Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: weaselsan on May 27, 2005, 05:58:05 PM
-
This is a bit of a Sticky Wicket.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
-
we need more threads about this...to feel good inside.
-
I wonder how many items that are manufactured that one person could use to do harm to another that we can ban? Hundreds? Thousands?
-
ROFLMAO. You beat me to it Weasal.
I think we'll also be banning pointy sticks, forks, knitting needles, bricks, heavy paperweights ................
-
LMAO oh man thats just plain sad.
Wonder whats next? Pencils?
-
How about automobiles, they got to cause a ton of deaths and injuries from drunkies.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
How about automobiles, they got to cause a ton of deaths and injuries from drunkies.
easier to toss breathalyzer in every car.
-
That might get half of the motor vehicle abusers. I'm afraid after butterknives, cars simply must be next. It's the only way; sorry.
You'd walk to the grocery to save 2,000 lives a year wouldn't you?
-
I firmly believe chef's knives should be treated similar to handguns. As such, any countries or states which have handgun restrictions should only allow such knives to persons who can demonstrate responsible use, such as chef's. A chef's license should not be very difficult to get. However, after the first time you kill a spouse the criteria should be more strict. Poisoning a spouse and cast iron cookware bludgeonings are an automatic misdermenor, no exceptions. Tire iron bludgeonings should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Regards,
Malta
-
don't a lot of euros die from soccer riots? Banning soccer seems a reasonable thing... after all.. we have a defacto ban here and as you see our percapita soccer riot fatalities are much lower than the euro barbarians.
lazs
-
You'd walk to the grocery to save 2,000 lives a year wouldn't you?
No. Walking means the return of small shops, not supermarkets, which means higher prices for food, less nutrition, more deaths.
Walking to work means more wasted time, lower paid jobs, less money, less nutrition, more deaths.
Cars, unlike guns, actually reduce deaths.
-
oh? good point. since guns prevent from 1.5-3 million crimes a year here... even if 1% would have ended in a fatality without the firearm... then guns do indeed save lives.
The deterrent effect that interviewed convicts admit to is very high to but hard to quantify.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Cars, unlike guns, actually reduce deaths.
Ever hear of Global Warming? Cars will be the death of us all.
-
Goodness me.
From all you hear about the benefits of earlier times of small towns and closely knit communities, one would think the elimination of the automobile would be a huge social benefit. Think of all the lives saved from less stress.
Back to the horse and buggy!
It may be tough at the beginning... but we'll save thousands and thousands of lives.
After we get rid of the knives, of course.
-
From all you hear about the benefits of earlier times of small towns and closely knit communities, one would think the elimination of the automobile would be a huge social benefit. Think of all the lives saved from less stress.
Have a look at the average life expectancy pre-car.
Cars have resulted in greater mobility, productivity, efficiency, all of which have led to higher standards of living and better health.
Back to the horse and buggy!
It may be tough at the beginning... but we'll save thousands and thousands of lives
Going back to victorian standards of living isn't going to save lives, it will cost millions.
Ever hear of Global Warming? Cars will be the death of us all.
I doubt that somehow.
oh? good point. since guns prevent from 1.5-3 million crimes a year here... even if 1% would have ended in a fatality without the firearm... then guns do indeed save lives.
1%? 1% of your crimes are murders?
I don't think so.
According to the DOJ, there were about 24,000,000 crimes in the US in 2003, out of which there were about 15,000 murders. That's 0.0625%.
If guns prevented 3 million crimes, that's 1,875 murders.
The US has about 15,000 murders a year, about 10,000 more than would be expected by a per capita comparison with Britain.
And by the way, if guns can prevent crimes, can't guns carry them out as well? So why the claim "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?
The truth is guns didn't prevent 1 - 3 million crimes, people with guns did.
I'd be very interested in seeing how many crimes people without guns prevented, and doing a comparison to see how much more (or less) likely you are to prevent a crime if you have a gun than if you don't. (I've prevented a couple, no gun needed)
Edit: crime figures are from the DOJ, not FBI, as the FBI record only a portion of reported crime (all the most serious, very few of the least serious)
-
Actually this could provide an unexpected boost to the US economy. As the only people left with guns to shoot the animals and knives to cut them up you can expect a surge in demand for sliced beef / pork etc. In fact frozen chopped vegetables as well !!
Of course sales of elastoplast dressing will plummet costing jobs, but that is a small price to pay.
Also model making and craft of any kaind will now be a banned activity and put you at risk of criminal prosecution. Carpenters will be considered terrorist suspects.
Butchers will have to provide secure facilities up to EU standards with all knives serial numbered and registered with the police. Cleavers will have to be fitted with GPS tracking and be stored in armoured vaults.
