Why is this weapon on public sale?

[Skybird]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_NC-_fvKs

These so-called WASP-knifes inject compressed air into the body the blade just had cut into. Originally, the idea is coming from anti-shark-sticks, and was meant as a tool of defense against attacking dangerous animals close by, namely sharks. It now is on public sale, as far as I know, and gets promoted as a hunting knife and self-defense weapon. Pardon? Anyone iditoic enough trying to chase bears with a knife in his hand should be forbidden to carry a weapon. and for self-defense you do not need this always lethal weapon - a normal knife would do very well. In Germany and Britain it is feared now that these things get shipped over the Atlantic.

I say they should stay were they come from - from the tip of anti-shark stick, long enough that you cannot carry them in your pockets and cannot hide them under your coat. I could imagine that divers would prefer detonating anti-shark-capsules anyway. Underwater it may prove to be difficult to get a knife through a huge shark's thick skin.

This weapon has nothing to look for on the shelves of public shops. I doubt it'S underwater-value. I even cannot see a purpose for them with special commandos and the military.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035729/Britain-alert-deadly-new-knife-exploding-tip-freezes-victims-organs.html


"Weapons like this are absolutely disgraceful and there is no reason at all why people should be walking around the streets with them.
There should be high-profile operations and high-profile arrests against anybody caught with them."

100% agree.

[Foxtrot]

best weapon to deal muggers scum. They cross their boundary, they deserve this treatment deep in their asses.

[Zachstar]

best weapon to deal muggers scum. They cross their boundary, they deserve this treatment deep in their asses.
Um What? You promote murder and mob justice? Is this correct?

This is a murder weapon. You can't reasonably prove in a court of law that you used this to defend yourself when there is no chance this will not kill.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I don't care if criminals have these things. I have a gun.:D

However skybird, I pity those who do not have weapons to defend themselves from air-knives or guns or rocks or flying elephants or whatever.

Let's make a little bet. You guys make these knife-whatevers illegal and then we'll see someone gets murdered by one anyway.


My point is; who cares if someone invents an air-knife or lethal bananna-launcher or whatever they want? You can't stop people from inventing them, you can't stop criminals from using them to commit crimes, and you can't make a reasonable argument for honest citizenry to be prohibited from having the same weapons as their assailants. Whether they are cruel weapons or not is irrelevant. The people whom your law against "WASP-knives" affects are the same people who would never murder someone with one. All you are doing is needlessly pecking away at personal freedom, and inhibiting an industry which could potentially produce jobs and tax revenue.

Just for arguments' sake, let's say your law does totally remove all WASPs from any kind of public or criminal arsenal. Now they kill each other with regular knives, swords, clubs, heavy objects, bare hands, or candlesticks in the dining room.

I totally do not understand this "weapon control" logic.

[Skybird]

And I cannot understand how a person claiming the right for self defense - needs military equipment, machine guns or an assault rifle for that.

If this knife would not get produced, it would not be used, wether intentionally, nor by accident. A weapon that does not exist, could not fall into wrong hands, could not beocme an object of prestige at school, could not kill ba accident, and could not make some dumb people behave like idiots with testicles having wandered into their heads (not generalizing, but I have seen enough such imbiciles).

Isn't this circular logic? To claim one invents a weapon just becasue one needs a defense and has a right to defend against such weapons that just got invented?

This weapon is a killing tool, more than a normal knife, or a firearm. It is as uncompromised in it's killing intrention like a grenade. What for do ordinary citizens need this ...? And why the obession with some people to not just fight off and overthrow a criminal attacker, but to see him getting killed for sure - and making a loud mouth about it like Foxtrot just illustrated?

Another reason why I dislike fire-arms and such a knife is, they are so simple to use that every idiot can use them. It is too easy, but wielding a weapon should not be easy. the easier it is, the more bad will happen. and the more unsuited dumbheads will have weapons. And bang - you are lost in the circular logic I explained above.

[JHuschke]

Since when did people start carrying machine guns on the street for self-defense?:hmm: What would be the purpose of that knife any way? Why would he want to freeze someones organs?

[Skybird]

Since when did people start carrying machine guns on the street for self-defense?:hmm: What would be the purpose of that knife any way? Why would he want to freeze someones organs?
We had enough weapon-threads in the past where such claims were made. Or hunting wild animals with Kalashnikows, etc. Well, i assume such minds also do not get irriated by criticism of dynamite fishing.

[JHuschke]

Since when did people start carrying machine guns on the street for self-defense?:hmm: What would be the purpose of that knife any way? Why would he want to freeze someones organs?
We had enough weapon-threads in the past where such claims were made. Or hunting wild animals with Kalashnikows, etc. Well, i assume such minds also do not get irriated by criticism of dynamite fishing. Dynamite fishing! I wondered if people really do that..maybe I should sit in a deer stand..wait for a bunch of em to pack together and throw a dynamite..hopefully I'll get a good kill!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Isn't this circular logic? To claim one invents a weapon just becasue one needs a defense and has a right to defend against such weapons that just got invented?



Let me put it into a clearer perspective. Weapons ARE invented. Since the dawn of mankind they have been used to force people to do things they would not normally do. If all weapons disappeared I can assure you that I would invent some kind of a weapon and use it to subjugate everyone else. Eventually I would have to fight with other a$$holes like me. I might even use my weapon to make people like you fight those other guys with weapons so I don't have to.
It's just human nature. There is no eliminating the "weapon" factor. However, if YOU had a weapon as well, I would not attack you because I might lose. I would build a weapon better than yours so I could attack you if I wanted to. But then you see me building a better weapon and make an even better weapon.........blah blah blah

As far as your argument that weapons are to easy to use goes, so are cars. Millions of people worldwide are killed by automobiles and no one cares because no one wants to see them get banned since they rely on them. But for gun-haters it is easy to hate guns because the vast majority of them have never used one. Cars kill more people than guns, why don't we ban them? Clubs are also easy to use; swing at target's head with maximum force. Care to ban blunt objects?

I will make no argument against the fact that my gun (Walther P38) is for killing people who attack me or another person. Sometimes I shoot cans with it for fun.
The only thing that would stop me from using a grenade or a machine gun (if they were legal) is the potential for collateral damage. A crimninal would have no such objections, which is why I need a weapon to defend myslef.


If anything I would argue only for more training in the use of firearms so that we do not have as many accidental shootings.

How about we have a contest where I am armed with an illegal gun and am intent on killing you and stealing all your stuff and you are armed with anti-gun rhetoric.
I bet I can kill you and steal your stuff well before the police ever arrive to protect you. :D


As noble and theoretically noble the ban on any kind of weapon may be, reality says that you will regret not having said weapons.

[Platapus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_NC-_fvKs




Great. Just what we need. A farting knife. :nope:

[orwell]

I looked on their website but could not find charges for a refill on the gas cartridge. However given the cost of this knife it would be reasonable to suspect they are quite expensive, I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10 to 20 dollars for a single use cartridge. Meanwhile in America a box of 50 bullets is only $2.50. Clearly American criminals can operate their business very cheaply compared to UK criminals. You just can't afford to kill a guy when it's $20 a pop ya know. Now as an American I like to hear that type of news, it's nice to know there's at least one US industry that can compete favorable against foreign competition.

