Should kitchen knives be registered and controlled weapons?

[Mr. Perfect]

Where's the evidence that suggests murder rates remain constant despite weapons regulation? Generally, societies with low murder rates have more restricted access to weapons. I don't think anyone will mind if we become a little more like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or the United Kingdom -- all culturally similar and ethnically diverse countries.

Oh, the insularity. Next thing you'll tell me that outlawing mj will cause people to stop using it.

In America the states with no gun laws have the lowest murder rates. Think about that Zack Morris, let me know your questions. Since you appear to have no knowledge of the subject you are sure to have a bunch.

[Mr. Perfect]

Knives aren't sufficiently lethal.

By what standard. Don't tell us you just make it up as you go.

Firearms, despite being costlier and more difficult to procure, are used far more frequently in homicides than knives (67.8% to 13.4% according to FBI statistics for 2011). It is very difficult to kill large numbers of people with knives (or to do so at a distance) without being quickly subdued. Mass attacks involving assailants with knives result in fewer fatalities than comparable attacks with firearms. There is a reason why every military in the world switched from cutting instruments to firearms several centuries ago. I'm surprised that this needs to be explained to you.

Nice attempt at goal post moving Zack Morris, normally you are terrible at it, but this time instead of your usual F grade I'll give you a solid D.

Knives are totally lethal instruments. The data you didn't think to look into is the number of injured compared to killed in lethal attacks with guns. You'll find that far more people are merely injured rather than killed. So, guns are also of "questionably sufficient lethality", in that there is no guarantee that a pull of a trigger will result in a dead body, as a result then any question of what constitutes "sufficent lethality" is completely arbitrary.

But the point being is that knives totally lethal, there is nothing insufficiently lethal about them. Knives have the same lethal potential as a gun.

BTW you are more likely to be struck by lighting than killed in a "mass shooting", said shootings have been dropping statistically for over 10 years, while oddly gun ownership and concealed carry have been surging. Imagine that.

Back to the drawing board Zack Morris. On your way to the drawing board pass by noddys data and ponder on it for a very long time.

[Zack Morris]

Nice attempt at goal post moving ...

The data you didn't think to look into is the number of injured compared to killed in lethal attacks with guns. You'll find that far more people are merely injured rather than killed.

BTW you are more likely to be struck by lighting than killed in a "mass shooting", said shootings have been dropping statistically for over 10 years, while oddly gun ownership and concealed carry have been surging.

Let's return to the goal posts: 68% of homicides committed with guns, 13% with cutting instruments.

Simple physics shows that the energy expended in firing a gun is orders of magnitude less than wielding a blade. People who kill other people figured this out a long time ago. It's also why when you stalk teenage ne'er-do-wells in the woods, you bring your gun, not a knife.

[Mr. Perfect]

Let's return to the goal posts: 68% of homicides committed with guns, 13% with cutting instruments.

And 75% of those guns are illegally or extralegally obtained. So what is your point, exactly. My point is gun laws don't work. They leave innocent people defenseless and make it easier criminals who can easily obtain illegal guns. Just like it is easy to obtain any illegal drug. Do you understand what I'm saying. I feel like you're struggling to grasp what I'm saying. I feel like you don't understands the words that you read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firearmsources.svg

Simple physics shows that the energy expended in firing a gun is orders of magnitude less than wielding a blade.

Lethality is not determined by kinetic energy, it is largely determined by cross sectional density applied to specific parts of the body. Gun people figured this out long ago. that is why there are so many different calibers and guns to deliver them.

Knives have large cross sectional densities. That is part of why I keep them around. They also never run out of bullets. Think about that Zack Morris. I'd rather have the bad guy run out of bullets (they usually do).

BTW Zack Morris everything that you have said here indicates that you know almost nothing about the topic of bullet lethality, while I know a lot. That is why everything you say I will be able to blow out of the air like double ought buck into a clay pigeon.

People who kill other people figured this out a long time ago. It's also why when you stalk teenage ne'er-do-wells in the woods, you bring your gun, not a knife.

