Banning Hoodies?

[MoMo]

That's what they're trying to do in Britain, on the theory
that hoods often conceal... hoodlums.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/19/news/letter.php

[luv2run]

Next target: banning T-shirts. And then they're going after those "tennis" shoes, I suippose ....:rolleyes:

[Jwaksman]

You know, it's believed that the word "hoodlum" has nothing to do with hoods. It has to do with a San Francisco gang leader named Muldoon. He had threatened newspaper reporters, so one of them decided to write about him by spelling his name backwards ("noodlum") - but the type-setter made a typo on the first letter.


But, yeah, it is pretty absurd to ban things that are incidental in crimes, and not the cause. Like hoods, tennis shoes, and guns.

[MoMo]

That Muldoon story is a good one, though apparently apocryphal.

Another possibility is that, at a time of a large German migrant population in San Francisco around the 1870s, it derived from the German word "Huddellump," meaning "a slovenly person."

[leighpeas]

But, yeah, it is pretty absurd to ban things that are incidental in crimes, and not the cause. Like hoods, tennis shoes, and guns.
AMEN!!

[MoMo]

guns, incidental to crime? tell that to the person who has his face blown off.

[New York XC]

All criminals wear underware (of some sorts). Therefore, banning underware will get rid of crime. It can't not work!

[running high]

Hidden objective: Freeze the hoodlums to death in the wintertime. Passing the bill in June is just a coverup.

[Jwaksman]

guns, incidental to crime? tell that to the person who has his face blown off.



A baseball bat is incidental to crime? tell that to the person who has his face bashed in.

A tennis shoe is incidental to crime? tell that to the person who gets mugged by a guy who runs away real quickly.

A paper clip is incidental to crime? tell that to the person who has his locked picked and his house robbed.



Congratulations, according to your form of logic we can now eliminate crime by banning baseball bats, tennis shoes and paper clips.

[luv2run]

I liked the sarcasm, but I think the point is that guns have no use other than to harm people (and start races). So banning them isn't going to hurt baseball, Nike, or papers that need to be stuck together.

Not that I necessarily favor banning guns, but at least that'd be somewhat reasonable, unlike banning my beloved hoodies ... I don't think I could possibly make it through any day under 60 degrees F without a hooded sweatshirt.

[exjersey1]

Sure, bats, hammers, steak knives, etc. can all be used to commit crimes of violence, but guns are made for one purpose only, and that's to kill something.

[mzungu]

But, yeah, it is pretty absurd to ban things that are incidental in crimes, and not the cause. Like hoods, tennis shoes, and guns.

hoods and tennis shoes rarely cause death, in my experience.
do guns (loaded guns) cause death ever in the united states?

oh ... tens of thousands of times a year?

[luv2run]

at the center of this debate lies the hooded sweatshirt, a form of dress whose origins seem to owe more to Eminem videos and gangsta rap than to the economics of keeping warm on a low budget.

[...]

Hooded sweatshirts, in any event, may be no more than the new drainpipe trousers and thick-soled shoes of the 1950s, Elvis-inspired Teddy boys; the 1960s leather jackets of motorcycle rockers or the motor scooters and parkas of mods; the headbands and bangles of the hippies; the piercings and spikings of punks or any other in-your-face statement of generational defiance - usually from within the stockade of peer-group conformity.

All those stereotypes, it is true, have flourished on the fringes of society.Have these people ever walked into a high school in their lives?

I would put money on the fact that 30% or more of high school students wear hoodies at least weekly (when it's cold out). Especially to advertise for sports like XC and track. I guess it's possible that hoodies are only worn by "hoodlums" in Britain, but here they're most definitely mainstream.

[Jwaksman]

Guns are created to protect people. If a criminal wants to commit a murder, they will find a weapon. But lawful citizens will have a hard time defending themselves if they can't find a weapon. Just look at England. They banned handguns, and homocides more than doubled within 5 years.



