View Full Version : If it's not one thing, it's another...
Crazed Rabbit
05-27-2005, 17:06
Well, it seems that now some people in Britain want to ban knives!
Clickity-click! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm)
To me, this is just silly. Are they going to go around consficating knives? Or do they expect the 'yobs' to go to their local police station and turn in the knives? Especially since knife carrying by most individuals seems to be illegal. If they can't enforce that law, how can they enforce this?
And after they ban the long kitchen knives, and somehow get them away from all the crooks in Britain, the crooks will just start using something else, which will be next on the ban list, until nearly every object in the country is required to be covered in soft foam, and people will need licenses to purchase real wrenches.
And yet, for some reason, in America, with all of our long, deadly, unregistered, unlicensed kitchen knives, we don't have this problem.
Crazed Rabbit
Devastatin Dave
05-27-2005, 17:09
The UK is becoming quite the socialist paradise. Nothing like the big Nanny Government controling every little aspect of you life.
Duke Malcolm
05-27-2005, 17:21
The justice minister up here is trying to get the Home Office to get airguns banned, as well...
Adrian II
05-27-2005, 17:23
What's gonna be banned next, illegal wars?
Big King Sanctaphrax
05-27-2005, 17:31
Knives like that are already illegal in public places unless you can prove you need them-if you're a chef, for example. So I fail to see why a specific law banning their sale is needed, unless they're worried about people using them in their houses. They also have a clear utility.
This won't get off the ground anyway-last time I checked, A&E doctors didn't dictate government policy.
PanzerJaeger
05-27-2005, 17:54
Seems as though the NRA was right.
You take away guns and something will fill their place - criminals will be criminals and the only people who suffer are sportshooters and now apparently chefs. ~;)
Goofball
05-27-2005, 17:55
Seems pretty dumb to me.
What's next? Pointy sticks?
Duke Malcolm
05-27-2005, 18:08
If the police think that the thing can be used as a weapon, then they can charge you with carrying an offensive weapon, if it is in a publice place, so pointy sticks are already off the menu...
Crazed Rabbit
05-27-2005, 18:37
As I understand it, an 'offensive weapon' could be something designed to harm another person (like a sword) or something that the person using it intends to harm another person with. So a nobel peace prize could be called an offensive weapon!
Crazed Rabbit
Big King Sanctaphrax
05-27-2005, 18:39
As I understand it, an 'offensive weapon' could be something designed to harm another person (like a sword) or something that the person using it intends to harm another person with. So a nobel peace prize could be called an offensive weapon!
Crazed Rabbit
Yes. I think they'd actually have to catch you in the act of bashing someone's head in with it to make that particular charge stick though.
Kanamori
05-27-2005, 18:50
Here, you can walk around with a sword or shotgun if you want to.
Though I don't think this will necessarily solve the problem, I think the sentiment is right.
As for those who state 'banning guns and you get another weapon to replace it'. Look at the crime / death / injuries tables for our knife problem then do the same for your guns. If you still think out knife problem is the same as your gun problem you must be looking at the wrong tables.
It's because British people like being protected from their own stupidity. If it was practical to cover the entire country in padding, someone would have suggested it. Someone probably has anyway.
Devastatin Dave
05-27-2005, 23:17
It's because British people like being protected from their own stupidity. If it was practical to cover the entire country in padding, someone would have suggested it. Someone probably has anyway.
**watches JAG nail pillows to the local courthouse after he finished burning down a church** ~;)
Crazed Rabbit
05-28-2005, 01:26
Though I don't think this will necessarily solve the problem, I think the sentiment is right.
As for those who state 'banning guns and you get another weapon to replace it'. Look at the crime / death / injuries tables for our knife problem then do the same for your guns. If you still think out knife problem is the same as your gun problem you must be looking at the wrong tables.
Our 'gun problem'? I wasn't aware of any such thing.
The very fact that someone has proposed this means that another weapon will always replace the one in hand for a determined criminal-or even a bunch of yobs. Was there such a knife problem before guns were banned? And what do you think will happen if, somehow, the cops get all the sharp pointy kitchen knives out of those people's hands who are unfit to use them? They'll just use a different knife or weapon. Soon enough, they'll ban cricket bats and metal wrenches.
But this course of legislation is fundamentally misguided. It renders the law-abiding citizen defenseless to the packs of scum that roam the cities. Then, seeing as the criminals are still (Surprise!) acting criminally and using weapons, they ban more and more items which -surprise again!- the criminals ignore. And you end up with a knife problem created by gov't policies.
Oh, and could you answer the questions I posed in the first post, such as:
Especially since knife carrying by most individuals seems to be illegal. If they can't enforce that law, how can they enforce this?
Crazed Rabbit
CR, I am not sure you understand my country very well or in fact what I stated in my post.
They're not trying to ban knives as a whole, just the apparently needlessly long and sharp ones. It makes sense to a certain degree; swords, axes and things have special regulations and aren't allowed to be sharp if you keep them. Cane swords were recently legalised in Canada, but shuriken are still expressly banned.
What would be the proper solution, then, if banning unnecessarily long knives isn't?
Next- corks on the end of forks. ~;)
Though I don't think this will necessarily solve the problem, I think the sentiment is right.
As for those who state 'banning guns and you get another weapon to replace it'. Look at the crime / death / injuries tables for our knife problem then do the same for your guns. If you still think out knife problem is the same as your gun problem you must be looking at the wrong tables. Still you think crime in the UK is so much less? Crime rates in the US have been falling for what? a decade now? Which way are they going in the UK? Maybe you're looking at the wrong tables.
Despite the gun-grabbing policies in the UK firearm crimes continue to rise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm).
sharrukin
05-28-2005, 06:19
They should also ban knives and shiv's in prison so that things don't become.... :dizzy2: Oh yeah, they already did.
bmolsson
05-28-2005, 08:27
It's far more easy to shoot somebody than to stabb him or her.......
It's far more easy to shoot somebody than to stabb him or her.......
Have you ever shot or stabbed anyone?
bmolsson
05-28-2005, 08:46
Have you ever shot or stabbed anyone?
No. But I have been shot and stabbed (different occasions)......
doc_bean
05-28-2005, 13:15
Certain types of knives are already illegal here. Having a baseball bat in your car is also illegal. (maybe not if you can prove you're actually going to play baseball).
Kaiser of Arabia
05-28-2005, 16:25
at home i try to keep some sort of melee weapon near me at all times (yes a chair does count) in case we're robbed by people with knives at bats. Banning knives will just lead to them having to ban things like chairs (which my brother, who's 8 years old, has demonstrated can be used as a weapon), monitors (also can be used as a weapon; hey it hurt my hand once ok), plyers (long island frankfurter...), ice picks (Trotsky style!), plastic bags, baseball bats, cricket bats for you non-Americans, television, dogs, cats, fish, albatross, puffed rice, cds, piano, toilet paper, etc. Damn, sounds like the USSR on crack!
