Minority ruining it for the majority... again
-
Another wanker has just made the district news for brandishing a cheap £17 "springer" bb gun in public. This makes two high profile cases in as many weeks (the first of which made the national news). District police are now asking people to hand in all their bb guns voluntarily. :(( As the owner of alomost $3,500 worth of high-end airsoft weaponry (AEGs and gas guns) there is no way in hell I will be giving them up now or when they make it illegal to own them - which they will do, mark my words, as long as these fucking idiots are allowed to own them. This will not only inconvienience me but cost retailers and sites around the country well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. If you are in the UK and dont want to see the hobby and increasingly popular sport of hundreds and hundreds of people in this country going the same way as hand guns, write to your local police force and lobby them to ban the sale of bb guns to minors. They may be classed as toys, but there appearance alone should qualify them as dangerous weapons, and they should fall under the same legal restrictions as knifes. (I say legal as many retailers - quite rightly - self regulate the sale of these cheaper toys to children, but sadly not all). Personally I think the ARUs should shoot the little bastards if they are stupid enough to jepordise their lives and the public opinion of our sport. :mad:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
Sure, I'll give up my gun. Bullets first!
-
Sure, I'll give up my gun. Bullets first!
-
David Wulff wrote: going the same way as hand guns The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do), and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing. I also remember all the fuss at the time from various shooting clubs, etc. but no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? Air guns though, well, I know someone who got shot with one years ago whilst he was driving an open-topped car, causing him to crash and break one of his legs. I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer - and they never got the rifle back (besides, I think I bent the barrel when I twatted one of them over the head with it). However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon (though they are dangerous), so any ban would be sour grapes really. It's always the way though isn't it? We are "protected" from many things by unpopular laws, many of which are only in place because some people are too f***ing stupid to think about the consequences of their actions. So, I'll feel sorry for you if your hobby becomes illegal. Banning handguns is one thing, but air rifles seems like a step too far. However, as these guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, there should perhaps be tighter controls over who can buy them. I rememeber walking into a sports shop and buying an air rifle when I was 16. No problem. And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? The Dunblane 5-year anniversary was within the last couple of weeks but Blair's 5-year anniversary was several months ago. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. It's interesting how people only get upset when it's a sport issue, not when it's an issue of personal safety. Air-rifles, fox-hunting, etc. all have a massive (or at least a loud) backing group. Hand-guns didn't. But then have we demonstrated a huge reduction in violent crime over the last five years? Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? And has any reduction been among the group of people we intended to protect? I haven't seen any convincing stats yet. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! It does. It really does. For quite some time.:omg: Paul
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do) And me, I only used it as an example of where things are heading. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Air guns though BB guns are not really air guns - both are terms for basically different types of equipment with significant power differences (air guns typically go up to 12lbs energy whereas airsoft and bb range from around 0.3 to 1 joule - the maximum legal limit in the UK for AEGs). Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer We get that reported on the telly round here sometimes - it is sick, but sadly as they do not resemble real firearms in the publics eye they never get any attention. Even so, they are age regulated and to an extent it does keep them out of the hands of most of the irresponsible wankers out there. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon My new air rifle (I settled on the Webley & Scott Tomahawk w/walnut stock, ordered yesterday!) could easily kill someone if you fired it at their head or an important organ from I suppose about 10-15 yards, maybe more. Most of the "legal limit" rifles will instantly kill a rabit at 50 yards if you can hit it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: so any ban would be sour grapes really The bb guns in question are deliberately designed to replciate real steel firearms in every way (except for the type of projectile, obviously). I probably couldn't tell the difference between my Glock 18C and a real one at more than 10 yards - so how are the ARUs or the public expected to? These need to be kept out of the hands of children. Just see how many of these you could identify as toys from a short distance (bear in mind they are full scaled replicas made of plastic, metal and wood so they handle realistically too)... Hand guns[^] or AEGs[^]. I certainly do
David Wulff wrote: You shouldn't even point a dart gun at someone... Agreed, Pointing any sort of gun whether real, toy, replica, airgun at someone I consider a serious offense. As far as I'm concerned if a person points any sort of gun at another they should serve time behind bars. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Sure, I'll give up my gun. Bullets first!