The Citizens of the UK may want to consider this carefully though. You have entertaining criminals like Guy Fawkes who are grand and noble and dared to dream big things. America has Charles Manson. Clearly Americans are a lower class of criminal than brits. Now as dashing as Guy Fawkes was keep in mind he failed. Manson didn't. Americans have an innate superiority in their ability at illegal actions. Besides how could England's criminals compete when it's a knife with one shot vs an American with more ammo in his car than was used during the entire US Revolutionary War. You guys would get your ever loving ass kicked by the yanks. Again. What you limeys have got to ask yourself is, do you want to lose your fine home grown criminal element in place of US thugs? Clearly the only sane response is no, you'd want to keep your own criminals and continue electing them to Parliament as usual. I mean honestly, Ted Kaczynski in the House of Commons? Sure the news would be amusing for a few days but after awhile it'd just get to be a tired old pathetic joke.

So I propose that the UK put a subsidy on the exploding gas knife industry. Any criminal who purchases one should get an automatic rebate from the government that is enough to cover at least 50 gas cartridges. This might seem excessive and expensive to some but really, it's a small price to pay to not watch your tradition of the football hooligans lifestyle replaced by some yank blasting rap and ranting about how George Bush hates black people.

[joegrundman]

I looked on their website but could not find charges for a refill on the gas cartridge. However given the cost of this knife it would be reasonable to suspect they are quite expensive, I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10 to 20 dollars for a single use cartridge. Meanwhile in America a box of 50 bullets is only $2.50. Clearly American criminals can operate their business very cheaply compared to UK criminals. You just can't afford to kill a guy when it's $20 a pop ya know. Now as an American I like to hear that type of news, it's nice to know there's at least one US industry that can compete favorable against foreign competition.

The Citizens of the UK may want to consider this carefully though. You have entertaining criminals like Guy Fawkes who are grand and noble and dared to dream big things. America has Charles Manson. Clearly Americans are a lower class of criminal than brits. Now as dashing as Guy Fawkes was keep in mind he failed. Manson didn't. Americans have an innate superiority in their ability at illegal actions. Besides how could England's criminals compete when it's a knife with one shot vs an American with more ammo in his car than was used during the entire US Revolutionary War. You guys would get your ever loving ass kicked by the yanks. Again. What you limeys have got to ask yourself is, do you want to lose your fine home grown criminal element in place of US thugs? Clearly the only sane response is no, you'd want to keep your own criminals and continue electing them to Parliament as usual. I mean honestly, Ted Kaczynski in the House of Commons? Sure the news would be amusing for a few days but after awhile it'd just get to be a tired old pathetic joke.

So I propose that the UK put a subsidy on the exploding gas knife industry. Any criminal who purchases one should get an automatic rebate from the government that is enough to cover at least 50 gas cartridges. This might seem excessive and expensive to some but really, it's a small price to pay to not watch your tradition of the football hooligans lifestyle replaced by some yank blasting rap and ranting about how George Bush hates black people.

good grief, you just wasted at least 10 mins of your life writing this nonsense

[UnderseaLcpl]

@ orwell---- What!? I started to kind of see your logic but then I lost it. Maybe a more "Barney-style" explanation?




@joegrundman--- Don't you think it a bit harsh to dismiss someone's views as "nonsense"? I didn't understand him either but maybe some clarification would help.

[Tchocky]

I honestly thought orwells post was hilarious.

Oh, and the knife is called a WASP? Lol...

[AntEater]

Seriously, what is that thing good for?
I suppose in order to make that injection thing work, you really have to ram it into the target full lenght.
Who would want to do that with either a bear or a thug or whatever? And who actually can do it? I mean ramming cold steel full lenght into the guts of somebody might have been easy for a roman legionary, but even most professional soldiers of today could not do it on a flinch.
I mean if you're attacked by a bear you're pretty much dead if you let him get so close that you can use this knife. You might kill the bear as well, but I don't know if that is a consolation for your next of kin.
The only way I could imagine this thing to work as a defense weapon would be as some kind of lance, but not as a knife.
As a weapon of attack, why? I mean if you get this close to a man you can slid his throat or stab his heart or whatever just as easily. Same goes with animals. Why should anyone go big game hunting with a knife when he can use a .50 cal rifle??

This thing looks cool and will be the new superstar of every Ghangsta Rap video in the next 20 years and will be the new main weapon in Grand Theft Auto 5.
Perfect Ghangsta toy.

[August]

I am a hunter. I am a diver. I am so buying one of these, and while i do i will thank God, master of all life, including atheists, that I live in the United States of America!

[SUBMAN1]

Since when did people start carrying machine guns on the street for self-defense?:hmm: What would be the purpose of that knife any way? Why would he want to freeze someones organs? We had enough weapon-threads in the past where such claims were made. Or hunting wild animals with Kalashnikows, etc. Well, i assume such minds also do not get irriated by criticism of dynamite fishing. Dynamite fishing! I wondered if people really do that..maybe I should sit in a deer stand..wait for a bunch of em to pack together and throw a dynamite..hopefully I'll get a good kill!Quit cracking me up man! :lol: You're messing with the Utopia vision now though, so careful! :D

-S

[Skybird]

Let me put it into a clearer perspective. Weapons ARE invented. Since the dawn of mankind they have been used to force people to do things they would not normally do. If all weapons disappeared I can assure you that I would invent some kind of a weapon and use it to subjugate everyone else. Eventually I would have to fight with other a$$holes like me.

Consider the other a$$hole owns a private plane. Is that your excuse to station stingers in your household? And if he is a farmer and own a bulldozer, do you field a Milan in your garden?

It's just human nature. There is no eliminating the "weapon" factor. However, if YOU had a weapon as well, I would not attack you because I might lose. I would build a weapon better than yours so I could attack you if I wanted to. But then you see me building a better weapon and make an even better weapon.........blah blah blah

I can'T see this weapon being any better. Only being more barbaric. certainly, there are cultural influences as well. People can learn not fo love violence and weapons. But my impression is, in american culture, medias and real life, both is cult - more cult than in any other western country.

As far as your argument that weapons are to easy to use goes, so are cars. Millions of people worldwide are killed by automobiles and no one cares because no one wants to see them get banned since they rely on them. But for gun-haters it is easy to hate guns because the vast majority of them have never used one. Cars kill more people than guns, why don't we ban them?

I don't know about you, but usually people board cars with the intention not to hit something. when you draw a weapon, that intention reverses to it's opposite. I knew that somebody would make the car compairson - it always pops up in discussions like this. Always, really. Telling by years of multiple-threads-long experience. :)

Clubs are also easy to use; swing at target's head with maximum force. Care to ban blunt objects?

If they carry a short chain with an iron ball with stings at the top, yes.

I will make no argument against the fact that my gun (Walther P38) is for killing people who attack me or another person. Sometimes I shoot cans with it for fun.

And sometimes you stab cushions for fun as well with this gas-knife?

The only thing that would stop me from using a grenade or a machine gun (if they were legal) is the potential for collateral damage. A crimninal would have no such objections, which is why I need a weapon to defend myslef.