Byzantine Prince
05-28-2005, 17:53
I want to get a small washikazi in my bag in case someone wants to jump me in college. Taking that piece of metal out would scare god himself. And if they try any rough stuff I'll act accordingly, sending them to the hospital promto.
cds
I've seen that in a movie(Oldboy), where this guy breaks a CD in half and stabs this fat guy in neck like 8 times. It was my favorite scene int he whole movie.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-28-2005, 23:31
Here, you can walk around with a sword or shotgun if you want to.
A friend of mine saw a guy carrying a loaded crossbow down main street, across from village hall. God I love Canada. ~:)
Kaiser of Arabia
05-29-2005, 00:53
A friend of mine saw a guy carrying a loaded crossbow down main street, across from village hall. God I love Canada. ~:)
In the city of York in England it is legal to kill a scotsman as long as you do it after 6pm and with a crossbow.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-29-2005, 00:57
I thought it was a longbow, and not on Sundays. And in Chester you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight.
DemonArchangel
05-29-2005, 01:02
long island frankfurter?
And I love Emerika, I love guns, I will bust a cap into any conservative's ass if he/she/it tries impose "morals" on me. I will also shoot intruders, robbers, burglars, and my neighbor's annoying dogs.
Hell, i carry at least a knife or a roll of coins on me at all times.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-29-2005, 01:05
What are you gonna do with a roll of coins? Pay someone to jump off a bridge?
Kaiser of Arabia
05-29-2005, 01:08
a roll of coins is good as a cheap brass-knuckles alternative. hold it in your fist it increases momentum in the swing therefore increasing the effictivness of the punch.
DA: Do you really want to know what a long-island frankfurter is? I can't post it, if you want I'll PM it to you.
PanzerJaeger
05-29-2005, 22:53
Yet again Xiahou comes into an argument - states the truth - and certain people ignore it. ~D
Still you think crime in the UK is so much less? Crime rates in the US have been falling for what? a decade now? Which way are they going in the UK? Maybe you're looking at the wrong tables.
Our crime = lower than yours.
Our ban on guns = been in place a long time.
Our growth in certain crime (which is minimal) = nothing to do with the ban on guns.
In fact; our total level of violent crime = falling.
What has he proved?
PanzerJaeger
05-29-2005, 23:49
He proved exactly what he said, you can read it yourself. ~;)
Crazed Rabbit
05-31-2005, 01:56
Our growth in certain crime (which is minimal) = nothing to do with the ban on guns.
A gun ban has nothing to do with a rise in gun related crimes ? If that doesn't, then, pray tell, what does?
And kudos for avoiding answering any of my questions.
Crazed Rabbit
Papewaio
05-31-2005, 02:31
Gun Crime & Firearms Controls (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/)
In some areas, gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress.
Most worrying is the rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms, either to boost their image, or from a misguided idea about self-protection. Some of this is linked to gang activity, which itself is linked to the illegal drug trade.
Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:
a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms
Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it.
Papewaio
05-31-2005, 02:39
Map & Graph: Mortality: Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge (per capita) (Top 50 Countries)
View this stat: Totals Show map full screen
Country Description
Definition: Total for all ages and sexes. Database compiled January 2004. Total of figures for:
Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge
Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge, home
Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge, residential inst Per capita figures expressed per 1000000 population.
Amount
1. Panama 1.35 deaths per 1 million people
2. Slovenia 1.03 deaths per 1 million people
3. Venezuela 1.01 deaths per 1 million people
4. Georgia 1.01 deaths per 1 million people
5. Slovakia 0.92 deaths per 1 million people
6. Estonia 0.70 deaths per 1 million people
7. Kyrgyzstan 0.61 deaths per 1 million people
8. Lithuania 0.55 deaths per 1 million people
9. Dominican Republic 0.45 deaths per 1 million people
10. United States 0.45 deaths per 1 million people
28. Israel 0.16 deaths per 1 million people
41. Canada 0.03 deaths per 1 million people
Big King Sanctaphrax
05-31-2005, 02:40
A gun ban has nothing to do with a rise in gun related crimes ?
It doesn't neccessarily have to have something to do with it. You never know, if guns hadn't been banned gun crime might have risen far more than it actually has...although I doubt that, as the handgun ban had little/no effect on the average citizen.
Papewaio
05-31-2005, 02:40
Map & Graph: Mortality: Assault by handgun discharge (per capita) (Top 50 Countries)
View this stat: Totals Show map full screen
Country Description
Definition: Total for all ages and sexes. Database compiled January 2004. Total of figures for:
Assault by handgun discharge
Assault by handgun discharge, home
Assault by handgun discharge, residential institution
Assault by handgun discharge, sch Per capita figures expressed per 1000000 population.
Amount
1. Dominican Republic 16.63 deaths per 1 million people
2. Colombia 12.43 deaths per 1 million people
3. Belize 11.25 deaths per 1 million people
4. Brazil 9.35 deaths per 1 million people
5. Luxembourg 6.60 deaths per 1 million people
6. Estonia 4.96 deaths per 1 million people
7. Venezuela 4.09 deaths per 1 million people
8. United States 3.67 deaths per 1 million people
9. Panama 3.03 deaths per 1 million people
10. Georgia 2.83 deaths per 1 million people
25. Norway 0.43 deaths per 1 million people
46. South Africa 0.02 deaths per 1 million people
Proletariat
05-31-2005, 04:18
http://www.basicsciencesupplies.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/370498_WEB.jpg
These are next.
Gun control at least will mean that people won't make their own... but banning pointy metal things? Gee Mr. Professor! It's so hard to make sharp pointy stabbing instruments! Somewhere a village is missing its idiot.
Papewaio
05-31-2005, 04:45
[IMG]
Gun control at least will mean that people won't make their own... but banning pointy metal things? Gee Mr. Professor! It's so hard to make sharp pointy stabbing instruments! Somewhere a village is missing its idiot.
When looking at methods of mass murder I defer to Nazi Germany.
So I think we had better ban pesticides and ovens and...
How many mass killings in schools in the US have you seen by scissor weilding kids lately?
Howabout samurai sword weilding ninjas wiping out a dozen of their class mates in a hate driven rage?
NiKA Student "Oh my gawd it is the Star Wars kid beating the creationist teacher over the head with a pole. Oh Gawd he just rapid fired his collection of authentic episode 1 scissor shurkens into the astrology teachers class and wiped out all the pig gut reading students."
