IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New PZ's take.
http://freethoughtbl...tbart-writer-get/

[...]

Yeah, think about it. Notice that he specifically compares deaths by blunt instrument to deaths by rifle? That’s so he can leave out the “8,260 firearm-related homicides in 2011 attributed to shotguns, handguns, and other unidentified guns.”

But let’s be charitable. Let’s assume he honestly believes the most dangerous weapon a person can be armed with is a hammer. Then shouldn’t he be advocating that teachers be issued a hammer for each classroom rather than arming the teachers with guns?


Heh.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Another way to put that, in a comment
Been saying that for years: if hammers/clubs/knives/swords are so effective for killing, then they are plenty effective for self-defense too, and we can confiscate and melt down ALL the guns currently in civilian hands.
--

Drew
New They require skills, and strength and training
That is why guns are called equalizers.

The boy bought me a knife for Christmas. It was the one recommended by my PWW.

PWW then shows me how to carry it, hold it, etc, for best "safest" (here, hold it this way, the only thing an attacker can do is sweep against your femoral artery, which is far better than any other way of holding it, which could twist to my neck).

It will be years of training before it is anything other than a prop to be used against me. It requires face to face closeness.

Not even close.
New Years...
It should take years to MASTER.

But it should take less than a few months before you become (very) effective with it (particularly against someone who is untrained). (Think OJ Simpson for a second)

But the base problem with a knife is that it is (*) a melee weapon rather than a range weapon...you have to be close to your opponent.

Anyone with a range weapon had the possibility to kill you before you close with them.

(*) Throwing knives aside.
New Yes, and ... ?
Point is the NRA keeps saying (essentially), "Why go after guns when there are all these knives?"

Saying that knives are comparable to guns is their argument. Do they mean it or not?
--

Drew
New Wasn't casting comment on them
since no matter what they say, they lie by default. They have a mission, and they will adhere to it. The truth does not matter.

Just commenting on the difference.
New If guns are equalizers...
...does that make them, in their arbitrary and in no way based on merit redistribution of deadly force, the weapon of choice of...









...the COMMUNISTS?
New Oooooohhhhh ... I see what you did there :-D
--

Drew
New they are going after the rifles, not the
shotguns handguns and other guns as well as handsies and feetsies.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
New Don't be so sure.
http://www.feinstein...m/assault-weapons

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

- 120 specifically-named firearms;

- Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and

- Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

- Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

-- Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;

-- Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and

-- Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

- Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

- Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

-- Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;

-- Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and

-- Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

- Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

-- Background check of owner and any transferee;

-- Type and serial number of the firearm;

-- Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

-- Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

-- Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.


That's just Feinstein's bill. Biden's group will address more than that.

Big changes are coming. Finally.

Cheers,
Scott.
New ROFL!
another words useless posturing
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
New Unnacceptable
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Either legal or illegal. Registrations are nothing more than a list of people to take guns from when the time comes.
     why are we banning rifles again? - (boxley) - (19)
         Hard to do mass murder with hammers. HTH. -NT - (Another Scott) - (6)
             fully agree - (boxley) - (5)
                 Re: fully agree - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     im not the one howling for assault weapons ban - (boxley) - (3)
                         Why not? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                             shrug, neither one of us can change the others mind -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                 We haven't in 10+ years. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
         PZ's take. - (Another Scott) - (11)
             Another way to put that, in a comment - (drook) - (6)
                 They require skills, and strength and training - (crazy) - (5)
                     Years... - (S1mon_Jester)
                     Yes, and ... ? - (drook) - (1)
                         Wasn't casting comment on them - (crazy)
                     If guns are equalizers... - (pwhysall) - (1)
                         Oooooohhhhh ... I see what you did there :-D -NT - (drook)
             they are going after the rifles, not the - (boxley) - (3)
                 Don't be so sure. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     ROFL! - (boxley)
                     Unnacceptable - (crazy)

In stereo.
297 ms