Speaking of knives...
Has anyone else heard about this? Seems firearms may not be the only tool some entities seek to further restrict possession of.
Printable View
Speaking of knives...
Has anyone else heard about this? Seems firearms may not be the only tool some entities seek to further restrict possession of.
Just because customs restricts something doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the country will follow suit. It does set a certain precedent though, and there may be some reason to display concern~
However, on the actual issue, I feel as though if switchblades are illegal, AO might as well be too. I know there's a huge difference between the mechanical logistics of the two, but both have some sort of part in them that does most or all of the opening of the blade, and that's what made switchblades illegal in the first place. I have zero problem seeing AO knives losing their legal status. (Craftsmen/utility works can get by without AO knives, I know I never needed an assisted open knife working in the factory or on the job site)
My dispute to legislation like this being pushed is less in what they're intended for and more in the level of vagueness some seemingly possess. Are lawmakers incapable of being specific in their laws? Do they legitimately expect us to not realize how "interpretable" or "flexible" their laws are in court? Leaving leeway in the laws can't do anything to help us, as many law abiding citizens wish to follow the laws but have trouble deciphering the exact meaning of some.
This will give a new meaning to the word "unenforceable".
"[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
-Most highest, grandest, exalted, shiny and exalted Sheikh Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.
Customs also banned any laser over 5 mW.
I have a 30 mW and you can get them as strong as you want online. You just have to know where to look.
And the whole switchblade thing is stupid IMO. The point of a switch blade is to be able to deploy the blade fast ans easy. So they ban it. What about fixed blades? THEY ARE ALREADY "DEPLOYED"
Yet another example of weapons legislation being driven by ignorant perception rather than fact. Switchblades have been perceived as being associated with gang violence and criminality, largely due to media imagery depicting them in this way and the popular image of the leather-jacketed switchblade-wielding thug, so they get regulated more heavily than other knives, without any consideration of whether they are actually more dangerous than other types of knives. It's the exact same thing that drives AWBs and similar gun legislation. People and lawmakers, with no realistic understanding of these issues, form opinions--and laws--based on what looks scary when they see it on the tee-vee. Lawmakers are not going to pass sensible laws about things that they don't understand and can't think about rationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous D
Does it really come as a surprise to you that publicly perceived issues are being patched up by publicly appointed politicians? Whether or not you feel (or know) a switchblade is any more dangerous than a boxcutter, or an automatic firearm is any more lethal than a pellet gun, that knowledge has zero impact on the vast majority of the public's impression. That impression is what therefore dictates some or most of the laws, and allows a pseudo sense of security to be achieved. Everybody knows this, and if somebody didn't, they're probably an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
The whole "the public doesn't know shit and politicians are dumb" thing is pretty obnoxious to read simply due to the weird patronizing tones that usually go with it~
Of course it doesn't come as a surprise to me; what part of my post could possibly make you think I was surprised by this, or didn't already know it, or expected my knowledge to be reflected in the views of the general public? I was expounding on Anonymous D's point about switchblade laws, which is just about the exact opposite of expressing surprise at it. No, I am not surprised that an ignorant general public elects ignorant politicians who pass stupid laws, and of course I realize that the views of knowledgeable people don't have any impact on the views of the general public. Why would you think that because I express annoyance at this fact, I must be surprised by it or ignorant of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
Well, when it comes to firearms (and knives), it's definitely true; the general public, and the politicians representing them, don't know shit. I don't really care whether you find it obnoxious to read. If you don't want to read posts in which gun/knife owners express exasperation at the cluelessness of the politicians passing gun/knife laws, then you shouldn't be hanging out in the gun/knife forum and going into gun/knife threads. And I wouldn't call my attitude here "patronizing"; patronization implies that I'm being indulgent. "Contemptuous" is probably a better word. I have contempt for politicians who make a point of pushing laws on issues of which they're ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
I was going to respond, but halfway through the reply I realized arguing with you about something in the gun/knife forum is like throwing kerosene at a wildfire. Every opinion I express is met with a hundred more semi-related ones.
Anyway, while you're not a particularly malicious person, you're definitely ignorant in a few very annoying ways imo. I'd be lying if I said you weren't very well educated on the issues you bring up, however I feel as though there's a degree of obnoxious patronization (yes, I know you don't feel as though you're displaying it--but you do) in everything you say which sets off my douche bag radar.
People always seem to think that gun owners are ignorant when they call politicians stupid when it comes to guns. It is in fact true (for the most part), Gun owners are the most knowledgeable people there are about guns. Id beleive someone who owned something in question before Id beleive someone who didnt.
