It’s just not a gun control thread without gratuitous insults from a gun fan.
The point was serious: If you’re going to complain that a weapon shouls not be banned because it is rarely used in crimes, that criticism should apply equally to switchblades and brass knuckles. But of course, all anyone ever complains about is guns.
Just out of curiosity, how many crimes in the US involved the use of brass knuckles in the past 50 years? Switchblades? Is it more or less than three?
MSU 1978
next post:
To answer your question, I guess it didn’t take you very long to move down the slippery slope, so I guess that makes you the boogeyman along with the California legislators, doesn’t it?
Minty:
Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but aren’t switchblades and brass knuckles illegal?
I was under the impression they were because they were strictly implements of crime with no other purpose, kinda like burglar tools.
Self-defense, of course. Kinda like guns.
I see no reason for brass knuckles or switch blades to be illegal. Or most guns.
fair point, Scylla. In my earlier post, I was addressing the slippery slope argument. Later, the more I read about the dangers of the 50 caliber weapon, I became convinced that it needs to be banned. I believe that each of us has in his mind an amount of firepower that should be in the hands of the public. My acceptable amount is something less than a 50 caliber armor piercing weapon. Your tolerable ceiling may be higher than that. Some may even insist on no ceiling. But the fact that some of us, and perhaps most of us, want to limit the amount of firepower that a common citizen has does NOT mean that everybody who envisions such a limit has as his objective the complete disarmament of the public.
A few posters have mentioned the
Swiss, but they too have had problems with a powerful gun in the hands of a nut.
I’m still searching for that bogeyman that wants to take ALL the guns away. Are there ANY credible groups that have this as a stated goal?
For what it’s worth, I’m against bans of brass knuckles and switchblades for largely the same reason I oppose gun control. The laws don’t work. (as far as I know. If someone showed me that a switchblade ban caused a significant reduction in crime, I would re-evaluate my position)
I don’t think so. Grampa the NYC cop had a little collection of switchblades and brass knuckle devices. Back in the 50s and 60s these were the tools of hoodlums.
Brass knuckles are not a home defense implement, and are in fact a poor weapon as their value lies in their concealability, and only in a hand to hand fight.
It is exactly the same as a switchblade. It has no value other than in its concealability.
These things are not defensive weapons. They are strictly weapons of surprise useful to attackers.
There is no defense value in either.
Who you kidding?
So if I’m walking down the proverbial dark alley, I can’t have easily-concealed weapons with which to defend myself? Who are you, Sarah Brady?
This thread isn’t about switchblades or brassknuckles, it’s about a large gun capable of shooting a .50 round. Your continuing hijack of this thread shows that you don’t care about debating the merits of a .50 ban, but instead you just want to attack gun owners.
Your very good at ignoring the point.
I’ll repeat it for you.
Brass knuckles and switchblades are weapons for sneak attacks not defense.
MSU:
So after a quick read you’ve decided that .50 rifles are too dangerous?
I happen to own a .50 caliber revolver.
I’ve sold off most of my handguns and rifles, but I’m keeping the .50.
You know why I’m keeping it?
Because it is very very safe.
Wouldn’t a switchblade be useful for rock climbing or fishing or something else where you made need to cut something one handed?
I agree that Switzerland is not proof that “more guns= less crime”, becuse it is a different country that the USA, with a different culture. However, the exact same thing can be said about Canada or Britian- which also cannot be use to show “less guns= less crime” as they also have a different culture than the USA. If indeed, every other nation with less guns had less crime, there would be a strong argument, but since Switzerland (and others) show the opposite, all that argument proves is one thing “people are different” and strongly points toward my other thesis- lack or availability of firearms seems to have no significant long term efect on crime.
MSU- at altitudea, a >50 can’t hit a jet. Nor is any non-explosive shell gun likely to take down a jet with only a bullet or two. JetBIG bulletsmall . If I wanted to take down a jet, I’d would make a rocket with an explosive head- the makings for which you can buy at most home & garden stores. I’d line it up right as the jet was landing/taking off. OTOH, getting a RPG isn’t all that hard.