Or is the solution to give all children firearms?
A gun ban has nothing to do with a rise in gun related crimes ? If that doesn't, then, pray tell, what does?
And kudos for avoiding answering any of my questions.
Crazed Rabbit
Pape answered your question here brilliantly with the quotation of our GOVERNMENT report.
In some areas, gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress.
Most worrying is the rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms, either to boost their image, or from a misguided idea about self-protection. Some of this is linked to gang activity, which itself is linked to the illegal drug trade.
Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:
a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms
Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it.
NOTHING about the banning of guns, which have been banned for a long time. All the rise in gun activity - which as shown in the quote is also minimal and falling - is down to our growth in gang activity and the 'hoody' nation we are starting to have. The fact that guns are banned probably keeps gun activity down far more than if they were legal. You have no idea about thew situation here but try and extrapolate your bogus arguments from the US to here, it is simply bollocks. ~:)
Crazed Rabbit
05-31-2005, 06:36
Pape answered your question here brilliantly with the quotation of our GOVERNMENT report.
Any country with more guns is going to have more gun deaths. The real issue is total violent crime.
we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years
Even though, according to you, guns have been banned for a long time. And for the stats saying falling gun crimes-see the above answer.
And the arguments certainly aren't bogus in the US, where violent crime had been dropping for decades (despite millions more guns over that time). Except, of course, in cities that have banned guns where murders have risen. Like Washington D.C., where murders rose 73% since they banned guns, while it dropped nationwide.
The fact that guns are banned probably keeps gun activity down far more than if they were legal.
Yes, I'm sure the criminals are always careful to follow the law. :rolleyes:
All the rise in gun activity - which as shown in the quote is also minimal and falling - is down to our growth in gang activity and the 'hoody' nation we are starting to have.
Is it not telling that all this gang activity is growing, along with the 'hoody' nation, after banning guns? When you deprive citizens of an effective defense, you embolden criminals. You get punks who harass people because they know there's nothing the people can do to defend themselves. And soon enough, the gov't resorts to setting up cameras all over and passing Orweillian sounding laws like the 'Anti-Social Behavior Act'.
Can't you see? There was no knife problem a couple decades ago, but now there is because of the gov't banning guns and stopping citizens from defending themselves. Yet you continue to delude yourself into thinking that crime is being reduced, due to your dogmatic view that all guns are evil. And relentlessly the criminals become bolder and bolder.
And just to help you out, since I like you so much, here are the questions you haven't addressed yet;
1)Was there such a knife problem before guns were banned?
2)And what do you think will happen if, somehow, the cops get all the sharp pointy kitchen knives out of those people's hands who are unfit to use them? That crooks won't use something different but sigh and give up crime?
3)Especially since knife carrying by most individuals seems to be illegal. If they can't enforce that law, how can they enforce this?
~:)
Crazed Rabbit
bmolsson
05-31-2005, 10:53
You can always use the utopia arguments. If they start with banning knifes soon they will ban a pair of scissors as well. Or if they allow guns, soon people will have a grenade launcher on the lawn.
We need to see the more practical angle on things instead. In some areas it might be practical for the society to allow guns, since people have solved their domestic disputes that way for centuries. Other areas sit down, discuss and compromise instead, hence no need to carry a one meter circles pizza cutter as a final argument.
I can't personally see any reason for a civilian to carry a gun in any situation. The police and army personel as well as hunters and some other jobs do need it, and they have the proper education to handle it. Same thing with driving a bus or perscribing medicine. Some people need to do that in their day job, others don't and are not able to do so.
Of course there will always be criminals with guns, illegal drugs and joyriding buses, but they are to be dealt with in a practical manner. It can never be an excuse that the law enforcement doesn't work, if so you need to get it working. Plain and simple......
bmolsson
05-31-2005, 10:56
Can't you see? There was no knife problem a couple decades ago, but now there is because of the gov't banning guns and stopping citizens from defending themselves. Yet you continue to delude yourself into thinking that crime is being reduced, due to your dogmatic view that all guns are evil. And relentlessly the criminals become bolder and bolder.
If I am handicapped and not able to use a gun, how am I going to protect my self from these criminals you are describing ??
GodsPetMonkey
05-31-2005, 11:24
If I am handicapped and not able to use a gun, how am I going to protect my self from these criminals you are describing ??
You have to run him down with your motorised wheelchair!
Same thing happens when ever Stephen Hawking spots a creationist...
:furious3: :charge:
~D
doc_bean
05-31-2005, 11:32
If I am handicapped and not able to use a gun, how am I going to protect my self from these criminals you are describing ??
Built in rocket launcher in your wheelchair if you need one. Vicious attack dog if you're blind.
English assassin
05-31-2005, 13:04
But back on topic....
The reasoning is, apparently, that people use kitchen knives in domestic fights and long pointy ones do more damage.
There are a few problems with this. The first is Proletariat's scissors. I spent yesterday tidying the garage and found shears, a machete, three hammers, a brace of chisels, various screwdrivers and a really enormous adjustable spanner, plus assorted saws to cut the body up. I never realised I was so heavily "armed", I should be locked up... Funnily enough about the only WMD I don't have is a long thin kitchen knife.
Second, although I don't buy into the "guns don't kill people" argument, surely the problem here is not a long pointly knife, it's domestic violence and the people who particpate in it. Could we please try to do something about the scrotes instead of hassling ordinary people for once? You would save more lives by telling women "If he hits you, leave, it will never get better" and giving them places to go than you ever will banning long pointy knives.
bmolsson
06-01-2005, 02:30
There are a few problems with this. The first is Proletariat's scissors. I spent yesterday tidying the garage and found shears, a machete, three hammers, a brace of chisels, various screwdrivers and a really enormous adjustable spanner, plus assorted saws to cut the body up. I never realised I was so heavily "armed", I should be locked up... Funnily enough about the only WMD I don't have is a long thin kitchen knife.
As long as you have it in your garage, there wouldn't be any problems. In case you bring your shears, a machete, three hammers, a brace of chisels, various screwdrivers and a really enormous adjustable spanner, plus assorted saws to cut the body up, when you go to the local bar and disco, then I would say you should be locked up. It's all about common sense. The one who really NEEDS a gun would of course have one. I can't see any reason what so ever for a normal civilian to carry a .44 concealed on his or her way to work.
Papewaio
06-01-2005, 02:36
Guns are more efficient at killing people then knives yes/no?
Malcolm Big Head
06-01-2005, 13:54
I have been inspired and am throwing away all of my long pointy knives. I hope the trash man is careful when picking up the bag. :duel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Ser Clegane
06-01-2005, 14:09
Merged Malcolm's new thread with this one.