Which is why guns should remain legal and available without any infringement, as expressly written into the Constitution. You know, the Constitution that you oddly appeal to when it isn't relevant (Gay marriage, marriage is nowhere in the Constitution), but forget all about when it comes to the Bill of Rights, that is rights expressly written into it. The uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is expressly written into the Constitution. The views of the people wrote the Bill of Rights are straightforward and easily available.

On that occasion I also had a knife, and a lot of other... implements. Teenagers are responsible for a lot of crime, and seeing how you think I live in a Blue State then you would know that blue state teens are a high crime demographic. Although tbh I did not know if they were teens or 20's at the time (from memory), but they ended up being in their 20's, and most of them ended up getting busted for various criminal activity. I am so glad I had a high quality firearm. I certainly needed it.

It also appears that you didn't look at noddys data. Don't add to your information deficits Zack Morris.
Back to the drawing board Zack Morris.

[Simple Minded]

sorry about that, we just dont like killing eachother as much as you merkins do, you might want to tackle that bit first.

You seem to imply that that's a bad thing.??? Some people need killing!

Hey! Whatever happened to celebrating diversity and tolerating cultural differences?

or maybe I'm just confusing indifference with intolerance?

[Demon of Undoing]

And let me make one thing perfectly clear; that any loss in lethality due to blades is a byproduct of timely medical intervention. Slashes may do little damage to much of anything besides fascia tissue ( which can hurt like hell), but barring secondary infection, generally isn't too bad.

A penetrating stab to any part of the torso is very nearly as bad as most gunshots, and if you know how to work a blade, worse. Without someone to go in and repair potentially multiple layers, a stab victim is often a dead man walking. Duels with glorified icepicks ( small swords) from the 18th century often left noblemen deader than a doornail 24-72 hours after being popped.

[Doc]

And let me make one thing perfectly clear; that any loss in lethality due to blades is a byproduct of timely medical intervention. Slashes may do little damage to much of anything besides fascia tissue ( which can hurt like hell), but barring secondary infection, generally isn't too bad.

Unless a major artery is hit.

A penetrating stab to any part of the torso is very nearly as bad as most gunshots, and if you know how to work a blade, worse. Without someone to go in and repair potentially multiple layers, a stab victim is often a dead man walking. Duels with glorified icepicks ( small swords) from the 18th century often left noblemen deader than a doornail 24-72 hours after being popped.

One inch penetration with a twist is usually instantaneously fatal.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

YES

[Demon of Undoing]

I can carry and have carried a wide variety of weapons all over the place, and at this point in my life, this is what I carry. Not because I think it impossible to run into trouble, but because I'm fairly convinced that I can handle what trouble comes my way with it. I don't feel under-gunned. If I did, I would carry something else. At conversation distance, it works just fine.

[Zack Morris]

My point is gun laws don't work. They leave innocent people defenseless and make it easier criminals who can easily obtain illegal guns.

Whether guns can or ought to be banned outright is a different discussion. Stop moving the goalposts. The question is whether kitchen knives should be regulated because they can be used to kill people. Guns are generally more dangerous; among the reasons why is the ease with which mass slayings can be carried out (both physically and psychologically). That's why guns are regulated and have been for decades in the United States.

Few would argue that being able to buy and carry machine guns without restriction is acceptable. Or grenades. But in your bizarro reality, there is really little difference between a bomb and a knife (the same arguments you are making could be applied to just such a ludicrous comparison). For everyone else, it's a question of degree, of probability, of legitimate purpose, and so forth.

Just like it is easy to obtain any illegal drug. Do you understand what I'm saying. I feel like you're struggling to grasp what I'm saying. I feel like you don't understands the words that you read.

Logical fallacy. The law being ineffective at regulating one behavior does not imply it will be equally ineffective at regulating another. There are plenty of banned items and activities that are difficult to obtain.