Yes, maybe. But you do not need an army, nor military equipment for that. Three years ago I was attacked on open street by a maniac, with a knife. Former training (19 years) and old reflexes helped me to block that stab and suffer only a cut on the hip while taking him out immediately. and I had no weapon at all. The point is, that training went hand in hand with education and training of my character. It changed me. Going into a shop and buying a tool of death - every maniac can do thatcan do that. He wopuld be better served with such a training. consiedet the times of Mus

If anything I would argue only for more training in the use of firearms so that we do not have as many accidental shootings.

Okay, my father is sports shooter himself, air pistol precision shooting, and cal 38. I shot some rounds, but it is not my thing, mine was archery, and swords, and martial arts, and I was good at all. He learned theory for half a year before getting a license. and he does not need dumdum bullets, neither for sports, nor for self defense.

so, why is such a knife needed? and why does it need to hide behind ridiculous claims like being the ideal weapon for self defense against huge land predators?

How about we have a contest where I am armed with an illegal gun and am intent on killing you and stealing all your stuff and you are armed with anti-gun rhetoric.

I bet I can kill you and steal your stuff well before the police ever arrive to protect you. :D

Eventually if the situation favours your options. Else i would not be so sure of that.

As noble and theoretically noble the ban on any kind of weapon may be, reality says that you will regret not having said weapons.

Which does not answer the question: why such a barbaric knife? It even does not free you from the risk to close in to hand-combat range, which always is a risk. you can't even throw the thing, since oyu need to push a button to fire the gas. There is as much need for it than there is for cop-killer ammunition (those flechette rounds that penetrate protection jackets).

[jpm1]

weapons are an integral part of american history . i just want to answer to one thing if there aren't any weapons in the streets you don't need to protect yourself from something which doesn't exist . if someday somebody threats me with a weapon to give him my car i'll probably give it to him why taking the risk to kill him or for me to get killed my insurance'll give me a brand new car or its equivalent and the poor guy has ruined its life

[Frame57]

Weapons have and will be with us till the end. It started with those damn Chimps in 2001 a Space Idiodicy.:D

[SUBMAN1]

Man that thing looks efficient at opening watermelons quickly! Splits them in half automatically withing having to saw through them! Nice!! Could come in handy for watermelon eating contests! I need to get one of those! :p:D

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I'd say it's probably the only thing it's good for :D
If it's meant to kill animals or people, IMO it's one retarded weapon. A good stabbing can kill anybody, no need to blow guts all around the place.They are just looking for a nitch - but somebody will say - ohhh thats cool! I agree - taking the time to push a button after it is inside is going to never have time to happen! Its a dumb weapon.

And why not just shoot the person instead? Easier. Too much work and too much risk to try stabbing them in the first place. Probably better to run them over with a car! :D

-S

[SUBMAN1]

No sh!t, I actually agree with Subman on something ! :rotfl:We agree on a ton of stuff I am sure, just not lately.

-S

[Blacklight]

:nope:
I'm just WAITING for these things to get into the hands of the street gangs.
These things need to be outlawed. There's absolutely NO reason the public should have these.

[U-104]

I am a hunter. I am a diver. I am so buying one of these, and while i do i will thank God, master of all life, including atheists, that I live in the United States of America!:up::up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

:nope:
I'm just WAITING for these things to get into the hands of the street gangs.
These things need to be outlawed. There's absolutely NO reason the public should have these.

No doubt, outlawing weapons has proven remarkably effective in keeping them out of the hands of street gangs. Emerging evidence suggests that criminals are unlikely to disobey weapon-control laws because it would make them criminals. I also agree that there is no reason the law-abiding public should have these as they would indubitably fail to use them to kill innocent people in painful ways.

Forgive the sarcasm but, seriously, criminals get their hands on drugs all the time, despite their illegality, guns, despite being prohibited from owning them, and military grade weapons despite the general public's inability to obtain them.
You might as well say that we should outlaw crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

I've posted this link before (possibly twice) but I will post it again. It is a piece by John Stossel about gun control. I'm not asking you to change your views, I'm not asking you to like Stossel, and I'm not asking you to consider it as truth. All I'm asking is that really, really think about the logic behind attempting to control weapons. Yes, some prohibitions on the law-abiding public are good (although I can't think of one right now) some laws are good as well, but gun-control only takes guns away from people who are not a threat whilst failing to remove them fro people who are criminals. Some posit that forbidding weapons production for any but the military is the solution. These same people fail to realize that production of illegal drugs is prohibited as well, but we have no shortage of drug problems. Alcohol was prohibited as well for a time, by sacred constitutional amendment. We all know how that worked out.

I pretty much went over this with skybird already, just a few posts ago. Look at his arguments and look at mine and make your own judgement.

I dsagree with you but I respect your opinion, I have considered yours against my own views and find it lacking in evidence, please consider mine. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Yahoshua]

*Yawn*...

Okay...so we now have gas-operated switchblades as opposed to spring-operated switchblades. On the grand scale it doesn't make a big difference.

Do we NEED these things? I don't see any particular NEED for it, but if somebody wants to waste their money on one? Okay I'll sell it to him. It isn't illegal to sell these knives. Criminals will find weapons to use whether it's a firearm procured through illegal means, to switchblades, to an old rusty steel pipe if need be.

But seriously, quit getting your panties in a wad over this thing, it isn't worth a visit to the doctor over.

[SUBMAN1]

:nope:
I'm just WAITING for these things to get into the hands of the street gangs.
These things need to be outlawed. There's absolutely NO reason the public should have these.
No doubt, outlawing weapons has proven remarkably effective in keeping them out of the hands of street gangs. Emerging evidence suggests that criminals are unlikely to disobey weapon-control laws because it would make them criminals. I also agree that there is no reason the law-abiding public should have these as they would indubitably fail to use them to kill innocent people in painful ways.

Forgive the sarcasm but, seriously, criminals get their hands on drugs all the time, despite their illegality, guns, despite being prohibited from owning them, and military grade weapons despite the general public's inability to obtain them.
You might as well say that we should outlaw crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

I've posted this link before (possibly twice) but I will post it again. It is a piece by John Stossel about gun control. I'm not asking you to change your views, I'm not asking you to like Stossel, and I'm not asking you to consider it as truth. All I'm asking is that really, really think about the logic behind attempting to control weapons. Yes, some prohibitions on the law-abiding public are good (although I can't think of one right now) some laws are good as well, but gun-control only takes guns away from people who are not a threat whilst failing to remove them fro people who are criminals. Some posit that forbidding weapons production for any but the military is the solution. These same people fail to realize that production of illegal drugs is prohibited as well, but we have no shortage of drug problems. Alcohol was prohibited as well for a time, by sacred constitutional amendment. We all know how that worked out.

I pretty much went over this with skybird already, just a few posts ago. Look at his arguments and look at mine and make your own judgement.

I dsagree with you but I respect your opinion, I have considered yours against my own views and find it lacking in evidence, please consider mine. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree. Good post man! Sums it up well.

-S

[Skybird]

:nope:
I'm just WAITING for these things to get into the hands of the street gangs.
These things need to be outlawed. There's absolutely NO reason the public should have these.

