Debate should people be allowed to keep weapons at home?

May be they should, but I think only for self-defense. If its only for showing, and bragging... Let's just say not for that.

 

To tell you the truth, I think guns should have never been created. swords and arrows work just as well. I keep a short sword beneath my pillow incase someone tries to come through my window.

 

If you follow that logic, grenades shouldn't have been created either. Nor nukes, or any of the other lethal weapons used in modern times. Swords and arrows just don't cut it anymore.

Yeah, it would've been nice to keep severe weaponry absent from society, but if not guns, something similar would have been invented eventually. It's a fact of life that humans have a thirst for increasing their technology, and along with the good comes the bad. We certainly weren't just going to sit around with our high-tech computers and still be fiddling about with swords and arrows.

The point is, guns WERE invented, and the question is whether or not people should be allowed to house them. It would be nice just to gather up all the guns in the world and dispose of them, but it's wishful thinking, and there's almost no possible way it could be done.

And BECAUSE guns were invented, the older weapons are rendered pretty much useless. They're still handy in case you find yourself in a tight pinch, but unless you're extraordinarily skilled, do you really think a little sword will fare well against a fully loaded gun?

 

unfortunetly, in terms of gun warefare, you would have to have stopped the making of gunpowder in the ancient China. and therefore also stopping the invention of other things like, fireworks and the such. anyway, because there are guns, the only way to counter the weapon is to have one yourself. its an unavoidable concequence of the weapon. because of its range it can be used to kill at a distance, whereas a sword has to be within 3-4 feet. so, unfortunetly, if you were to encounter such a situation where an intruder has a gun, your only form of true retaliation would be with another gun. and as proven throughout history, guns and children mix like oil and water. the reason i bring this up is because there a lot of children in the United States and many of them live in families with guns. Accidents will happen, and unfortunetly, those types of accidents are much more serious than others. its a tragic side effect of having a weapon that can kill with such accuracy and range.

Interestingly enough, atleast, here in Connecticut, if someone comes through your window you cannot attack them unless your life is in danger, aka they have a gun to your head or a knife to your throat. Sad, that if a robber comes into your house and you attack them to protect your home, they could very easily turn around and sue for millions in damage. its happened many times here.

 

Weapons in your home are sort of required now days.Everyone's paranoid.

I mean......you gotta have something to protect yourself when the mexicans break into your house.

Haha.Just kidding.

 

I think weapons at home can be avery good idea. I know we have 2 rifles and a .45 at home, makes me feel safer i guess.

But also I think in order to own a gun you should be tested, and take classes- and have to have so many hours, kind of like a drivers liscense.

 

Knowing you have two rifles and a .45 makes me feel even less safer. >P

The problem is even with that some dangerous people could probably get a hold of guns, y'know? I mean, people like Ted Bundy and such seemed just like normal people, perfect gentlemen, so on and so forth. They were exacting, patient and genius. A few tests and classes wouldn't stop them if they wanted a gun. Not to mention it's certainly possible that someone perfectly normal could have owned a gun and all of a sudden just lost it.

Not to mention that still doesn't prevent children by pure and utter luck (bad luck, of course) getting a hold of it. Unless you deny gun ownership to anyone with children or such.

 

I don't see how you could prevent weapons in the home. It's basic human nature to want to protect (or kill). You could outlaw things as much as you like, It wouldn't make a difference. I don't agree with weapons, but as everything could be a weapon, it's pointless to ban them, or whatever. As to the people who take security in the fact that they or their parents have guns, to me, that seems a bit self-deluding. If your parents lock up their guns (which they should), the chances of them getting to them during an emergency are slim. If they, say, sleep with them under their pillows, why do you feel secure?

 

my flatmate owns a katana and he keeps it at home. he practices his kendo moves with it and cuts flying objects in half, like i'll throw an apple and he will cut it in half. i dont mind as long as he doesnt bring a gun home. guns just look criminal.

 

theres something about keeping swords that because they're somewhat primitive, that they give sort of a feeling of safety as if they arent truly weapons but heirlooms of a by-gone era...but its quite the opposite...im a practictioner of kenjutsu and iaijutsu and ive seen a nihontou cut through a 7 inch piece of bamboo with a single stroke with very very little damage to the blade. Now, you have to remember that the sword, any sword, whether it be a nihontou or a Persian Shamshir or a Civil War saber, they were all made for the same purpose: To Cut..Flesh. Now, if a Nihontou can cut a hard piece of bamboo, imagine, if you will, what it could do to a body.