Like I said, I have no reason to believe he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to guns, but to claim such spite towards an elected civil servant following the demands of the (uneducated) majority screams ignorance in every sense of the word and runs parallel to the "fuck the police" motto you hear spewed from hoods all day.
What would you even argue with me about? You didn't bring up some kind of counter-point or disagree with anything I said; you just asked me whether politicians passing laws based on ignorance "comes as a surprise to me", when obviously it didn't, and obviously I was just agreeing with Anonymous D on the silliness of switchblade laws. In response your accusations, I might reply that arguing with you about this is pointless, because you don't make actual arguments, you just try to poke holes in what other people have said, by deliberate misinterpretation if necessary. So far all you have done is tried to pretend that my comments about switchblade laws betray some ignorance of how laws get made, when of course I understand perfectly well how laws get made, and was only saying that it's regrettable when the process leads to stupid laws.
I'm genuinely interested in talking about this issue, if you feel you have something to say. If you feel that my previous post contained "semi-related" points, please identify them and I'll try to clarify anything that seemed less than pertinent. Also, if you feel that I'm ignorant of something, please explain what you mean. When you say I'm "definitely ignorant in a few very annoying ways", do you mean that there is actually something that I lack knowledge of (if so, please enlighten me), or are you just saying that I have some mannerisms that you find annoying?
I really want you to clarify what you mean by "ignorance" here. I think you are misusing the word "ignorance". What facts am I missing out on here? What exactly are you trying to say that I'm ignorant of? And if you think that my position here is in anyway comparable to some "fuck the police" nonsense, then you are severely misunderstanding me.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
EDIT: If I had to guess, I'd guess that you are trying to say that I'm ignorant of how democracy works because I'm complaining about politicians enacting laws in response to public feeling, and that I should accept that our system is based on politicians acting in accord with public opinion. That would be a misunderstanding of my position, but I'll wait for you to clarify before I go on.
I'm glad you realize what I'm talking about now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
The following quotes not only lead me to believe I've not misunderstood your position, but also reinforce the fact that I feel you're lacking enough education or knowledge (the definition of ignorant) that you place blame on politicians. I realize you've grouped the "people" and the "lawmakers" together in a few of these quotes, but my observation still stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
If you can't find the parallels between your statements and the misplaced hate for law enforcement I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure anything I say would be able to change your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Alright, let me try to clarify. Firstly, no, your observation does not "still stand", insofar as you are incorrect when you assume that I place the blame squarely on lawmakers; in fact, I do place it on both the general public and the lawmakers who represent them. In three of the four quotes you give, I clearly talked about lawmakers and the public together (although your selective quoting obscures it in the first quote), so I don't think it's intellectually honest of you to dismiss that fact out-of-hand and persist in your conclusion that I'm talking mainly about lawmakers and only occasionally mentioning the public they represent. I'm perfectly well aware that public opinion is the largest driving force behind legislation in our country, and if you try to pretend that I "lack the education or knowledge" to realize that, you are simply being disingenuous, or else misreading my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
Secondly, although public opinion certainly plays the largest single role, I think that you may lack the knowledge to appreciate how much of a role is also played by lobbying groups and special interests, not just pure public opinion, in driving new legislation. Let's take a perfect example from the world of gun-control legislation; the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which was a 2007 attempt to revive some of the prohibitions of the original federal AWB (1994-2004). This bill was introduced, sponsored, and pushed for by congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. It would have reinstated the AWB's prohibition on the sale of firearms with barrel shrouds, among many other things. When pressed to explain what exactly a "barrel shroud" was, congresswoman McCarthy had to admit she had no idea, and then wrongly guessed at it's function: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo.
Now, where exactly do you think she got the idea to introduce legislation banning barrel shrouds, and a host of other firearm features that she probably doesn't understand either? I'm betting it wasn't from her constituents, the portion of the general public whom she was elected to represent; I'm betting that as she goes around her district and knocks on doors and goes to town hall meetings and talks to her constituents, she doesn't hear a lot of voters telling her, "Congresswoman McCarthy, what this community needs from you is a ban on barrel shrouds! Go back to DC and carry out the will of the voters by banning barrel shrouds!" I'm betting that in New York's 4th congressional district, barrel shrouds are not a highly important issue in the eyes of the public. Yet this woman decided that one of her top legislative priorities was going to be pushing this bill. She personally championed it; it was her 'thing'. Why? Because she was willing to work with the Brady Center and the CSGV and Stop Handgun Violence, and to introduce and sponsor this bill for them, without ever bothering to familiarize herself with the actual meaning or ramifications of it's content, in exchange for campaign support. They handed her a list of things to ban (actually just a stricter rehash of the '94 AWB), and without even really knowing what she was being asked to ban, she went out there and tried to make it happen.