Martin Marvinski wrote: Thank god I live in the USA :-) May be all of us outside of the USA agree. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
David Wulff wrote: You shouldn't even point a dart gun at someone... Agreed, Pointing any sort of gun whether real, toy, replica, airgun at someone I consider a serious offense. As far as I'm concerned if a person points any sort of gun at another they should serve time behind bars. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
I was taught that one never draws a gun without the intent to use it, and to never point it at anything I didn't intend to shoot. Even brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner without justification is a serious breach of safety, and the fact that it is air powered makes no difference. Banning any gun, however, is pointless and stupid. Banning idiots from owning them is far more sensible, and punishing those who misuse them is entirely appropriate. This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? The Dunblane 5-year anniversary was within the last couple of weeks but Blair's 5-year anniversary was several months ago. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. It's interesting how people only get upset when it's a sport issue, not when it's an issue of personal safety. Air-rifles, fox-hunting, etc. all have a massive (or at least a loud) backing group. Hand-guns didn't. But then have we demonstrated a huge reduction in violent crime over the last five years? Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? And has any reduction been among the group of people we intended to protect? I haven't seen any convincing stats yet. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! It does. It really does. For quite some time.:omg: Paul
pdriley wrote: But then have we demonstrated a huge reduction in violent crime over the last five years? Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? Remove all bans on private ownership of weapons, and I guarantee that you will see an immediate and lasting reduction. It has happened in every jurisdiction in this country that has allowed free possession of firearms to all citizens, without a single exception. The prospect of any random victim carrying a concealed pistol has obviously caused would-be criminals to think about their own mortality for a change:-) This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: Thank god I live in the USA :-) May be all of us outside of the USA agree. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Thankfully, we don't have quite the sheep population of some other parts of the globe... I'll admit, though, that it's hard to be certain of that come election time.:-O This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: and that fact that it was a Tory government that did it made it even more amazing Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? The Dunblane 5-year anniversary was within the last couple of weeks but Blair's 5-year anniversary was several months ago. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: no-one really actively campaigns to have the law changed back now do they? There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. It's interesting how people only get upset when it's a sport issue, not when it's an issue of personal safety. Air-rifles, fox-hunting, etc. all have a massive (or at least a loud) backing group. Hand-guns didn't. But then have we demonstrated a huge reduction in violent crime over the last five years? Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? And has any reduction been among the group of people we intended to protect? I haven't seen any convincing stats yet. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: And when I "accidentally" shot a friend of mine, it looked like it really f***ing hurt!! It does. It really does. For quite some time.:omg: Paul
pdriley wrote: Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. pdriley wrote: There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. Violent crime has nothing to do with it. What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. In fact, if the police were armed things would be a LOT worse. You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. pdriley wrote: Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? I would argue that we have and perhaps the ban stopped further massacres happenning - no-onme will ever know for sure. I would go further than this and argue that the ban on hand-guns wasn't introduced soon enough - it should have happenned after the Hungerford massacre in 1987. I am pleased that I live in a country where the population isn't armed to the teeth and I will wager that the gun laws in this country are NEVER going to be repealed. pdriley wrote: It does. It really does. For quite some time. No, it didn't hurt for longer than a few minutes. It was a weedy little air gun that had less kick than a wasp sting. Besides, I was 16 - and we've all done stupid things, especially whilst in our teens :).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The decision to ban handguns is one I actually applauded (and still do) And me, I only used it as an example of where things are heading. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Air guns though BB guns are not really air guns - both are terms for basically different types of equipment with significant power differences (air guns typically go up to 12lbs energy whereas airsoft and bb range from around 0.3 to 1 joule - the maximum legal limit in the UK for AEGs). Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I also caught some kids shooting cats with an air-rifle last summer We get that reported on the telly round here sometimes - it is sick, but sadly as they do not resemble real firearms in the publics eye they never get any attention. Even so, they are age regulated and to an extent it does keep them out of the hands of most of the irresponsible wankers out there. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: However, I wouldn't consider them a lethal weapon My new air rifle (I settled on the Webley & Scott Tomahawk w/walnut stock, ordered yesterday!) could easily kill someone if you fired it at their head or an important organ from I suppose about 10-15 yards, maybe more. Most of the "legal limit" rifles will instantly kill a rabit at 50 yards if you can hit it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: so any ban would be sour grapes really The bb guns in question are deliberately designed to replciate real steel firearms in every way (except for the type of projectile, obviously). I probably couldn't tell the difference between my Glock 18C and a real one at more than 10 yards - so how are the ARUs or the public expected to? These need to be kept out of the hands of children. Just see how many of these you could identify as toys from a short distance (bear in mind they are full scaled replicas made of plastic, metal and wood so they handle realistically too)... Hand guns[^] or AEGs[^]. I certainly do
David Wulff wrote: Dear god! I hope you had an under the limit rifle for your friends sake, else I should be asking if he is still limping! I was teasing. It was a weedy little thing - it stung him and he got me back with his. I was 16 for f***s sake. We've all done stupid things, especially when in our teens. David Wulff wrote: it's called common sense and it does help to reduce accidents. Very patronizing! Lighten up for Petes sake!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Thankfully, we don't have quite the sheep population of some other parts of the globe... I'll admit, though, that it's hard to be certain of that come election time.:-O This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
Roger Wright wrote: Thankfully, we don't have quite the sheep population of some other parts of the globe ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Funniest thing I've read so far this morning. The majority of the population from any country are sheep. They do what they're told and they even vote how their daily newspaper tells them. Sad really, but governments prefer it this way!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
pdriley wrote: Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. pdriley wrote: There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. Violent crime has nothing to do with it. What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. In fact, if the police were armed things would be a LOT worse. You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. pdriley wrote: Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? I would argue that we have and perhaps the ban stopped further massacres happenning - no-onme will ever know for sure. I would go further than this and argue that the ban on hand-guns wasn't introduced soon enough - it should have happenned after the Hungerford massacre in 1987. I am pleased that I live in a country where the population isn't armed to the teeth and I will wager that the gun laws in this country are NEVER going to be repealed. pdriley wrote: It does. It really does. For quite some time. No, it didn't hurt for longer than a few minutes. It was a weedy little air gun that had less kick than a wasp sting. Besides, I was 16 - and we've all done stupid things, especially whilst in our teens :).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. You're right. My mistake. I'm wondering where the hell I got that from :) I'm sure it was only a couple of weeks ago I was hearing about the five year anniversary - must have been something else. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. A sawn-off shotgun is and always has been impossible to obtain legally. The problem is that even a handgun is something that someone determined enough can source and I don't understand how there can be a stigma about handguns and not about sawn-off shotguns which rarely create a clean kill, which one would think should be the aim of anyone willing to kill. This just makes no sense. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I would argue that we have And you would base that assumption on what statistics? The stats I have show no significant decrease in handgun related crime from 96-00 and a marked increase during 00-01. If you have something more convincing than the national crime statistics, please present them but you can't make something true by "arguing" it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. Evidence, here and abroad, suggests otherwise. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. The problem is that many of them go out armed already and have very little fear that when they break into a house someone's going to be sat there with their own line of defense. I understand where you're coming from, I was bought up in a middle-class area, I live in one now. But I've also lived in places where Saturday night is just "the night when someone else got shot" and every noise at night could be an armed burglar
-
Roger Wright wrote: Thankfully, we don't have quite the sheep population of some other parts of the globe ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Funniest thing I've read so far this morning. The majority of the population from any country are sheep. They do what they're told and they even vote how their daily newspaper tells them. Sad really, but governments prefer it this way!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
:laugh:Quite! "How lucky for governments that people don't like to think for themselves" - Adolf Hitler Paul