All tree felling and log chopping will be carried out by specially trained units of the army.
Leatherman and Victorinox will be banned companies - any association with those companies will be considered terrorist activity.
There will be a scissor amnesty during which you may exchange your metal scissors for plastic round tipped ones.
Dining cutlery must be declared anually and all new cutlery will be taxed at 300%.
For the love of god where will it stop ..............
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Have a look at the average life expectancy pre-car.
[/b]
You're not seriously going to propose that it was Henry Ford that increased life expectancy?
I think we'd better lean towards the scientists that discovered improvements in sanitation, medicine and agriculture.
And we're not giving up those improvements in the least. We're just going to walk much more, which all the docs will tell you is a good thing for increasing life expectancy even further.
Cars have resulted in greater mobility, productivity, efficiency, all of which have led to higher standards of living and better health.
[/b]
And those standards won't change. We'll still let duly authorized government officials drive cars. Ambulances, for example. However, it's clear that the "common man" neither has the necessary expertise and judgement to drive nor the need to drive. We're long past the time where public transport should be handling 90% of societies needs.
Going back to victorian standards of living isn't going to save lives, it will cost millions.
[/b]
You'll be thanking us when the needless auto-related deaths are minimal, you're much healthier because you walk more and the air you breathe is far cleaner.
Trust nanny. She'll take care of you.
But remember... first we have to deal with the butterknives. Then the cars. After that, alcohol and tobacco.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
easier to toss breathalyzer in every car.
Ever had a drunk guy standing beside a car ask you to come start it for him?
-
Nashwan is right. Cars save lives - including mine. I had life saving emergency surgery once. I was driven to the hospital in a car. The surgeon, radiologist and anaesthetist (<--can't even attempt the US spelling) all arrived there by car, as did most of the nursing staff. The hospital was about 10-15 miles from home; I don't think I'd have got there in time if I'd had to walk, especially as I was unfit to walk by then. A buggy and trap might have made it, but only by going down the freeways - built for cars.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Nashwan is right. Guns save lives
I agree whole heartedly.
Nashwan
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Have a look at the average life expectancy pre-car.
Cars have resulted in greater mobility, productivity, efficiency, all of which have led to higher standards of living and better health.
Going back to victorian standards of living isn't going to save lives, it will cost millions.
Look at the life expectancy pre-gun. The life expectancy of the average human in western civilization has just about doubled since the advent of firearms.
You can attach life expectancy to a lot of inventions. Trains, powered ships, airplanes, radios, telephones, telegraphs, or any number of others.
Any of them is just as viable as the automobile. If not more.
NONE of them have any DIRECT bearing on life expectancy.
The only thing your argument does is make people with good common sense laugh.
-
nashwan... real convoluted logic there... The fact is that we don't know how many murders we would have if criminals were not stopped by citizens with guns millions of times a year. Guns are very useful and save lives.
By your logic we should do away with cars because the save a few lives but kill like 40,000 or so a year here. and... the ones that save lives could be done away with if we had a better ambulance and air/lifeflight system... just as firetrucks are better for putting out fires than a car with a 2 lb fire extinguisher..
The only real difference is that you like cars and hate/fear firearms or are jealous of our rights. I think you also know that if it is realized that freedom often costs lives then your whole position on guns evaporates.
We simply differ in that you believe in more government control than I do... so long as it isn't control over something you like...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We simply differ in that you believe in more government control than I do... so long as it isn't control over something you like...
Who is "We"? Are you speaking for all Americans? Are you saying that all Americans support private gun ownership? Your legislators seem to disagree...
As for knives, I import all my nasty ones from France. I've got a couple of evil looking ones, including a "couteau à surgèles" - whatever that means - good for cutting up fish, which is why I bought it - at Carrefour.
-
what beetle did not tell you is he had to get a special permit for the knives and show a "need to own".
and when he's not cutting fish, he has to keep them locked up in a knife safe.
-
Originally posted by john9001
what beetle did not tell you is he had to get a special permit for the knives and show a "need to own".
and when he's not cutting fish, he has to keep them locked up in a knife safe.
:lol
-
Well beetle since brits can't be trusted with large knives you should turn yours in. After all I'm sure that doctor is very well educated and knows better than you do about it. Turn all those sharp knives in now.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Well beetle since brits can't be trusted with large knives you should turn yours in. After all I'm sure that doctor is very well educated and knows better than you do about it. Turn all those sharp knives in now.
No it's OK. As long as I have a qualified user (ie someone who can cook) standing within arm's length of me, it's all perfectly legal. :D
-
well it looks like there will soon be kitchen knife clubs where you can keep your knives safely locked under supervision and admire them on the weekends.