Knives have large cross sectional densities. That is part of why I keep them around. They also never run out of bullets. Think about that Zack Morris. I'd rather have the bad guy run out of bullets (they usually do).

Bare hands don't run out of bullets. Nor to lead pipes. Or rocks. Or automobiles. All of those things are readily available and can kill as or more easily than knives. But they aren't used in any substantial number of homicides, which is why we don't talk about banning them to impede homicides.

Which is why guns should remain legal and available without any infringement, as expressly written into the Constitution. You know, the Constitution that you oddly appeal to when it isn't relevant (Gay marriage, marriage is nowhere in the Constitution), but forget all about when it comes to the Bill of Rights, that is rights expressly written into it. The uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is expressly written into the Constitution. The views of the people wrote the Bill of Rights are straightforward and easily available.

Yes. Guns should be well-regulated. Maybe they should even only be available to well-regulated militias, but that's nitpicking that I'm happy not to dwell on.

On that occasion I also had a knife, and a lot of other... implements. Teenagers are responsible for a lot of crime, and seeing how you think I live in a Blue State then you would know that blue state teens are a high crime demographic. Although tbh I did not know if they were teens or 20's at the time (from memory), but they ended up being in their 20's, and most of them ended up getting busted for various criminal activity. I am so glad I had a high quality firearm. I certainly needed it.

Yeah but why lug around a gun that's going to run out of bullets if the number of teenagers is higher than planned for? Just bring your equally lethal knife!

[Zack Morris]

In America the states with no gun laws have the lowest murder rates. Think about that Zack Morris, let me know your questions. Since you appear to have no knowledge of the subject you are sure to have a bunch.

Correlation does not imply causation. Jurisdictions with lax gun laws may simply have no need to enact stricter ones because homicide rates are low. We can contemplate the plausibility of this by examining whether these jurisdictions are demographically and economically dissimilar to regions with high gun crime rates, which would strongly suggest the presence of other confounding variables.

[noddy]

in australia you can fairly neatly tie the murder rate to the economy.

ban recessions

[monster_gardener]

My point is gun laws don't work. They leave innocent people defenseless and make it easier criminals who can easily obtain illegal guns.

Whether guns can or ought to be banned outright is a different discussion. Stop moving the goalposts. The question is whether kitchen knives should be regulated because they can be used to kill people. Guns are generally more dangerous; among the reasons why is the ease with which mass slayings can be carried out (both physically and psychologically). That's why guns are regulated and have been for decades in the United States.

Few would argue that being able to buy and carry machine guns without restriction is acceptable. Or grenades. But in your bizarro reality, there is really little difference between a bomb and a knife (the same arguments you are making could be applied to just such a ludicrous comparison). For everyone else, it's a question of degree, of probability, of legitimate purpose, and so forth.

Just like it is easy to obtain any illegal drug. Do you understand what I'm saying. I feel like you're struggling to grasp what I'm saying. I feel like you don't understands the words that you read.

Logical fallacy. The law being ineffective at regulating one behavior does not imply it will be equally ineffective at regulating another. There are plenty of banned items and activities that are difficult to obtain.

Knives have large cross sectional densities. That is part of why I keep them around. They also never run out of bullets. Think about that Zack Morris. I'd rather have the bad guy run out of bullets (they usually do).

Bare hands don't run out of bullets. Nor to lead pipes. Or rocks. Or automobiles. All of those things are readily available and can kill as or more easily than knives. But they aren't used in any substantial number of homicides, which is why we don't talk about banning them to impede homicides.

Which is why guns should remain legal and available without any infringement, as expressly written into the Constitution. You know, the Constitution that you oddly appeal to when it isn't relevant (Gay marriage, marriage is nowhere in the Constitution), but forget all about when it comes to the Bill of Rights, that is rights expressly written into it. The uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is expressly written into the Constitution. The views of the people wrote the Bill of Rights are straightforward and easily available.

Yes. Guns should be well-regulated. Maybe they should even only be available to well-regulated militias, but that's nitpicking that I'm happy not to dwell on.