Although a .50 is very powerful, a 10ga loaded with special saboted slugs can do about the same damage, if not more (although not at the same range, mind you).
And, brass knuks are a weapon of defense, they protect your hand from damage when you hit someone. Of course, all “weapons” are “offensive” by one definition, so…
That’s some rebuttal you have there. Maybe a less-challenging topic would be a good fit for you?
Want to explain how you jump into a debate on a very particular, very specific type of weapon here, allege you didn’t want to ban these weapons, then after being called on being inconsistent with your view of “sane” gun control, suddenly changed your stance 180 degrees? Maybe you ought to do some research first before you post?
And a .50 caliber rifle is also a weapon for sneak attacks and not defense.
It’s too powerful to use as a hunting rifle, It’s completely useless for self defense; But it’s great for shooting through bulletproof glass at a distance…
Minty is pointing out the inherent lack of consistency in the pro-gun argument, and you are being intentionally dense so as not to acknowledge the point.
As for the op. I think it makes an important mistake in assuming that the ban on .50 Cal rifles is based on a percieved connection with the crime rate. I very much doubt that it is. It seems far more likely that it’s a ban on a civliian ownership of a device that simply has NO legitimate civilian use.
The pro-gun crowd may believe tha making holes in paper constitues a ‘legitimate civilan use’, but that doesn’t hold water with those of use not ruled by our reptilian brain. I’m guessing that the legislature is that sort of people.
On the other hand, I very much concurr with the point in the OP that stronger restrictions on handgun ownership is a much more worthwhile use of legislature’s time.
You’re right that I have no interest in debating the merits of the .50 ban. It’s pointless, feel-good legislation that I do not support.
You’re wrong to claim that I “just want to attack gun owners.” I’m not into self-hatred.
Now, do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread, or do you just get your jollies from hurling cheap insults at me and lying about my motives?
Guns are also weapons for sneak attacks and are rarely used in self-defense: 8,719 firearms murders in 2001, but only 176 bad guys killed by firearms in the hands of private citizens.
As for your contention that switchblades and brass knuckles are not weapons for defense, I refer you to that second FBI chart, refelcting 25 justifiable homicides accomplished with “Knives or cutting instruments,” and 6 with “Other dangerous weapons.”
To the extent that you’re arguing that switchblades and brass knuckles are incapable of being used defensively, I would assume the error of that proposition is self-evident. To the extent that you are arguing they are ill-suited to being used for self-defense, I would broadly agree, while also pointing out that the same is true of .50 caliber rifles.
Actually, it isn’t, and you have no idea what you are talking about. I’ve used a .50 rifle to hunt black pigs. Its power makes it reliable enough to ensure a long-range (300yd+), single-shot takedown on an animal that can easily weigh over 200lbs. and has extremely tough skin.
Then start your own post about general gun control, or better yet, go back to the ones you posted in countless times before.
Contribute? You mean, like hijacking the thread away from the OP, which you’ve just clearly stated you don’t wish to debate? How about you do some meaningful contributing of your own?
Or cutting parachute risers with a broken arm after you bail out of a shot-up C-130.
Switchblades are absurdly useful. What’s more, they require you to be close in to use them, so a ban on them is absolutely silly since I can hide larger, more potent edged weapons with ease.
What is this point called? Are you saying this is a common use for it?
Gee, everybody must have me on “Ignore”. I’m a pro-gun as anyone here, and I admitted the inconsistency in the switchblade and brass knuckle bans.
“Legitimate civilian use” is in your opinion. It can be demonstrated that competitive target shooting is a legitimate civilian use of firearms, and this weapon is very idealy suited for it.
It has a “legitimate civilian use” - just not in your opinion. One could just as easily argue that no motor vehicle with more than 100hp has a “legitimate civilian use”, nor a police scanner, nor a large riding mower, for that matter.
Just because you don’t support someone’s hobby or pastime does not mean you should characterize them as being “ruled by their reptilian brain”, either. Argue that you don’t like guns, or that you think the power is too great, and you at least have a point - one I disagree with, but a point. Saying a particular weapon has “no legitimate use” is very highly subjective unless some objective proof can be provided.