-
I am not asking for a ban on kitchen knives... Just some sensible control measures to make sure that only the right people have em..
A ten day waiting period and background check is not too much to ask.
$300 licence fee and having a secure safe weighing at least 800 lbs, seems fair.
having to have someone of royalty sign your application to vouch for your integrety seem fair.
The local plice chief should have to sign your application and be liable if you ever commit a crime with the knife.
lastly and most importantly...anyone every accused of inuring a female in an arguement would be denied a permit just like all the other violent criminals.
ohh... and yes... I do speak for "all Americans" least all the ones that aren't shrill liberals. 50% of all households in America have a firearm in em... and that is only the ones who are admiting it... Since they are illegal in some major cities I bet it is hard to get people to say yes in the survey eh?
lazs
-
I thought it was only WAshington, DC that had a city-wide ban on guns.
NYC was considering it, but never went through I believe.
Just moved to S.F. here. Surprisingly, you can carried a concealed weapon!
Will defer to anyone that can actually find the law/bill banning guns, but I spent some time looking it up before I moved....
-
Don't forget sharpening stones. Can't have them lying around loose now can we?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oh? good point. since guns prevent from 1.5-3 million crimes a year here... even if 1% would have ended in a fatality without the firearm... then guns do indeed save lives.
The deterrent effect that interviewed convicts admit to is very high to but hard to quantify.
lazs
lol do they even solve 1.5-3 million crimes a year? That sounds like a very high number. Not to mention I seriuosly doubt 1% of crimes would end in a fatality.
On a different subject, knives are already subject to rules governing posession of them. How bout at Airports, or public places in NY.
http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/ny.txt
10-133
Possession of knives or instruments.
A.
Legislative findings. It is hereby declared and found that possession
in public places, streets and parks of the city, of large knives is a
menace to the public health, peace, safety and welfare of the people
of the city; that the possession in public places, streets and parks of
such knives has resulted in the commission of many homicides,
robberies, maimings and assaults of and upon the people of the
city; that this condition encourages and fosters the commission of
crimes and contributes to juvenile delinquency, youth crime and
gangsterism; that unless the possession or carrying in public places,
streets and parks of the city of such knives without a lawful purpose
is prohibited, there is danger of an increase in crimes of violence
and other conditions detrimental to public peace, safety and
welfare. It is further declared and found that the wearing or
carrying of knives in open view in public places while such knives
are not being used for a lawful purpose is unnecessary and
threatening to the public and should be prohibited.
B.
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry on his or her person or
have in such person's possession, in any public place, street or park
any knife which has a blade length of four inches or more.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
don't a lot of euros die from soccer riots? Banning soccer seems a reasonable thing... after all.. we have a defacto ban here and as you see our percapita soccer riot fatalities are much lower than the euro barbarians.
lazs
I can't understand soccer, why would the same guys play the whole game? Imagine if in hockey the same five guys had to play the whole game? It would be soccer!!
I am telling you, we come up with some new rules to soccer(on the fly line changes) and people in the united states will take notice. Having the action up and down the field would make it exciting, create more scoring chances and more goals. Tired players do not an exciting game make. Make the game exciting and people will watch. Soccer can be pretty exciting when the players are not too tired to run.
-
raider... why don't you think one percent of the crimes people use a gun to stop would have ended up in a homicide? Seems a lot of our crime ends up in either a homicide or a serious injury.
A lot of the crimes prevented by guns are rape and burglary and assaults... these are high risk crimes for homicide and serious injury.
soccer has no life saving value at all and cause many deaths every year that are needless.
In england the amount of homicides has never varied much no matter what the gun control measures... same for allmost anywhere that has ever been studied.
Seems more likely that people kill based of soiciological reasons and that if you ban one way for them to kill each other they will simply use another method and the rate will stay the same... If you ban guns the rate for gun related homicides may go down but the rate for homiciedes overall will remain about the same... it often goes up even. If you ban knives then you get soccer riots or basketball riots or maybe even "starbucks ran out of foo foo juice" riots.
emotions and socioloigical patterns can't be controlled with bans.
If you live in a dangerous place then it is best to arm yourself with the most effective weapon. If not... you can take a chance but... I say the choice should be an individual one and that banning weapons is simply giving away human rights for no logical reason.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No it's OK. As long as I have a qualified user (ie someone who can cook) standing within arm's length of me, it's all perfectly legal. :D
People in arms reach of you have been injured. That alone puts you in the area of non contact with a dangerous weapon. Domestic assault means you cannot be trusted to maintain your temper. This means no access to weapons no matter who is "qualified" in your area.
Your government needs to make sure you cannot use one of these to hurt anyone. Turn them in. You obviously cannot be trusted to not be violent.