Licence required to possess Bronze Age dagger
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Are you going to be sitting there holding it...waiting for him to break in? If not, it isn't going to do you much good.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Given half a chance Min, yes. But then he isn't likely to know one way or the other, till it's too late.
Are you aware Min that the carrying of anything that a court might classify as a weapon, whether for offence OR defence, is an offence under English law.
Our country claims the right to armed forces for defence, but denies its citizens the same right.
America is often held up as the country where everbody wanders around armed to the teeth, but again Min, are you aware that a person is stabbed or shot in this country every few minutes and we are denied a weapon of defence. We may not carry CS gas, pepper spray, or Tasers, our wonderful leaders suggest that we carry a loud whistle!
We have a government Minister who admits that she is afraid to walk the streets at night and was seen walking in daylight wearing a Kevlar vest! Kevlar vests are now being supplied to school children!
Is this the alternative that your anti gun lobby wish to follow?
Are you aware Min that the carrying of anything that a court might classify as a weapon, whether for offence OR defence, is an offence under English law.
Our country claims the right to armed forces for defence, but denies its citizens the same right.
America is often held up as the country where everbody wanders around armed to the teeth, but again Min, are you aware that a person is stabbed or shot in this country every few minutes and we are denied a weapon of defence. We may not carry CS gas, pepper spray, or Tasers, our wonderful leaders suggest that we carry a loud whistle!
We have a government Minister who admits that she is afraid to walk the streets at night and was seen walking in daylight wearing a Kevlar vest! Kevlar vests are now being supplied to school children!
Is this the alternative that your anti gun lobby wish to follow?
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
As far as I know the murder rate over here dwarfs the murder rate any where else in the world so the prevalence of guns does not seem to help.
For every instance of an "armed citizen" defending himself successfully there are hundreds of incidents where they failed to defend themselves, or where their guns were used by family members in disputes or suicides or accidents.
What we have is a lot of rhetoric from the gun lobby (which is really an industry association of the arms manufacturers seeking to maintain their profit margin) and a lot of anecdotes which are washed away by the oceans of blood from the non-anecdotal stories.
For every instance of an "armed citizen" defending himself successfully there are hundreds of incidents where they failed to defend themselves, or where their guns were used by family members in disputes or suicides or accidents.
What we have is a lot of rhetoric from the gun lobby (which is really an industry association of the arms manufacturers seeking to maintain their profit margin) and a lot of anecdotes which are washed away by the oceans of blood from the non-anecdotal stories.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
From a local paper just this morning:
No gun - just an unlicensed sword. I'm suprised someone didn't shoot him.A man waving a sword and making threats at the Skyline Terrace apartments was arrested Tuesday night on misdemeanor charges.
The 55-year-old, who lives in one of the apartments in the 600 block of Alan Page Drive SE, was "highly intoxicated" as he waved the sword around about 11:50 p.m., Stark County Jail records said. He was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct with intoxication and inducing panic, both misdemeanor charges.
Jail records indicate he was released from jail on his own recognizance on Wednesday.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
I have a sword, too. Once, when my cat cornered a snake, I used the sword to finish it off. The muskets would have been too noisy.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
spacecase0
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:29 am
- Location: berkeley, CA
- Contact:
Hi,
thank you for the welcome in the earlier post
I have looked in to weapons throughout history,
every time that "the people" are not allowed to have them, the violent crime rate goes up.
crime will happen no matter what, it happens more in cities than in rural areas, so I say if you want less crime, that you outlaw cities and let people have weapons, and the reason people need the weapons is that the crime that happens tends to be less violent if the public is armed, (who wants to commit a crime on an armed person, it is easier to just steal things from them when they are not home)
and I know that lots of guns means that there are more accidents with them, but if you look at the statistics, you are way more likely to save yourself with one than you are to accidentally hurt an innocent person with one, and you can see this with the suicide rates with guns, it is really high when compared to other gun deaths. if I decide to kill myself I would use a gun, if one were not there I would use drugs, not having them around would not save many people.
I think that this entire issue is a very old one, a tyranny likes to control the people, so they appeal to the emotional do gooders and make sure that anything that could hurt the government is taken away from the people, then the people have to live with a higher violent crime rate.
this is a repeating pattern in history, and modern statistics show that what I am saying is correct, so go and take the statistics and play with the numbers, subtract the suicides from your numbers, and then compare violent crime rates and criminal deaths VS arms laws, and you will see that they are directly proportional.