The fatal flaw in banning/regulating guns is thinking that you can actually keep violent people from committing violent crimes by keeping weapons away. It's like the war on drugs: theyr'e doing a good job keeping marijuana out of our children, right?


It's simple economics: if there is demand, then there will be a supply to satiate it. The way to prevent violent crime is to prevent the demand for violent crime, not the supply of weapons. The best deterrant of crime is a good justice system. The second best deterrant is self-defense. People will think twice about robbing someone if there's a shotgun inside.

[leighpeas]

I liked the sarcasm, but I think the point is that guns have no use other than to harm people (and start races).

um... i shoot. i've never killed anyone. or injured anyone. or threatened anyone.

[jrun]

um... i shoot. i've never killed anyone. or injured anyone. or threatened anyone.

Ok, but what's the purpose of guns?

To shoot dishes?

[Jwaksman]

Ok, but what's the purpose of guns?

To shoot dishes?



To defend yourself. To shoot people who are trying to hurt you.


If there was a law that we could pass that would end violence then I would be all for it. But gun bans are not that law. There are still violent criminals. Guns are a way to defend yourself against them.

[luv2run]

um... i shoot. i've never killed anyone. or injured anyone. or threatened anyone.Oh, and to kill animals. And to aim at a target.

You're right, I did forget about "sport." I don't really agree with it, but I guess it is a use.

[leighpeas]

Oh, and to kill animals. And to aim at a target.

You're right, I did forget about "sport." I don't really agree with it, but I guess it is a use.
i've never killed an animal either. i personally wouldn't go to all the trouble to skin it and cook it, so i think their best left with their life. and as for sport, some think that running around in circles is pretty stupid as well. or hitting a ball with a stick to make it go in a little hole.

and for those who consider me a redneck, doctors kill more people than guns.

[exjersey1]

Guns are created to protect people.


100% incorrect. Guns weren't invented to protect people from spears, or bows-and-arrows or lances or killer bees or anything else, they were invented as a better way to kill things.

You can look it up.


Or conversely, you're welcome to post some evidence that backs up your claim that they were invented to protect people.

[Jwaksman]

What were militaries created for? To kill people. So should we disband our military also?




See, people don't actually care about protection. I've talked before about the difference between means and ends. To some people here, banning guns is an ends. They simply hate guns and want them banned. No reason other than their hatred of guns.

I see guns as a means to an end. Guns themselves are just pieces of equipment. They can be used to kill innocent people or to protect innocent people. If they are used to protect innocent people then they are good. If they are used to kill innocent people then they are bad.


The first question is, will banning guns protect any people? Yes, there are certainly some examples of people being accidently killed by guns. The next question is, will banning guns lead to the death of innocent people? The answer to that is Yes. Many more.


If a drug dealer is intent on killing another drug dealer, it's absurd to think that by trying to eliminate one of his potential weapons you will prevent his murder. Besides, you're not exactly talking about a lawful person. The vast majority of crimes involving guns involve stolen guns anyway.


If you want to support a law that will protect the most possible innocent people then you will support a law that will protect the rights of people to defend themselves with weapons, including guns.

[harrier12]

I almost fell off the couch laughing when I read this article, as it has a personal connection for me. My Spanish teacher-very prim and proper type-freshman year of high school would tell students to remove their "gang-related hoods" if anyone came in with one up or was trying to take a nap in class. It's interesting that because a small minority can taint a particular item of clothing for the rest of us in the eyes of the high and mighty.

Have these people ever walked into a high school in their lives?

I would put money on the fact that 30% or more of high school students wear hoodies at least weekly (when it's cold out). Especially to advertise for sports like XC and track. I guess it's possible that hoodies are only worn by "hoodlums" in Britain, but here they're most definitely mainstream.

Even in college, I'd be willing to bet at least a quarter of my school wears them on a given day when it's cold. The school even encourages it by selling those wonderful hoodies with the embroidered letters-if you can afford the $54 price tag :p . Any team at my high school-cept maybe the cheerleaders-had them and wore them proudly. I have to think that it's not quite the fashion trend it is here for there to be such an uproar over hoodies.