On that occasion I also had a knife, and a lot of other... implements. Teenagers are responsible for a lot of crime, and seeing how you think I live in a Blue State then you would know that blue state teens are a high crime demographic. Although tbh I did not know if they were teens or 20's at the time (from memory), but they ended up being in their 20's, and most of them ended up getting busted for various criminal activity. I am so glad I had a high quality firearm. I certainly needed it.

Yeah but why lug around a gun that's going to run out of bullets if the number of teenagers is higher than planned for? Just bring your equally lethal knife!

Thank You Very Much for your post, Zack Morris.

Bare hands don't run out of bullets. Nor to lead pipes. Or rocks. Or automobiles. All of those things are readily available and can kill as or more easily than knives.

Often not true with regard to lethality......*

Often not as easy.......

With the exception of automobiles, to a large degree they depend on the brute force of the wielder......

Qualitatively different from guns and even knives.....

Which gets back to the need for guns & knives as equalizers against oppressors......

All men & women** are ~ equal.......
Sam Colt made them that way......

But they aren't used in any substantial number of homicides,

Also not true......

Many, too many, people are killed are killed by those means........

Often women are strangled by male or sometimes female attackers who might have been stopped if the woman was carrying a strategically placed knife or gun and used it against her attacker........

Anna E. Slesers, 55, sexually molested with unknown object and strangled with the belt on her bathrobe; found on June 14, 1962 in the third-floor apartment at 77 Gainsborough St., Back Bay[6] (source: Boston Globe Archives)

Mary Mullen, 85, died from a heart attack, but in the confession was said to have collapsed as DeSalvo grabbed her; found on June 28, 1962

Nina Nichols, 68,[7] sexually molested and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on June 30, 1962

Helen Blake, 65, sexually molested and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on June 30, 1962 in her apartment at 73 Newhall Street, Lynn, Mass.

Ida Irga, 75, sexually molested and strangled; found on August 21, 1962 at 7 Grove Street apt 10 in Boston.

Jane Sullivan, 67, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on August 30, 1962 at 435 Columbia Road, Dorchester

Sophie Clark, 20, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on December 5, 1962, Boston Back Bay

Patricia Bissette, 23, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on December 31, 1962, Boston Back Bay

Mary Brown, 69, stabbed, strangled and beaten, found on March 9, 1963 in Lawrence, Mass.

Beverly Samans, 23, stabbed to death on May 8, 1963 at 4 University Road in Cambridge, Mass.

Evelyn Corbin, 58, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on September 6, 1963 in Salem, Mass.

Joann Graff, 23, sexually assaulted and strangled on November 23, 1963 in Lawrence, Mass.

Mary Sullivan, 19, sexually assaulted and strangled with dark stockings; found by her roommates on January 4, 1964 in Boston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Strangler

which is why we don't talk about banning them to impede homicides.

Nope.........

No talk of banning because in almost all of those cases it is impractical or close too it..........

As you said, "readily available"........

Banning hands is impractical.... Most people have 2 of them and they are needed for most daily work & personal care activities.......

Banning metal pipes is also impractical.... Standard hardware item often used to carry water into homes or other fluids industrially though lead has fortunately been largely replaced by steel, copper, plastics......

Banning rocks is impractical... Mother Earth makes & places them in too many places.....

The one exception might be automobiles.....

AIUI some liberal progressives would like to ban cars for private citizens allegedly to Save the Planet.

They want to make trains & other public transportation the rule....

Perhaps so that the government can more easily control the masses.....


*But I respect the McGyver way you are beginning to think.........

**I presume you are for equal rights for women?

[Mr. Perfect]

Whether guns can or ought to be banned outright is a different discussion. Stop moving the goalposts. The question is whether kitchen knives should be regulated because they can be used to kill people. Guns are generally more dangerous; among the reasons why is the ease with which mass slayings can be carried out (both physically and psychologically). That's why guns are regulated and have been for decades in the United States.

