NationStates Jolt Archive

"Assault Knives" to be banned in England.

Guns, Hunting, National ID's. Nope, no slippery slope here.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/print/news/5032285.shtml

Their banning knives? This includes Swiss Army and pocket knives too right?

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me...

"Assault Knives" to be banned in England.

Guns, Hunting, National ID's. Nope, no slippery slope here.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/print/news/5032285.shtml

WTF is an "assault knife?" I know knives pretty well, and this term would seem to cover a great variety of knives. What in the world do they think they're going to accomplish by doing this? Cut down on people killed with knives? Seems to me it would be more likely someone would be killed in their own home with a butcher knife than with an assault knife!

"Assault Knives" to be banned in England.

Guns, Hunting, National ID's. Nope, no slippery slope here.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/print/news/5032285.shtml
How are guns and hunting related to "National ID's"?

A knife w/ a grenade launcher attachment?


I particularly like the bit about "a proposal to give police random stop and search powers is being considered."

WTF is an "assault knife?" I know knives pretty well, and this term would seem to cover a great variety of knives. What in the world do they think they're going to accomplish by doing this? Cut down on people killed with knives? Seems to me it would be more likely someone would be killed in their own home with a butcher knife than with an assault knife!

Its one of those meaningless trems like "assualt weapon".

One day everything will be banned. That is the goal of western democracies.

How are guns and hunting related to "National ID's"?

Most guns were banned. Crime went up. Cameras were installed in many places to "protect" poeple w/ the " if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry about privacy" arguement. Hunting is about to be banned (sounds alot like the "we'll never go after the hunters" statements made in the U.S.) and now a vaguely defined national database complete w/ I.D.'s is being proposed in the U.K. to "protect against terrorists".

now knives and "a proposal to give police random stop and search powers is being considered".

Nice huh?

Airstrip One anybody?

oo i cant wait to see the news 2 months after this passes

see a news story about some one getting mugged with... a sharpened fingernail? rusty nail? who knows? jsut spin the wheel of pointy objects to see who gets mugged by what this week. it will be just like clue

Most guns were banned. Crime went up. Cameras were installed in many places to "protect" poeple w/ the " if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry about privacy" arguement. Hunting is about to be banned (sounds alot like the "we'll never go after the hunters" statements made in the U.S.) and now a vaguely defined national database complete w/ I.D.'s is being proposed in the U.K. to "protect against terrorists".

now knives and "a proposal to give police random stop and search powers is being considered".

Nice huh?

Airstrip One anybody?
oh please, if we instituted a national id system on the sole basis of terrorist protection 70% of the country would be clamoring over themselves to get one to protect the country from terrorism, like any terrorist is actually going to get one ...


and have you read the patriot act and various rulnigs now?

if a cop asks you to show im id, and you dont, you CAN be arrested

the cops CAN search your premisis withOUT a warrant.

britain is stepping up to american level security measures now

Most guns were banned. Crime went up. Cameras were installed in many places to "protect" poeple w/ the " if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry about privacy" arguement. Hunting is about to be banned (sounds alot like the "we'll never go after the hunters" statements made in the U.S.) and now a vaguely defined national database complete w/ I.D.'s is being proposed in the U.K. to "protect against terrorists".

now knives and "a proposal to give police random stop and search powers is being considered".

Nice huh?

Airstrip One anybody?
Okay. Now, I was thinking something else entirely. Guns an hunting are thngs that would be banned, and you put National ID in there with the other two, making no particular distinction. IN that context, it seemed that National ID would go out the window along with guns and hunting. So I figured that must mean losing guns and banning hunting, would lead to a loss of national identity.

Its one of those meaningless trems like "assualt weapon".

One day everything will be banned. That is the goal of western democracies.

There's a bit of a difference...knives are knives. You can slash someone's throat just as easily with a common kitchen knife as with a butterfly, gravity blade, switch, or any number of other more complicated blades. Quite a bit different from a single shot versus a spray of bullets.

This is quite absurd. "Assault knife" is a ridiculous term, because though knives vary widely, their potential for assault is about equal in terms of civilian-on-civilian violence. The spontaneous search thing is unsettling. And what's next? Banning pointy things in general? Projectile weapons ar one thing...melee weapons quite another.

They'll take my knives from my cold, dead hands. Of course, I don;t live in GB, so I don't have to worry about that.

Arg, I got me assault scissors-on-a-pole. I'm going to go take over Scotland in me assault rowboat! Arrrrg!

There's a bit of a difference...knives are knives. You can slash someone's throat just as easily with a common kitchen knife as with a butterfly, gravity blade, switch, or any number of other more complicated blades. Quite a bit different from a single shot versus a spray of bullets.

This is quite absurd. "Assault knife" is a ridiculous term, because though knives vary widely, their potential for assault is about equal in terms of civilian-on-civilian violence. The spontaneous search thing is unsettling. And what's next? Banning pointy things in general? Projectile weapons ar one thing...melee weapons quite another.

They'll take my knives from my cold, dead hands. Of course, I don;t live in GB, so I don't have to worry about that.

"Assault weapons" are single shot. (well semi-auto really).

The term was coined to make them sound more ominous. (It also happens to sound like assault rifle.)

Its one of those meaningless trems like "assualt weapon".

One day everything will be banned. That is the goal of western democracies.

Well, it's certainly not the goal of the US Western democracy!

if a cop asks you to show im id, and you dont, you CAN be arrested

This has always been the case as long as I can remember. It use to be called, "Taking in for questioning."

the cops CAN search your premisis withOUT a warrant.

I'm going to need to see some references on this, and NOT left-wing alarmist ones, either. The last I read on this topic, there was a proposal for what are called "expedited warrants," but I've not heard anything else about it for awhile.

Well, it's certainly not the goal of the US Western democracy!

Oh yeah?

How comes every year there are more laws than the year before?

We need a law morotorium. Now.

Oh yeah?

How comes every year there are more laws than the year before?

We need a law morotorium. Now.

Nahh! Just insist on "sunset provisions." :)

Most guns were banned. Crime went up. Cameras were installed in many places to "protect" poeple w/ the " if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry about privacy" arguement. Hunting is about to be banned (sounds alot like the "we'll never go after the hunters" statements made in the U.S.) and now a vaguely defined national database complete w/ I.D.'s is being proposed in the U.K. to "protect against terrorists".

now knives and "a proposal to give police random stop and search powers is being considered".

Nice huh?

Airstrip One anybody?
Ain't gonna work in America, if only because around 80,000,000 of us legally own guns, soon to be 80,000,001. We ain't gonna give em up without a fight. Damn lefties.

Ain't gonna work in America, if only because around 80,000,000 of us legally own guns, soon to be 80,000,001. We ain't gonna give em up without a fight. Damn lefties.

As a "damned lefty" who thinks banning guns is one of the dumbest things you could do, I take offense to this generalizing comment.

Then you ain't a lefty. Lefties and liberals are two different things.

Nahh! Just insist on "sunset provisions." :)

LOL.

I forgot about that.

But really, in general, every government seems intent on banning more stuff than the previous one. And there is rarely repeal of any laws. Thus the amount of stuff left to be banned approaches zero.