[78Champ]

A tennis shoe is incidental to crime? tell that to the person who gets mugged by a guy who runs away real quickly.


Well, the victim should wear trainers or racing flats and out run the perp.

JW

[MoMo]

jwack, since you consider guns so "incidental" to crime, this means you'd just as soon be robbed by someone with a 9mm gun as, say, a slingshot? the killing power of the criminal's weapon makes NO difference to you?

[jrun]

Jwaksman, to my knowledge no one has yet advocated the banishment of guns. You're jumping the gun (pun not intended, but accolades welcome) on making that issue an argument.

The argument for the last 5-7 posts has been the question of why guns were invented. As a better way to kill, no?

[MoMo]

I think he's trying to tell us that guns were invented as a...

...

fashion accessory. :rolleyes:

[Jwaksman]

No, a slingshot would be easier to deal with. But a butcher knife wouldn't. Neither would a large metal pipe. But it's really irrelevant. Because you CAN'T keep someone from getting a gun.


And if you guys are just supporting regulation of guns, then that argument is even sillier. Because very few violent criminals buy their guns legally. As I said before, the vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen. So, again, all you're doing is keeping law-abiding people from defending themselves.


Criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns, whether you try to stop them or not. That is always THE flaw in anti-drug legislation and anti-gun legislation. The false premise that when you ban something under law that you actually get rid of it.

[exjersey1]

And if you guys are just supporting regulation of guns, then that argument is even sillier. Because very few violent criminals buy their guns legally. As I said before, the vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen. So, again, all you're doing is keeping law-abiding people from defending themselves.




Gun control is not the subject. You asserted that guns were invented for defensive purposes; for protection, and that is patently untrue.

Shields, bulletproof vests, and kevlar underwear are for personal protection. Firearms were invented as a better means of killing. PERIOD.

[mzungu]

guns are used for offense and defense and sport. this is so obvious it would not need to be said, except for the moronic argument going on here. if you took guns out of our society almost completely, you would no longer get all the dead bystanders from drive-by's, such as the one that happened on thursday in the nyc area--a mother was killed and her daughter seriously injured when someone started shooting at other people. it is ridiculous to believe that guns, the primary murder weapon, are not a huge part of the murder problem.

[leighpeas]

guns are used for offense and defense and sport. this is so obvious it would not need to be said, except for the moronic argument going on here. if you took guns out of our society almost completely, you would no longer get all the dead bystanders from drive-by's, such as the one that happened on thursday in the nyc area--a mother was killed and her daughter seriously injured when someone started shooting at other people. it is ridiculous to believe that guns, the primary murder weapon, are not a huge part of the murder problem.
but you'd also have an increase of robbery and such, simply because the public becomes loses any equalizing defense.

[Jwaksman]

guns are used for offense and defense and sport. this is so obvious it would not need to be said, except for the moronic argument going on here. if you took guns out of our society almost completely, you would no longer get all the dead bystanders from drive-by's, such as the one that happened on thursday in the nyc area--a mother was killed and her daughter seriously injured when someone started shooting at other people. it is ridiculous to believe that guns, the primary murder weapon, are not a huge part of the murder problem.



This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. "if you took guns out of our society almost completely". Here's a memo: YOU CAN'T. You can only take guns away from law-abiding people. Violent criminals will get their hands on guns. The only question is whether you allow people to defend themselves against criminals.

If violent criminals had a union, they'd be lobbying congress for gun control laws. Without question.

[mzungu]

why would they support gun control? in fact, what you actually find is that police departments are behind every gun control law. they know very well that if you pass a gun control law and enforce it, you reduce the availability of guns, and thus make it more difficult for criminals to get them.

