On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 06:06:56 -0500, the inscrutable Prometheus
No, bubble wrap could cause suffocation death and tea could cause
drownings. They'll have none of that! I hope to Buddha that the USA
never becomes as PC as that. What a crock!
California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake
http://www.diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards
It sure seems like it's on it's way some days. I remember when I was
a little kid (not so long ago, really) we had rusty steel jungle gyms
set over asphalt at school, and liked to shoot one another with bb
guns on the weekends. Imagine the lawsuits that would ensue if any of
that was still going on today.
On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, the inscrutable "toller"
Unarmed victims like the Brits and Aussies? Now that's scary.
I hope charlieb reads some books like "The Coming Anarchy", Crichton's
"State of Fear", and anything by Gary Kleck, such as "Armed--New
Perspectives on Gun Control" for a bit of perspective. I used to be
anti-handgun until I did more research on it. Talk about a lot of
propaganda to cut through before finding the truth. Michael Crichton
blows away all sorts of other false truths in his book. It's quite a
ride, and though it's a work of fiction, it is LOADED with sources for
getting to the truth.
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
Same rule for the police? After all, with all their training they should
only need one shot shouldn't they? And I guess that they should quit
teaching police the double-tap?
And I presume from your comment about size that you favor legalizing open
Define "armor piercing bullet" in such a way that it does not subsume the
majority of bullets.
Well, some is heavily restricted:
Of the ammo that isn't restricted, which ones are you curious about?
Maybe I'm reading too much into your question, but are you
suggesting that if people can't prove that they need something, then
that's sufficent reason to ban it? I've got an awful lot of power
tools that I might not be able to prove a need for.
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
As if there was any real difference in practice. That's akin to saying
it's ok to let people have hammers, but we're going to have to ban nails.
That's nonsense. *People* kill people. The gun, or the bullet if you
prefer, is simply a tool, the implement by which the intent to kill is
made a reality.
Which obviously renders it useless.
Easy for you to say - but it's obvious you've never been in a situation
where you felt threatened enough to need to draw a gun. When the
adrenaline gets pumping, it's tough to aim carefully, especially when
there's very little time to do so.
Obviously making you an even easier target, encumbered by all that
hardware. No, one large-capacity semiautomatic handgun would be a much
more practical method of defending against multiple assailants.
a) criminals wearing body armor
b) invading foreign troops
c) our own government, should it prove a greater threat to liberty than
the hypothetical foreign invaders in b) above
and also in target practice, to prepare for any of the above cases.
Right. If guns (and bullets) are for killing, I must be using all of
mine wrong. Anyone have a cite on how many rounds of ammo are produced
in the US in a year, vs. the number of murders using a gun?
Well, that's not the biggest problem - it comes down to the fact that
the criminals are already doing something illegal, and will just add a
possession crime to the other things they're doing wrong. Criminals, by
definition, _ignore laws_. That's why/because they're criminals, y'see.
Not to mention the above problem about criminals and laws.
Well, OK, but that's not the only reason. Another reason is that you
can define "armor piercing" as pretty much any rifle bullet, and many
handgun bullets. Then, you just have to outlaw "expanding, flesh
ripping bullets", and you've got everything banned.
If a criminal wants to commit a crime, they won't be dissuaded from
doing so by the fact that they're using a bullet that is or isn't of any
particular variety. Last I checked, not a lot of them are into the
intricacies of ballistics.
Its not much different in the UK either, the russian mafia have been and
at the moment its the turn of yet another former eastern bloc lot to run
the brothels/drug trade etc etc, killing the previous lot along the way
if they have to.....
It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
knives, but never on the big ones.
If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
crimes of passion; why not?
It would also keep you from having some nasty accidents, and there are
very nice knifes without a point, e.g
On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:21:01 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
Yeah, neither one of *those* knives could do any damage to someone during
a "crime of passion". Seems that someone who is angry and seeking to do
mayhem would not be deterred by the lack of a sharp point. I can see it
now, person in rage, rummaging through kitchen drawer, "Where are those
points, dang it! Ah well, guess I'll just have to enroll in anger
management instead. Sorry honey, please forgive me." Far more likely they
will grab one of the above and use it in a slicing motion about various
important body parts of the victim. As the second item above indicated,
"... have blades with a straight cutting edge and a shape similar to early
*Japanese swords* (dating from the Nara period). ... and are truly razor
sharp." Nope, no chance of serious damage there.
I'm amazed that there are people who actually see this idea as a rational
response to violence. The fact that one person may not have used the point
in years of using chef's knives does not mean that no others do. In my
original posting, the link indicated that there were a number of English
chefs (recognizing of course the oxymoron in the preceding) who felt that
this was an essential tool being taken away from them.
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
In Japan the guy on the street cannot own a gun - murder is rare by guns to
say the least - knives and all other manner of other "impliments" are used
however - during the bubble in Japan a "agressive" realitor who could not
get some people to move so he could sell the property killed them and ground
them up with an industrial size meat grinder to get rid of the bodies -
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change. I think it is a far better course
of action for us to accept that, and learn to use caution and
treat dangerous things with respect, and, to find ways to build
impulse control in our citizens. That will go a lot further
towards truely making life safer for all of us.
Too...there is the problem that the last time I looked,
the criminal elements that would misuse tools as weapons are
not deterred by laws making it illegal. The danger of punishment
is simply looked upon as a cost of doing business, and, in some
cases, being caught and punished cranks up their reputations.
As for using the point or not...I, too, have been cooking
and baking for decades, and, while I might not use the point EVERY
time I pick up a knife, I have to say that I DO use it to start
cuts quite often. So...my solution, if this silly law were to
go through, and if I happened to NEED a new knife, would be to
go out to the shop, and put a nice point on it with my grinders,
Just remember that it is NOT doing anyone a favor to
wrap them in cotton wool to "protect" them from the difficulities
and dangers of life. At some point they will have to deal with
it, and, the older they are when that happens, the harder it will
be for them to adapt to the needs of the moment. Teaching folks
about the uses and dangers of a tool, and, its proper use is very
important. Also, of course, as mentioned earlier, teaching impulse
control from a very early age is vital, otherwise we will become
a herd of animals, randomly and instinctively striking out when
irritated...not dealing with other folks on a more rational
Regards from the voice crying in the wilderness.
Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
employed people, when all is said and done, right?
I'm just sayin... your argument sounds a lot like the people griping
about "shooting all that there money off into space", without
considering the direct and secondary benefits of space research.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.