Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

...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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Skybird

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...?