[KenA55]

There are so many unregistered handguns out there that there's just no way to 'control' really. Who really wants government to have complete rolls on who has what, anyway? There's no way to know for certain who will be trying to do what with government in the future. The less they know the better. Keep your unregistered weapons unregistered. And pull that hoodie off your head indoors!
:D

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, by assuming that gun laws will keep guns out of criminals you are assuming that criminals are law abiding citizens. Unfortunately, not too many drug lords are buying their guns from gun shops. Unfortunately, Bin Laden's associates aren't going to register their guns with government officials.


There is absolutely no evidence that gun bans lower violent crime. As I've pointed out, the most recent example of a drastic gun control law (in England) led to a huge increase in violent crimes.



You may not want people to be able to defend themselves. But I realize that in the real world, there will be armed, violent criminals. And I'd rather not ban their potential victims from being able to defend themselves.

[leighpeas]

why would they support gun control? in fact, what you actually find is that police departments are behind every gun control law. they know very well that if you pass a gun control law and enforce it, you reduce the availability of guns, and thus make it more difficult for criminals to get them.
that's bull. my dad has worked for several police departments, and the only ones that support gun control are those in the movies. so instead of making up facts for the sake of argument because you think they must be accurate by your logic, do some research.

[MoMo]

that's not bull. i've seen several police departments and officials endorsing gun control of various sorts (see below). you're a little quick to accuse people of manufacturing facts.

international association of chiefs of police; international brotherhood of police officers; major cities chiefs association; national black police association; national organization of black law enforcement executives; the police foundation; michigan association of chiefs of police; rhode island association of chiefs of police; maine chiefs of police association....

shall i go on??

[jersey_guy]

There is absolutely no evidence that gun bans lower violent crime. As I've pointed out, the most recent example of a drastic gun control law (in England) led to a huge increase in violent crimes.


Don't interrupt his propaganda with facts.

[Jwaksman]

that's not bull. i've seen several police departments and officials endorsing gun control of various sorts (see below). you're a little quick to accuse people of manufacturing facts.

international association of chiefs of police; international brotherhood of police officers; major cities chiefs association; national black police association; national organization of black law enforcement executives; the police foundation; michigan association of chiefs of police; rhode island association of chiefs of police; maine chiefs of police association....

shall i go on??



You mean that you can list a bunch of unions?? I can list a bunch of unions also. And 98% of unions toe the Democratic Party line on all issues - from gun control to abortion. That doesn't prove anything.


I find it interesting that you haven't even tried to present any evidence that gun control actually lowers violent crime. But it's not violent crime that you're trying to prevent, is it? The elimination of guns is an ends in itself, not a means to a less-violent end.

[MoMo]

god, you're annoying.

why would police groups support gun control if they thought it would do nothing to reduce crime and reduce threats to their lives? just because they are toadies of the democratic party?

that's a ridiculous argument.

so is your absurd suggestion that i don't favor reducing violent crime. that's a hallucinatory suggestion not even worth responding to.

[leighpeas]

that's not bull. i've seen several police departments and officials endorsing gun control of various sorts (see below). you're a little quick to accuse people of manufacturing facts.

international association of chiefs of police; international brotherhood of police officers; major cities chiefs association; national black police association; national organization of black law enforcement executives; the police foundation; michigan association of chiefs of police; rhode island association of chiefs of police; maine chiefs of police association....

shall i go on??
show me something where advocation of gun control isn't used for political gain. gun control LOOKS GOOD, just as the D.A.R.E. program LOOKED GOOD. neither are helping the situations at hand.

let me show you something, poohead.

While leaders of Minnesota's police organizations oppose the law, national surveys show the police support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin. Many former strong opponents to right-to-carry laws have changed their positions after the laws have been in effect for a couple of years.
source (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/credibility.html)

on a website for a group that you listed, i read here (http://www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/Crimeguninterdictionstrategies%20.PDF) much about reducing ILLEGAL trafficking of guns. nothing about restriction or disarmament of citizens.