Franconicus
06-01-2005, 14:27
[QUOTE=Kaiser of Arabia]a roll of coins is good as a cheap brass-knuckles alternative. hold it in your fist it increases momentum in the swing therefore increasing the effictivness of the punch.
QUOTE]
Note: You have to use a hard currency - Euros, for example ~D
PanzerJaeger
06-01-2005, 14:41
Guns are more efficient at killing people then knives yes/no?
No, its easier for an unskilled person to kill another with a knife than a gun, imo. This comes from my experience at the range.. its not as easy as hollywood makes it out to be to shoot accurately with a pistol.
Franconicus
06-01-2005, 14:45
No, its easier for an unskilled person to kill another with a knife than a gun, imo. This comes from my experience at the range.. its not as easy as hollywood makes it out to be to shoot accurately with a pistol.
Did you ever try to kill a man with a knife? I'd rather do that with an UZI. (Well in fact, I'd rather didn't do it at all)
Ser Clegane
06-01-2005, 14:49
No, its easier for an unskilled person to kill another with a knife than a gun, imo. This comes from my experience at the range.. its not as easy as hollywood makes it out to be to shoot accurately with a pistol.
I guess from a distance were shooting accurately would become a problem, killing with a knife might also be rather difficult...
Byzantine Prince
06-01-2005, 15:01
-
Killing with a knife is way harder because it's not like you can practice before hands. It's a messy and butal to do and the very thought of it makes me cringe. Guns on the other hand seem to kill people much more cleanly(e.g. shot to the head).
Killing with a gun is even easier for the people that are avid with video games like counter-strike and ghost recon that basically make you an expert if you are good at them. I'm not saying it's the same as real life but it sure prepares you in the head and get's you in the mindset that shooting someone is not that bad.
-
A.Saturnus
06-01-2005, 15:10
Any country with more guns is going to have more gun deaths. The real issue is total violent crime.
But the violent gun related crime in the UK hasn't risen (as Pape's link showed), it has declined. And it is by far lower than in the US. I'm not arguing the violent crime rate in the US is due to guns, but nothing indicates that gun control poses a problem in the UK.
Concerning the total number of gun crimes, it seems logical that the country with strict gun laws has more gun crime. There's more to do illegally.
LittleGrizzly
06-01-2005, 16:08
No, its easier for an unskilled person to kill another with a knife than a gun, imo. This comes from my experience at the range.. its not as easy as hollywood makes it out to be to shoot accurately with a pistol.
i would disagree, in very close combat a knife would have the edge, but anything further than a meter and the gun is much more preferable.
But the violent gun related crime in the UK hasn't risen (as Pape's link showed), it has declined. And it is by far lower than in the US. I'm not arguing the violent crime rate in the US is due to guns, but nothing indicates that gun control poses a problem in the UK.
He was speaking of the total violent crime- not total violent gun crime.
Anyhow, I'm not going to try to argue that the UK repeal their gun ban- because I really could care less what they do inside their own country. ~;)
My point was to show that a gun ban in the UK did not "solve" your crime problem, in fact it continues to grow. In the US, violent crime has been trending downwards in the face of ever increasing gun ownership. I think this points out nicely the absurdity of the argument that if the US would simply ban firearm ownership our violent crime would go away. That's nonsense, and their is no evidence to even suggest that.
I would trade the US gun problem (and yes I think we have one) with the UK’s knife problem in a heart beat. Knives are far less lethal. Guns are easy to employ and deadly. You don't need to be a marksman to be deadly. Very few people have accidently cut themselves to death or inadvertently mortally stabbed a friend.
The UK is fortunate that hoods resort to blades instead of guns. That said, outlawing knives is silly. Virtually anything can become a weapon but most things have plenty of practical uses that make the people possessing them more productive and effective. Tremendous and frequent utility is a fair compromise for small danger. Guns on the other hand offer tremendous and frequent danger in return for small utility.
Firearms have no practical day in and day out usefulness for the ordinary citizen that can begin to compensate society for the misery they cause. This is why the whole “If you outlaw handguns why not outlaw knives or cars” argument is absurd.
Have any of you ever killed another human being or even an animal with any weapon?
Some of the comments on this thread would indicate that you have not - nor do you have any idea how easy and difficult it is at the same time.
A sharp knife cuts very well and kills just as efficiently as a gun. Comments saying knives are not efficient or easy to kill with - are naive at best - and disengous at worst. Men killed each other for over a 2000 years with sharp pointed sticks and then knives. The hardest part about killing is to decide that - it is necessary or something that needs to be done. This is what a person with a moral conciense (SP) is going to think before doing such an act - and he will most often freeze in making that decision.
WHat most of you are forgetting is that the criminal that decides to kill another human being has already made that moral choice - and the weapon that he/she uses is just that - the weapon they decide to use.
There is a statistic out there that shows just how efficient home defense is with a weapon - most times all it takes is the noise of the weapon being cocked and the homeowner stating he has a weapon for the bugler to leave. If the person intends you harm in the first place - its a different story.
Kanamori
06-01-2005, 19:27
"Firearms have no practical day in and day out usefulness for the ordinary citizen that can begin to compensate society for the misery they cause"
In Wisconsin, deer hunting is quite necessary, and we have about 700,000 registered deer hunters. Our herd is somewhere around 1.8 million, and there were more than 20,000 deer-vehicle (smaller than usual) accidents last year, of which, more than 800 led to injury (many were incapacitating). Our violent crime rate was 7.1% in 2003
Tribesman
06-01-2005, 22:18
In the US, violent crime has been trending downwards in the face of ever increasing gun ownership. I think this points out nicely the absurdity of the argument
Don't you think that the downward trend has more to do with Zero tolerance policies and things like the 3 Strikes sentancing rather than increased gun ownership . More criminals off the street leads to less crime .
Knife killing (http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/6/1/world/11103486&sec=world)
Ahhh the poor little girl couldn't find mummys gun so had to use a kitchen knife instead .
In the US, violent crime has been trending downwards in the face of ever increasing gun ownership. I think this points out nicely the absurdity of the argument
Don't you think that the downward trend has more to do with Zero tolerance policies and things like the 3 Strikes sentancing rather than increased gun ownership . More criminals off the street leads to less crime .I never said it was a direct result of gun ownership. I'm just saying that it discredits the gun grabber argument that less guns equals less crime. There are countries with gun bans and growing crime, while we have more and more guns and falling crime. Clearly that argument doesn't hold water.