One of the best idea's Gingrich ever had was to start a repeals comittee that would review the books and weed out laws periodically. Unfortunately no-one else voted for it. :(

Then you ain't a lefty. Lefties and liberals are two different things.
Define them.

oh please, if we instituted a national id system on the sole basis of terrorist protection 70% of the country would be clamoring over themselves to get one to protect the country from terrorism, like any terrorist is actually going to get one ...


and have you read the patriot act and various rulnigs now?

if a cop asks you to show im id, and you dont, you CAN be arrested

the cops CAN search your premisis withOUT a warrant.

britain is stepping up to american level security measures now

When you're done eating lunch, I'ld love for you to source the no warrant thing also.

As for Britain "stepping up to american level security measures", I'm still allowed to own firearms, knives, etc. My drivers license would work for the police, it isn't a national federalized system, and there aren't cameras on every corner of my town (however Chicago is trying to implement it).
I don't know why you keep attacking the Patriot Act for. You have stated previously that you consider the application of the Constitution's Bill of Rights to be selective and how important you consider the selection of our elected officials.

guns guns guns guns knives knives guns knives swords guns knives

(anyone notice I'm a hick)

Ain't gonna work in America, if only because around 80,000,000 of us legally own guns, soon to be 80,000,001. We ain't gonna give em up without a fight. Damn lefties.

Ahh, but it's the nickle and diming that gets it.

"Saturday Night Specials" : a term invented to describe cheap guns that criminals can use.

"Assault Weapons": Term to demonize semi-auto's that look like military weapons
Keep increasing the definitions of those and you get almost every gun out there.

Safety: Mandatory Locks, Safes etc. making the guns effectively useless in home defense therefore no reason to have them.

Waiting periods: to let those angry moments pass

Ammunition Bans : "Cop Killer Bullets, " Anti-body armour", etc.

"Pistol Grip" Shotguns: Only Criminals use those, no use in hunting.

Gun Show "loophole": To keep terrorists away.

Penalization of owner when gun is stolen: Makes you not want to own one.

Attacks on the industry: Increases costs and increases chances of manufacturers, dealers, distributors going out of business as a "public nuisance".

Plastic Guns: an anti-gun myth that encourages the banning of quite a few composite heavy firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

It seems to me that they are using a "Sink the ship to kill the rats" aproach. With the reasoning they are using it wouldn't it make sense to also outlaw the sale of broomsticks and scissors?

It seems to me that they are using a "Sink the ship to kill the rats" aproach. With the reasoning they are using it wouldn't it make sense to also outlaw the sale of broomsticks and scissors?

Give it time.

Ahh, but it's the nickle and diming that gets it.

"Saturday Night Specials" : a term invented to describe cheap guns that criminals can use.

"Assault Weapons": Term to demonize semi-auto's that look like military weapons
Keep increasing the definitions of those and you get almost every gun out there.

Safety: Mandatory Locks, Safes etc. making the guns effectively useless in home defense therefore no reason to have them.

Waiting periods: to let those angry moments pass

Ammunition Bans : "Cop Killer Bullets, " Anti-body armour", etc.

"Pistol Grip" Shotguns: Only Criminals use those, no use in hunting.

Gun Show "loophole": To keep terrorists away.

Penalization of owner when gun is stolen: Makes you not want to own one.

Attacks on the industry: Increases costs and increases chances of manufacturers, dealers, distributors going out of business as a "public nuisance".

Plastic Guns: an anti-gun myth that encourages the banning of quite a few composite heavy firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.
They have yet to try and take any away, except in california, land of the incarcerated. Be reeeeaaaaaalll interesting if they try. :sniper:

The only thing I would support would be a nationwide computer database that stops felons who commited a crime with a gun from owning one. Other than that no regs.

They have yet to try and take any away, except in california, land of the incarcerated. Be reeeeaaaaaalll interesting if they try. :sniper:

They don't have to take them away. Kennedy (w/ Kerry co-sponsor) attempted an ammunition ban for most centerfire ammo. They're nothing but expensive clubs w/o ammo. Ban manufacture/sales and parts become less available. Make it more of a hassle to own/purchase one than it's percieved worth.

The goal is to make it "socially unnacceptable" to own firearms. Stupid, yes, but true.

The only thing I would support would be a nationwide computer database that stops felons who commited a crime with a gun from owning one. Other than that no regs.

Which is Defacto registration. Every purchase would be processed and the Gov't is informed you just bought a new gun, felon or no.

I support stiffer penalties for crime/violence committed.

They don't have to take them away. Kennedy (w/ Kerry co-sponsor) attempted an ammunition ban for most centerfire ammo. They're nothing but expensive clubs w/o ammo. Ban manufacture/sales and parts become less available. Make it more of a hassle to own/purchase one than it's percieved worth.

The goal is to make it "socially unnacceptable" to own firearms. Stupid, yes, but true.
The average rifle owner has a couple of thousand rounds. If centerfire rounds were banned you would have both a biiig black market and much less shooting by rifle owners. Especially considering bullet manufacture ain't that hard.

The average rifle owner has a couple of thousand rounds. If centerfire rounds were banned you would have both a biiig black market and much less shooting by rifle owners. Especially considering bullet manufacture ain't that hard.

However, if you make it hard enough to own a gun, the number of gun owners will go down with each generation and, once there are too few gun owners to have a significant democratic voice they'll start to whittle away at our rights, and finally, when most voters become apathetic to the issue, some hot shot, up and coming senator will make into a crusade and remove the right of the people to bear arms entirly.

The article mentions a ban on selling assault knives (whatever that is) in high street shop (high street being the main street in a town). Can they be sold in other shops?

The article mentions a ban on selling assault knives (whatever that is) in high street shop (high street being the main street in a town). Can they be sold in other shops?

I think the article reads that currently, the only ban on sale of knives can be instituted by local town councils on "high street" shops. Once the new law is passed it will ban them from virtually all shops.

I can understand why you'd want to ban switchblade or butterfly knives, which fold down for better concealment with respect to the size of the blade than non-foldable knives and which can be unfolded relatively quickly. (On the other hand, I don't honestly think banning them will actually get rid of them.)

But machetes? Who mugs someone with a machete? Who robs a convenience store with a machete? Who drives across town to kill someone with a machete? How can you conceal a machete?

Now let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that these bans, against all odds, are successful. Every last gun and knife in Britain is confiscated and destroyed. I have no doubt that human beings can commit violence if they choose to do so. You'll have people killing each other with cricket bats, umbrellas, and pinking shears. I'm confident that people were killing each other before sharp sticks were invented, and people will go back that far if they can't use anything more advanced.

Haha.. Ok, ok.. the British have officially crossed the line between "Relevant" and "Amusing" on the Pepe Dominguez scale... next stop: "Cheap Entertainment!" :p :p

Banning knives.. of all the whacky liberal antics.. :p

Hey yeah, cause i need an assualt rifle to make a sandwich!

One day everything will be banned. That is the goal of western democracies.
Under liberal governments, guns are banned.

Under conservative governments, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, drugs, and prostitution are banned.



Could we just try not to ban anything???

Under liberal governments, guns are banned.

Under conservative governments, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, drugs, and prostitution are banned.



Could we just try not to ban anything???

But then all the politicians would have to do is raise taxes and invest in pork.

Its one of those meaningless trems like "assualt weapon".

One day everything will be banned. That is the goal of western democracies.
Not quite. Soon everything not compulsory will be illegal, and everything not illegal will be compulsory

How are guns and hunting related to "National ID's"?
what was the first thing hitler banned in germany?

what was the first thing hitler banned in germany?
Being a member of the KPD

First Minister Jack McConnell has been in talks with chief constables on how to combat the rising level of knife crime, which is at its highest level for 10 years.