And knives going back to the earliest records we have.

Guns have been unconstitutionally regulated in the US for some time, true, but the results have been high crime in high control areas.

Back to the drawing board, Zack Morris.

Few would argue that being able to buy and carry machine guns without restriction is acceptable. Or grenades.

I would argue that you should be able to buy and carry machine guns and probably hand grenades. A few minutes on youtube and you can turn a number of guns into automatic weapons. Yet similar to the AR-15 platform, they are never used in crimes (the AR15 being used almost never). Do you know why that is?

But in your bizarro reality, there is really little difference between a bomb and a knife (the same arguments you are making could be applied to just such a ludicrous comparison). For everyone else, it's a question of degree, of probability, of legitimate purpose, and so forth.

Actually this is your bizarro reality, the justifications you (Democrats) use for gun control can be applied to knife control. This is all your bizarro world.

In my world different implements are used for different situations. In some cases a bomb would be really effective, in others almost worthless. Sometimes a knife would be best, others a handgun, or a bolt action rifle. Your inability to form specific arguments nullifies your overall case. I'm trying to make you experience a lot of pain in gaining the knowledge you need to make these specific arguments (I will beat your specific arguments also just as easily), because you have proven to be a person who learns the hard way if at all, so I'm actually doing you a favor. Some learn the easy way (me), some the hard way (maybe you), and some never learn (Tinker). So we'll see.

IE Kinetic energy arguments as you have presented them are laughable to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of terminal ballistics, and I have more than a modicum.

Logical fallacy. The law being ineffective at regulating one behavior does not imply it will be equally ineffective at regulating another. There are plenty of banned items and activities that are difficult to obtain.

It's not a logical fallacy, it is a reality. There are already gun control laws all over the country, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they impede crime, at all. The highest gun crime areas almost always have the highest gun control, and the lowest gun crime areas have no gun control. I'm just arguing from reality.

Your laws don't work in reality, logical arguments yield to reality. Guns are aleardy regulated in high crime areas and they are easy to obtain. Your belief system already doesn't work in reality.

Bare hands don't run out of bullets. Nor to lead pipes. Or rocks. Or automobiles. All of those things are readily available and can kill as or more easily than knives.

And guns in some cases. Looks like you should be arguing for control of all of those also.

But they aren't used in any substantial number of homicides, which is why we don't talk about banning them to impede homicides.

How do determine "substantial"?

We talk of banning guns because liberals have pink underwear issues combined with Marxist/Stalinist desire to put free men in chains and in camps. And for no other reason.

Yes. Guns should be well-regulated. Maybe they should even only be available to well-regulated militias, but that's nitpicking that I'm happy not to dwell on.

Of course it's not something you want to dwell on, because you are wrong and will lose this argument along with all your others. The 2A says the right to keep and bear arms is to not be infringed, and the existence of a militia is a separate issue. The right to form a militia and be impressively armed as an individual are two separate rights. And i can flood the thread with quotes from founders saying just that.

If I did so then you would have to grapple with that brand new concept for you, natural rights, which is a concept as old as the country with which you are not familiar and just found out a bout the other day.

Yeah but why lug around a gun that's going to run out of bullets if the number of teenagers is higher than planned for? Just bring your equally lethal knife!

More options more better.

Look, I'm tempted to make your argument for you so that some sort of coherency can be made of this, but there isn't much in it for me at this point.

I'll give a hint, guns are not more lethal, they simply give you more range. But within guns there are tradeoffs, such as the size of the gun which can be an issue since most murderers need concealment in order to succeed. This is why AR15s or machine guns are almost never used. My best research, it's not that good, is that AR15s are responsible for as little as 1-3 percent of gun crime, the number is so small it's hard to get good data on. Full machine guns (belt fed, swappable barrel)are ridiculously unwieldy and are not common issue to foot soldiers even in the US military for this reason. Machine guns would be used less than AR15s if legalized.