Ahhh the poor little girl couldn't find mummys gun so had to use a kitchen knife instead .Says something about the lethality of knives if a 9year old can kill with one. Sad stuff.
PanzerJaeger
06-01-2005, 23:13
Don't you think that the downward trend has more to do with Zero tolerance policies and things like the 3 Strikes sentancing rather than increased gun ownership . More criminals off the street leads to less crime .
The same inconsistencies can be found in the "less guns, less gun crimes" argument. I would argue that taking away all the law abiding citizen's guns didnt have much to do with the low crime rate in Britain just as allowing all law abiding citizens to have guns hasnt done much one way or the other to affect crime rates here in the states.
The only difference is that those of us with without criminal records get to enjoy a little extra freedom and a fun hobby that most British dont. ~;)
A.Saturnus
06-01-2005, 23:15
My point was to show that a gun ban in the UK did not "solve" your crime problem, in fact it continues to grow. In the US, violent crime has been trending downwards in the face of ever increasing gun ownership. I think this points out nicely the absurdity of the argument that if the US would simply ban firearm ownership our violent crime would go away. That's nonsense, and their is no evidence to even suggest that.
Actually, I haven't seen enough evidence for any position in this debate. I don't advocate a gun ban. I merely want to point that the rising crime rate in the UK and the declining crime rate in the US aren't proof that guns reduce crime. There are a lot of factors that could explain that, for example regression to the mean.
Tribesman
06-01-2005, 23:21
I never said it was a direct result of gun ownership
The truth is it has nothing to do with levels of gun ownership , violent crime levels depend on the number of violent criminals on the street . Having a gun tucked in your belt isn't going to stop a mugger stabbing you in the back . Even if they tackle you face on they will drop you before you have a chance to use your gun . Unless you want to walk around with it in your hand at all times just waiting for someone to try it on , which will probably result in you slipping on a dog turd and shooting a passer by .
Papewaio
06-01-2005, 23:24
Have any of you ever killed another human being or even an animal with any weapon?
Some of the comments on this thread would indicate that you have not - nor do you have any idea how easy and difficult it is at the same time.
A sharp knife cuts very well and kills just as efficiently as a gun. Comments saying knives are not efficient or easy to kill with - are naive at best - and disengous at worst. Men killed each other for over a 2000 years with sharp pointed sticks and then knives. The hardest part about killing is to decide that - it is necessary or something that needs to be done. This is what a person with a moral conciense (SP) is going to think before doing such an act - and he will most often freeze in making that decision.
WHat most of you are forgetting is that the criminal that decides to kill another human being has already made that moral choice - and the weapon that he/she uses is just that - the weapon they decide to use.
There is a statistic out there that shows just how efficient home defense is with a weapon - most times all it takes is the noise of the weapon being cocked and the homeowner stating he has a weapon for the bugler to leave. If the person intends you harm in the first place - its a different story.
Farm boy here. I can remember watching at age four sheep being culled by having their throats slit. For some reason we didn't try that method on the bulls... a gun was used.
Also when I lived in NZ it was illegal to shoot sheep. Why? Because it is rather easier to kill them from a distant and then take them away then try and get close and kill them.
I have also seen guys kill wild boar with a knife.
Knives are deadly. They used to kill (or chop off penises) in crimes of passion quite often.
However it is one of the most bogus claims to state that a knife is as deadly as a rifle. Why bother to use rifles if the k-bar is going to do the job?
Do the military in Iraq patrol with guns or pikes?
Ironside
06-01-2005, 23:32
Have any of you ever killed another human being or even an animal with any weapon?
Some of the comments on this thread would indicate that you have not - nor do you have any idea how easy and difficult it is at the same time.
A sharp knife cuts very well and kills just as efficiently as a gun. Comments saying knives are not efficient or easy to kill with - are naive at best - and disengous at worst. Men killed each other for over a 2000 years with sharp pointed sticks and then knives. The hardest part about killing is to decide that - it is necessary or something that needs to be done. This is what a person with a moral conciense (SP) is going to think before doing such an act - and he will most often freeze in making that decision.
Well this is aimed for all that has been using this type of argument.
Why is the military using firearms and have been using it for 400 years instead of knives (as a primary weapon that is, so don't come running with marines getting knife-training today)? :mellow:
Nuff said.
Crazed Rabbit
06-01-2005, 23:44
Having a gun tucked in your belt isn't going to stop a mugger stabbing you in the back . Even if they tackle you face on they will drop you before you have a chance to use your gun .
Have you ever had any experience with this? I highly doubt it. Perhaps you should tell this woman (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=35848) that guns aren't usefull for defending one's self. Or any of the thousands of Americans who use a gun each day to defend themselves.
Crazed Rabbit
Tribesman
06-02-2005, 00:19
Perhaps you should tell this woman
Yeah right Rabbit .She shot at an unarmed attacker in her home while he was distracted , so the relevance to the points I made are ????? None whatsoever .
I never said it was a direct result of gun ownership
The truth is it has nothing to do with levels of gun ownership , violent crime levels depend on the number of violent criminals on the street . Having a gun tucked in your belt isn't going to stop a mugger stabbing you in the back . Even if they tackle you face on they will drop you before you have a chance to use your gun . Unless you want to walk around with it in your hand at all times just waiting for someone to try it on , which will probably result in you slipping on a dog turd and shooting a passer by .
Sure, if you carry a gun and someone (you dont know who), on a crowded street wants to put a knife in your back- there probably isnt much to be done about it. Most thugs on the street don't operate like hired assassins though, nor would I expect most violent crime to take place in broad daylight on a busy corner.
A statistic I'd like to see if someone can find it, is what the US per capita crime rates would be if you removed areas that have the strictest regulations on gun control... NYC, New Jersey, Maryland, D.C., Chicago, California, ect.
Crazed Rabbit
06-02-2005, 00:55
Yeah right Rabbit .She shot at an unarmed attacker in her home while he was distracted , so the relevance to the points I made are ????? None whatsoever .
You think it'd be harder to shoot at someone 10 feet away than to get a hidden gun out while being violently assualted?
The relevence of the points you made to actually reality? None whatsoever.
Crazed Rabbit
Knives are deadly. They used to kill (or chop off penises) in crimes of passion quite often.
My point exactly - knives are indeed deadly - when one's desire is to harm another.
However it is one of the most bogus claims to state that a knife is as deadly as a rifle. Why bother to use rifles if the k-bar is going to do the job?
Do the military in Iraq patrol with guns or pikes?
Well this is aimed for all that has been using this type of argument.
Why is the military using firearms and have been using it for 400 years instead of knives (as a primary weapon that is, so don't come running with marines getting knife-training today)?
Nuff said.