I am not really a gun nut, I like my stun gun, pepper spray, knives, crossbows and other arms just as much.
as for that accidental discharge on the airplane, do you know how stupid you have to be to do that, stupidity like that should be illegal.
thank you for the welcome in the earlier post
I have looked in to weapons throughout history,
every time that "the people" are not allowed to have them, the violent crime rate goes up.
crime will happen no matter what, it happens more in cities than in rural areas, so I say if you want less crime, that you outlaw cities and let people have weapons, and the reason people need the weapons is that the crime that happens tends to be less violent if the public is armed, (who wants to commit a crime on an armed person, it is easier to just steal things from them when they are not home)
and I know that lots of guns means that there are more accidents with them, but if you look at the statistics, you are way more likely to save yourself with one than you are to accidentally hurt an innocent person with one, and you can see this with the suicide rates with guns, it is really high when compared to other gun deaths. if I decide to kill myself I would use a gun, if one were not there I would use drugs, not having them around would not save many people.
I think that this entire issue is a very old one, a tyranny likes to control the people, so they appeal to the emotional do gooders and make sure that anything that could hurt the government is taken away from the people, then the people have to live with a higher violent crime rate.
this is a repeating pattern in history, and modern statistics show that what I am saying is correct, so go and take the statistics and play with the numbers, subtract the suicides from your numbers, and then compare violent crime rates and criminal deaths VS arms laws, and you will see that they are directly proportional.
I am not really a gun nut, I like my stun gun, pepper spray, knives, crossbows and other arms just as much.
as for that accidental discharge on the airplane, do you know how stupid you have to be to do that, stupidity like that should be illegal.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
It took me about 4 seconds on Google to find this staggering 1989 Time Magazine piece.
464 gun deaths in a single week. Most have nothing to do with stranger-on-stranger "crime" which is the big bugaboo of the NRA.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 58,00.html
Don't miss the second page.
464 gun deaths in a single week. Most have nothing to do with stranger-on-stranger "crime" which is the big bugaboo of the NRA.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 58,00.html
The pattern in these 464 deaths is depressingly clear: guns most often kill the people who own them or people whom the owners know well. Despite the outcry over street gangs and drug dealers, the week's homicides typically involved people who loved, or hated, each other -- spouses, relatives or close acquaintances. Only 14 deaths were in self-defense. Just 13 involved law- enforcement officers; no on-duty police officer was killed during the week. And despite the current controversy over military-style assault rifles, most of the killing took place with ordinary pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles.
Don't miss the second page.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
spacecase0
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:29 am
- Location: berkeley, CA
- Contact:
the gun deaths from protection is where the misleading statistics are.
there are many cases where someone scares off a criminal by pulling out a gun, then the situation ends in no one getting hurt, and not many of these get reported to the police, very few of that type of situation ends in a justifiable death. this is where the manipulation lies, that is why I suggest to do your analysis instead of looking up the numbers that the media produce.
if you are going to use others data, try this analysis to see if you can find a flaw in it.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/Nati ... 61504.html
or this one
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
remember to look for the numbers that are not there as well,
you will not see any (or very few) cases of self defense shootings if it is not legal to carry a hidden gun in that area,
you have to look at areas by laws, and not an entire country as a whole, or it will mess up your numbers.
I know that I am biased toward having guns, they have saved my mom and my uncle from being killed by criminals, because they had a gun to defend themselves,
and no one that I have ever known has ever had an bad thing linked to owning one.
I am not saying that great harm does not come from having guns around, I am just saying that if you legally restrict them, you are lots less safe.
there are many cases where someone scares off a criminal by pulling out a gun, then the situation ends in no one getting hurt, and not many of these get reported to the police, very few of that type of situation ends in a justifiable death. this is where the manipulation lies, that is why I suggest to do your analysis instead of looking up the numbers that the media produce.
if you are going to use others data, try this analysis to see if you can find a flaw in it.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/Nati ... 61504.html
or this one
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
remember to look for the numbers that are not there as well,
you will not see any (or very few) cases of self defense shootings if it is not legal to carry a hidden gun in that area,
you have to look at areas by laws, and not an entire country as a whole, or it will mess up your numbers.
I know that I am biased toward having guns, they have saved my mom and my uncle from being killed by criminals, because they had a gun to defend themselves,
and no one that I have ever known has ever had an bad thing linked to owning one.
I am not saying that great harm does not come from having guns around, I am just saying that if you legally restrict them, you are lots less safe.
We're not allowed swords Min. Your argument is the one brought up here as regular as night following day, These people compare your gun deaths with ours, like chalk and cheese.
Two questions. Would taking guns away from your people reduce the murder rate do you think or would other weapons be used in their stead?
And you should compare murder rates per head of population not compare gun deaths don't you think? The chosen weapon is irrelevant IMO.
Two questions. Would taking guns away from your people reduce the murder rate do you think or would other weapons be used in their stead?
And you should compare murder rates per head of population not compare gun deaths don't you think? The chosen weapon is irrelevant IMO.
First off, Beags was right when he said this doesn't really belong in this forum.
That being said - why would anyone put themselves in a no win situation against a criminal? Is the law going to get there fawst enough to protect you or your loved ones?
Why would anyone believe the statistics of politicians?
If you want statistics - measure the Swiss crime rate versus that of other countries. If my memory serves me right they arm and train every citizen from 12 years and up. And they're crime rate is one of the lowest.
On the other hand - the Nazi's were very gun control.
Either way - doesn't really matter to me because if it comes down to it and someone triezs to take my life - be it with a gun or whatever I definitely will do my personal best to make sure they depart this life in the most brutal way possible - and a gun won't do that for me - it's too quick!
That being said - why would anyone put themselves in a no win situation against a criminal? Is the law going to get there fawst enough to protect you or your loved ones?
Why would anyone believe the statistics of politicians?
If you want statistics - measure the Swiss crime rate versus that of other countries. If my memory serves me right they arm and train every citizen from 12 years and up. And they're crime rate is one of the lowest.
On the other hand - the Nazi's were very gun control.
Either way - doesn't really matter to me because if it comes down to it and someone triezs to take my life - be it with a gun or whatever I definitely will do my personal best to make sure they depart this life in the most brutal way possible - and a gun won't do that for me - it's too quick!
i'm not lookin' for who or what made the earth - just who got me dizzy by makin it spin
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Space, I guess you haven't figured out by now that I'm not very likely to be swayed by arguments of the gun nut crowd...which is what you have posted there.
Frankly, those people lie a lot.
Dig, on your question, the issue is really quite simple. Yes, if a domestic dispute escalates to violence someone may pick up a chair or a lamp and beat the other person to death. It is not as efficient as a gun but it can happen. They can also use a knife or other kitchen utensil. Again, not as efficient, but if you are determined it will get the job done. None of those methods are likely to penetrate the walls and hit someone in the next apartment, however.
Guns are efficient at what they do, which is kill people. My point is that unless you are walking around with that loaded gun all the time ready to shoot whoever crosses your path it really is a false sense of security. If someone jumps out of an alley and puts a gun to your head do you suppose he will then stand there while you take your gun out and undo the safety? Most likely you will freeze like he tells you to and he'll rob you of your money....and your gun. What do you then? Start to carry two guns?
Frankly, those people lie a lot.
Dig, on your question, the issue is really quite simple. Yes, if a domestic dispute escalates to violence someone may pick up a chair or a lamp and beat the other person to death. It is not as efficient as a gun but it can happen. They can also use a knife or other kitchen utensil. Again, not as efficient, but if you are determined it will get the job done. None of those methods are likely to penetrate the walls and hit someone in the next apartment, however.
Guns are efficient at what they do, which is kill people. My point is that unless you are walking around with that loaded gun all the time ready to shoot whoever crosses your path it really is a false sense of security. If someone jumps out of an alley and puts a gun to your head do you suppose he will then stand there while you take your gun out and undo the safety? Most likely you will freeze like he tells you to and he'll rob you of your money....and your gun. What do you then? Start to carry two guns?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
As logical as ever Bob. I have been burgled twice, I carry the scar from a knife wound, my daughter has been mugged and raped and now lives in a housing complex with gates and guards.
Not one of the perpertrators has ever faced a court.
And you think I don't have the right to carry some form of defence? On this one my friend we must agree to differ.
Not one of the perpertrators has ever faced a court.
And you think I don't have the right to carry some form of defence? On this one my friend we must agree to differ.
-
spacecase0
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:29 am
- Location: berkeley, CA
- Contact:
Hi, Minimalist
so think that I get your view point now,
a License required to possess Bronze Age dagger is a bad idea,
but more modern arms (like a glock) should not be around.
interesting viewpoint.
so think that I get your view point now,
a License required to possess Bronze Age dagger is a bad idea,
but more modern arms (like a glock) should not be around.
interesting viewpoint.
your right, sorry, my only point was that laws like this only mess with peoples lives in a bad way, and it is a worldwide problem that is getting worse.First off, Beags was right when he said this doesn't really belong in this forum.