There is a record of a nihontou made by a first generation masatoshi swordsmith. his name is obscured because he learned under the imfamous swordsmith Muramasa*. Now, this sword was called "The White Cloud" due to its temper marks above the Hamon** that looked like clouds. it was made sometime between 1504 and 1520. it was tested on request by the Seishi family and the test was done by Hirata Juemon on December 18th, 1659. it was tested like many swords were by making cuts on convicted criminals***. two bodies were tied down on a mound of sand to protect the sword. The test cut went through both bodies and ten inches into the sand (the blade is inscribed with these words: Otosu Ryo Do Nyu Do Dan Hachi Sun, which means "dropped into both bodies and went into the sand by 8 sun(10 inches)").

so...whether it be 2 years old or 200 years old...it still carries an inheirent violence and sense of danger with it. And eitherway, it should be rememberd that it is a weapon and is main function is to cut human flesh.

* Muramasa was a famous Koto Era swordsmith that studied under the even more famous Masamune. Masamune's blades are considered the be the best swords ever created both in technical aspects as well as spiritual aspects. Muramasa on the other hand is known only for his technical prowess. His swords are considered to be among the sharpest blade ever created. Because of this legendary edge, many legends have rose about the evilness of the blades. It is said that "once a Muramasa blade leaves its scabbard it will not return until first seeing blood." Tokugawa Ieyasu was so scared of the blades he forbade his samurai to wear them. he had family members that died under Muramasa blades and he himself had almost cut his hand off with one. The ban on Muramasa swords came sometime after 1603 when Tokugawa Iyeasu assumed power and would last for three hundred years. therefore many swords of the Muramasa School have been lost.

** the Hamon is the temperline

***At this time swords were tested on requests by families or perhaps even the Shogun. they were tested on criminals and would start by making cuts on smaller bones and work their way up to the largest bones. usually the ones who tested the swords were the executioners of the particular han or province.

 

i beleive that it should bve a persons choice to put a leathal weapon in their as long as they know the consequences it may bring..but they mustknow that it is a dangerous weapon and it is not to be taken lightly....

 

well you can take everything dangerous away, and choke the life out of teh country.(those willing to use them illegally can get them illegally anyway, whereas those who want them for defense wouldnt be able to.)
or you can give everyone a weapon, and have more shootings. or slashings.
:bleed:

 

sounds scarry. but still i percieve guns much more dangerous than a sword. sword is something u can keep on display for your friends to admire, but a gun is something u should hide as its so dangerous. u can kill someone accidentally with a gun.

 

The thing with a sword is that you really need intent to use it to it's full killing potential. As I believe myself and other have mentioned, a six-year-old can't take a sword to school with them and take out half of their class with it.

So... I don't disapprove of ALL weapons in the home. It's just guns that make me uneasy. As stated by others, basically anything can be a weapon - you can gouge someone with a friggin' pencil. However, that pencil cannot travel all the way across a room and pierce someone's heart, lung, or spinal cord with the accidental pulling of a trigger. This is why guns are far more dangerous to have in the home than other weapons, and why I think that ultimately, they're more likely to cause harm than prevent it.

 

Guess I should do an in-and-out here, haven't discussed this in ages, heehee.

Ah, but you have cut yourself with a knife accidentally before, and you stopped before it hurted, because you felt it, obviously. Now, a sword is a lot longer than a knife, and probably a lot sharper (if this is a respectable sword we're talking about), and you won't be able to stop it until they yell really loud, because you aren't feeling the pain. A six-year-old CAN take a sword to school and take out half of their class with it just as he can with a gun. What, is blocking with an arm going to help given the right sword? I mean, accidentally, you wouldn't kill anyone, but based on your example, it's sorta hard to 'accidentally' kill half of your class with a gun, too. Not to mention you need to reload to actually do that.

You can make a pencil travel all the way across a room and pierce vital organs with a pulling of a trigger, given that the pencil's thin enough to be used as ammunition. Of course, I doubt you'd have a rifle to do that, so I digress. However, swords and other sharp things are just as easy to injure someone with as guns are. Guns just require less effort to do so, and more or less, its shape and smaller size provokes more danger - a kid's going to look into the barrel of a gun a lot more often than he's going to poke a sword tip into his eye.

 

swords and other edged weapons are quite dangerous. an accidental slip can result in as little as a little cut to losing a finger. so...i think that its not that one is more dangerous than the other, just dangerous in different situations. and honestly, someone who isnt trained with a sword can be even more dangerous than one who.