You and a friend are hanging out and the "friend" bad intentions but you have no clue.They have a icepick and put it through your skull,they know an icepick isnt intended as a weapon,it is meant to break up ice.But breaking up ice for a nice cold drink isnt their intentions when they scramble your brains with it.Would you feel better that it wasnt a bullet that killed you?Just because what took your life wasnt intended as a dangerous weapon?What i am saying is anything can be used as a dangerous weapon if the intent is there.See what i am saying?Just because you take guns away you do not take away dangerous intentions that can still be carried out.
I'm familiar with that line of reasoning, it is evasive and faulty just by the fact that "a dangerous weapon" is an oxymoron to me.
It just doesn't make sense and sense is what I'm trying to see here.
If a weapon isn't 'dangerous' does that make it a weapon? Does it mean it can't be used to kill ?
Shouldn't the focus here be on the criminal with intentions to kill ? If so, shouldn't the point here be making it as difficult as possible for criminals who intends to kill ?
To kill with bare hands is possible too ... you know that as well if not more so than many others here.
what utopia isn't imaginary >?
what is imaginary that isn't real >?
~edit : double post detour
Edited by third_eye, 10 April 2013 - 04:41 PM.