder on my hands...

Public viewpoint: Luckily no one was killed at the incident. Three witnesses saw the event and the police have the license of the getaway vehicle. They are tracking the criminal right now....

Result of situation 2:

Criminal viewpoint : What's that guy doing? Is that.. a gun! Oh fuck, oh fuck, this wasn't the plan! Will he shoot me? Should I surender? What if it's too late? Gotta save myself......BANG!

Public viewpoint: A botched robbery occurred earlier today, resulting in two fatalities. Both the perpetrator and a nearby witness were shot dead, after the citizen pulled out his gun and a shootout occurred. The police are investigating right now. The incident has been highlighted by the anti-gun lobby.

More guns = more shootings. It's that simple.

[Destiny Hero]

A quick fact:

Cases of guns being used to kill someone in a shooting >>>>>>>>>>> Cases of guns being used lawfully in self defense.

Besides, if guns are banned, they're not going to turn into knives. Can a knife be shot out of a building window and kill someone? No. Can a person with a knife rob a bank? No. Can someone with a knife shoot it through a house or car window and kill someone inside? No. Can a knife travel so fast, that nobody can dodge it? No. Can a gun? Yes.

[Metal Rabbit]

Knives can be thrown. Just throwing that out there.

Besides, in my "perfect world" only law enforcement would have guns. Everyone else can own other weapons.

[Knife]

I come from a country where there's not a culture of weapons (and currently live in one where's the same deal), so I find hard to understand how having guns make you free. In fact, if you say you're equipping yourself with a lethal weapon for your self-defense, for me, that means you're going for the kill from the get-go to defend yourself, and that's a murder through my eyes, even if it's a legal one. They may not be as effective, but non-lethal weapons exist to defend yourself if you want to.

Exactly. In more peaceful countries, most people don't even have guns. Yet people don't seem to be killed as often.

And you guys seem to be forgetting that a decent law-abiding citizen can turn into a killer. Give the guy a gun and you're only making things easier for him. And seriously, how is having a gun going to protect against other people having a gun? This isn't Fire Emblem where you can counterattack after being shot. If the gun doesn't kill you, it will incapacitate you so much that you'll be unable to use guns. So the power goes to the first shot, regardless if the other person is using a gun or a knife.

[Destiny Hero]

Knives can be thrown. Just throwing that out there.

Besides, in my "perfect world" only law enforcement would have guns. Everyone else can own other weapons.

Yes, knives can be thrown. However, they won't go very far, and they'll be VERY innacurate. They'd also be as fast as snails, compared to bullets.

[Metal Rabbit]

And yet, unless you had ninja-like reflexes you probably couldn't dodge one fast enough. Assuming it was thrown by an experienced knife thrower.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Reborn

[Knife]

And yet, unless you had ninja-like reflexes you probably couldn't dodge one fast enough. Assuming it was thrown by an experienced knife thrower.

How many of those are there?

[Metal Rabbit]

If guns were banned and more people started using knives, then there would be more of them.