Since no one seems to have noticed yet, this is a proposal by the Scottish executive. That means that it has absolutely nothing to do with England or the UK as a whole, if it passes it will be in Scotland.

Anyway, banning guns was good, (although they haven't actually been completely banned you just need a reason to have one to get a license) and so is banning fox hunting, national IDs are just pointless though.

When you're done eating lunch, I'ld love for you to source the no warrant thing also.
you can stop the sub intelligent babble trying to make yourself look superior

i would look up the clause in the patriot act that allows for "sneak and peek" but its a big document

Banning guns or knives is just a form of control.

Disarm the population.

Makes tyranny easier.

Sleep well, Scots.

Its one of those meaningless trems like "assualt weapon".

One day everything will be banned. That is the goal of western democracies.

Not America we will always have guns and if they ban them, I'm moving and giving up hope for this thing called democracy.

Not America we will always have guns and if they ban them, I'm moving and giving up hope for this thing called democracy.
yeah if anyone tries to ban guns, fuck there is no democracy

but shit if anyone tries to limit freedom of speech, press, voting rights and the like, lets keep working because democracy is fine

you people are friggin wackjobs

"Assault weapons" are single shot. (well semi-auto really).

The term was coined to make them sound more ominous. (It also happens to sound like assault rifle.)

Alright, a somewhat slower spray of bullets then. There's still a canyon of difference between the terms as they pertain to guns and knives.

Then you ain't a lefty. Lefties and liberals are two different things.

Take your inane labels elsewhere. How stupid and pointless... :rolleyes:

Alright, a somewhat slower spray of bullets then. There's still a canyon of difference between the terms as they pertain to guns and knives.

Not really, many, many hunting rifles are more powerful than "assault weapons."

Trust me, it's a completely arbitrary and silly classification.

For example the M1 Garand rifle (GI weapon of world war II) is legal. This was the weapon that Gen. Patton described as the finest infantry rifle ever. But a .22 with a flash supressor/muzzle brake, pistol grip and box magazine is an "assualt weapon." That's just silly.

Edit: There are many guns that are semi-automatic that are not "assualt weapons" Take the flash supressor off a british SLR and it is legal.

Under liberal governments, guns are banned.

Under conservative governments, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, drugs, and prostitution are banned.



Could we just try not to ban anything???

Hey, now there's an idea!

Too innovative, you must be a witch. Burn him!

Hey, now there's an idea!

Too innovative, you must be a witch. Burn him!

No, our plan is clearly to ban everything.

Texas - yes Texas - has a knife ban. Go figure.

yeah if anyone tries to ban guns, fuck there is no democracy

but shit if anyone tries to limit freedom of speech, press, voting rights and the like, lets keep working because democracy is fine

you people are friggin wackjobs
Interesting, you automatically assume that supporters of guns would automatically want to limit these things. :sniper:

Not really, many, many hunting rifles are more powerful than "assault weapons."

Trust me, it's a completely arbitrary and silly classification.

For example the M1 Garand rifle (GI weapon of world war II) is legal. This was the weapon that Gen. Patton described as the finest infantry rifle ever. But a .22 with a flash supressor/muzzle brake, pistol grip and box magazine is an "assualt weapon." That's just silly.

Edit: There are many guns that are semi-automatic that are not "assualt weapons" Take the flash supressor off a british SLR and it is legal.

Then someone needs to rewrite the classification.

I really want to argue passionately about this issue, but unlike a lot of conservatives when rights are brought up, I don't really give two sh-ts about guns. I think the Second Amendment is antiquated and useless. I have my knives, I'm happy. I'll let the gun-nuts argue the specifics, lord knows there's plenty of those.

Anyway, banning guns was good, (although they haven't actually been completely banned you just need a reason to have one to get a license) and so is banning fox hunting, national IDs are just pointless though.

Why?

When people start getting beaten to death with cricket bats instead, then things will really get fun. :)

They'll pry my golf club from my cold dead fingers.

They'll pry my golf club from my cold dead fingers.

You don't understand the golf club ban.

It's not going to effect the honest sport golfer. We just want to get the dangerous "Assault Clubs" and cheap "saturday night" driving range clubs off the street.

The honest sporting golfer has nothing to worry about.

As long as he doesn't use irons.

They'll pry my golf club from my cold dead fingers.

Well according to George Carlin, Golf is an elitist sport played by rich white guys to further divide this country, (of course this is before Tiger Woods) and should be banned also.

You don't understand the golf club ban.

It's not going to effect the honest sport golfer. We just want to get the dangerous "Assault Clubs" and cheap "saturday night" driving range clubs off the street.

The honest sporting golfer has nothing to worry about.

As long as he doesn't use irons.

An "Assault Club"? Is that the one that can hit more than one ball at a time and has a grenade launcher attachment to get rid of gophers?

There's a bit of a difference...knives are knives. You can slash someone's throat just as easily with a common kitchen knife as with a butterfly, gravity blade, switch, or any number of other more complicated blades. Quite a bit different from a single shot versus a spray of bullets.

This is quite absurd. "Assault knife" is a ridiculous term, because though knives vary widely, their potential for assault is about equal in terms of civilian-on-civilian violence. The spontaneous search thing is unsettling. And what's next? Banning pointy things in general? Projectile weapons ar one thing...melee weapons quite another.

They'll take my knives from my cold, dead hands. Of course, I don;t live in GB, so I don't have to worry about that.
Also, I can actually see a potential for knives as self defence, in a way that I can't really visualise for guns. Also, knives ARE for good uses as well as questionable ones, whereas guns... pretty much all at least a bit dodgy.

Also, I can actually see a potential for knives as self defence, in a way that I can't really visualise for guns. Also, knives ARE for good uses as well as questionable ones, whereas guns... pretty much all at least a bit dodgy.

You mean like target/skeet shooting (olympic events), hunting, and home defense?

An "Assault Club"? Is that the one that can hit more than one ball at a time and has a grenade launcher attachment to get rid of gophers?

There are no grenade launchers for golf clubs silly.

And it can't hit more than one ball at a time. But it is the preferred club of criminals.

There are no grenade launchers for golf clubs silly.

And it can't hit more than one ball at a time. But it is the preferred club of criminals.

Even though it's used in less than 2% of all Golf Club crimes nationwide?

What about clubs that can hit the ball at a velocity to knock out a police officer?

Shouldn't these clubs be made to not be able to hit the ball until the golf club militia member yells "four!" for safety reasons?

Even though it's used in less than 2% of all Golf Club crimes nationwide?

What about clubs that can hit the ball at a velocity to knock out a police officer?

Shouldn't these clubs be made to not be able to hit the ball until the golf club militia member yells "four!" for safety reasons?

two week waiting periods and background checks too. *nod*

two week waiting periods and background checks too. *nod*
A ban on any golf bag that can hold more that ten clubs. There's no legitimate reason for that many.
They should also be locked up when at home to keep them from the children as homes w/ golf clubs are 6x more likely to be involved in a club related death/injury.

Don't even get me started on the spiky shoes.

Even though it's used in less than 2% of all Golf Club crimes nationwide?

What about clubs that can hit the ball at a velocity to knock out a police officer?

Shouldn't these clubs be made to not be able to hit the ball until the golf club militia member yells "four!" for safety reasons?


that's a good point.

anyway. as every golfer should know, owning clubs isn't an individual right, it's a collective (states) right. so I agree with your thought about the militia.

I admit that a regular sporting driver hits a bigger ball faster than assault clubs though. but that's not the point. regular drivers are for legitimate sporting purposes.

And a ban on any golf bag that can hold more that ten clubs. There's no legitimate reason for that many.

Don't even get me started on the spiky shoes.

Ten seems a little much. Why would you need more than one club per hole ?


Also I want to ban the caddy system. there is no need for people to just have clubs automatically fed to them.

You mean like target/skeet shooting (olympic events), hunting, and home defense?
Olympic events, well, I guess that's merely silly, not questionable.

Home defence and hunting both came under questionable, seriously questionable. Hunting is just plain unpleasant, and home defence is absurd. You want to keep your family safe? DON'T buy a gun, you're about nine times for a family member shot than a criminal, and by the same token, you're considerably more likely to get shot if you live in a house where theres a gun.

Just in case any of you are actually thinking this golf example is clever, how many people killed with golf clubs are there per year compared to legitimate uses of golf clubs? Now compare that with assault weapons. There is simply no reason for an assault weapon outside of the millitary unless you're some kind of sociopath.

Ten seems a little much. Why would you need more than one club per hole ?


Also I want to ban the caddy system. there is no need for people to just have clubs automatically fed to them.

The caddy system has been heavily regulated since 1934. You already need a class III golfers permit to use one.

Anyways, noone "needs" to own an assault club.

Just in case any of you are actually thinking this golf example is clever, how many people killed with golf clubs are there per year compared to legitimate uses of golf clubs? Now compare that with assault weapons. There is simply no reason for an assault weapon outside of the millitary unless you're some kind of sociopath.

and here we go w/the emotional arguements.

"Assault
weapons": please state your definition.

No "need" for (insert class of gun here)...I have to show a "need" to assert my rights?

"questionable, unpleasant, silly, legitimate".. These are all your opinion.

Is it 9x more likely now? Last I heard the anti-gunners were spouting 6x. When did it go up?

so·ci·o·path (s
n

A person affected with an antisocial personality disorder.



And yes, I'm having lots of fun w/ the golf parody.

that's a good point.

anyway. as every golfer should know, owning clubs isn't an individual right, it's a collective (states) right. so I agree with your thought about the militia.

I admit that a regular sporting driver hits a bigger ball faster than assault clubs though. but that's not the point. regular drivers are for legitimate sporting purposes.

Since the PGA is to strong a lobby group, we'll just have to ban the manufacture of golf balls that are hard enough to hurt someone.

I live in Scotland so I dont have the benefit or experience of American culture to fully understand how banning knives is so amusing a concept.

I used to work in a hospital casualty department (Trauma unit to Americans), and the amount of knife wounds and killings that came through the doors on any night of the week was frightening.

Why is it so important for anyone to take a knife out with them to a club or a pub?
Why should some innocent bystander get slashed or stabbed by a knife weilding thug?

Enlighten me someone as to how important it is to have the right to carry a weapon around with you?

(The self defence answer wont cut it (get it?, irony eh?) with me, if no one carried knives there wouldn't be the need to defend yourself against them.
Same applies to guns.

I live in Scotland so I dont have the benefit or experience of American culture to fully understand how banning knives is so amusing a concept.

I used to work in a hospital casualty department (Trauma unit to Americans), and the amount of knife wounds and killings that came through the doors on any night of the week was frightening.

Why is it so important for anyone to take a knife out with them to a club or a pub?
Why should some innocent bystander get slashed or stabbed by a knife weilding thug?

Enlighten me someone as to how important it is to have the right to carry a weapon around with you?

(The self defence answer wont cut it (get it?, irony eh?) with me, if no one carried knives there wouldn't be the need to defend yourself against them.
Same applies to guns.


I don't find it amusing. I find it scary/stupid.

They're trying to ban things that make no sense. Ban these "assault knives" and they'll (the criminals)just get one from the kitchen. I has little to do w/ carry or concealed carry. They (the politicians) refuse to go after the criminals, only the tools the criminals use. Since they are criminals, they really don't care much about the laws anyway and will find a way to get what it is they want but law abiding citizens are unable to => giving the advantage to the criminals.

If you can find a way to stop criminals from robbing/raping/murdering w/ any sort of weapon whatsoever, then you tell me.

Just in case any of you are actually thinking this golf example is clever, how many people killed with golf clubs are there per year compared to legitimate uses of golf clubs? Now compare that with assault weapons. There is simply no reason for an assault weapon outside of the millitary unless you're some kind of sociopath.

Assault weapon != Assault rifle which is what the military uses.

That's what the golf club thing is getting at.

I live in Scotland so I dont have the benefit or experience of American culture to fully understand how banning knives is so amusing a concept.

I used to work in a hospital casualty department (Trauma unit to Americans), and the amount of knife wounds and killings that came through the doors on any night of the week was frightening.

Why is it so important for anyone to take a knife out with them to a club or a pub?
Why should some innocent bystander get slashed or stabbed by a knife weilding thug?

Enlighten me someone as to how important it is to have the right to carry a weapon around with you?

(The self defence answer wont cut it (get it?, irony eh?) with me, if no one carried knives there wouldn't be the need to defend yourself against them.
Same applies to guns.


Yes, we should ban everything. Like I said earlier.

And consider this. How many of those same woundings involved alcohol.

The net benefit to society of alcohol < 0. Yet it is one of the biggest killers.

At least guns can be used for self defense.

Get rid of alcohol first I say.

Kecibukia wrote;

I don't find it amusing. I find it scary/stupid.

They're trying to ban things that make no sense. Ban these "assault knives" and they'll (the criminals)just get one from the kitchen. I has little to do w/ carry or concealed carry. They (the politicians) refuse to go after the criminals, only the tools the criminals use. Since they are criminals, they really don't care much about the laws anyway and will find a way to get what it is they want but law abiding citizens are unable to => giving the advantage to the criminals.

If you can find a way to stop criminals from robbing/raping/murdering w/ any sort of weapon whatsoever, then you tell me.

Ok, I see where your coming from and I agree with your reasoning.
On a lower level, away from criminals getting knives and guns regardless of any potential bans, I still think that banning the sale of weapons to all and sundry would be a step in the right direction.
As it stands anyone can buy a hunting knife, or a fishing knife without showing that they have good reason to own one (I am talking about the large knives with serrated edges here).
Young kids have them hidden in their jackets and when they find a victim they think nothing of using them.
The police here (In Scotland) already have the power to stop and search if they "suspect" that someone is carrying a concealed weapon, the result here, in the area where I live, is a drastic reduction in knife related crimes.

The argument that it is silly to ban something just because criminals dont pay attention to details like the law only applies to career criminals, it doesn't apply to the adolescent who bows to peer pressure and goes out armed.

Yes, we should ban everything. Like I said earlier.

And consider this. How many of those same woundings involved alcohol.

The net benefit to society of alcohol < 0. Yet it is one of the biggest killers.

At least guns can be used for self defense.

Get rid of alcohol first I say.

