The U.S. Government Is Trying To Take Away Your Pocket Knives!

Page 3 of 8  


I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your number is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to condone lunatics who hatch murderous plans?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

So what do you propose to do about them?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We are paying the FBI to prevent terrorism, and we have monitors exmining websites. People who openly advertise that they are crazy (as von Brunn did on his website) should not be allowed to possess firearms. In addition, I am afraid that airport-type controls should be instituted at places like the Holocaust museum(s). The ubiquitous presence of firearms permits too many crazies to go around killing people. If you don't want to limit firearms possession, we'll all have to live in an armed defensive camp.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

They may be crazy, but they're not stupid. If you go around taking weapons away from people who act crazy in public, they'll simply stop being public about their business. You will, therefore, accomplish nothing.
Meanwhile, you've deprived someone who fears alien abduction, and its resultant anal probing, the ability to defend himself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe some elementary school education of thesae unwashed masses would help. You are now suggesting that the crazies are the result of the American educational system. Maybe that's true.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

It is unlawful for anyone who has been adjudicated mentally defective to possess a firearm. What are you proposing, that anyone who expresses an unpopular opinion on a Web side be adjudicated mentally defective?
Tell us how to draft such a statute so that one could not have _you_ declared mentally defective on the basis of your continued off-topic rantings on this newsgroup.

Or maybe we just train security guards to a high enough standard that some decrepit old codger won't get the drop on them.
Why are you singling out that one murder as being of such vast significance?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have a clear and obvious choice... move to Europe where they have removed the option to defend yourself.
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

He was a convicted felon, therefore just his possession of a firearm was illegal even before he shot that security guard. But as you might have noticed criminals don't worry much about breaking the law which is why passing more laws making guns more illegal has little if any effect on them.
You might also note that it was airport-type security that prevented this particular criminal from entering the museum, that's the reason the only person he shot was a security guard at the entrance.
As for the presence of firearms permitting crazies to go around killing people, you need to explain why a state like Vermont with extremely liberal firearms laws (e.g. you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon) is at the bottom of the list for violent crime in the U.S. Shouldn't all those armed folks in Vermont packing guns result in lots of criminal use of firearms? Hey, maybe there are factors other than the existence of firearms at work here, perhaps dealing with those other factors is worth a try rather than looking at disarming sane, sober, law-abiding citizens who aren't causing anyone any problems, hmmmmm?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well when your number is up, your number is up. Your number can be presented to you in any number of ways.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Of course. When your number is up, who better to make you gonzo?
;-)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see your wink, and I take it that you really don't condone von Brunn's actions any more than those of the 9/11 hijackers.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

I'm curious as to why you seem to be condoning the actions of the other several thousand murderers who commit their crimes every year and singling out this one guy who shot an armed security guard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do not condone any murderous acts by anyone, nor the complacencies that would/could allow any of them. Is that not clear yet?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This isn't really a response to the above, it simply adds dimension to the complexity of the issues at hand.
Another aspect of criminal/terrorist deterrent discussion that seldom seems to come up is the notion of "goal oriented attackers." If someone is bent on causing harm weapons substitution will get them around any legal restrictions on guns, knives, or explosives. As an example of how anything could be used as a weapon a recent episode of Time Warp had a guy using everything from ball point pens to scissors to screwdrivers and crowbars as "throwing" weapons. Jackie Chan's movies bring up even more examples... even if some are bizarre! Ban handguns and then more lethal long guns become more prevalent.
Add in common household chemicals, simply ignoring the restrictions on "real" weapons, and the theft of "real" weapons (even from police and military) and a goal oriented attacker can still carry out his deeds. Add in substance abuse, mental defect, and a zeal for control as motives and it becomes clear that it is impossible to stop all of it... especially the lone wolf types who keep their mouths shut.
It's a pretty interesting subject for which there are no "sound bite" answers.
Anyhow, back on the topic of the Customs proposals and things like utility knives and box knives suddenly become illegal... so substitute a fixed blade sheathed knife for work or crime and they've accomplished nothing. First responders often have need for one hand operation as well as those with disabilities. Thus they'd also be hurting "legitimate" users even if they think people don't need the functionality.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Grossbohlin wrote:

http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html
Trust me, we WILL see efforts at some time in the future to institute something similar in this country ... guaranteed!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.need2know.co.uk/law/crime_and_justice/article.html/id 24
See "Other Weapons" for the "Pointy Stick" clause. Yes, REALLY.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree completely, hence my refereences to common sense and its absence.
Nevertheless, it is a "pity" that someone could kill a security guard with a weapon that should not have been in his possession (considering his frame of mind). I doubt that anything Jacky Chan-like would have had that effect.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who, in your opinion, should be allowed to decide whether or not a legally available item should be in the possession of any particular individual?
As a further exercise, what legally available items should be in that decision tree?
--
Kiva - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/lender/david87375440
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I never said it would be easy to decide where the dividing line should be. To me it is common sense that should dictate it. Go see Gran Torino, and decide who should or should not have had weapons. To me it seems easy. I for one should not have dangerous stuff, because I'm a hot head. And because the only experience with "fire weapons" that I had was at a carnival when I was 16.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just watched Grand Torino about 1 hour ago. If the police did not have so many ridiculous protectionism laws to have to tip toe through to keep from violating a murderers rights perhaps they could work on the real problems more efficiently. Perhaps if we ere not becoming so defenseless there would not be so much crime. Trying to protect the public from itself results in more crime.
If you remember in the movie, Clint Eastwood was not killed until he was defenseless, when he carried a gun he was on more equal ground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.