"Assault rifles" and machine guns are not a concern because they are hard to conceal, can be heavy and awkward, and full auto spray is not even used by the military as a first option anymore, because you don't hit much and run through ammo too fast. This is all already reality tested.

Handguns are the overwhelming choice for murder in the US, and oddly revolvers are the number 1 choice. But among the many things this tells us is that murderers don't need much range and they value concealable reliable handguns.

However the problem is that when you break this down, scary guns are no longer in the conversation, but rather grandpa's old nightstand gun. this doesn't fit your agenda, and so you guys are sure not to reveal truth.

But the bottom line is, that whenever you guys do figure out which guns to do the killing and why, whatever guns you come up with, you are creating the basis for legalization arguments. Because whatever guns you figure out to be the most lethal those guns I need to have because as you pointed out decades of regulation have proven that you cannot keep them from criminals. Decades of regulation prove now that you cannot enforce the regulation.. Therefore, whatever weapon a criminal can get their hands on I need to be able to get, because I'll be facing them and need parity.

[Mr. Perfect]

Correlation does not imply causation. Jurisdictions with lax gun laws

No gun laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... s_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... s_by_state

8 of the bottom 10 have no gun laws, at all, one or 2 have a couple minimal statutes, while HI would be the only truly gun control state. If we include the bottom 15 we get a similar result. Blue state, red state, doesn't matter. In fact in a number of these states the guns are used for less than half of the overall murder, while in the high murder Democrat districts the regulated guns still are more than half the murder, blowing away another of your contentions, pun intended.

Your imagination is at odds with reality. We already have gun control and it already doesn't work.

Back to the drawing board Zack Morris.

may simply have no need to enact stricter ones because homicide rates are low. We can contemplate the plausibility of this by examining whether these jurisdictions are demographically and economically dissimilar to regions with high gun crime rates, which would strongly suggest the presence of other confounding variables.

Boy are you right about that. The presence of Democrats and Democrat policy drives murder right up. A confounding variable if I ever heard one.

I'm a man of compromise, and so if we have to ban something I'll agree to ban Democrats and their policies. I'm fine with that. I'll meet you half way.

If you are ever really interested in lowering murder rates, let us know, because guns will automatically drop from the conversation.

[Mr. Perfect]

In all honesty Zack Morris it seems like you've never fired a gun, and have no idea what you are talking about.

I think to broaden you, and make you more cosmopolitan we should get you to a gun range, and decrease your ignorance. Your anti-intellectualism. If you want I can help you find a really well qualified instructor to pop your cherry if you will, so you can speak with a little more authority.

Nothing turns a Democrat into a Republican faster than shooting a gun. That's why I'm always taking kids to the range.

xhDhmKkW3xA

[manolo]

Nothing turns a Democrat into a Republican faster than shooting a gun. That's why I'm always taking kids to the range.

Mr P,

I'm a rifle club member.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

What do you think has prevented you from going on a rampage murder spree?

[Simple Minded]

in australia you can fairly neatly tie the murder rate to the economy.

ban recessions

c'mon now bro,

if you turn the discussion away from inanimate objects and towards root causes, pretty soon you will be banning differences of opinion, multi-culturalism, religion, politics, etc.

Discussing root causes hurts people feelings (bad), inanimate objects don't have feelings (far as we know). Inanimate objects are bad is an ideology that many support.

wouldn't just be simpler to make killing people illegal? At least in the 50 or so cities and counties where most of the killing happens?

[Simple Minded]

Mr P,

I'm a rifle club member.

Alex.

alex,

I work for a French owned company in Virginia. The Europeans who come over here for long term work assignments display an enthusiasm for firearms that puts most Merikans to shame.

You guys aren't exporting your troublemakers again, are you?

[Simple Minded]

What do you think has prevented you from going on a rampage murder spree?

Cause he's not a card carrying democrat?

[monster_gardener]

My point is gun laws don't work. They leave innocent people defenseless and make it easier criminals who can easily obtain illegal guns.