Now did I say that a firearm was not efficient or less efficient then a knife. Did I mention the military, or was I refering only to civilian application of weapon in criminal activity as per the discussion of this thread?
The answer is really quite simple and military use or efficiency of weapons is not what is being discussed now is it? What is being discussed is the criminal use of weapons.
What I stated was very simple - a knife is also an efficient weapon to kill with if that is what one desires to do with it. Nor was a talking about military applications of firearms. Which is a different catergory then applying to the use of weapons in criminal acts.
The bogus arguement is using why the military went to firearms to justify one's position as it relates to civilian criminal use of weapons. Something many of you on this forum seem to want to do.
Criminals will use weapons to achieve their desired result - to harm you, take your processions, and to render you inefficient in defending yourself. If the criminal intends you harm - a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being once the criminal has decided what is intent is. Does a firearm make it easier for the criminal to preform that act? Sure if they desire to shoot the person from a distance - however take a look at the statistics on close range firing of weapons verus long range use for criminal acts.
The results just might surprise you.
However it goes to show how disengous some of your arguements are on this issue.
Tribesman
06-02-2005, 01:43
You think it'd be harder to shoot at someone 10 feet away than to get a hidden gun out while being violently assualted?
Get real rabbit , who the hell mugs someone from 10 feet away , you get up close and you get them by surprise , preferably from behind , so having a gun in your possession is practically useless .
ICantSpellDawg
06-02-2005, 01:46
long island frankfurter?
And I love Emerika, I love guns, I will bust a cap into any conservative's ass if he/she/it tries impose "morals" on me. I will also shoot intruders, robbers, burglars, and my neighbor's annoying dogs.
Hell, i carry at least a knife or a roll of coins on me at all times.
i love guns too, only i love them because they help me to impose "morals" on people
LittleGrizzly
06-02-2005, 02:12
Does a firearm make it easier for the criminal to preform that act? Sure if they desire to shoot the person from a distance - however take a look at the statistics on close range firing of weapons verus long range use for criminal acts.
redleg seen as i haven't got a clue where i would find those, and seen as you now is it stabbing range ?
Criminals will use weapons to achieve their desired result - to harm you, take your processions, and to render you inefficient in defending yourself. If the criminal intends you harm - a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being once the criminal has decided what is intent is.
i have to disagree a knife is not as efficient for killing as a gun.
Im just wondering seen as knifes are as effective for killing as guns, why do criminals seem to prefer guns to knifes ? and why do homeowners prefer guns to knifes for home defense ?
Papewaio
06-02-2005, 02:13
What I stated was very simple - a knife is also an efficient weapon to kill with if that is what one desires to do with it. Nor was a talking about military applications of firearms. Which is a different catergory then applying to the use of weapons in criminal acts.
The bogus arguement is using why the military went to firearms to justify one's position as it relates to civilian criminal use of weapons. Something many of you on this forum seem to want to do.
Criminals will use weapons to achieve their desired result - to harm you, take your processions, and to render you inefficient in defending yourself. If the criminal intends you harm - a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being once the criminal has decided what is intent is. Does a firearm make it easier for the criminal to preform that act? Sure if they desire to shoot the person from a distance - however take a look at the statistics on close range firing of weapons verus long range use for criminal acts.
The results just might surprise you.
However it goes to show how disengous some of your arguements are on this issue.
Most shooting is done within something like 5 to 15m if not closer still.
How many mass slayings with knives are done?
How many bank robberies?
How many guns for home protection are used on those they are supposed to protect?
Does a firearm make it easier for the criminal to preform that act? Sure if they desire to shoot the person from a distance - however take a look at the statistics on close range firing of weapons verus long range use for criminal acts.
redleg seen as i haven't got a clue where i would find those, and seen as you now is it stabbing range ?
Most people can not hit what they are aiming at. The statistics are fairly simple to find if you want to search.
A sample.
Firearm Defensive Training
Precision UNDER Pressure
Bureau Of Justice Statistics Reveal:
Attempting to use complex motor skills such as sight alignment is impossible under life threatening conditions.
Most armed confrontations occur at a range of less than 10 feet and in light too dim to see the gun sights.
Half of the bullets fired during firefights do not hit their designated targets.
Fine motor skills that require a deliberate cognitive process and physical coordination deteriorate under stress.
The majority of murders are committed with a firearm.
The average engagement time is 2.5 seconds.
http://dmi.mindfireis.com/frontEnd/cm_catMainCategoryPage.jsp?categoryID=37
Criminals will use weapons to achieve their desired result - to harm you, take your processions, and to render you inefficient in defending yourself. If the criminal intends you harm - a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being once the criminal has decided what is intent is.
i have to disagree a knife is not as efficient for killing as a gun.
Im just wondering seen as knifes are as effective for killing as guns, why do criminals seem to prefer guns to knifes ? and why do homeowners prefer guns to knifes for home defense ?
Once again - try actually reading what I have written instead of attempting to counter a point that I have not made. The arguement I am using is that knives are indeed dangerous and are just as efficient at killing others - when the criminal's intent is to do just that.
Frankly gun control - and the jest of this article - about weapon control is an action of governments that want to overprotect its citizens. Nothing more. However I see from the jest of the other responses - some of you just don't get it - because of your inablity to see beyond you own position and arguement.
Nothing of what I have stated is toward the gun control arguement - What I have stated is that knives are just as efficient in killing other human beings when the intent of the criminal is to do just that. However some of you can go on believing what you want. I don't like handguns myself - because there is limited purposes for that type of weapon. I prefer my shotguns and rifles. However those that advocate gun control wish not only to remove handguns - but other firearms.
Arguements such as these statements are disengenous and I image the individual knows it.
How many mass slayings with knives are done?Can you remember the killings in Africa not to long ago - lots of people killed with macheties
How many bank robberies?
How many guns for home protection are used on those they are supposed to protect?
LittleGrizzly
06-02-2005, 03:43
Once again - try actually reading what I have written instead of attempting to counter a point that I have not made.
you said
a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being
i would assume a criminal or someone defending thier house would take the most efficient killing weapon, most when given the choice would pick a gun over a knife, why they are equally eficient at killing does this occur ?
sorry if im misunderstanding you im not doing it intentionally but it does appear to me its the argument your making...
some of you just don't get it - because of your inablity to see beyond you own position and arguement.
maybe you are the one who just doesn't get it ? maybe you are the one who can't see past your position or argument ? maybe instead of trading insults we should stick to the argument ?
Once again - try actually reading what I have written instead of attempting to counter a point that I have not made.
you said
a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being
i would assume a criminal or someone defending thier house would take the most efficient killing weapon, most when given the choice would pick a gun over a knife, why they are equally eficient at killing does this occur ?
sorry if im misunderstanding you im not doing it intentionally but it does appear to me its the argument your making...