They tried that one too. Worked about as well as the gun banning in England.
I like having the occasional drink, abuse should be treated harshly.
Punish the offenders, same as w/ gun crime.
Public drunkenness-SERIOUS community service & counseling/detox
Drunk driving-Lose license permanently & see above, 2nd offense multiple yrs in jail.
Killing someone while DUI-Jail for life
violence w/o death- Jail + see above

and here we go w/the emotional arguements.

"Assault
weapons": please state your definition.

No "need" for (insert class of gun here)...I have to show a "need" to assert my rights?

"questionable, unpleasant, silly, legitimate".. These are all your opinion.

Is it 9x more likely now? Last I heard the anti-gunners were spouting 6x. When did it go up?

so·ci·o·path (s
n

A person affected with an antisocial personality disorder.



And yes, I'm having lots of fun w/ the golf parody.No, sure, have fun with it, but there are bound to be people who'll think its actually a good arguement. And yes they are all my opinion, and no, you don't have a need to assert your rights, but I'm sure you've heard already the weapons grade plutonium arguement so I won't go over it in full but suffice to say, I think that the second amendment is one right that does need to have SOME limits.

I live in Scotland so I dont have the benefit or experience of American culture to fully understand how banning knives is so amusing a concept.

I used to work in a hospital casualty department (Trauma unit to Americans), and the amount of knife wounds and killings that came through the doors on any night of the week was frightening.

Why is it so important for anyone to take a knife out with them to a club or a pub?
Why should some innocent bystander get slashed or stabbed by a knife weilding thug?

Enlighten me someone as to how important it is to have the right to carry a weapon around with you?

(The self defence answer wont cut it (get it?, irony eh?) with me, if no one carried knives there wouldn't be the need to defend yourself against them.
Same applies to guns.Its not the first time I've thought that it should be victims and healthcare workers rather than politicians or gun lobbyists who get a say in writing the laws about the sale of deadly weapons.

As to "assault knives", the only thing I'm concerned about is whether or not it would actually make a difference. Obviously you can't ban all knives, and if people can't carry whatever kind of blade around, won't they just have a carving knife instead? So, while I agree that there's nothing wrong, in fact that there is something fundamentally right with the government intervening to prohibit people having and owning deadly weapons, I'm not quite seeing how this will help. I'm perfectly willing to condeed that I'm wrong here if theres statistical or medical evidence to show otherwise.

They tried that one too. Worked about as well as the gun banning in England.
I like having the occasional drink, abuse should be treated harshly.
Punish the offenders, same as w/ gun crime.
Public drunkenness-SERIOUS community service & counseling/detox
Drunk driving-Lose license permanently & see above, 2nd offense multiple yrs in jail.
Killing someone while DUI-Jail for life
violence w/o death- Jail + see above

Well if you can't control your drunken slovenliness, that's your problem (j/k)

Seriously though, I like a drink too, I am just pointing out that if you want to ban something because people might get hurt and there is no reason to have it, you wouldn't start with guns. Alcohol is clearly further up on the list. That's all.

And it's about time we get those damn golf clubs off the street.

Kecibukia wrote;



Ok, I see where your coming from and I agree with your reasoning.
On a lower level, away from criminals getting knives and guns regardless of any potential bans, I still think that banning the sale of weapons to all and sundry would be a step in the right direction.
As it stands anyone can buy a hunting knife, or a fishing knife without showing that they have good reason to own one (I am talking about the large knives with serrated edges here).
Young kids have them hidden in their jackets and when they find a victim they think nothing of using them.
The police here (In Scotland) already have the power to stop and search if they "suspect" that someone is carrying a concealed weapon, the result here, in the area where I live, is a drastic reduction in knife related crimes.

The argument that it is silly to ban something just because criminals dont pay attention to details like the law only applies to career criminals, it doesn't apply to the adolescent who bows to peer pressure and goes out armed.


Ok, reasonable but..

I have issues w/ having to show a "need" for something. Who gets to define the need? I see things like this leading (eventually) to needing a reason to apply freedom of speech.

If someone abuses the ownership of an item, they should be punished. Those kids that "think nothing of using knives" and go out armed are already career criminals and already care nothing about other people or the rules of society.

A kid gets busted w/ a knife but didn't commit an active crime and has no past record, Probation and community service. Later offenses or active crime should have more serious consequences.

Have there been any abuses by the police over there w/ the search issue? Some areas in the U.S have police that are notorious for abusing powers and most over here do not like the idea of impromptu searches.

(no I'm not insulting the police, I have great respect for the majority of honest cops out there)

Also, I can actually see a potential for knives as self defence, in a way that I can't really visualise for guns. Also, knives ARE for good uses as well as questionable ones, whereas guns... pretty much all at least a bit dodgy.

You can't seriously believe that a knife has any advantages over a gun as a self-defense weapon. A knife is harder to bluff with and depends greatly on the physical strength of the person using it. The average woman, or a comparatively weak guy like myself, is not going to be able to kill or seriously wound a determined attacker with a knife.

No, sure, have fun with it, but there are bound to be people who'll think its actually a good arguement. And yes they are all my opinion, and no, you don't have a need to assert your rights, but I'm sure you've heard already the weapons grade plutonium arguement so I won't go over it in full but suffice to say, I think that the second amendment is one right that does need to have SOME limits.

It does have limits as directed by the SCOTUS.

Arms= Small arms that can be carried by an individual and are useful to military service.
Translation: no anti-tank rockets, bazookas etc.

It is not absolute in that felons can have the right taken away from them.

Well if you can't control your drunken slovenliness, that's your problem (j/k)

Seriously though, I like a drink too, I am just pointing out that if you want to ban something because people might get hurt and there is no reason to have it, you wouldn't start with guns. Alcohol is clearly further up on the list. That's all.

And it's about time we get those damn golf clubs off the street.

Ahh. understood.

THE PGA IS SUPPORTING TERRORISTS!!! CLOSE THE GOLF CLUB SHOW LOOPHOLE!!!

You can't seriously believe that a knife has any advantages over a gun as a self-defense weapon. A knife is harder to bluff with and depends greatly on the physical strength of the person using it. The average woman, or a comparatively weak guy like myself, is not going to be able to kill or seriously wound a determined attacker with a knife.
Nono, my point is in an equal armed situation. A guy comes up to you with a knife and you have a knife, there are options. You can probably retrive a knife from wherever you've got it, or you can run for a bit, lay your hands on a knife, and be in a better self defence position.
On the other hand, if you've being held up at gunpoint, I can't see how you could get to your gun and either shoot or threaten your attacker before they shoot you. You can't run away before they'll shoot you. There are very few ways that I think you can use a gun as self defence against another gun, therefore the "only outlaws will have guns" thing is distinctly dodgy in my opinion.

Nono, my point is in an equal armed situation. A guy comes up to you with a knife and you have a knife, there are options. You can probably retrive a knife from wherever you've got it, or you can run for a bit, lay your hands on a knife, and be in a better self defence position.
On the other hand, if you've being held up at gunpoint, I can't see how you could get to your gun and either shoot or threaten your attacker before they shoot you. You can't run away before they'll shoot you. There are very few ways that I think you can use a gun as self defence against another gun, therefore the "only outlaws will have guns" thing is distinctly dodgy in my opinion.

Unless he stabs you in the back.

So what's your point.

And I take it you approve of a ban on alcohol.

Also, I can actually see a potential for knives as self defence, in a way that I can't really visualise for guns. Also, knives ARE for good uses as well as questionable ones, whereas guns... pretty much all at least a bit dodgy.

Indeed. With a knife you have to put a bit more thought into what you're doing (people engaged in acts of self defense ought to have no problem with motivation, there). None of this "point and shoot" crap...it's much harder to accidentally kill someone with a knife.

Ok, reasonable but..

I have issues w/ having to show a "need" for something. Who gets to define the need? I see things like this leading (eventually) to needing a reason to apply freedom of speech.

If someone abuses the ownership of an item, they should be punished. Those kids that "think nothing of using knives" and go out armed are already career criminals and already care nothing about other people or the rules of society.

A kid gets busted w/ a knife but didn't commit an active crime and has no past record, Probation and community service. Later offenses or active crime should have more serious consequences.

Have there been any abuses by the police over there w/ the search issue? Some areas in the U.S have police that are notorious for abusing powers and most over here do not like the idea of impromptu searches.

(no I'm not insulting the police, I have great respect for the majority of honest cops out there)

A thirteen year old carrying a knife is hardly a career criminal (not where I stay anyway) but the trend toward arming yourself before you go out the house "just in case I am mugged or jumped" is being stamped on hard here, the premis being that if you are in possession of a lethal weapon you must have intent to use it or else why carry it in the first place?
I agree that the consequences of being caught with a knife on your person should be more stringent, it may be the deterrent to stop the offender re-offending in the future.
I would go further and bring in a three strikes and your out rule on the parents of any teenager caught carrying weapons.
Strike one - warn the parents and the child.
Strike two - bring the parents in front of the Childrens board (a kind of youth court) and make them sign an official agreement regarding their childs behaviour.
Strike three the parents get fined.
Maybe then more parents will take an active interest on just what their kids are getting up to outside of the house.

As for abuses by police searching kids (and adults) for weapons, well I would guess that as with anywhere there will be abuses, not all policemen are fair or without predjudices but on the whole I have not heard of any complaints being upheld agains an unlawful search.

40 Reasons to Support Gun Control
(Apparently derived from the essay by Michael Z. Williamson.)
(Also known as the proof positive that Liberals are not just stupid, but insane.)

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.

I don't much appreciate that coming from someone who thinks one bit of propaganda proves a valid point. Congratulations, you've proven yourself to be short-sighted.

Ah, so basically you are saying the article's right. See, if your point was valid you could disprove most of the statements in there. But you can't. This tells us there are serious flaws in your stance.

I don't much appreciate that coming from someone who thinks one bit of propaganda proves a valid point. Congratulations, you've proven yourself to be short-sighted.

Ahh 41. Statistics from groups such as HCI are valid while statistics from groups such as the NRA are propaganda.

Statistics from any source can be adjusted to suit the argument, they are notoriously unreliable. You would need to poll every person in the country to get an accurate statistic on anything.

How bout DC and Arlington VA are right next to each other with no barriers between them and yet DC has a much greater crime rate. Biggest difference between the two, in DC guns are outlawed except for bodyguards and secret service and in Arlington concealed carry is perfectly legal. Or that Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and yet has no gun laws on the books.

How bout DC and Arlington VA are right next to each other with no barriers between them and yet DC has a much greater crime rate. Biggest difference between the two, in DC guns are outlawed except for bodyguards and secret service and in Arlington concealed carry is perfectly legal. Or that Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and yet has no gun laws on the books.

Maybe if they outlawed guns in Arlington the crims from DC would effectively have no where to accquire them except at greatly inflated prices on the black market?

Maybe if they outlawed guns in Arlington the crims from DC would effectively have no where to accquire them except at greatly inflated prices on the black market?

Or maybe the crime would then role right into now unprotected Arlington.

Or maybe the crime would then role right into now unprotected Arlington.

Lots of maybe's, from me included, but maybe (there's another one ;-) ) if guns were banned completely across the country there would be less shootings?

Lots of maybe's, from me included, but maybe (there's another one ;-) ) if guns were banned completely across the country there would be less shootings?

Like in England where gun crime has actually increased after the bans?

Like in England where gun crime has actually increased after the bans?


Who told you that?

LIke I said earlier, don't believe all the statistics you read, they are easily manipulated to suit the argument.

I don't actually live in England, (I live in the far superior and nicer Scotland) but in Britain as whole we have never been a gun carrying nation like the US for instance.
Sure criminals have guns, they are easily accquired by them from any number of sources but the ordinary Joe in the street has, in all probability never even held a real gun let alone own one, thats why any shootings in our country are big news, and I mean *any*.
In the US I imagine shootings are so common place that they rarely make it into anything but local newspapers.

Who told you that?

LIke I said earlier, don't believe all the statistics you read, they are easily manipulated to suit the argument.

I don't actually live in England, (I live in the far superior and nicer Scotland) but in Britain as whole we have never been a gun carrying nation like the US for instance.
Sure criminals have guns, they are easily accquired by them from any number of sources but the ordinary Joe in the street has, in all probability never even held a real gun let alone own one, thats why any shootings in our country are big news, and I mean *any*.
In the US I imagine shootings are so common place that they rarely make it into anything but local newspapers.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/01/ngun01.xml

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/01/ngun01.xml

Yeah, I read it but you must understand that the Telegraph in Britain is little better than your National Enquirer :-P

The baby they mentioned getting killed was actually killed in spain, it just happened to belong to a British couple.

Anyhoo, I wasn't saying that we have no gun crime, just that it is rarer in our country (even allowing for the differences in population) than it is in the US, and that is because guns have been outlawed.

The statistics will be different next time around, and so on.

It is still almost entirely criminals who are shooting people, not ordinary guys killing each other over parking disputes or neighbourhood spats.

The real danger is from cushions and pillows! The silent killers!
BAN CUSHIONS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!!

Yeah, I read it but you must understand that the Telegraph in Britain is little better than your National Enquirer :-P

The baby they mentioned getting killed was actually killed in spain, it just happened to belong to a British couple.

Anyhoo, I wasn't saying that we have no gun crime, just that it is rarer in our country (even allowing for the differences in population) than it is in the US, and that is because guns have been outlawed.

The statistics will be different next time around, and so on.

It is still almost entirely criminals who are shooting people, not ordinary guys killing each other over parking disputes or neighbourhood spats.

The same for here. Where do you get your information from?

The real danger is from cushions and pillows! The silent killers!
BAN CUSHIONS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!!

And any bed that can hold more that ten pilllows.

We must keep the "assault pillows" out of the hands of terrorists.

WTF is an "assault knife?" I know knives pretty well, and this term would seem to cover a great variety of knives. What in the world do they think they're going to accomplish by doing this? Cut down on people killed with knives? Seems to me it would be more likely someone would be killed in their own home with a butcher knife than with an assault knife!
Any knife with two or more of the following features; a silencer attachment, pistol grip, serrated edges, or bayonet attachment.

Anyway, banning guns was good, (although they haven't actually been completely banned you just need a reason to have one to get a license) and so is banning fox hunting, national IDs are just pointless though.Why?

With guns, I don't really like the idea of walking down the street wondering how many people have guns, while i'm not naïve enough to think that no one will have them if they are banned, at least if they are the chances of a 13 year old kid using a gun without thinking of the consequences are reduced (Its the same problem as we have with knives at the moment). I'm not sure if you want to know my reasons for the others.