No doubt, outlawing weapons has proven remarkably effective in keeping them out of the hands of street gangs. Emerging evidence suggests that criminals are unlikely to disobey weapon-control laws because it would make them criminals. I also agree that there is no reason the law-abiding public should have these as they would indubitably fail to use them to kill innocent people in painful ways.

Forgive the sarcasm but, seriously, criminals get their hands on drugs all the time, despite their illegality, guns, despite being prohibited from owning them, and military grade weapons despite the general public's inability to obtain them.
You might as well say that we should outlaw crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

I've posted this link before (possibly twice) but I will post it again. It is a piece by John Stossel about gun control. I'm not asking you to change your views, I'm not asking you to like Stossel, and I'm not asking you to consider it as truth. All I'm asking is that really, really think about the logic behind attempting to control weapons. Yes, some prohibitions on the law-abiding public are good (although I can't think of one right now) some laws are good as well, but gun-control only takes guns away from people who are not a threat whilst failing to remove them fro people who are criminals. Some posit that forbidding weapons production for any but the military is the solution. These same people fail to realize that production of illegal drugs is prohibited as well, but we have no shortage of drug problems. Alcohol was prohibited as well for a time, by sacred constitutional amendment. We all know how that worked out.

I pretty much went over this with skybird already, just a few posts ago. Look at his arguments and look at mine and make your own judgement.

I dsagree with you but I respect your opinion, I have considered yours against my own views and find it lacking in evidence, please consider mine. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree.
some points.

Neither today nor in the past I ever said there is a direct link between gun control and lower crime, but I linked statiostics supporting both views. That was in some diuscussion on gun laws two or three years ago.

This thread is not about forbidding knifes, but one that causes espcially bad harm and horrific wounds and is almost always lethal. I own several knfies and 4 swords myself, two of which are sharp metal ones. However, they do not detonate inside tzhe victims body and make the gore spraying around like in a zombie-B-movie. It is this what I question, this gas-explosion-tissue freezing thing. Like I also question why oridnary citizens think they must defend thgemselves by not using ammunition but maybe dumdum bollets, or cop-killer ammunition. Such things have nothing to do in public stores.

I also question a basic admiration for weapons, the more destructive they are, the better. military weapons, assault rifles, MPs and such things should not have a polace in pi9rvate hpuseholds, and are not needed for self-defense - I do not want anybody starting to wage a freaking war in his garden.

And I would like to point at that gun laws yes or no for themselves do not chnage these attitudes a bit. I want to point at a cultural climate, that glorifies violence in media and public awareness, makes business of using it's inherent excitement and fear-factor to entertain people, but also lowers any inhibitions of individuals to use weapons or brutal force to acchieve what they want. This inhibition treshhold is difefrent in different countries. It becomes an obvious issue at schools in Europe, where foreigners from some war-torn place often have less inhibitions to use physical force, than kids from native families who had been cared for and lived a protected life. I know from social workers in Berlin for example that that became a problem in Berlin schools when a wave of Balkan refugees came to Europe and germany, Bosnians and Serbs alike. When you establish a living way in your nation that makes your kid growing up in a climate of fear, and paranoia, and violence, you should not be surprised if the inhibiion trteshholds to use violence themselves are lower than one generation earlier. Almost every Western police is telling you that the willingness to use violence even over profane things is climbing in almost ever ynation, and huge cities especially, and respect for the law and police is in decline. This sociocultural climate is what makes a general acceptance of weapons dangerous. Seen that way, gun laws can onoly work if seen as having consequences over the long time, and it is possible that we tlak about half or even a full generation here. Othger factors also would need to fall into place then. How many people get killed in traffic, and wounded? More than by crime. But the criome victims get all the attention, and traffic victims not. It is like with sharks, and other causes of swimmers ending up dead. the number of people getting killed by shark is very small, yet shark attacks get incredible attention. the growing loss of life caused by children no longer learning to swim - is almost unreported! that is irrational. It is not that every citizen needs to consider walking on a battlefield when stepping before his house door, but some make it appear they have a need to stockpile sophisticated firearms, semiautomatic weapons and ammunition in quantities huge enough to stop a batallion. and that is simply ridiculous.

My recommendation is if you have children let them learn some martial arts for some years. It will not only train their skills and bodies, but will also imporve their character, if done correctly. It does not create mugglers and street criminals, actually it can prevent them to become that, if training regularly and focussed. Law enforcement and courts sometimes use boxing drill camps to give juveniles an opportunity to earnt he respect they y<earn for, to let off inner pressure and energy in a controlled, safe ambiente, and learn discipline. Lack of all these is what brings many of them into street gangs, and strips them off chances to get a fair job and live by fair perspectives of them having a place in society, and having a future.

In the long run this would be a much superior investement into counter-crime than selling millions of firearms. Because in the end firearms only teach you one thing: how to kill easy and comfortably. If you want to win the fight against street crime and yoluing criminalty, you need to invest into chnaging the cultural climate in nwhich the young ones grow up. selling weapons just adresses rthe symptoms of a violence-drunken society. n the immediate present in some places it may be needed. but in no wa it is an investement into a better future. It just turns a whole people minto paranoids, like michael Moore very correctly ppointed out in his Columbine movie. you can think of him what you want, but when he made that analysis of America being a society driven by paranoic fear of what at the same time they and all their media are totally attracted by, he probably was so very damn right. Amaericans have more reasons to be afraid of cars and traffics. It wounds and kills more people. The death rate by traffic is roughly 2.5 times as high as that from intentional murder.

And since many years, the median age of criminal offenders in categories of violent crime is falling. More weapons a solution...?

[Herr_Pete]

a knife that once it has penetrated your body, you will then a second later be blown up. Charming. That would be pretty poor if they were sold in britian, people running when neds chase you with a knife and now knowing once he is stabbed you he is going to blow you up:o i think the inventor should be stabbed with that and then blown up:up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

a)some points.

b)Neither today nor in the past I ever said there is a direct link between gun control and lower crime, but I linked statiostics supporting both views. That was in some diuscussion on gun laws two or three years ago.

c)This thread is not about forbidding knifes, but one that causes espcially bad harm and horrific wounds and is almost always lethal. I own several knfies and 4 swords myself, two of which are sharp metal ones. However, they do not detonate inside tzhe victims body and make the gore spraying around like in a zombie-B-movie. It is this what I question, this gas-explosion-tissue freezing thing. Like I also question why oridnary citizens think they must defend thgemselves by not using ammunition but maybe dumdum bollets, or cop-killer ammunition. Such things have nothing to do in public stores.

d)I also question a basic admiration for weapons, the more destructive they are, the better. military weapons, assault rifles, MPs and such things should not have a polace in pi9rvate hpuseholds, and are not needed for self-defense - I do not want anybody starting to wage a freaking war in his garden.