Yes a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being - in fact a knife is probably more efficient if you want to use the word correctly. Most individuals that commit crimes with a gun shoot more then once at their intended target - so as far as efficiency goes... I can play the word game even more given the nature of the discussion. People pick guns because it gives you more chances at hitting the target not because its an efficient killing device. - verus only one that the knife offers.
some of you just don't get it - because of your inablity to see beyond you own position and arguement.
maybe you are the one who just doesn't get it ? maybe you are the one who can't see past your position or argument ? maybe instead of trading insults we should stick to the argument ?
Want to see me insult someone - its not to hard. However when one counters an arguement with disengous rethoric - I have a tendency to point it out in a very direct and harsh way. Which is exactly what I have done - when you and others get off the disengous rethoric - then I will become less harsh in my response to your statements.
Many weapons that are used by criminals are already banned or restricted - but does that keep them out of the hands of criminals? No because a criminal already intends to break the law - hince the term criminal.
If you go back and read a little LittleGriz - you will find that I am against assualt weapons and handguns - but will not support futher gun control until the government adequately enforces the laws that are already on the books in my country. Restricting my ownership of hunting rifles and shotguns will not solve the problem, all it will do is make a vast majority of honest law abidding citizen violate the law.
New laws and new restrictions will not solve the problem - especially when the older laws are not being enforce adequately.
And then again it seems you haven't answered the initial intent of my first post. Do you have any idea what it takes to kill another human being - the weapon is the easiest thing after the decision. If an individual has no conscience or decides to kill another human being - the matter of getting the weapon to do it with will happen - be it a gun, a knife, a rock, or a sharp pointy stick. Gun control legistlation will never fix this problem - and its the reason why gun control will never get beyond the basic restrictions of certain types of weapons in the United States.
In Europe it seems you want to believe that the government will protect you and yours whenever it is needed. In the United States many people still believe that its up to the individual to protect themselves and what is theirs from the criminal.
Papewaio
06-02-2005, 05:38
I will admit that lightsabers are better then blasters.
Also when playing TW no matter the era (bar Samurai Archers) I tend to go all melee as sword beats missile...
~:handball:
Here's (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html) an article that sums up what I was trying to say nicely.
Ironside
06-02-2005, 09:17
And then again it seems you haven't answered the initial intent of my first post. Do you have any idea what it takes to kill another human being - the weapon is the easiest thing after the decision. If an individual has no conscience or decides to kill another human being - the matter of getting the weapon to do it with will happen - be it a gun, a knife, a rock, or a sharp pointy stick. Gun control legistlation will never fix this problem - and its the reason why gun control will never get beyond the basic restrictions of certain types of weapons in the United States.
The difference is the assulted person's defensive capabillities. As mentioned here, many things in a home can be used as a weapon. And a knife vs a bat is a much closer fight than a gun vs a bat. And entering a close fight isn't as certain even if your intent is to hurt.
Accidents and semi-accidents have also a higher risk to occur with guns.
Accidents and semi-accidents have also a higher risk to occur with guns.Do they? I'd be interested in seeing data comparing the amount of injuries from gun accidents vs knives and other pointy household objects.
Ironside
06-02-2005, 09:50
Do they? I'd be interested in seeing data comparing the amount of injuries from gun accidents vs knives and other pointy household objects.
In a situation were both things were used as a potentional weapon? You're probably correct that on a general level knives causes more accidents, but that's not the issue here.
bmolsson
06-02-2005, 11:38
The same inconsistencies can be found in the "less guns, less gun crimes" argument. I would argue that taking away all the law abiding citizen's guns didnt have much to do with the low crime rate in Britain just as allowing all law abiding citizens to have guns hasnt done much one way or the other to affect crime rates here in the states.
The only difference is that those of us with without criminal records get to enjoy a little extra freedom and a fun hobby that most British dont. ~;)
Panzer, this was a very honest and realistic post. You really have your moments..... :bow:
bmolsson
06-02-2005, 11:48
I do believe that comparing knives and guns is a bit silly. Knives have more than one purpose, while guns have not.
When it comes to hunting, a hunting rifle is a totally different thing compared to a .38 hand gun.
Banning guns and knives in public places as well as for people that don't really need them seems to me as a reasonable and practical solution. If somebody runs around with a machete in the local shopping mall and have it concealed, nobody will complain. If he use it to cut down people or to threaten people to his own benefit, then he is in trouble. Can't really see why this is so hard to understand.
Papewaio
06-02-2005, 12:25
Do they? I'd be interested in seeing ...amount of ... accidents ... other pointy household objects.
like accidental pregancy using pointy 'household' objects... ~D
Do they? I'd be interested in seeing data comparing the amount of injuries from gun accidents vs knives and other pointy household objects.
Here is one
Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
Some interesting data from the FBI
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html
An essay on the subject - pay close attention to the wording because it seperates legally owned guns from those that were gained by illegal means for other criminal activities.
http://www.gac.20m.com/facts_you_can_use.htm
Status Street Crime Gun Crimes Drug Abuse
No guns owned ------- 24 ----- 1 ------- 15
"Illegal" guns only ---- 74 -------24 ------ 14
Guns Legally Owned - --14 -------- 0 ------ 13
Note: these figures represent the percentage of each category's involvement in street crime, gun crimes and drug abuse.
The Dept. of Justice concluded that boys who owned guns legally were less likely to become involved with criminal activity, when compared to either boys who owned illegal guns or even boys who owned no guns, in part because of the different ways in which they were "socializ[ed] into gun ownership" and the fact they typically had "fathers who own guns for sport and hunting."
[source: "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings--Research Summary," published by the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in March 1994.]
Ja'chyra
06-02-2005, 15:36
Woohoo another guns vs Knives US vs UK debate rehashing the same old arguments. :charge:
The simple fact is the buggers aren't getting my knives, how am I supposed to create my masterpieces in the kitchen, and keep Mrs Ja'chyra well fed, without the proper tools, I'm an artist. Mmm might have fajita's tonight :idea2: :chef:
A.Saturnus
06-02-2005, 17:52
Here's (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html) an article that sums up what I was trying to say nicely.
Now, while the article is for the most part rather reasonable, that graph is just rediculous. That's a typical misuse of statistics. They used data until 1997, but that didn't stop them to project data for the future purely on the basis of continuing the current trend! That's the most simplistic way of extrapolation.
