Someone who goes into a blind rage will poke someone and give up because because they can’t figure out a cutting utensil can be used to cut?
I’m going to disagree with your reasoning.
Has anyone thought that maybe if you ban pointy knives as you have already banned guns that the gangbangers will just find another weapon? Bash one another with baseball bats maybe? Just an idea but maybe you ought to look into the notion of why so many people seem to want other people dead. And of course I agree that we here in the US need to ask that very same question, yet we don’t. Of course, it is a hard question.
I remember hearing about those hilarious acid attacks. I bet the dumbs dumbs in the UK wanted to ban acid too. Don’t they know that lemon juice is an acid too? Oh man no more shandies!!! Haven’t they ever heard of pH? Good luck finding pickles now. Oh man lol.
Your reasoning, as I understand it, is that if a bad guy can’t get easy access to a semi-automatic assault rifle that can kill 20 children and six of their teachers in 30 seconds, he’s just going to go and stab them with a fork.
You somehow conclude from this that the regulation of dangerous weapons is useless.
I’m going to disagree with your reasoning.
More importantly, all international crime statistics disagree with your reasoning.
I hurt myself laughing at this, great use of satire.
Wait- you’re not being serious are you?
Smoking kills 25000 brits a year. or 100 times more.
But keep banning “weapons”. :rolleyes:
No, that’s *Vox. *
:rolleyes:
No, since only about 10000 people are murdered by guns each year. Hard to save " *literally tens of thousands " if you only have one tens of thousands . *And Gun control doesnt work in the uSA. It’s been tried, it IS being tried, and it simply doesnt work. CA has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but average homicides.
Yes, because they were marketed as* toys- for kids. * Adults can buy - for example not counting guns- crossbows, javelins, spears, throwing axes, throwing knives and a host of more dangerous sporting gear- but that’s because such as marketed for adults, not *kids. *
Such as that favorite target of the gun grabbers, the AR15? Which is only used in less than 4% of gun crime in the USA? But it looks *oh so dangerous *and it does appear a lot in the quite rare mass shooting, so even tho it is not a risk at all, let’s ban it?
You asked earlier about why I thought you were a gun enthusiast? Non-ironic use of “gun grabbers”.
As the late, great Alan Rickman said:
*Sheriff of Nottingham "Locksley, I’m gonna cut your heart out with a spoon!
Guy of Gisborne : Why a spoon, cousin? Why not an axe?
Sheriff of Nottingham : Because it’s DULL, you twit. It’ll hurt more.
(after running Guy through) Well at least I didn’t use a spoon.*
Not to mention cast iron frying pans, rolling pins, and a host of other dangerous kitchen implements.
Someone in a rage isn’t often “figuring out” anything, so disagree all you like with reality.
Yes, he was. And your handwaving away of a valid point without substantive rebuttal is noted. As is the handwaving by everyone else whose contributions have boiled down to “hur hur they should ban forks and pointed sticks next”.
The policies in place have been **working *- not always ideally but the UK also has been willing to revise their policies where they’re not having the desired effect or there are unintended negative consequences. And yes, some people propose extreme solutions that get considered and dismissed on their merits and demerits. But that consideration is actual consideration, not just lazy snark.
We will. Because it’s working. But keep trying to distract from that point.
And, as already noted, work on reducing the harms caused by cigarettes (and air pollution in general, including vehicle emissions) is ongoing. The UK isn’t ignoring one threat to deal with a different one, so your point is both irrelevant and invalid.
You keep making this argument. You have yet to make it convincingly, particularly as you 1) keep excluding relevant factors from your argument and 2) keep concluding that “therefore we shouldn’t have any gun control laws” despite not applying this logic to any other regulation. An equally valid conclusion is “gun control doesn’t work because its drafting and implementation are continuously undermined by those with a personal agenda, most notably the NRA”.
*doo doo doodoo doodoo
What’s with all the mad lads, then?
Poor neighbourhoods are always a breeder of violence, but the economic troubles of the last decade and the (again, Tory) policy of austerity in particular has made it much, much worse.
…Gyrate, why ? You know you put that thing on repeat in at least 50 brains just now, including mine. Why would you do this ?
Oh, FFS. Cigarettes are not weapons. Different things require different solutions. We’ve been through this. Not for the last time, I’ll wager.
Probably because the key part is the ‘society allows’ and the ‘death’ part. You want to see them as different, but from a risk perspective they aren’t. Also, seems that similar solutions ARE what are being proposed in many cases. I.E. you and others want to ban weapons, and banning cigarettes has been the go to choice to get rid of the things in our society. So far, selective banning of when and where you can have a cigarette along with increases in taxes and other limitations are what’s generally used. At some point I won’t be surprised if the numbers work out to a whole sale ban. Hell, kind of surprised that the Europeans haven’t gone that route already, as they are so concerned with the lives of their citizens (and also the costs to their healthcare system), but then many of the countries in Europe are much more lax about restrictions on tobacco than the US (or seemingly the UK now).
For fuck sake, why do you think that the fact that cigarettes aren’t weapons makes any difference at all in judging relative risk?? Shouldn’t the sheer number of deaths be the important thing, if in fact human lives and saving those lives is actually the goal? Seems to me you go after things that cost the most lives, not just after weapons for weapons sake, if you are REALLY interested in saving lives. At a minimum, you go after more than one thing at a time, but you put the lives lost into perspective with other things a society does that costs lives when determining what should be focused on. As this thread is all about knife bannings in the UK, and not about gun violence in the US (:dubious:), there are a LOT of things that are far more likely to kill UK citizens than a pointy knife. Whether those things are weapons or not is irrelevant if, in fact, the goal is to save lives.
People have been horribly maimed- and you find that hilarious?
Already done it. Strong acids are now much harder to come by. Try to remember abuse is not argument.
Don’t you know that lemon juice and vinegar are not dangerous materials?
This is all about guns for you , isn’t it?