Whether guns can or ought to be banned outright is a different discussion. Stop moving the goalposts. The question is whether kitchen knives should be regulated because they can be used to kill people. Guns are generally more dangerous; among the reasons why is the ease with which mass slayings can be carried out (both physically and psychologically). That's why guns are regulated and have been for decades in the United States.

Few would argue that being able to buy and carry machine guns without restriction is acceptable. Or grenades. But in your bizarro reality, there is really little difference between a bomb and a knife (the same arguments you are making could be applied to just such a ludicrous comparison). For everyone else, it's a question of degree, of probability, of legitimate purpose, and so forth.

Just like it is easy to obtain any illegal drug. Do you understand what I'm saying. I feel like you're struggling to grasp what I'm saying. I feel like you don't understands the words that you read.

Logical fallacy. The law being ineffective at regulating one behavior does not imply it will be equally ineffective at regulating another. There are plenty of banned items and activities that are difficult to obtain.

Knives have large cross sectional densities. That is part of why I keep them around. They also never run out of bullets. Think about that Zack Morris. I'd rather have the bad guy run out of bullets (they usually do).

Bare hands don't run out of bullets. Nor to lead pipes. Or rocks. Or automobiles. All of those things are readily available and can kill as or more easily than knives. But they aren't used in any substantial number of homicides, which is why we don't talk about banning them to impede homicides.

Which is why guns should remain legal and available without any infringement, as expressly written into the Constitution. You know, the Constitution that you oddly appeal to when it isn't relevant (Gay marriage, marriage is nowhere in the Constitution), but forget all about when it comes to the Bill of Rights, that is rights expressly written into it. The uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is expressly written into the Constitution. The views of the people wrote the Bill of Rights are straightforward and easily available.

Yes. Guns should be well-regulated. Maybe they should even only be available to well-regulated militias, but that's nitpicking that I'm happy not to dwell on.

On that occasion I also had a knife, and a lot of other... implements. Teenagers are responsible for a lot of crime, and seeing how you think I live in a Blue State then you would know that blue state teens are a high crime demographic. Although tbh I did not know if they were teens or 20's at the time (from memory), but they ended up being in their 20's, and most of them ended up getting busted for various criminal activity. I am so glad I had a high quality firearm. I certainly needed it.

Yeah but why lug around a gun that's going to run out of bullets if the number of teenagers is higher than planned for? Just bring your equally lethal knife!

Thank You Very Much Again for your post, Zack Morris.

Yeah but why lug around a gun that's going to run out of bullets if the number of teenagers is higher than planned for? Just bring your equally lethal knife!

Mr. Perfect has given most of the reasons...... the range factor etc.......

And IMO you touched on another one incidentally...

and psychologically)

FWIHS many people fear guns much more than they fear knives......

Suspect that Hollywood/movies may be part of this......

In the movies person gets shot, they often tend to go down right now and stay dead* vs. a knife fight which can take some time......

Making potential perps feel that maybe they can beat a victim defending himself/herself with a knife, metal pipe, rock, bare hands etc......

Guns can be used to scare off attackers.......

Recalling reading the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column which has listed many incidents in which an armed citizen has scared off attackers/thieves or even a mob by having a gun

Guns can save lives without even firing a shot.......

One example........

Gun carrying woman halts violent mob, The Detroit News, Detroit, Mich. 04/08/14, WJBK, Detroit, Mich. 04/08/14, WXYZ, Detroit, Mich. 04/07/14

Steve Utash was driving in Detroit, Mich. when he accidentally struck a 10-year-old boy with his vehicle. Retired nurse Deborah Hughes was inside her nearby home at the time, and once she became aware of the accident, she retrieved a .38-caliber pistol and went to see if she could help. While she was trying to comfort the injured boy, a mob began to attack Utash, who had stopped and gotten out of his vehicle. As the beating was taking place, Hughes rushed over to the crowd and told the mob, “Don’t kick him anymore, don’t hit him anymore, get back,” halting the attack. Hughes later told a local media outlet, “I had a gun in my pocket, I was ready to do some damage if I had to.” Following the incident, Detroit Police Chief James Craig referred to Hughes as a “Detroit hero.” Hughes made clear to a reporter that she is often armed stating, “You have to carry a gun around here… This neighborhood is terrible. I don’t walk around without my gun.”