This is the projection they made:
http://muchos.co.uk/members/A.Saturnus/US_Homicide.gif
According to that, homicide rates should be lower for the US than for the UK by now. Nothings further from the truth so. This is the real development for the US:
http://muchos.co.uk/members/A.Saturnus/US_Homicide_actual.gif
As one can see did the homicide rate remain stable since 1998 and not continue to drop as it has before. The rate for the UK has increased since 1997 until 2003 but then dropped considerably again (this is only England and Wales though):
http://muchos.co.uk/members/A.Saturnus/TREND_Homicide_04.gif
Thus, the homicide rate for the US is still higher than for the UK and there's no reason to assume that will change anytime soon.
Another silly part of that article is this:
After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four.
Why not through in some prehistoric facts as well? Attributing anything to 80 years of gun control is absurd.
Kanamori
06-02-2005, 22:06
The problem is, mostly, how responsible the owner's of guns are. If anything, I think they should just make the classes more rigorous or, somehow, more pointed. No, slightly intelligent, cold-blooded killer is going to buy a gun legally, and then use it for their crime.
Your statements are kinda contradictory to me. You say that gun owners should be given (more) classes when they purchase a gun to make them more responsible. But then you say no criminal would buy a gun legally and then use it in a crime.
I would argue that legal gun owners are probably already among the most law abiding citizens there are. If we wanted to do some good- crack down on the black market for illegal weapons.
A.Saturnus, I agree about the chart as well. I didn't think its predictions were anywhere near valid. But, as you did, I felt it was a reasonable article for the large part.
LittleGrizzly
06-03-2005, 02:34
Yes a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being - in fact a knife is probably more efficient if you want to use the word correctly. Most individuals that commit crimes with a gun shoot more then once at their intended target - so as far as efficiency goes... I can play the word game even more given the nature of the discussion
I was thinking effiency as in how well it does it's job, no im not just playing the word game with you.
People pick guns because it gives you more chances at hitting the target not because its an efficient killing device. - verus only one that the knife offers.
I think we've been arguing over each other again, i thought your point was knifes are as dangerous as guns, before we continue can i check if this is your point ?
Want to see me insult someone - its not to hard. However when one counters an arguement with disengous rethoric - I have a tendency to point it out in a very direct and harsh way. Which is exactly what I have done - when you and others get off the disengous rethoric - then I will become less harsh in my response to your statements.
:snore:
Many weapons that are used by criminals are already banned or restricted - but does that keep them out of the hands of criminals? No because a criminal already intends to break the law - hince the term criminal.
well we seemed to manage it over here, for the most part.
And then again it seems you haven't answered the initial intent of my first post. Do you have any idea what it takes to kill another human being
anger, indoctrination, lack of morales and many more..
If an individual has no conscience or decides to kill another human being - the matter of getting the weapon to do it with will happen - be it a gun, a knife, a rock, or a sharp pointy stick.
lets say the individual the person wants to kill is me, with the knife rock or sharp pointy stick he'll need to get in pretty close (unless he's a very good throw) this gives me some chance as i could grab the arm with the weapon and try to disarm him, with the gun he could be 10 feet away and start shooting, this gives him a few chances to shoot me before i get to him to disarm him.
an individual example isn't quite as clear cut but if the same individual wanted to kill me and a few of my friends, say 5 of us, with the knife he wouldn't stand much chance, with a gun he could probably take out a few of us, maybe all of us.
Kanamori
06-03-2005, 03:22
"Your statements are kinda contradictory to me. You say that gun owners should be given (more) classes when they purchase a gun to make them more responsible. But then you say no criminal would buy a gun legally and then use it in a crime.
I would argue that legal gun owners are probably already among the most law abiding citizens there are. If we wanted to do some good- crack down on the black market for illegal weapons."
I'm sorry, I was too general in my writing. I was alluding to the accidental gun deaths, while I was also saying that outright banning guns wouldn't fix the problem of gun violence, because any smart criminal buys guns on the street, which can only be traced to him if he is caught with the gun.
Yes a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being - in fact a knife is probably more efficient if you want to use the word correctly. Most individuals that commit crimes with a gun shoot more then once at their intended target - so as far as efficiency goes... I can play the word game even more given the nature of the discussion
I was thinking effiency as in how well it does it's job, no im not just playing the word game with you.
well lool at the statistics - with a gun it often takes the individual more then one shot - not very efficient in the classical sense now is it.
People pick guns because it gives you more chances at hitting the target not because its an efficient killing device. - verus only one that the knife offers.
I think we've been arguing over each other again, i thought your point was knifes are as dangerous as guns, before we continue can i check if this is your point ?
yes indeed Knives are just as dangerous as guns if the intent is to harm you. That the knife wielder must get closer makes it more dangerous to both the victim and the attacker.
Want to see me insult someone - its not to hard. However when one counters an arguement with disengous rethoric - I have a tendency to point it out in a very direct and harsh way. Which is exactly what I have done - when you and others get off the disengous rethoric - then I will become less harsh in my response to your statements.
:snore:
Yep - thats because there was never an insult - just pointed and direct language concerning the issue at hand.
Many weapons that are used by criminals are already banned or restricted - but does that keep them out of the hands of criminals? No because a criminal already intends to break the law - hince the term criminal.
well we seemed to manage it over here, for the most part.
And then why is their the preception of an increase in crime and this bogus attempt at restricting knives?
And then again it seems you haven't answered the initial intent of my first post. Do you have any idea what it takes to kill another human being
anger, indoctrination, lack of morales and many more..
Now your getting the point - its not the weapon that kills - its the individual - the weapon is only the tool that one uses. Should certain weapons be restricted - sure I am completely against assualt weapons being bought by the general public - and I for futher restrictions on handguns. But before the Government imposes any new gun control legislation they must first attempt to provide adequate enforcement of the current laws.
If an individual has no conscience or decides to kill another human being - the matter of getting the weapon to do it with will happen - be it a gun, a knife, a rock, or a sharp pointy stick.
lets say the individual the person wants to kill is me, with the knife rock or sharp pointy stick he'll need to get in pretty close (unless he's a very good throw) this gives me some chance as i could grab the arm with the weapon and try to disarm him, with the gun he could be 10 feet away and start shooting, this gives him a few chances to shoot me before i get to him to disarm him.
Don't be so sure of yourself - another set of statistics show that unless an individual has extensive training in self defense - to the point that its a habitual reaction - most often the victim still becomes a victim. The best thing to do when anyone attempts to attack you with a weapon - is to avoid contact.
an individual example isn't quite as clear cut but if the same individual wanted to kill me and a few of my friends, say 5 of us, with the knife he wouldn't stand much chance, with a gun he could probably take out a few of us, maybe all of us.
No - he just would wait until your asleep.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.