-
pdriley wrote: Wasn't this one of the first actions of Blair's government? Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. pdriley wrote: There are still a strong number of people in favour, possibly not a majority but still significant. Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. Violent crime has nothing to do with it. What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. In fact, if the police were armed things would be a LOT worse. You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. pdriley wrote: Have we even demonstrated a marked reduction in shootings? I would argue that we have and perhaps the ban stopped further massacres happenning - no-onme will ever know for sure. I would go further than this and argue that the ban on hand-guns wasn't introduced soon enough - it should have happenned after the Hungerford massacre in 1987. I am pleased that I live in a country where the population isn't armed to the teeth and I will wager that the gun laws in this country are NEVER going to be repealed. pdriley wrote: It does. It really does. For quite some time. No, it didn't hurt for longer than a few minutes. It was a weedy little air gun that had less kick than a wasp sting. Besides, I was 16 - and we've all done stupid things, especially whilst in our teens :).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Incidentally, just cruising around for some more information, I came across this: http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/index.cfm?id=874132002[^] If this doesn't demonstrate my point behind the sickening imbalance between the power of the personal defense argument against the power of the sporting rights argument, I don't know what does. :rolleyes: Paul
-
I was taught that one never draws a gun without the intent to use it, and to never point it at anything I didn't intend to shoot. Even brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner without justification is a serious breach of safety, and the fact that it is air powered makes no difference. Banning any gun, however, is pointless and stupid. Banning idiots from owning them is far more sensible, and punishing those who misuse them is entirely appropriate. This Signature is Temporarily Out of Order
I'll append that with what I was taught. Never show aggressively a gun unless you are going to aim it at someone. Never aim/point a gun unless you are going to pull the trigger. Never pull the trigger unless you are going wound someone. Never wound someone when you have the opportunity to finish them off. Never terminate a life unless you are prepared to do similar to the life's supporters. (friend's family, brothers in arms). I have no trouble with people owning guns, but people waving them around deserve to be cut down. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope. The massacre at Dunblane occurred on 13th March 1996 - over a year before New Labour came to power. You're right. My mistake. I'm wondering where the hell I got that from :) I'm sure it was only a couple of weeks ago I was hearing about the five year anniversary - must have been something else. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Not significant enough I'm afraid. There is still a massive stigma about gun ownership, even in the criminal fraternity - I know because I unfortunately have a career criminal in the family. The most common weapon of choice for armed robbers is a sawn-off shotgun, which, though very difficult to obtain legally, is still a weapon that anyone determined enough can probably source. A sawn-off shotgun is and always has been impossible to obtain legally. The problem is that even a handgun is something that someone determined enough can source and I don't understand how there can be a stigma about handguns and not about sawn-off shotguns which rarely create a clean kill, which one would think should be the aim of anyone willing to kill. This just makes no sense. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I would argue that we have And you would base that assumption on what statistics? The stats I have show no significant decrease in handgun related crime from 96-00 and a marked increase during 00-01. If you have something more convincing than the national crime statistics, please present them but you can't make something true by "arguing" it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What would you like to see then? Legal private ownership of hand guns? Arming the police? Neither would affect the crime rate. Evidence, here and abroad, suggests otherwise. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: You ask any criminal - even a petty thief - if they would carry a gun if the police were armed and the answer is nearly always the same - they WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GO OUT ARMED. The problem is that many of them go out armed already and have very little fear that when they break into a house someone's going to be sat there with their own line of defense. I understand where you're coming from, I was bought up in a middle-class area, I live in one now. But I've also lived in places where Saturday night is just "the night when someone else got shot" and every noise at night could be an armed burglar
A sawn-off shotgun is and always has been impossible to obtain legally. Indeed, but a shotgun can still be obtained legally, though it isn't easy. Most criminals who use a SOG will have obtained it from someone who stole it from a legal owner. Evidence, here and abroad, suggests otherwise. Where? The UK is in a position where there is still a relatively small proportion of criminals going out armed. I cannot see how relaxing gun-control laws or arming the police is going to do anything but make the problem worse. Arming the police would be a disaster, I assure you. Like I said, ask any criminal. Do you want to live in a society where the average car thief has a gun stuck in his pocket just because the police have? Not me Paul. But the answer is education and regulation But firearms WHERE heavily regulated after Hungerford Paul - and it still didn't stop Dunblane from happenning. A total ban is the only solution. We will never know if the laws have prevented another massacre but I'm sure they have helped... and a marked increase during 00-01 Yep, they did. And do you know where the main increase occurred? With fucking Yardies in London where carrying a weapon is seen as some kind of fucking status symbol. A big problem, but not one that will be helped by any relaxation in the gun laws. Plus, there has been an influx of illegally imported East European firearms - ex Warsaw Pact hardware - something that needs to be addressed. I will say it again - if the police were armed then MORE CRIMINALS WOULD CARRY GUNS. Sorry to labour the point, but it is a damn good reason the leave things they way they are. Yes, if you know the right people and the right places to go then you can get your hands on a handgun for a few hundred quid. My point is that most criminals do not choose this path because of stigma attached. Also, since Hungerford/Dunblane there are armed police units in every major town - and any criminal that brandishes a cucumber in a plastic bag at them is likely to be shot dead. Once you arm the average Bobby and re-introduce the concept of armed civilians then we'll all be packing heat which is a recipe for disaster. Look at how many American kids are shot every year - often by playing with the contents of their parents gun cupboard. Do you really thing we should follow their lead? t'll be a long time before we see senisible drug laws and censorship laws in this country too Now you're talk
-
Another wanker has just made the district news for brandishing a cheap £17 "springer" bb gun in public. This makes two high profile cases in as many weeks (the first of which made the national news). District police are now asking people to hand in all their bb guns voluntarily. :(( As the owner of alomost $3,500 worth of high-end airsoft weaponry (AEGs and gas guns) there is no way in hell I will be giving them up now or when they make it illegal to own them - which they will do, mark my words, as long as these fucking idiots are allowed to own them. This will not only inconvienience me but cost retailers and sites around the country well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. If you are in the UK and dont want to see the hobby and increasingly popular sport of hundreds and hundreds of people in this country going the same way as hand guns, write to your local police force and lobby them to ban the sale of bb guns to minors. They may be classed as toys, but there appearance alone should qualify them as dangerous weapons, and they should fall under the same legal restrictions as knifes. (I say legal as many retailers - quite rightly - self regulate the sale of these cheaper toys to children, but sadly not all). Personally I think the ARUs should shoot the little bastards if they are stupid enough to jepordise their lives and the public opinion of our sport. :mad:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
Stuff like this always irritates me. A while back there was a knife amnesty getting people to give up their big knives. Of course, most of us will be able to walk into our kitchens and grab a huge knife that'd be far more deadly. Banning knifes wouldn't work, as there are plenty of legitimate uses for them. I always carry my penknife. I've never been stopped and searched, but If I was, I'd argue that I wouldn't spend £70 on a good quality swiss army knife with assorted gadgets (that I use regularly in my job, taking computers apart) if I just wanted a weapon. £70 could buy a fantastically scary knife if I wanted one. I doubt anyone would care though ("he has sharp metal thing. he must be bad. arrest him") If someone runs amock with a rolling pin, would the police hold a rolling pin amnesty? -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Stuff like this always irritates me. A while back there was a knife amnesty getting people to give up their big knives. Of course, most of us will be able to walk into our kitchens and grab a huge knife that'd be far more deadly. Banning knifes wouldn't work, as there are plenty of legitimate uses for them. I always carry my penknife. I've never been stopped and searched, but If I was, I'd argue that I wouldn't spend £70 on a good quality swiss army knife with assorted gadgets (that I use regularly in my job, taking computers apart) if I just wanted a weapon. £70 could buy a fantastically scary knife if I wanted one. I doubt anyone would care though ("he has sharp metal thing. he must be bad. arrest him") If someone runs amock with a rolling pin, would the police hold a rolling pin amnesty? -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
What if one guy bites another to death? Are we going to let gov't put our teeth off? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
-
What if one guy bites another to death? Are we going to let gov't put our teeth off? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
What if an opera singer hit exactly the right pitch to make someone's brain explode. Would the police have a vocal chord amnesty? We can keep this up all day -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
benjymous wrote: We can keep this up all day Abolutely. What if somebody hears Britney Spears' song and barfs his internal organs out of the body? Will they introduce a ban on teen pop stars? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.