[Jwaksman]

Yes, MoMo, one could consider a challenge to their pre-conceived assumptions as "annoying", if that's how they view learning and independent thought. I'm not questioning that some people actually believe that gun control limits crime. I bet there are even some people here who believe that. But there is no evidence to support that. For every cop that believes that gun control limits crime, you can find two who will say that gun control increases crime.

Until any evidence that gun control limits crime prevents itself, then we cannot assume it when discussing gun control issues.

[MoMo]

jwack, you're objectively annoying because you constantly ASSUME you know what my "preconceived notions" are and you constantly warp other people's arguments and you constantly change the subject when you are painted into a corner.

i haven't been on this thread banging the drum for gun control, even though i am SUBJECTIVELY drawn to the idea that it might do some good, as are many other people of goodwill and intention, and some very serious students of law enforcement, based partly on SOME of the data, which (to use a jwackian excuse) i'm too tired to look up just now.

you want to pick a fight. i'm not interested, not at the moment.

i'd rather sit here and chuckle at being called a "pooh-head" by leighpeas.

[Jwaksman]

Okay, well if you'd like to present any evidence at all for your support of gun control, other than that it's also supported by the DNC, then I'd love to see it and discuss it. Otherwise, it's silly to sit here and say, "Oh, I'm sure there's evidence somewhere to support my belief, but I just can't think of any right now..."

[MoMo]

o.k. so YOU'll never again use that line -- as you have a hundred times in the past three months? ("i'm too busy now or i'd find the evidence... the link...," etc.) just do a search on jwack plus "i'm too busy" or "i don't have time"... it's quite amusing.

[Jwaksman]

Look, I'm not going to play your immature namecalling games. I've challenged you to present evidence and you have not - over a period of several days. When you would like to have a mature, educated discussion, I'll be here waiting for you.

[leighpeas]

i'd rather sit here and chuckle at being called a "pooh-head" by leighpeas.
chuckle all you want to doofhead! :mad:









:p

[Dyenimator]

Look, I'm not going to play your immature namecalling games. I've challenged you to present evidence and you have not - over a period of several days. When you would like to have a mature, educated discussion, I'll be here waiting for you.

He didn't call you any names...

[Jwaksman]

Well, we can play semantics games also. Immature insults? Would you rather call them that?


Or... we can try to lift up the level of discourse and maturity here, and get back on topic...

[mzungu]

so, the fact that police support gun control proves nothing to you?

what about the fact that gun control is much stricter in most other developed countries and they also have much lower gun murder/death rates?

why would a law help if we are talking about criminals? well, first of all, most murders are committed by acquaintances, and in many cases they use a gun that they already owned. They did not acquire the gun with the intention to kill another person with it. If I remember correctly, there are thousands of accidental gun deaths a year. Moreover, when criminals use guns in crimes, the guns were often acquired originally through burglary. If you had strict gun or even handgun laws THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, rather than only in isolated precincts, and limits on ammunition, you would GRADUALLY see a decline in gun availability, and with that a decline in murders.

[Jwaksman]

Okay, so you start off with a strange cause/effect relationship. More developed countries have gun control laws and lower murder rates - so, therefore, gun control laws lead to lower murder rates? That's a dicey set of logic there. Murder rates are more typically due to culture. Otherwise, how could you explain that murder rates are highest in urban areas, where gun control laws are the strictest? How do you explain that Canadians are much more likely to own guns than Americans, with much more lenient laws, yet have a much lower homocide rate?


Obviously the answer is that those stats are incidental. There are many, many issues involved, including culture. As much as you like to simplify the world to one or two issues, it's really much more complex. As any statistician would tell you, it's absurd to look at absolute murder rates. The only thing you can look at is the change in violent crime rates after a gun control law is passed or repealed.


Now, do you really believe that by passing stricter gun regulations that suddenly violent criminals and drug dealers will say, "Oh, darn, I can't by a gun now"?? You sure have a lot of faith in criminals and their ability to follow laws...