e)And I would like to point at that gun laws yes or no for themselves do not chnage these attitudes a bit. I want to point at a cultural climate, that glorifies violence in media and public awareness, makes business of using it's inherent excitement and fear-factor to entertain people, but also lowers any inhibitions of individuals to use weapons or brutal force to acchieve what they want. This inhibition treshhold is difefrent in different countries. It becomes an obvious issue at schools in Europe, where foreigners from some war-torn place often have less inhibitions to use physical force, than kids from native families who had been cared for and lived a protected life. I know from social workers in Berlin for example that that became a problem in Berlin schools when a wave of Balkan refugees came to Europe and germany, Bosnians and Serbs alike. When you establish a living way in your nation that makes your kid growing up in a climate of fear, and paranoia, and violence, you should not be surprised if the inhibiion trteshholds to use violence themselves are lower than one generation earlier. Almost every Western police is telling you that the willingness to use violence even over profane things is climbing in almost ever ynation, and huge cities especially, and respect for the law and police is in decline. This sociocultural climate is what makes a general acceptance of weapons dangerous. Seen that way, gun laws can onoly work if seen as having consequences over the long time, and it is possible that we tlak about half or even a full generation here. Othger factors also would need to fall into place then. How many people get killed in traffic, and wounded? More than by crime. But the criome victims get all the attention, and traffic victims not. It is like with sharks, and other causes of swimmers ending up dead. the number of people getting killed by shark is very small, yet shark attacks get incredible attention. the growing loss of life caused by children no longer learning to swim - is almost unreported! that is irrational. It is not that every citizen needs to consider walking on a battlefield when stepping before his house door, but some make it appear they have a need to stockpile sophisticated firearms, semiautomatic weapons and ammunition in quantities huge enough to stop a batallion. and that is simply ridiculous.

f)My recommendation is if you have children let them learn some martial arts for some years. It will not only train their skills and bodies, but will also imporve their character, if done correctly. It does not create mugglers and street criminals, actually it can prevent them to become that, if training regularly and focussed. Law enforcement and courts sometimes use boxing drill camps to give juveniles an opportunity to earnt he respect they y<earn for, to let off inner pressure and energy in a controlled, safe ambiente, and learn discipline. Lack of all these is what brings many of them into street gangs, and strips them off chances to get a fair job and live by fair perspectives of them having a place in society, and having a future.

g) In the long run this would be a much superior investement into counter-crime than selling millions of firearms. Because in the end firearms only teach you one thing: how to kill easy and comfortably. If you want to win the fight against street crime and yoluing criminalty, you need to invest into chnaging the cultural climate in nwhich the young ones grow up. selling weapons just adresses rthe symptoms of a violence-drunken society. n the immediate present in some places it may be needed. but in no wa it is an investement into a better future. It just turns a whole people minto paranoids, like michael Moore very correctly ppointed out in his Columbine movie. you can think of him what you want, but when he made that analysis of America being a society driven by paranoic fear of what at the same time they and all their media are totally attracted by, he probably was so very damn right. Amaericans have more reasons to be afraid of cars and traffics. It wounds and kills more people. The death rate by traffic is roughly 2.5 times as high as that from intentional murder.

h) And since many years, the median age of criminal offenders in categories of violent crime is falling. More weapons a solution...?


Ok I think I am understanding you more clearly now.

a) thanks


b) I do see and applaud your efforts to objective in some things of that nature, but many of your posts are hard to interpret as "objective". So are many of mine. I was not around for the discussion where you pointed out statistics supporting both sides of the issue, but I like that you did it. I have a bit more to say about this in the spirit of promoting understanding between us but I will do it in PM, if you don't mind.

c) I agree this is a cruel weapon. Most citizens would not want one, and maybe there is no justification for them having one.
But............criminals might want one, and they will get them.
If you ban production of these knives, they will simply use other brutal weapons.
I really do not see any benefit to banning them. It solves nothing.

d) Ok, point taken. I am inclined to believe that honest citizens would be no threat even if they had military-grade weapons, but then there are always the crazy closet-criminals and you never know what will set them off.
This logic is going to take us back around the same path again though, because it goes right back to "criminals don't obey laws and I should have access to the weapons they would use to attack me, etc.etc."
I will look at some case-studies of violent criminals and see if I can find support for one argument or the other. Frankly, I am not familiar enough with their natures to offer proof of my argument, disproof of your or vice-versa.

e)NOW you're talking:D . I wholeheartedly agree that culture is a strong influence on crime. Sadly, we in the U.S. have a culture that glorifies violence like you mentioned. I can appreciate your allegory about Balkan refugees as well, our (Americans', for those who haven't been following) country is full of people from violent, oppressed, and otherwise unpleasant nations, some of them turn to lives of crime.

However, I don't see a way to fix it. I don't know of any "good" examples of government regulating culture, and I don't know of any other way besides religion or some form of moral institutionalization to bring "good culture" about. Here, those of us who remember what this country was founded for are vehemently opposed to such measures. There are many examples of countries where religous culture and/or moral conditioning have created dystopian societies. I trust I don't have to name them all. A penny for your (or anyone's) thoughts on this.

f) Not totally feeling this one. While I agree martial arts training is very beneficial ( I studied Pi Gua and Shin Sun Do) I wonder if you might advocate some kind of mandatory martial arts program for all citizens. I know you didn't say that, I'm just asking.

g) Rememeber point (f)? This is why it sounds like you would advocate mandatory martial arts training. You say it would be a superior investment to teach martial arts to counter crime. Logically, this would only work if virtually all or all children underwent it. Well, at least all children who could be considered reasonable risks for becoming criminals. Since I don't see their often poor and all too often uncaring parents f(or Guardians) financing martial arts training, I assume you would favor government expenditure.

Yes I am making assumptions now, but not without cause. Even then, it may not be a bad idea if we could actually afford that. I would personally be against it, regardless of what benefits it may provide because of the nearly universal tendency of all government programs to be over-budget, inefficient failures in the long run. martial arts also requires a willingness to learn and better oneself, a rare quality in the criminal element.

As far as Michael Moore goes (which is quite a ways physically, and in small does for my taste, metaphorically) I think he is anathema to all things good and all good intentions. I do not understand leftist support of a person who claims to be a champion of the people and yet becomes fabulously wealthy by playing on their beliefs. I think he is smart (or at least a smart weasel) because he has made millions by preying on the societal distress of the lower classes. If he is such a paragon of social virtue, why does he not distribute most of his vast wealth amongst the working classes and disadvantaged?
He bears a remarkable resemblance to most "People's advocates" (read Hollywood actors, leftist politicians, musicians, college professors, and others) in that he does not give his own wealth but asks all other to give theirs whether in the form of taxation or charity. In turn, he bears a resemblance to "champions of the people" like Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Castro, and others consigned to history's den of infamy.

Enoguh said on that for the public venue.

h) Switzerland; a happy medium that embraces both our disparate philosophies to some extent. They have the highest proportion of weapons ownership per capita in the world and the most libertarian economic policies, which pay for social programs without driving the country into ridiculous amounts of debt. Hell, I may move there because my country sure as hell isn't what it is supposed to be.

[UnderseaLcpl]

a knife that once it has penetrated your body, you will then a second later be blown up. Charming. That would be pretty poor if they were sold in britian, people running when neds chase you with a knife and now knowing once he is stabbed you he is going to blow you up:o i think the inventor should be stabbed with that and then blown up:up:


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

wait....that IS a joke right?

[Tchocky]

The argument that a ban will have no effect on criminals is too much of a tautology.
Criminals by definition do not obey the law. The law exists so that actions have consequences, this makes it more difficult for someone to possess such a weapon, and less likely that they will do so. (Not making any judgement on the particular weapon here, as yet).