With guns, I don't really like the idea of walking down the street wondering how many people have guns, while i'm not naïve enough to think that no one will have them if they are banned, at least if they are the chances of a 13 year old kid using a gun without thinking of the consequences are reduced (Its the same problem as we have with knives at the moment). I'm not sure if you want to know my reasons for the others.

Ahh, gotcha.. Emotional arguements. So you want to ban the tools and not punish the offenders? Do you honestly think banning "assault knives" will stop these kids from grabbing a steakknife from the kitchen? You want random search and seisure?

I personally would like to live in a state that permits carry or concealed carry. Then I know that if some idiot pulls a gun, the odds are that there will be honest, law-abiding citizens there capable of preventing a crime instead of just the criminal.

With guns, I don't really like the idea of walking down the street wondering how many people have guns, while i'm not naïve enough to think that no one will have them if they are banned, at least if they are the chances of a 13 year old kid using a gun without thinking of the consequences are reduced (Its the same problem as we have with knives at the moment). I'm not sure if you want to know my reasons for the others.
Then you'd best not move to Vermont, cause you know, you get all those reports of mass murderers walking the streets daily. Actually if there is a possibility that if said 13 year old kid doing that is likely to be killed by someone else with a gun they would be less likely to do it.

Ahh, gotcha.. Emotional arguements. So you want to ban the tools and not punish the offenders? Do you honestly think banning "assault knives" will stop these kids from grabbing a steakknife from the kitchen? You want random search and seisure?

I personally would like to live in a state that permits carry or concealed carry. Then I know that if some idiot pulls a gun, the odds are that there will be honest, law-abiding citizens there capable of preventing a crime instead of just the criminal.

No, I want to ban the tools and punish the offenders. Anyway, I never said anything about supporting banning knives, its pretty pointless, as is having to sign a knife register to buy a penknife. Its guns I don't like the idea of. I suppose it just comes from living somewhere where guns have always been banned and just generally being paranoid :).

Then you'd best not move to Vermont, cause you know, you get all those reports of mass murderers walking the streets daily. Actually if there is a possibility that if said 13 year old kid doing that is likely to be killed by someone else with a gun they would be less likely to do it.

There is also the possibility that the said 13 year old would be more likely to shoot first and ask questions later if he knew that hesitation would likely get him killed.

Also, I can actually see a potential for knives as self defence, in a way that I can't really visualise for guns.

Yeh, maybe if you are a large healthy male and not a small female or elderly or disabled.

Guns are effective for self defence for those that have a disadvantage of strength. Knives aren't.

Yeh, maybe if you are a large healthy male and not a small female or elderly or disabled.

Guns are effective for self defence for those that have a disadvantage of strength. Knives aren't.
Depends entirely on the situation. Introduce a bit of training, and a knife becomes a more effective self-defence tool in a lot of scenarios, regardless of body type (though I will admit that the disabled would likely have a harder time, but then again, it would be down to their particular situation).
I am, as I've mentioned in other threads, studying martial arts, and my school trains for the street. This means that it includes training for fighting off an attacker who is armed when you are not, and fighting with knives. In terms of defending against an armed attacker, at close range, you actually have rather more options when said attacker has a gun; everything from the barrel lock to straight-up grabbing it (if you don't mind probably tearing up your hand) and forcing it to the side. Rather less options against a knife; either grab/hit their hand or skewer your own hand to keep the blade away from your body. At long range, of course, a knife is useless (excepting throwing knives), and a gun means time to run, dodging and weaving as best you can.
As to using a knife aggressively (in terms of self defence, not in terms of attacking someone), there are also more options once training is involved. You get shot in the lower arm, there's not a whole lot of risk to your overall continued health; if you get slashed up on that same area, though, you could bleed to death in a rather short span of time (this is assuming that the individual, like I said, has training, and knows how to properly inflict damage when such is necessary). This extends to all arterial areas. You can also do things like severing the tendons connecting the attacker's thigh to his knee, rendering that leg utterly useless immediately.
I realize how aggressive and sadistic this all makes me sound, but due to the same training that taught me all of this, I will absolutely never make use of it outside of life-or-death situations. To do so would be to shame the art, as well as my teacher, and I carry too much respect for both to do such a thing.

In actuality, I would be all for the government encouraging all citizens to participate in martial arts training, as a more versatile, practical, and otherwise good-for-you means of self-defense than firearm ownership.

As for myself, I carry a 3" fold out blade (half-serrated) at all times. I've never considered using it for combat, although it would be extremely useful if I ever find myself needing it for such; it's simply an incredibly useful tool for day-to-day activities.

And to bring it all back to the original point of the thread, I find the proposed ban stupid, just as I find much (but decidedly not all) gun control stupid. I'm all for extremely harsh punishment of violent criminals.

Statistics from any source can be adjusted to suit the argument, they are notoriously unreliable. You would need to poll every person in the country to get an accurate statistic on anything.

Of course they can be adjusted to any argument...they're numbers. Numbers have no bias.

As for your second claim, by the Law of Large Numbers, statistics get more accurate with the more people you poll. So, technically, you're right. However, you don't need to poll every last person to get an idea of the trend. Far from it, and there are formulas out there to determine just how many you do need, if your methods are sound.

Statistics aren't supposed to be perfect - they are supposed to show trends, and are only as accurate as their sample size. The recent idea that statistics are bogus comes from people watching too much TV.

Yeh, maybe if you are a large healthy male and not a small female or elderly or disabled.

Guns are effective for self defence for those that have a disadvantage of strength. Knives aren't.

Perhaps we ought to give those people the powers of pre-emptive defense, then. After all, guns are only effective if you're young and fast enough to both pull and control them when attacked. Those small women and the elderly could just shoot those people who are likely to pose a threat to them...certainly this would be even more beneficial to them, eliminating the need not only for the strength, but also the reflex speed they may lack.

Of course they can be adjusted to any argument...they're numbers. Numbers have no bias.

As for your second claim, by the Law of Large Numbers, statistics get more accurate with the more people you poll. So, technically, you're right. However, you don't need to poll every last person to get an idea of the trend. Far from it, and there are formulas out there to determine just how many you do need, if your methods are sound.

Statistics aren't supposed to be perfect - they are supposed to show trends, and are only as accurate as their sample size. The recent idea that statistics are bogus comes from people watching too much TV.

Getting an idea of a trend is far being a reliable source of information.
In order to find out a true picture on how a nation feels about anything you cannot just pick a random number of respondents and use a formula and then say with any kind of certainty "This is how the nation feels".

Getting an idea of a trend is far being a reliable source of information.
In order to find out a true picture on how a nation feels about anything you cannot just pick a random number of respondents and use a formula and then say with any kind of certainty "This is how the nation feels".

You don't seem to be understanding this.

Statistics are not a numerical crystal ball. A statistc suggests, it does not say. Depending on the degrees of confidence, margin of error, etc, it may suggest it with more certainty, but contrary to what news agencies and other groups dumbing down stats to convince a lay public of this or that would have you believe, stastics are not intended to be 100% accurate. Never were.

And there is no randomness to picking out the mathematical aspects to it, so you may as well drop that line now for something a little more...factual. What do you think paid statisticians do all day, draw numbers from hats? Really, use a little common sense.

Depends entirely on the situation. Introduce a bit of training, and a knife becomes a more effective self-defence tool in a lot of scenarios, regardless of body type (though I will admit that the disabled would likely have a harder time, but then again, it would be down to their particular situation).
That may be true, but I still think a firearm "levels the playing field" a lot more than a knife.