THAT is the kind of politician that I'm saying that I have contempt for; THAT is why you can't lay all the blame at the feet of public ignorance and say that the actual legislators are just civil servants doing their job and democratically responding to public opinion. The fact that there are politicians who will so fervently push for something without even really understanding what it is they're pushing for, without even bothering to make the minimal effort to do a little background research and find out what their own legislation would do, is disgusting to me. They aren't just faithfully representing the views of their constituents, they are advancing the causes of special interest groups even if that means passing laws that they themselves do not understand. It disturbs me that we are represented by politicians who are willing to ban and restrict and regulate and prohibit things that they can't even define. That's a brand of ignorance that goes beyond simple reflection of public ignorance; it all politicians did was reflect public ignorance, we wouldn't see things like bans on barrel shrouds, because public ignorance of guns in no way creates pressure for lawmakers to pass that sort of legislation. And Carolyn McCarthy isn't the only one, this type of behavior is commonplace when it comes to firearms laws.
And of course it doesn't just apply to firearms laws, and it doesn't just come from Democrats. The problem is much broader than that. On numerous issues, there are politicians on both sides who are willing to fervently push for legislative agendas that they don't really understand and that their constituents may not really care about that strongly. Agricultural subsidies, both sides of the pharma regulation issue, various environmental and scientific issues, and many other issues are subject to this kind of thing; I'm only talking about it specifically in the context of gun control because that's what this forum is for. At any rate, I feel that lawmakers have a responsibility to make at least some effort to understand the issues they are passing laws on (they should abstain from voting on a bill if they really don't understand it's content), and if it's an issue that they are going to personally champion and introduce the bills on, then they should really know the issue quite well. I feel that it's part of the job, and I have contempt towards lawmakers who abrogate that responsibility, as many do when it comes to gun laws (and knife laws, to a lesser extent). I'm not anti-lobbying or anti-interest group either, I'm fine with that stuff in principle. I just don't like to see politicians push for laws that they obviously don't understand. So that's what I'm talking about when I shit-talk politicians in particular and not just the general public who elected them, because as I said: The ignorance of the general public obviously plays a huge role in driving stupid legislation, but it is not the only factor at work. Sorry if I wasn't entirely clear before in my criticisms of politicians.
This post has turned into a bit of a text-wall, but I genuinely hope you'll read it all, and that it will clarify what I meant a bit. Hopefully it will at least make it clear that there is really no parallel between my views and this "fuck tha police" business. I also hope that you, too, find it at least a little disturbing that we have politicians who can be told "ban these things and we'll support your campaign" and will actually try to do it without even bothering to find out what they're being asked to ban. You may not care about barrel shrouds in particular, but it's not like these politicians have some strict personal conviction that legislating from ignorance is only okay for gun laws, and not for any other type of laws.
This thread makes me want to stab myself but I can't because knives are illegal here.
I don't like how you pieced that reply together and I don't much like how you admitted you may have been unclear in your original criticisms of politicians after five giant paragraphs. The ENTIRE purpose of my original replies were in that you were misplacing blame.
You can't blame the politician for doing what the public or the Lobbyist groups tell them to, because as you've stated it yourself, they're being funded & supported by them. They exist politically solely because of them. That's basically the point I've been illustrating from the start--the politicians are puppets for the public, and to blame the public and what influences the lobbyists/public instead of the politicians. While I agree it's somewhat ridiculous to push for something you know little to nothing about, that doesn't change the fact that they're in the public eye ONLY to represent another entity or group.
I don't feel disturbed that we have politicians who act as puppets, as this has been going on since the conception of government. It's scummy, granted, but it's reality and is a large part of how government works if not on such an obvious scale as the example you posted. If anything, you and me both should place our concern into the public's interest.Quote:
This post has turned into a bit of a text-wall, but I genuinely hope you'll read it all, and that it will clarify what I meant a bit. Hopefully it will at least make it clear that there is really no parallel between my views and this "fuck tha police" business. I also hope that you, too, find it at least a little disturbing that we have politicians who can be told "ban these things and we'll support your campaign" and will actually try to do it without even bothering to find out what they're being asked to ban. You may not care about barrel shrouds in particular, but it's not like these politicians have some strict personal conviction that legislating from ignorance is only okay for gun laws, and not for any other type of laws.