[Skybird]

Lance, on the martial arts training, you give it a twist as if I mean that everybody should learn it as a tool to fight, like people say everybody should carry a weapon. This is not it. I meant it as an adress to the need that if you do not form young people's character for the better, they will go on developing for the worse. That is the same conception like court-ordered boxing camps. It is not about learning how to beat up criminals pretty fast (that is a side-effect only), but to give young people an opportunity that they often miss: to earn respect, acceptance, reward for learning to be disciplined, stay focussed on something that they recognize to be beneficial for themn, and gives them the chance to let go much of the energy and pressure you are livjng by at that age withoiut doing that in a way that brings you into conflict with the law.

This concept is totally different to that of boot camps. A boot camp is meant to break the young character into pieces and then put it together according to the society's ideas ábout what a "good guy" or a "good citizen" should be like. It does not influence natural character developement by preparing against the traps and offering opportunities for the better, but is an enforced deformation and totalitarian occupation of the individual'S mind, trying to turn it into a submissive, obedient person with little self-esteem, programmed to be what it is expected to be by others. there is a reason why statistics do not support these camps very well, and even many former defenders of them have abandoned the conception of boot camps in the US in the past 3-4 years - they simply do not work as well as advertized, and are inferior to for example boxing camps (that are run by tough disciplined rules, too: break the rules once, and you get warned and sanctioned, break them twice, and back to prison you go). The quote of recidivism stays almost unchanged when comparing boot camps and prison, but for boxing camps they are so positive (=low) that they run out of competition. Boot camps are military drill, whereas juveniles absolutely naturally test the limits and learn them by that, at the same time wanting to find their place in society or their peer-group where they have their satisfaction, future perspective, respect and acceptance by the others. Deny these to them, and they find other, violent, criminal ways to get them. Drill and break them, and you get broken, submissive, abused stereotypes of the ideal individual in a totalitarian world, or people fail and stay lie they are. Recidivism quotas are not significantly different from that of normal prisons.

The important thing is to understand that it is totally natural for young peoples to test their limits, and find out themselves, we are designed to be like that. Show them no limits, and they press on until they hit the wall, or are beyond all rules. Supress them in walking on that path by putting themm ointo boot camps, and they cannot learn, and will end mistreated and almost abused, or break.

It must not be boxing, or martial arts. I just mentioned it because it was that what did the trick for me. It could as well be another activity that fulfills the criterion of offering the chances and possibilities I mentioned above.

[Frame57]

Martial Arts are great! Great for discipline and exercise too. Our fatty little brats need to exercise. But in self defense, IMO I have seen savy street fighters beat the crap out of a couple of black belts. They try to stick to their style and form and as a result have no spontaneous reaction in which to apply their techniques. This is what inspired the late great Bruce Lee to develope Jeet Kune Do. But I tell you that the secret is getting the mastery to the point that you do not have to even think before you act in a situation. Very, very few Martial Artists ever acheive this. And yes, I am speaking by experience with over 30 years of Kajukenbo training.:know:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Lance, on the martial arts training, you give it a twist as if I mean that everybody should learn it as a tool to fight, like people say everybody should carry a weapon. This is not it. I meant it as an adress to the need that if you do not form young people's character for the better, they will go on developing for the worse. That is the same conception like court-ordered boxing camps. It is not about learning how to beat up criminals pretty fast (that is a side-effect only), but to give young people an opportunity that they often miss: to earn respect, acceptance, reward for learning to be disciplined, stay focussed on something that they recognize to be beneficial for themn, and gives them the chance to let go much of the energy and pressure you are livjng by at that age withoiut doing that in a way that brings you into conflict with the law.

This concept is totally different to that of boot camps. A boot camp is meant to break the young character into pieces and then put it together according to the society's ideas ábout what a "good guy" or a "good citizen" should be like. It does not influence natural character developement by preparing against the traps and offering opportunities for the better, but is an enforced deformation and totalitarian occupation of the individual'S mind, trying to turn it into a submissive, obedient person with little self-esteem, programmed to be what it is expected to be by others. there is a reason why statistics do not support these camps very well, and even many former defenders of them have abandoned the conception of boot camps in the US in the past 3-4 years - they simply do not work as well as advertized, and are inferior to for example boxing camps (that are run by tough disciplined rules, too: break the rules once, and you get warned and sanctioned, break them twice, and back to prison you go). The quote of recidivism stays almost unchanged when comparing boot camps and prison, but for boxing camps they are so positive (=low) that they run out of competition. Boot camps are military drill, whereas juveniles absolutely naturally test the limits and learn them by that, at the same time wanting to find their place in society or their peer-group where they have their satisfaction, future perspective, respect and acceptance by the others. Deny these to them, and they find other, violent, criminal ways to get them. Drill and break them, and you get broken, submissive, abused stereotypes of the ideal individual in a totalitarian world, or people fail and stay lie they are. Recidivism quotas are not significantly different from that of normal prisons.

The important thing is to understand that it is totally natural for young peoples to test their limits, and find out themselves, we are designed to be like that. Show them no limits, and they press on until they hit the wall, or are beyond all rules. Supress them in walking on that path by putting themm ointo boot camps, and they cannot learn, and will end mistreated and almost abused, or break.

It must not be boxing, or martial arts. I just mentioned it because it was that what did the trick for me. It could as well be another activity that fulfills the criterion of offering the chances and possibilities I mentioned above.


Okay, we have got to work on our communication. friend.

This response shows me one of three things;

1) I did not understand your opinion
or
2) You did not uderstand my opinion
or
3) We need an arbitrator that can understand both arguments and put both into terms each of us understands.

I have no idea what your argument means in relation to our discussion. Perhaps I am an idiot.
You seem to advocate that children should not be pressed into "boot camps" , but your previous arguments seem to imply universal application of martial arts training. If your arguments do not imply that, as I suggested they might not, they would be ineffective.

Someone please help us out here. Preferably someone with a masterful understanding of German and English. I really think Sky has some good points but I can't identify them yet.

Like I said, maybe I'm an idiot and can't grasp what he is trying to say.

[Herr_Pete]

a knife that once it has penetrated your body, you will then a second later be blown up. Charming. That would be pretty poor if they were sold in britian, people running when neds chase you with a knife and now knowing once he is stabbed you he is going to blow you up:o i think the inventor should be stabbed with that and then blown up:up:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

wait....that IS a joke right?

Sadly no...There is actually no need for such a stupid and pointless weapon. All this numpty has done has created another problem. People arent just going to be stabbed now. They will blow up seconds later. When you get stabbed there are greate chances of surviving. But if your stabbed then your inside are blown. I doubt theres much chance of surviving.

[FIREWALL]

:nope:
I'm just WAITING for these things to get into the hands of the street gangs.
These things need to be outlawed. There's absolutely NO reason the public should have these.


Your post scares me more than the weapon.:yep:

[Skybird]

2) You did not uderstand my opinion

Oh, I did. And learned from it that you did not understand mine. You just set up some assumed links regarding things that I am not willing to follow. and that I don't follow them seems to irritate you.