And there is the psychological effect. A rapist staring down the barrel of a gun would probably be a lot more scared than if his victim presented a knife.

I am, as I've mentioned in other threads, studying martial arts, and my school trains for the street. This means that it includes training for fighting off an attacker who is armed when you are not, and fighting with knives....I realize how aggressive and sadistic this all makes me sound, but due to the same training that taught me all of this, I will absolutely never make use of it outside of life-or-death situations. To do so would be to shame the art, as well as my teacher, and I carry too much respect for both to do such a thing.
It's great that you are willing to put a lot of energy into this, but this expenditure makes it rather inaccesable to the average person.

How much time and money have you put into developing these skills?

Perhaps we ought to give those people the powers of pre-emptive defense, then. After all, guns are only effective if you're young and fast enough to both pull and control them when attacked. Those small women and the elderly could just shoot those people who are likely to pose a threat to them...certainly this would be even more beneficial to them, eliminating the need not only for the strength, but also the reflex speed they may lack.
While many women may be weaker physically than a male attacker, there is nothing stopping them from drawing thier firearm just as quickly.

As to the disabled and elderly, yes this is a disadvantage. They still have more options.

Not all situations call for the firearm to be drawn in two seconds.

And please, everyone remember, in the vast, vast majority of defensive gun uses, the gun isn't even fired!!!

While many women may be weaker physically than a male attacker, there is nothing stopping them from drawing thier firearm just as quickly.

As to the disabled and elderly, yes this is a disadvantage. They still have more options.

Not all situations call for the firearm to be drawn in two seconds.

And please, everyone remember, in the vast, vast majority of defensive gun uses, the gun isn't even fired!!!

I'm not just talking about the women here, but anyone with slowed reflexes. I mean, if the inability to use a knife adequately is a strong reason for firearm legality, certainly we must extend such provisions for those who cannot use their gun propoerly.

Point is: Someone will always be at a disadvantage, so to imply that putting a gun into their hands will solve the problem is more than a bit simplistic. As Spoffin's been pointing out, the perpetrator usually has the jump on a person, and so if he has a gun, there's very little that can be done. He's already ready to shoot you, so having a gun evens up very little.

That's all I really care to argue about this though...as I pointed out earlier, I really don't care about the issue enough to put in a whole-hearted argument for one side or the other.

*walks away to polish hunter's crescent blade*

That may be true, but I still think a firearm "levels the playing field" a lot more than a knife.

And there is the psychological effect. A rapist staring down the barrel of a gun would probably be a lot more scared than if his victim presented a knife.
I would be more frightened of a knife, but that's me. I don't tend to go into really bad parts of town, so I'm never really in an area where actually firing a gun wouldn't be a liability due to noise.

It's great that you are willing to put a lot of energy into this, but this expenditure makes it rather inaccesable to the average person.

How much time and money have you put into developing these skills?
A decent amount of time, but less than you might think, and approximately $0.00. I don't deny that it would be difficult for everybody to get this kind of training, but then again, how much energy and money to "average people" dump into essentially useless high school sports? I know my kid (if I have any) will be trained, and I do what I can to encourage others to seek out similar training. It's more accessable than people tend to think.

I'm not just talking about the women here, but anyone with slowed reflexes. I mean, if the inability to use a knife adequately is a strong reason for firearm legality, certainly we must extend such provisions for those who cannot use their gun propoerly.

Point is: Someone will always be at a disadvantage, so to imply that putting a gun into their hands will solve the problem is more than a bit simplistic. As Spoffin's been pointing out, the perpetrator usually has the jump on a person, and so if he has a gun, there's very little that can be done. He's already ready to shoot you, so having a gun evens up very little.

Are we only talking about concealed carry here? What about home defence? In the home the homeowner has the home-turf advantage, and more than enough time to ready a firearm. Even on the streets, I doubt every attack is a quick rush from behind.

Self defence will never solve a problem, it is only to prevent the symptoms of a problem from harming you! Hell, I shouldn't even care until I'm 60 years older, I'm not very likely to be attacked succesfully, but I want all of my family to be able to defend themselves too.

Obviously not everyone will be able to defend themselves equally. A firearm is the best thing we have that gives a paraplegic a fighting chance against a large mugger, or a young woman a fighting chance against a large rapist.

I would be more frightened of a knife, but that's me. I don't tend to go into really bad parts of town, so I'm never really in an area where actually firing a gun wouldn't be a liability due to noise.
Neither am I, but I know that if I were to attack someone, I'd rather see a knife held out in a scared, shaking hand than a pistol! Sure, in a few cases the person with the knife might be really dangerous, but the vast majority of people would be FAR more of a threat with a firearm.

A decent amount of time, but less than you might think, and approximately $0.00. I don't deny that it would be difficult for everybody to get this kind of training, but then again, how much energy and money to "average people" dump into essentially useless high school sports? I know my kid (if I have any) will be trained, and I do what I can to encourage others to seek out similar training. It's more accessable than people tend to think.
What is the name of your martial art?
I did a few years of Kempo Karate and remember that the Katas would be really good at fighting off six bad guys, standing in formation, waiting for me to hit them. ;)

Neither am I, but I know that if I were to attack someone, I'd rather see a knife held out in a scared, shaking hand than a pistol!
True enough. I suppose I will modify my statement: in the case of a frieghtened, inexperienced, nervous, rushed, or otherwise agitated attacker, I would be more frightened of a gun. In the case of one who was remaining calm and looked to have some experience as a mugger, I would still be more afraid of a knife.

What is the name of your martial art?
I did a few years of Kempo Karate and remember that the Katas would be really good at fighting off six bad guys, standing in formation, waiting for me to hit them. ;)
Wing Chun Kung Fu. Not the Hong Kong style.
Yeah, I don't much care for forms either; fortunately, we only have three, and those are only used in as much as parts of them can be applied to street fights (in my school, anyway).

But in some good news in the Peoples Republic of Illinois:

Veto on gun bill shot down

By Christopher Wills
Associated Press
Advertisement
SPRINGFIELD -- Rejecting the governor's veto, Illinois lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to give new legal protection to homeowners who use a banned handgun to shoot burglars.

The House voted 85-30 Tuesday to override Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto. The Senate had approved the bill earlier, so it now becomes law.

The legislation applies only in specific and uncommon circumstances, but it became a symbol in the tug-of-war over gun control.


http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/111704/new_20041117014.shtml

Are we only talking about concealed carry here? What about home defence? In the home the homeowner has the home-turf advantage, and more than enough time to ready a firearm. Even on the streets, I doubt every attack is a quick rush from behind.

Self defence will never solve a problem, it is only to prevent the symptoms of a problem from harming you! Hell, I shouldn't even care until I'm 60 years older, I'm not very likely to be attacked succesfully, but I want all of my family to be able to defend themselves too.

Obviously not everyone will be able to defend themselves equally. A firearm is the best thing we have that gives a paraplegic a fighting chance against a large mugger, or a young woman a fighting chance against a large rapist.

I'm talking about concealed carry, yes. I couldn't care less what you have in your home, so long as it stays there. The ironic thing is that I support concealed carry laws...so what am I arguing? Nothing in particular.

LOL, England!

LOL, England!

Again, this has nothing to do with England, it's being proposed in Scotland.