How do you explain this: In 1998 England had 13,874 incidents of gun crime. That same year, the Brits banned all handguns, and 162,000 handguns and 700 tons of ammunition were handed in police. By 2003, incidents of gun crime had risen to 24,070.

[mzungu]

i already decimated your british gun crime example months ago. there is no strange logic in my claim about countries with strict gun control and low gun murder rates. that's a statistical correlation and it's supported by results--low amounts of handguns. you don't even address that well over 50% of gun murders are from acquaintances. you don't address the fact that making it more difficult to buy guns makes it more difficult for everyone to buy guns and more difficult to steal guns where gun supply declines.

[mzungu]

guardian article: notice that real gun crime has fallen.
Imitation gun crime rises 66% as overall figures fall

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday April 22, 2005
The Guardian

Gun crime, particulary involving the use of imitation weapons, has risen by 10% in the past year casting a shadow over official figures published yesterday showing continuing falls in the overall crime rate in England and Wales.
The use of imitation weapons rose by 66% with a large majority of 3,268 offences recorded by the police involving "BB" guns which fire ball-bearings.

The rise in use of imitation weapons was accompanied by a 13% fall in the number incidents involving real handguns. Although that has meant the number of people seriously injured fell slightly those who suffered some injury in situations in which a gun was produced soared by 74% to 3,051.

Overall gun crime rose by 10% to 11,082 incidents. Seventy people died in shootings in 2004 compared with 73 the previous year.

Ministers last night claimed that the growing use of imitation weapons was due to the introduction of a five-year mandatory sentence for carrying a real gun compared with only six months for an imitation and the increasing perception of them as a fashion accessory in hip-hop gang culture.

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, promised to introduce a "flagship violent crime reduction bill" within weeks of the general election which would tackle the ownership and use of replica firearms and knives. They would consult over a ban on replica and imitation guns - a measure which has been regarded as impractical in the past.

Tony Blair promised to reduce crime overall by a further 15% by 2008 and to provide a visible "neighbourhood policing team" for every community.

The annual crime figures for 2004 show that crime in England and Wales dropped by 11% according to the authoritative British Crime Survey and by 5% according to the police recorded crime figures.

The two measures disagreed over the trend in violent crime with the BCS showing an 11% fall and the police figures indicating a 9% rise. The Home Office said the 9% was largely due to changes in police recording methods. The 11,000 gun crime incidents form only a small part of the 295,000 violent incidents recorded last year.

The Conservatives however dismissed this explanation and claimed that violent crime had reached a million offences a year. The shadow home secretary David Davis said: "The government's complacency is breathtaking. Charles Clarke said that violent crime is falling yet recorded statistics - the ones that Labour used in opposition and in their own manifesto - show that violent crime has risen by another 9% in the last quarter."

Mark Oaten of the Liberal Democrats said that Labour had failed to mention that the baseline for their promise to cut crime by a further 15% was 2002/03 BCS figures which meant that he already had 5% of the reduction in his pocket.

"Labour's promises ring hollow in the light of the latest violent crime figures. The binge drinking culture is to blame, and in eight years Labour has done little about it," said Mr Oaten.

The violent crime reduction bill will include tougher sentences for knife and gun crime, raise the age at which a young person can buy a knife from 16 to 18 and make it illegal to buy an imitation firearm below the age of 18.

Ministers also plan to make it illegal to convert an imitation weapon into a real gun, make it an aggravated offence to use children to hide guns and to set up a gun crime hotline for people to raise worries about gangs using guns to intimidate communities.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, you are a college professor so you should know this: If you wrote a paper about gun control and simply compared the absolute levels of gun violence, editors would laugh at you. Case in point, canada has much more lenient gun laws than the US, and has a much lower violent crime rate. If they decided, tomorrow, to create the strictest gun laws in the world, they would still have a lower violent crime rate than the US. The reason is simply that their culture is less violent than ours.



The only thing that you can compare are changes. For example, if one country has a rising violence rate. And then, when a law is either passed or repealed, you see that rate suddenly start to decrease. THAT would be evidence of an effect of a law.


You claim to be an intellectual, so you should know this.


So, a good example is England. Their violent crime rate suddenly doubles after passing a very, very strict gun control law?? That is pretty good evidence that gun control laws increase violent crime.


You know, I would respect you a lot more if, just on one issue, you didn't toe the Democratic Party Dogmatic Line.

[Jwaksman]

What is that article you copied and pasted?? You mean that violent criminals found their way around a gun control law and continued to commit violent crimes! No... couldn't be!


... even articles from the uber-leftwing Guardian show good evidence (even if they don't admit it) of the futility of gun control laws.

[Sebrle]

choosing to own a gun that MIGHT harm an innocent/poor person: bad

choosing to KILL an innocent/poor person in the womb: OK?

The abortion to gun homicide ratio in this country is 100 to 1

If protecting innocent (I repeat INNOCENT) human life is your goal, please be consistent.

To this day EVERY Swiss male age 20-42 is issued an AUTOMATIC weapon and ammo to be kept in their home to maintain the militia, marksmanship is the national sport and their gun crime rate is one of lowest in the world. (It is well documented this is one of the reasons the Nazi's did not invade Switzerland, but instead focused first on the countries that had stricter gun laws so they could confiscate the paperwork and eliminate the gun owning populace quickly.)

Rwanda had strict gun control laws to dilute any uprising against the totalitarian government, but they also had a lot of black market AK's and 45 cent Chinese Machetes...

[leighpeas]

nobody even addresses my posts...

when you talk to the police officers, i mean the ones actually out in the field, they aren't in favor of gun control. period. i KNOW this. i don't know it for the tennessee region, i know it for EVERYWHERE. that's where i've been, that's how i studied. the higher up you go on the "police chain" the more pressure there is to appear a certain way. gun control was a safe bet until people actually got passionate about it. now the second amendment really is jeopardized.

[MoMo]

now the second amendment really is jeopardized.

are you serious? i see absolutely NO serious threat to the 2d amendment. it's been attacked around the fringes, the way abortion opponents have tried to pare it back step by step, but there's NO serious threat to its fundamental message.

[leighpeas]

are you serious? i see absolutely NO serious threat to the 2d amendment. it's been attacked around the fringes, the way abortion opponents have tried to pare it back step by step, but there's NO serious threat to its fundamental message.
oh yeah, i forgot. whoopsies!

[MoMo]

i know... there i go again....
being a pooh-head.

;)

[leighpeas]

i know... there i go again....
being a pooh-head.

;)
better than a doofbucket

[MoMo]

ah, that's a relief.
so i'm not QUITE the very lowest of the low.

:o

[mzungu]

sebrle, the genocide in rwanda was organized by the government and was a systematic genocide based on collective lists. there was no one out there trying to stop people from being massacred. no one said that people could not be killed by knives. the u.s. is hardly a comparative situation.

consistency in objecting to killing people hardly entails rejection of abortion, since fetuses in the first trimester are not people but rather contain the potential of developing into human beings with brains and reason and organs that people have. this is a strange objection. are you saying that you cannot object to murder if you do not object to all forms of killing human beings? does that mean that you object to the death penalty and to killing in war? over 20,000 iraqi civilians have been killed in the current war that you support.

switzerland has very strict gun control laws. the government knows very well who has what weapons. don't you think that plays a role? it is also false that switzerland was not invaded by the nazis because the swiss were such well-armed citizens. in fact, they were not invaded because they were bankrolling the nazi armies. they were the bankers of the third reich. they bought off their 'independence' with their own and confiscated jewish property.

[jersey_guy]

mzungu, maybe you should move to England. They want to ban kitchen knives there too because they are too pointy. It makes American liberals cream their pants because they would love to turn our country into this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

[MoMo]

j_g, maybe YOU should move to uzbekistan, where
people have plenty of guns, but no right to protest their style of government, and the government has plenty of power,
just the way you like it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4564531.stm

[Dyenimator]

"The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed."