I have no idea what your argument means in relation to our discussion. Perhaps I am an idiot.
You seem to advocate that children should not be pressed into "boot camps" , but your previous arguments seem to imply universal application of martial arts training.

a.) Why the word "but" in that sentence? By that you express that I should not be against boot camps if recommending martial arts. I fail to see the reason why I should not.

b.) I already explained what intention I had with that martial arts thing, and why, and hinted at the pedagogic intention of boxing camps to help in that explanation. I also explained that "martial arts" is not meant to be a surrogate for carrying a weapon, but a constructive form of education, opposite of boot camps, which is a destrucive form of enforced "education",. if one does not shy away from calling it that.

Someone please help us out here. Preferably someone with a masterful understanding of German and English. I really think Sky has some good points but I can't identify them yet.
Please, my English is not that bad, just my typing is. I understand you perfectly, and I am not assuming that my replies are verbally messed up. but it seems to me you are sitting in a tunnel and can look at only two directions, back and forth, and then wondering what i mean by adding left and right and above and below.

What exactly is it that you do not understand in my reply?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Sadly no...There is actually no need for such a stupid and pointless weapon. All this numpty has done has created another problem. People arent just going to be stabbed now. They will blow up seconds later. When you get stabbed there are greate chances of surviving. But if your stabbed then your inside are blown. I doubt theres much chance of surviving.


hey, man, I'm not trying to piss you off or anything, just express my opinion, but that argument; I thought it was a joke.

I certainly can commend you for being one of the all-to-rare people that can realize that a weapon is unneccesary or even stupid, but most lowlifes do not share your convictions. I cannot express enough my support of the opinion that there are too many horrible ways in which people kill each other. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I saw 17 people burn to death. Countrymen of the man who made the bomb that killed them. Well, actually I think a few of them survived but I don't really know. I know I don't envy them if they did survive and I dont consider them lucky.

People are cabable of horrible, unspeakable things. I don't know why. I'm a Marine and I felt bad about shooting at ( but possibly never hitting) insurgents I thought may be there. ( Or they may not have been there, never saw them)

Killing is a hard thing to do if you are in your right mind. And I have been taught to kill. I have been taught to die. And I have been expected to do both in a combat environment.

What does that tell you about people who would use a weapon like the WASP knife to rob or kill someone?

I;m sure you have seen reports about someone being stabbed 47 times in the upper body. Is that any less brutal than a knife that kills you instantly by blowing you up?

I'm not totally disagreeing with you, I'm just presenting an argument as a point of consideration. THere are weapons much more brutal than body-exploding knives (although I doubt they can really do that)
Our government has spent millions of dollars in ballistics research, in conjunction with other NATO countries to develop a round (5.56mm) that was designed to kill people by making them bleed to death from masive internal hemmoraghing.
We have a .50cal round that is so destructive it cannot be intentionally be targeted at people (per the Geneva convention) because a near miss can cause hemooraghing, and if it is next to their head, explosions of the eardrum. We are told to say that we were shooting at the target's weapon, radio, or backpack. We have nerve gases that cause people to spasm so hard they break their own spine and choke to death on their own vomit.
Even the antidote (atropine) for these agents is so deadly that if impropoerly used they cause a spasm-racked, mentally debilitating and extremely painful death.
Ever seen white phosphorus? It burns you alive from the outside in and then from the inside out. Its' particles are hot enough to melt chobbam armor.


Yeah, the WASP knife is brutal but there are worse things. And just like those worse things you cannot control them. Tell me this, if some psycho was raping a female member of your family, would you want a WASP knife? Would she? Would the offender deserve it? Could you deal with his death by WASP knife or any other means?
By the same token, would you use a WASP knife to assail some innocent person? Of course not! But any regulation we try to introduce will not protect you from these weapons.
You can ban them and criticize them and make laws against them, but all you are doing is denying yourself and people like you the ability to use them to defend yourself.

[SUBMAN1]

...You can ban them and criticize them and make laws against them, but all you are doing is denying yourself and people like you the ability to use them to defend yourself.That about sums it up!

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

2) You did not uderstand my opinion

Oh, I did. And learned from it that you did not understand mine. You just set up some assumed links regarding things that I am not willing to follow. and that I don't follow them seems to irritate you.

I have no idea what your argument means in relation to our discussion. Perhaps I am an idiot.
You seem to advocate that children should not be pressed into "boot camps" , but your previous arguments seem to imply universal application of martial arts training.

a.) Why the word "but" in that sentence? By that you express that I should not be against boot camps if recommending martial arts. I fail to see the reason why I should not.

b.) I already explained what intention I had with that martial arts thing, and why, and hinted at the pedagogic intention of boxing camps to help in that explanation. I also explained that "martial arts" is not meant to be a surrogate for carrying a weapon, but a constructive form of education, opposite of boot camps, which is a destrucive form of enforced "education",. if one does not shy away from calling it that.

Someone please help us out here. Preferably someone with a masterful understanding of German and English. I really think Sky has some good points but I can't identify them yet.
Please, my English is not that bad, just my typing is. I understand you perfectly, and I am not assuming that my replies are verbally messed up. but it seems to me you are sitting in a tunnel and can look at only two directions, back and forth, and then wondering what i mean by adding left and right and above and below.

What exactly is it that you do not understand in my reply?


You know what? I am certain that I totally misunderstand everything you post. Your English is good, but somehow, I miss the point. Maybe my English is bad.

The problem is that I seem to carry your arguments in the wrong direction and you carry mine in the wrong direction and we both think we understand each other.

Not to be condescending, but I will put the following two things in the most simple English I can.

1) I do not understand what you are saying


2) You seem to change views with each post


Maybe our debates are a moot point. To me, It seems like you answer questions I did not ask, and contest points I did not present. Then I do the same. That is why I was hoping someone else could clarify things. I think my presentation is clear. Obviously, you think your is as well, but I have to keep clarifying my arguments, apologizing for misunderstandings, and trying to figure out what it is we are disagreeing upon.


exasperated but hopeful,

-The Lance

[Skybird]

Lance,

I adress the points you brought up, but I just do not limit myself to leave it to that narrow context, but to go beyond it, for to me things have a wider context indeed. Themes discussed most often are complex, and trying to enforce linear debate on only one level of them necessarily means to exclude the better part of their reality. Maybe you are extremely focussed on one point at a time, and expect answers to be reduced to just match that point you focus on, but I am adressing that point - and the consequences of it'S different options, alternatives, a rat-tail of follow up questions - and there you go. Maybe the highly specific answer you expect gets lost in the flood, but it is there, embedded in the effort not to exclude contexts, but to take them into account. Contexts are important, they decide about the specific item at question, and can chnage it. Maybe that is why you see me "changing views with each post." I don't - just contexts make variables embedded inside of them eventually changing.

This communication problem you see I find weired, for I have no problem to understand you and what you wish to express. I see myself with no other option left than to leave you alone in figuring it out, sorry - for I have not even a faint idea what the problem is.

No hard feelings,
Sky

[joegrundman]

You seem to feel that the only way to deter an exploding gas knife is if you have an exploding gas knife too.

Yet undersealcpl in his first post accurately said, he doesn't need one since he has a gun.

So if in fact possessing an exploding gas knife is not the only way to deter exploding-gas-knife wielding criminals, why the need to legalise it?