I will concede that after your elaboration, you don't share the same "f da p" mentality as mentioned earlier.
I'm not sure what you mean by "how I pieced it together", but no, I am not admitting that I may have been unclear initially. If you look at the very first part of those five giant paragraphs, you will find that I pointed out that I had already been clear about blaming the public as well as the politicians, even in the statements you quoted to illustrate that I was allegedly overlooking the public's share of the blame. I said I hoped that my long post would clarify my meaning because you seemed to have misunderstood my meaning, not because I thought my meaning was unclear before that post.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
I can't blame the politician for doing what the public tells them to do, but what the lobbyist tells them to do is another matter. As I said, I'm not anti-lobby, but there are degrees of receptiveness to lobby pressure, and I feel that at a certain point it's possible for a politician to cross a line in that spectrum and behave in an unprincipled fashion. To me, a politician who introduces and strongly advocates legislation that he himself does not understand has crossed that line. The fact that they hold their office in order to represent their constituents does not make that kind of behavior any less unprincipled or reprehensible. A politician cannot excuse outrageously unprincipled behavior by saying "Hey I'm just here to represent my constituents", especially when the behavior in question is obviously not driven by the demands of their constituents. Again, I feel that elected lawmakers do have a few responsibilities beyond just voting in accord with the views of their constituents, and one of those responsibilities is the responsibility to understand the issues they are voting on, especially the issues that they themselves are personally pushing. I think that failure to do so is a failure to behave in a principled fashion, and I find it reprehensible. If you think that they have no such responsibilities and that this behavior is therefore not reprehensible, then that's your own business; you are, of course, free to have whatever opinions you like about the responsibilities of lawmakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
Well, you call it "scummy" and I call it "disturbing"--these terms actually aren't too far apart, I think. Again, I'm not saying it surprises me, or that I'm shocked that it goes on. I agree that it's definitely been going on for as long as humans have been organizing governments. But that doesn't mean we have to like it, and it doesn't mean that no-one should point out especially egregious examples of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
I don't condone a politician acting on any other behalf other than the people who elected and supported them including lobbyists. I do condone (with slight disdain) a politician being a feeble puppet beneath them, even if they're forced to give the "hey look faggot i'm just here to represent my people" line. The constituents are being represented by the politician, much like the relationship between a client and a defense attorney. I know I wouldn't vote for anybody who either gave me the impression they wouldn't do as they said during the campaign, or wouldn't do things that aligned with my views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Your ideals and opinions are your own, however, and as long as you don't truly believe that an average politician is supposed to be some magical personality with outstanding morals and a vision for a better America, I have no problem supporting your view.
I guess you can look at a firetruck and announce that it's red, if you're really bored. You can't expect everybody to want to hear about it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Of course not... I'd say that most politicians, even the above-average ones, are essentially opportunistic people. All systems of political organization are based around the activities that keep the leadership in power, which in our system means winning elections; actually doing good things for the body politic comes second.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
This is a good point.. but at the same time, if you're really bored, then you can come into gun forums and announce how pointless it is for the posters in that forum to gripe about anti-gun politicians. You can't expect any of them to care that you think it's pointless, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
Well, if you noticed, I had replied legitimately to FM. That gave me the reason to check back on the thread, which gave me the reason to start trouble in the first place. However, if you're REALLY MEGA FUCKING BORED you can try to spin a sarcastic analogy around back at the person who proposed it in the first place.
:)
If you're even MORE bored, you can try to insinuate that the person turning around the analogy is the bored one.
I think we're done here.
And yeah, on the subject of actually replying to fm, I agree with what you said at the beginning; just because Customs defines auto-openers as switchblades doesn't mean that they will be treated as such in any other context, because CBP's definition of a "switchblade" is set internally, not by statute. I don't think switchblade owners have anything to worry about.
Hello, Americans. It's time for another installment of 'Europeans are fascists, and you guys have it good!'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8101032.stm
Just waiting for this knife to be required by law for kitchen applications.
I am pro-knife as my food often needs to be made smaller before I am able to digest it.
jesus christ that looks absurd
Yes, I'm sure the UK will enjoy success in it's attempts to make pointed objects unavailable to civilians. That sounds entirely possible and practical.
I saw that stab proof knife on another forum. That is fucking ridiculous.