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-ci ... s=&st=&ps=

IMO it's a lot less likely that she would have been able to hold off a mob with a knife, bare hand, lead pipe or jawbone of an ass ......

Unless she was Xena Warrior Princess or similar.......



*Unless the plot demands a happy ending in which case they are revived at the hospital

Don't count on any of this in real life......The perp may not go down immediately unless your gun has lots of stopping power &/or hits the right places.... Recalling a case where this happened... Crazy Evil perp kidnapped a Doctor & his Nurse wife when they stopped to help him with his broken down car.....The Doc shot the Perp four times! with his .22 but the Perp was still able to wrestle with the Doctor & would have shot the wife except that the Perp's gun jammed at which point the Perp fled and was later caught..... Perp is now in prison on Death Row in Oklahoma for killing 2 people before he kidnapped the Doctor & his wife

There is new information about the events that led to the capture of double murder supsect Scott Eizember. Eizember is in a Texas hospital recovering from four gunshot wounds that came from a gun concealed by one of his alleged kidnapping victims.

Authorities with the Angelina County Sheriff's Department say they received a 911 call at about 7:30 p.m. Sunday night. The caller said a man and woman, now identified as Dr. Samuel Peebles and his wife Suzanne, came to his residence bleeding and needing help. The couple told the man they had stopped to help a stranded motorist in Arkansas and that he had displayed a gun and forced them to drive south.

The Peebles did not know the man was Eizember.

While driving through Angelina County, the Peebles convinced Eizember to allow them to use the restroom. That's when an altercation ensued between Dr. Peebles and Eizember at which point Eizember was shot four times. Dr. Peebles had been able to recover a handgun that was concealed in the minivan.

Eizember assaulted both Samuel and Suzanne Peebles before taking off in their van. He attempted to get help for his wounds at a grocery store, but an employee of the store called the Corrigan, Texas police department to report a man with gunshot wounds and carrying a weapon inside the store.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1028254/posts

http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/deat ... fff5c.html

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Now that we @ subject of "Kitchen Knife"

Here, a very touching story

[manolo]

Mr P,

I'm a rifle club member.

Alex.

alex,

I work for a French owned company in Virginia. The Europeans who come over here for long term work assignments display an enthusiasm for firearms that puts most Merikans to shame.

You guys aren't exporting your troublemakers again, are you?

SM,

I enjoy guns because I'm keen on gadgets and like the way they work. My main sporting loves are Japanese sports motorcycles, downhill mountain biking, and target shooting with air pistols and rifles. The rifle club can give me access to .22LR and .303 rifles but to be honest I can hit inner bull on a 25 yd paper target just as well (if not better) with one of my .22 PCP air rifles. Accuracy is still pretty good out to 100yds, surprising given the low ft lbs on UK guns.

I have an outdoor range on my own land for the rifles and an indoor range for the pistols. Shoot almost every day. A big advantage with air is that they can be almost silent if required.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

SM,

I enjoy guns because I'm keen on gadgets and like the way they work. My main sporting loves are Japanese sports motorcycles, downhill mountain biking, and target shooting with air pistols and rifles. The rifle club can give me access to .22LR and .303 rifles but to be honest I can hit inner bull on a 25 yd paper target just as well (if not better) with one of my .22 PCP air rifles. Accuracy is still pretty good out to 100yds, surprising given the low ft lbs on UK guns.

I have an outdoor range on my own land for the rifles and an indoor range for the pistols. Shoot almost every day. A big advantage with air is that they can be almost silent if required.

Alex.

alex,

you sound like a proto-typical currently chic Merikan!

a bitter clinger hiding behind a Socialist facade!

you can wear that badge with pride my friend!