[UnderseaLcpl]

You seem to feel that the only way to deter an exploding gas knife is if you have an exploding gas knife too.

Yet undersealcpl in his first post accurately said, he doesn't need one since he has a gun.

So if in fact possessing an exploding gas knife is not the only way to deter exploding-gas-knife wielding criminals, why the need to legalise it?


Eloquently put, and that is a good point.

I suppose there is no "need" for them to be legalized, but since they are going to be around anyway, why not let some people make a living producing them?

I suppose my opposition to banning them is more political than anything.

[jpm1]

:nope:
I'm just WAITING for these things to get into the hands of the street gangs.
These things need to be outlawed. There's absolutely NO reason the public should have these.

No doubt, outlawing weapons has proven remarkably effective in keeping them out of the hands of street gangs. Emerging evidence suggests that criminals are unlikely to disobey weapon-control laws because it would make them criminals. I also agree that there is no reason the law-abiding public should have these as they would indubitably fail to use them to kill innocent people in painful ways.

Forgive the sarcasm but, seriously, criminals get their hands on drugs all the time, despite their illegality, guns, despite being prohibited from owning them, and military grade weapons despite the general public's inability to obtain them.
You might as well say that we should outlaw crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

I've posted this link before (possibly twice) but I will post it again. It is a piece by John Stossel about gun control. I'm not asking you to change your views, I'm not asking you to like Stossel, and I'm not asking you to consider it as truth. All I'm asking is that really, really think about the logic behind attempting to control weapons. Yes, some prohibitions on the law-abiding public are good (although I can't think of one right now) some laws are good as well, but gun-control only takes guns away from people who are not a threat whilst failing to remove them fro people who are criminals. Some posit that forbidding weapons production for any but the military is the solution. These same people fail to realize that production of illegal drugs is prohibited as well, but we have no shortage of drug problems. Alcohol was prohibited as well for a time, by sacred constitutional amendment. We all know how that worked out.

I pretty much went over this with skybird already, just a few posts ago. Look at his arguments and look at mine and make your own judgement.

I dsagree with you but I respect your opinion, I have considered yours against my own views and find it lacking in evidence, please consider mine. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree.
some points.

Neither today nor in the past I ever said there is a direct link between gun control and lower crime, but I linked statiostics supporting both views. That was in some diuscussion on gun laws two or three years ago.

This thread is not about forbidding knifes, but one that causes espcially bad harm and horrific wounds and is almost always lethal. I own several knfies and 4 swords myself, two of which are sharp metal ones. However, they do not detonate inside tzhe victims body and make the gore spraying around like in a zombie-B-movie. It is this what I question, this gas-explosion-tissue freezing thing. Like I also question why oridnary citizens think they must defend thgemselves by not using ammunition but maybe dumdum bollets, or cop-killer ammunition. Such things have nothing to do in public stores.

I also question a basic admiration for weapons, the more destructive they are, the better. military weapons, assault rifles, MPs and such things should not have a polace in pi9rvate hpuseholds, and are not needed for self-defense - I do not want anybody starting to wage a freaking war in his garden.

And I would like to point at that gun laws yes or no for themselves do not chnage these attitudes a bit. I want to point at a cultural climate, that glorifies violence in media and public awareness, makes business of using it's inherent excitement and fear-factor to entertain people, but also lowers any inhibitions of individuals to use weapons or brutal force to acchieve what they want. This inhibition treshhold is difefrent in different countries. It becomes an obvious issue at schools in Europe, where foreigners from some war-torn place often have less inhibitions to use physical force, than kids from native families who had been cared for and lived a protected life. I know from social workers in Berlin for example that that became a problem in Berlin schools when a wave of Balkan refugees came to Europe and germany, Bosnians and Serbs alike. When you establish a living way in your nation that makes your kid growing up in a climate of fear, and paranoia, and violence, you should not be surprised if the inhibiion trteshholds to use violence themselves are lower than one generation earlier. Almost every Western police is telling you that the willingness to use violence even over profane things is climbing in almost ever ynation, and huge cities especially, and respect for the law and police is in decline. This sociocultural climate is what makes a general acceptance of weapons dangerous. Seen that way, gun laws can onoly work if seen as having consequences over the long time, and it is possible that we tlak about half or even a full generation here. Othger factors also would need to fall into place then. How many people get killed in traffic, and wounded? More than by crime. But the criome victims get all the attention, and traffic victims not. It is like with sharks, and other causes of swimmers ending up dead. the number of people getting killed by shark is very small, yet shark attacks get incredible attention. the growing loss of life caused by children no longer learning to swim - is almost unreported! that is irrational. It is not that every citizen needs to consider walking on a battlefield when stepping before his house door, but some make it appear they have a need to stockpile sophisticated firearms, semiautomatic weapons and ammunition in quantities huge enough to stop a batallion. and that is simply ridiculous.

My recommendation is if you have children let them learn some martial arts for some years. It will not only train their skills and bodies, but will also imporve their character, if done correctly. It does not create mugglers and street criminals, actually it can prevent them to become that, if training regularly and focussed. Law enforcement and courts sometimes use boxing drill camps to give juveniles an opportunity to earnt he respect they y<earn for, to let off inner pressure and energy in a controlled, safe ambiente, and learn discipline. Lack of all these is what brings many of them into street gangs, and strips them off chances to get a fair job and live by fair perspectives of them having a place in society, and having a future.

In the long run this would be a much superior investement into counter-crime than selling millions of firearms. Because in the end firearms only teach you one thing: how to kill easy and comfortably. If you want to win the fight against street crime and yoluing criminalty, you need to invest into chnaging the cultural climate in nwhich the young ones grow up. selling weapons just adresses rthe symptoms of a violence-drunken society. n the immediate present in some places it may be needed. but in no wa it is an investement into a better future. It just turns a whole people minto paranoids, like michael Moore very correctly ppointed out in his Columbine movie. you can think of him what you want, but when he made that analysis of America being a society driven by paranoic fear of what at the same time they and all their media are totally attracted by, he probably was so very damn right. Amaericans have more reasons to be afraid of cars and traffics. It wounds and kills more people. The death rate by traffic is roughly 2.5 times as high as that from intentional murder.

And since many years, the median age of criminal offenders in categories of violent crime is falling. More weapons a solution...?

i agree the street down your home isn't a battlefield . for talking about Michael Moore i don't say he's right or wrong but there something that he pointed out and for me shows the evidence it's when he compares the US with it's canadian neighbour it's exactly the same thing but Canada doesn't allow the free selling of weapons and they have much much less crimes .
personnaly i don't see the interest for such a weapon why ? cause such a "non-second chance" weapon could be only considered as a first category weapon who says first category says only usable in a specially dedicated place and frankly i don't know which kind of place could host such activities . for endind i would like to say i've nothing against weapons personnaly if i could i would pay the high price to spend 30 seconds behind the Gatling in this meeting seen in another post don't remember the name where crazy folks shoot at RC drones with artillery pieces . weapons aren't bad things as long as they are used in controlled places . the real sick man isn't the inventor of this thing of this air knife it's the guy who'll go and kill a poor bear which didn't ask anything to nobody . no disrespect to hunters here i've nothing against hunting as long as the game has a chance and you eat what you killed ..