I'm going to lobby Benchmade to make an automatic anti-stab knife. That way I don't have to keep the safety on.
It's a systematic emasculation of our ability to defend ourselves. If I walk around with a knife on the streets of east London, I'm just as liable for prosecution as somebody who actually intended to use it. Currently, I have to rely on my fists and my wits vs a knife/gun, and am utterly at the mercy of the police turning up right on time while I'm being mugged or assaulted.
I'd like to know what thought process our dear legislators went through to reach the conclusion that disarming law-abiding citizens in areas of high crime would actually work. They seem to forget that violent criminals are hardly going to be put off by a law which says they can't carry a sharp implement. The only ones who will be are the ones who want to legitimately protect themselves.
Bastards.
Anyway, rant over.
I'm doubtful as to how many people would really be able to effectively defend themselves even if they were allowed to carry knives; as I said in the other knife threads, self-defense with a knife is a pretty bad idea unless you are thoroughly trained. The right to carry a gun, not a knife, is really the key to effective self-defense. But, I feel for you. British weapons laws are the stupidest shit ever.
From this thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by fm2176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
Please note the glass dildo in the upper right hand corner.
i hope to god you are joking
Ironic that in the same post, he proclaims death to a certain group of people based on their drug usage.
I don't think it's a stretch to assume he meant the people who live the "crack addict" lifestyle, not the fact that they use crack. Huge difference.
Either way, sycld that's a bowl and if you weren't joking you've successfully flabbergasted me.
Yeah I know, I just find it vaguely amusing that he posted a pic of his crackhead-killing weapon with his own drug paraphernalia in the background (not to say that smoking pot is comparable to being a crackhead, of course).
oh i get it
i thought you were just being obtuse
Sycld is the resident homosexual. Its not beyond him to turn everything into a phallic reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
I'm sure he knew what it really is.
i'm kidding.
still, you can't tell me that isn't one phallic-looking bowl there.
I whole-heartedly agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
I think knife play is hot.
i guess it does have penis traits
however that's honestly one of the most commonly used bowls around where i live (and he used to live) so i guess i take it for granted now
Course a knife isn't a brilliant defensive tool, but my point is that it's up to the person to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
And yeah it's wank. But you know, I'm in a minority. When I try to argue otherwise, everyone points to America and says "well we don't want to be like that do we?"
shrug
"Be like that"? You mean have one-quarter the violent crime rate? Fuck me but Brits are dumb. If you ever want to move to the US, I will help set you up with mad guns and all. Not kidding, come on over. Jesus, fuck Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
It's a bit late to comment on this serious, on-topic post, but yes I agree that self-defense with a knife requires actually learning at a minimum what is tantamount to basic martial arts skills in order to use them effectively for self-defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
However, is it not also correct to say that using a gun for self-defense requires a good deal of training as well?
Yes, definitely; anyone who carries a gun for self-defense, and hasn't taken the necessary training, is being reckless and irresponsible. However, using a gun for self-defense does require less training than using a knife. A knife requires a particularly large amount of training to use effectively, because the nature of knives forces you get within arm's reach of your target and start what is essentially equivalent to a fist-fight, but with a deadly weapon thrown into the mix. It is, as you said, tantamount to a martial-arts type of activity. If you aren't absolutely able to control the knife in a hand-to-hand struggle, it's very easy for it to be taken away from you. A gun's ability to be used at range, and the extremely simple and easy way in which it can inflict a deadly wound, makes it a much less risky proposition. But yes, you should still make a point of getting the necessary training if you are going to carry ANY lethal weapon for self-defense. There is no lethal weapon that can be responsibly used without training.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
Yes that is true. And I dont know anyone who has a gun for self defense who does not shoot it. As for peop,e with knifes. I dont know anyone who uses one for self defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
o.OQuote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Citation?
With pleasure. Here is the Home Office's British Crime Report for 2005-2006: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html. Follow the link for Chapters 7-8, then go to page 12 of Chapter 7 and look at Table 7A; you will see that England and Wales had a violent crime rate of 23 incidents per 1000 people, or 2300 per 100,000 people, in the 2005-2006 reporting year (which runs September to September, IIRC).Quote:
Originally Posted by crunker
Now, here is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Data for the last couple decades: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html. Go down to the bottom and look at the line for 2005. You will see than in 2005, at the same time the Brits were having 2300 violent crimes per 100,000 people, the US violent crime rate was only 469.2 per 100,000 people.
