After gun control...

[kandrathe]

.. and then perhaps blunt instrument control...

NPR - All Things Considered

8 deaths from guns, 72 deaths from knives, and 5 million people sacrificing their liberty for the sake of trying to stop a few hundred murderous thugs. When will people understand that you cannot stamp out murder by outlawing all means of causing harm? People will kill people with whatever is most expediant. If you remove guns, they use knives. Remove knives and they will use ice picks or screwdrivers.

So let's instead find and prevent the root cause of violent behavior, if it's even possible. This is like preventing drunk driving by outlawing automobiles.

[Munkay]

Of course the best way to curb a "booze and blade" culture is to take away the blade. Everyone knows once you take away 1 form of weaponry, any drunken human being regains good judgement and becomes as docile as a housecat.

I'll be waiting to hear the newstory next month: "In an effort to curb brutual beatings, the sale of steel-toed boots has been cracked down on..."

Why attempt to tame the beast when it's easier to put it in a smaller cage? :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Munk

[SwissMercenary]

There's knives, and there's knives. This is another story alltogether, but I fail to see why some people feel the need to walk around with switchblade knives, and the like in places like train stations, late at night. What are you going to do, open large volumes of cardboard boxes with one? Descale your midnight catch? Come out as one of the two losers of a knife fight when another guy with a knife jumps you? I mean, I can at least understand the rationale of self-defense with guns, but there are no winners in a knife fight.

From what I've heard, the culture on the Isles is somewhat different from that this side of the pond... And getting at least some knives out of the hands of chavs and retards of their ilk (Or use that as an excuse to bring them in) is a decent enough means and ends.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about carrying knives in public places. Cracking down on sale of knives alltogether? That's just not sensible.

[Hammerskjold]

>This is like preventing drunk driving by outlawing automobiles.

Where I currently live, there was (and still is) quite a few problems with illegal street racing. Unfortunately, what I saw being paraded around is mostly a dog and pony show involving things like urging people to boycott 'The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift', and having a loader crushing a 'riced out' Honda Civic. And ah yes, floating around the idea of banning and or arresting people or shops that sells and modifies cars for the explicit purpose of (street) racing. Just say NO to Nitro!

Or the old favourite I've been hearing, let's draft up some new laws to crack down on these young whippersnappers.

It's all seems like a big steaming pile of crap to me. The only thing I've seen that have any effect is serious enforcement and prosecution.

But if you really want to talk for real about cracking down on violence, I say we're still soft on the issue. Banning anything that is blunt, sharp, or pointy won't solve the real problem, which is our arms. I don't mean fire arms, I mean our limbs and opposable digits. And even then I'm still avoiding the real issue here. Those deadly arms are connected to and controlled by our brain, our evil and delicious brains. Truly that is the deadliest weapon of all.

So, a modest proposal. Create a machine that can lobotomize people as early as birth. (I prefer the use of machines because they don't derive any pleasure or anguish from the act, unlike some humans.) My #1 pick, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KARR

[kandrathe]

There's knives, and there's knives. This is another story alltogether, but I fail to see why some people feel the need to walk around with switchblade knives, and the like in places like train stations, late at night. What are you going to do, open large volumes of cardboard boxes with one? Descale your midnight catch? Come out as one of the two losers of a knife fight when another guy with a knife jumps you? I mean, I can at least understand the rationale of self-defense with guns, but there are no winners in a knife fight.

From what I've heard, the culture on the Isles is somewhat different from that this side of the pond... And getting at least some knives out of the hands of chavs and retards of their ilk (Or use that as an excuse to bring them in) is a decent enough means and ends.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about carrying knives in public places. Cracking down on sale of knives alltogether? That's just not sensible.

Yes, your suggested approach is sensible. We have laws like that in our cities regarding carrying concealed weapons without a permit. The law covers guns, knives, saps, brass knuckles, or anything that would be contrued as a weapon. People who need to carry weapons as a part of their jobs are given permits to do so.

[kandrathe]

... I don't mean fire arms, I mean our limbs and opposable digits. ...

Now, the only one we need to fear is Chuck Norris...



... and those legs look pretty dangerous as well. Quadriplegics should be safe, so I guess you could offer people a choice. Do you want the lobotomy or us to remove your limbs?

[Delc]

Now, the only one we need to fear is Chuck Norris...



... and those legs look pretty dangerous as well. Quadriplegics should be safe, so I guess you could offer people a choice. Do you want the lobotomy or us to remove your limbs?

Lobotomy is the only way to go, or they will get you with their mind bullets.

[Jarulf]

8 deaths from guns, 72 deaths from knives, and 5 million people sacrificing their liberty for the sake of trying to stop a few hundred murderous thugs. When will people understand that you cannot stamp out murder by outlawing all means of causing harm? People will kill people with whatever is most expediant. If you remove guns, they use knives. Remove knives and they will use ice picks or screwdrivers.

Yes, lets stop forbidding things. That is why we should stop with the silliness of preventing people carrying their guns onboard airplanes (after all, remove guns, they pick knifes, remove knives they pick liquid explosives, remove liquid explosives they pick....). After all, it is far better going after the root cause, right? Then we should stop preventing states getting nuclear weapons, give it to everyone. After all, if they don't get nukes, they use normal weapons, if they don't get normal weapons they use other means to cause harm (like ariplanes or what not)..... Lets have this society were nothing is forbidden for anyone. It should work, no? Lets just go after the root causes and problems solved. No? So simple, after all, it is the persons behind the tool that is the problem no? So why all this preventive rules on what is not allowed? Personally I get sick of people claiming that one can just go after the problem and people instead and everything should be allowed. For some reason they seems to feel the limit is always at the "I want a gun" (for target practising).

So let's instead find and prevent the root cause of violent behavior, if it's even possible. This is like preventing drunk driving by outlawing automobiles.

Why not do both?

[wundergore]

Now, the only one we need to fear is Chuck Norris...



... and those legs look pretty dangerous as well. Quadriplegics should be safe, so I guess you could offer people a choice. Do you want the lobotomy or us to remove your limbs?

Isn't that Bruce Lee, not Chuck Norris?

[kandrathe]

Isn't that Bruce Lee, not Chuck Norris?

Yes, it is. But he is dead, so we don't need to fear him anymore.

[kandrathe]

Yes, lets stop forbidding things. That is why we should stop with the silliness of preventing people carrying their guns onboard airplanes (after all, remove guns, they pick knifes, remove knives they pick liquid explosives, remove liquid explosives they pick....). After all, it is far better going after the root cause, right? Then we should stop preventing states getting nuclear weapons, give it to everyone. After all, if they don't get nukes, they use normal weapons, if they don't get normal weapons they use other means to cause harm (like ariplanes or what not)..... Lets have this society were nothing is forbidden for anyone. It should work, no? Lets just go after the root causes and problems solved. No? So simple, after all, it is the persons behind the tool that is the problem no? So why all this preventive rules on what is not allowed? Personally I get sick of people claiming that one can just go after the problem and people instead and everything should be allowed. For some reason they seems to feel the limit is always at the "I want a gun" (for target practising).
Why not do both?

I bet you could take any random flight and arm every person on board, and not have to worry about a thing. Peaceful people wouldn't need to use a weapon, and if given one wouldn't suddenly develop impulses to take control of the plane.

[Hammerskjold]

>I bet you could take any random flight and arm every person on board, and not have to worry about a thing. Peaceful people wouldn't need to use a weapon, and if given one wouldn't suddenly develop impulses to take control of the plane.


That might work with mechanical weapons, but what about biological ones? Like say, snakes?!

[Occhidiangela]

That is why we should stop with the silliness of preventing people carrying their guns onboard airplanes

I'd rather you let me carry my pistol onto an airplane. I'm no threat to a flight, but let some sorry sonofabiscuit try anything, and I promise, I hit what I aim at, and all the passengers get home safe. If you can't trust me, you may as well jump into an industrial strength wood chipper.

You have to know who to trust.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

>I bet you could take any random flight and arm every person on board, and not have to worry about a thing. Peaceful people wouldn't need to use a weapon, and if given one wouldn't suddenly develop impulses to take control of the plane.
That might work with mechanical weapons, but what about biological ones? Like say, snakes?!

As long as the snake remains in the owners control and space, there shouldn't be a problem. Now, vermin and other disease carrying animals (like humans) might be another type of quarantine issue.

[Hammerskjold]

>As long as the snake remains in the owners control and space, there shouldn't be a problem. Now, vermin and other disease carrying animals (like humans) might be another type of quarantine issue.

I'm not as confident, after all there's not enough Samuel L. Jackson to be stationed in every plane, should there be a problem. Though the vermin issues is probably covered under bio weapons treaties of some sort or another. I think it was the Swiss accord of 1892 that outlaws the inhumane use of dog doo on a stick. (Might not be the exact name, my memory is hazy on that issue.)

But on a slightly more serious note, while people are certainly entitled to their opinions on sticky topics like weapons etc, my personal take on the whole thing is basically the weapons or objects that are used as weapons, are still inanimate objects. Of course guns or anthrax loaded puppies shouldn't be just handed to anyone and everyone, anymore than a power drill should be given to toddlers. However there's people that I feel safe with even if I'm locked in a room with them full of loaded guns, light sabres, and flaming nun-chucks. With other people, I wouldn't want to be in the same time zone with them even if all they have is a rusty plastic spork.

[Doc]

Problem is with guns on planes is blowing a hole in the plane it self. I dunno about you folks, but I am pretty sure all my guns and the ammo they use would blow clean through a human body and just keep going.

Unless you are using some sissy 9mm cork gun or some rinky dinky Saturday night special, firing a gun on a plane is not a good idea.

To echo Occhi's statement, somebody like my self would be an asset on an airplane with a gun. I doubt I would need to fire a shot. Somebody would take one look at the cannons I call handguns, realise they could park a Buick in the barrel, and sit their ass down and behave themselves. For this task I would choose my 1974 .357 automag. About a foot long, weighs about four pounds, and fires a 110 grain bullet at 1900 fps. As far as the psychological scare factor goes, this gun has it in spades. The best gun of course is the gun you never have to fire.

As far as snakes go... I can deal with snakes.

[Jarulf]

Bah, I hate IE, stupid browser ate my whole reply making the text all lost. I will have to see if I can rewrite it again later when I get time, sorry:(

[kandrathe]

>As long as the snake remains in the owners control and space, there shouldn't be a problem. Now, vermin and other disease carrying animals (like humans) might be another type of quarantine issue.

I'm not as confident, after all there's not enough Samuel L. Jackson to be stationed in every plane, should there be a problem. Though the vermin issues is probably covered under bio weapons treaties of some sort or another. I think it was the Swiss accord of 1892 that outlaws the inhumane use of dog doo on a stick. (Might not be the exact name, my memory is hazy on that issue.)

But on a slightly more serious note, while people are certainly entitled to their opinions on sticky topics like weapons etc, my personal take on the whole thing is basically the weapons or objects that are used as weapons, are still inanimate objects. Of course guns or anthrax loaded puppies shouldn't be just handed to anyone and everyone, anymore than a power drill should be given to toddlers. However there's people that I feel safe with even if I'm locked in a room with them full of loaded guns, light sabres, and flaming nun-chucks. With other people, I wouldn't want to be in the same time zone with them even if all they have is a rusty plastic spork.

It's all getting a little crazy in the airplane business. [Sarcasm]Fly naked, it's safest for everyone. You can't trust anyone to carry anything on a plane anymore. See there are no bad people, just bad objects. Remove the objects and the people will calm down.[/sarcasm]

[Hammerskjold]

>It's all getting a little crazy in the airplane business. [Sarcasm]Fly naked, it's safest for everyone. You can't trust anyone to carry anything on a plane anymore.

Heh, there was a satirical (I hope it was satire, but by this point who knows anymore) piece on my local paper about the plans for a skin tight passenger unitards for flying. Baggages will be flown in separate aircrafts piloted by a minimal crew.

But yes, I dropped off a friend on the airport about 2 weeks before this latest flying liquid ban happened, and I thought it couldn't get anymore sillier. Silly me. Oh well, maybe now the market will be more open to alternatives like good ole zeppelins and unsinkable ocean liners. Though I heard even those have their own problems.

I think we should seriously consider the route of intercontinental human cannonballs. It's more feasible than startrek style transporters, and a great way of making the skies friendly once more.

[Lissa]

Problem is with guns on planes is blowing a hole in the plane it self. I dunno about you folks, but I am pretty sure all my guns and the ammo they use would blow clean through a human body and just keep going.

Unless you are using some sissy 9mm cork gun or some rinky dinky Saturday night special, firing a gun on a plane is not a good idea.

To echo Occhi's statement, somebody like my self would be an asset on an airplane with a gun. I doubt I would need to fire a shot. Somebody would take one look at the cannons I call handguns, realise they could park a Buick in the barrel, and sit their ass down and behave themselves. For this task I would choose my 1974 .357 automag. About a foot long, weighs about four pounds, and fires a 110 grain bullet at 1900 fps. As far as the psychological scare factor goes, this gun has it in spades. The best gun of course is the gun you never have to fire.

As far as snakes go... I can deal with snakes.

Glazers Doc...use Glazers...No worries of going through the skin of an aircraft then, but you will drop someone, even with a 22 caliber.