Can't you read?

[Jwaksman]

Appendixes aren't that necessary either. Let's ban people from having appendixes...

[mzungu]

sorry, but jwaksman's argument is illogical. one guy shows that long knives are used to commit a lot of murders, now that people can't get real guns as easily, and he shows that long knives are unnecessary for ordinary purposes (cooking, etc.), and jwaksman then opposes this argument by saying that appendixes are unnecessary???? what is that? no one is arguing that we should ban everything that is unnecessary. the guy is arguing that they should ban anything that 1) results in many murders and 2) is unnecessary (different types of knives do just as well for ordinary activities but not for murder). come on, give a better argument.

[exjersey1]

[QUOTE=Layla121986] We should ban high heels.


QUOTE]



Noooooooooooooooooooo.................

[MoMo]

That's innacurate, I'd say. I don't think for a minute that Jersey Guy (now) supports totalitarianism in exchange for plenty of guns, as you insinuated.

Maybe not a perfect parallel -- I just get flipping tired of people pulling out the "Why don't you move to XXXX?" argument every time anyone even vaguely expresses a less than awed admiration for our current administration or anything to do with the American "way of life" (which doesn't really exist any more, now does it?).

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, baseball bats are unnecessary and are used in murders. Should we ban baseball bats?


The problem with you is that you are so obsessed with government control that you need a reason not to ban something. The question with you isn't "Why should we ban guns?" it's "Why shouldn't we ban guns?". And that is a big problem, because you don't realize when you are taking away civil liberties and rights.


Taking away 1 of 5841305931518 possible murder weapons will not stop crime. Most evidence points to the idea that taking away weapons from law-abiding citizens simply makes them more vulnerable to crime.

[jersey_guy]

j_g, maybe YOU should move to uzbekistan, where
people have plenty of guns, but no right to protest their style of government, and the government has plenty of power,
just the way you like it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4564531.stm

Apparently they do not have enough guns because if every one of those protesters was allowed to carry a piece, the score would have been quite different. Same thing on Tiananment Square in '89

[Dyenimator]

Do you have any ability resembling critical thought?

High heels aren't necessary either, and a shoe is a shoe, right? A flat heel protects feet just as well as a high heel, maybe even better! We should ban high heels.


Edit: I just now saw Jwaks' post, after the fact. Same wavelength...

When you're drunk and beat your husband with a high heel, call me up to save him.

[Dyenimator]

"A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and high heels are used in as many as half of all stabbings."

Who am I kidding?

[mzungu]

baseball bats are irreplaceable, unconcealable, and used in very few crimes.

[Jwaksman]

Automatic rifles are inconcealable and are used in very few crimes. So why ban those?






.... Wait, let me guess the answer:

Because they're not necessary. Right?


Well, now your logic has gone full circle. Because the obvious answer to that is that we don't just ban things because they're not necessary. We don't make it illegal to have an appendix, even though they are unnecessary and often cause harm. There are things called "civil liberties", and I prefer not to let them be taken away by big government.

[MoMo]

MoMo, baseball bats are unnecessary and are used in murders. Should we ban baseball bats?


The problem with you is that you are so obsessed with government control that you need a reason not to ban something.

jwack, i'll charitably assume that you meant that for mzungu.

i haven't been involved in the "necessary" vs. "unnecessary" debate.

i will add, however -- not that it's likely to sink in -- that i'm no fan of government control; i'm a fan of minimally reasonable governmental involvement when nothing else will do the job.

[KenA55]

"A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and high heels are used in as many as half of all stabbings."

Yeah, but it's like the German cannibal thing. If you read deeper into that study, 97.3% of those guys were begging for the stabbing, and 42.6% of those shelled out good money for the privilege.

[leighpeas]

Yeah, but it's like the German cannibal thing. If you read deeper into that study, 97.3% of those guys were begging for the stabbing, and 42.6% of those shelled out good money for the privilege.
ewww.