469 is about one-fifth of 2300. According to the official statistics provided by the US and British governments, Britain has roughly five times as much violent crime as the US. Bring this up next time someone tries to pretend that British gun control makes their country safer than ours.
Now compare our murders with yours.
Most people that get killed in the US are big-time criminals anyway (not traffic offenders!), so it's not the epidemic that a cursory glance at statistics would suggest.
@Syme: thank you, I will, with pleasure.
Well I'd definitely like statistics for that.
It is true that the US murder rate is substantially higher than the UK's murder rate. It is also true that a disproportionately large number of US murder victims had prior criminal records or were engaged in crime, though I'm not sure that's enough to entirely justify crunker's claim. The same is probably true in Britain, or anywhere else for that matter. People who are involved with dangerous people or situations are, unsurprisingly, in greater danger of being hurt or killed.
To me, though, the overriding point is that the UK is a vastly more dangerous and violent and unsafe society than the US, despite their draconian efforts at gun control. I feel that it's dishonest to try and skirt that fact by choosing a single class of violent crime (even murder) to focus on while marginalizing the others, especially when murders make up such a tiny fraction of the overall violent crime rate. It's not like rape, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. are trifling little crimes that don't matter as long the murder rate is down. I'm certainly not saying that British gun control causes the level of violence that exists in the UK, but the UK's case does clearly demonstrate that violent crime is largely decoupled from gun availability, and that the promise of "less guns, less crime" is a bogus one. Whether or not a society has lots of guns will have very little bearing on whether or not it has lots of violent crime. It works the other way, too: Some European countries, such as Switzerland and Finland, have very high rates of gun ownership, but still manage to have very little violent crime. So the idea that high gun ownership rates correlate with high violent crime rates is bogus as well.
i think the murder rate is a bit more relevant than you're giving it credit for tbh. the point you're trying to make with guns =/='ing level of violence i agree with though.
is correct, although with all of those offenses the victim usually walks away with a scar or two. in my opinion they don't even compare to murder, which is why i think it's such an important particular statQuote:
It's not like rape, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. are trifling little crimes that don't matter as long the murder rate is down.
I believe it's also true to say that the overarching ban brought in in 1997/8 has done little to affect anything except gun ownership.
I'm certainly not trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, but the fact remains that murders account for only a tiny fraction of all violent crime (about 1% in the US, even less in the UK), so the murder rate really has very little to do with how violent or dangerous a society is in the overall sense. It seems to me that Brits often try to focus in on their lower murder rate in order to dodge around the fact that their society is, overall, vastly more violent and dangerous than that of the US.
...True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
I still feel that sometimes we need to put a little perspective on things. It's not like most people that get killed in the US are little old ladies or four year olds or decent people at all.
woah woah woah. I just saw this thread and thus the insult to my bowl. The bowl in no way resembles a phallus and the fact that any paraphernalia was even included in that picture was just because my table was messy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
I know you said you aren't trying to compare crack to pot syme, but like faesce said I use crackhead mainly to describe certain people(who may or may not be addicted to crack). I was describing the grimy people who do shit like threaten you when you don't give them change or a cigarette.
I carry a knife because its a great tool. I cant tell you the number of times Ive had to cut or poke a hole in something, and having a sharp, good quality knife (I carry a Gerber) really helps. However, I wouldnt use a knife in self defense unless it was a last resort, or I had an advantage in the situation.
If you have the advantage, would it really be self defense?Quote:
Originally Posted by amac211
self defense implies that you're defending yourself from an attacker. it doesn't denote any advantage or disadvantage in itself.
No, thats just called having an advantage. You can defend yourself from an attacker who has a knife with a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by piranhas
Doesnt seem very sporting.
Cause its not lol. Its self defense, not sporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by piranhas
This isnt the old days where you duel it out with pistols after 20 paces. lmao
It wasn't very sporting for your attacker to pull a knife on (what he thought was) an unarmed person in the first place, so he gets what he deserves. Poor sportsmanship is met with poor sportsmanship.
yeah first thing i'd think about if my life was in danger was whether or not my next actions were sporting
Right after I finished going determining the morality of my actions using the principle of utility.Quote:
Originally Posted by faesce
uh-huh. it's both sporting a bulbous testicle-like protrusion at one end as well as a flaring, conical termination at the other that is the head of the penis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
popular bowl
not a penis
only 5 year olds and nermy see penises in every day objects
That is the standard shape for a bowl, how else would you like it to be made? There are some bowls that do look like a penis and this is not one of them. It's also color changing and awesome. Maesce you go to primal?Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld