We banned guns & knives...

[rob63]

I searched and didn't find anything about this, so here it goes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/27/acid-attacks-rise-united-kingdom/100739780/

I was really surprised USA Today would admit this:

"Toxic substances such as drain cleaner are being used as weapons more frequently, apparently as a result of a crackdown on guns and knives in recent years."

 

[churchmouse]

If someone wants you dead bad enough they will find a way to do it regardless.

 

[indiucky]

If someone wants you dead bad enough they will find a way to do it regardless.

Like that time your atlatl broke and you had to finish off that mammoth with your short spear?

 

[red_zr24x4]

Like that time your atlatl broke and you had to finish off that mammoth with your short spear?

I almost chocked reading this, Mt.Dew burns the nose

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Someone with sufficient motivation will try to kill you with a sharpened spoon if that's the best tool available. That said, criminals tend to be lazy and lack that sort of motivation. It's tough to do a drive-by spooning, and of course your odds of being injured back are much higher. The folks who are dedicated, though...domestics, revenge attacks, the others were the person has built up a strong rationalization of why they are correcting the wrongs done to them by this act of violence...they'll adapt, adjust, and overcome (or die in the attempt).

 

[churchmouse]

Like that time your atlatl broke and you had to finish off that mammoth with your short spear?

It was a battle but hey.....in my day.....

 

[SEIndSAM]

Like that time your atlatl broke and you had to finish off that mammoth with your short spear?

It was a battle but hey.....in my day.....

Hey!! Give CM a break......I heard he made some awesome 1911 grips with the Mammoth tusk ivory....

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

My first thought would be that it is tied to the cultural origins of the people throwing the acid as much or more so than lack of available guns.

Plus, when guns are used to assault, the intent is to kill, and with acid, the intent is to hurt, punish, and permanently scar.

 

[indiucky]

Hey!! Give CM a break......I heard he made some awesome 1911 grips with the Mammoth tusk ivory....

His flint knife kept breaking while he was trying to checker them.....

I had no idea what he was making them for and then he said, "In 13,000 years a Savior will be born in Judea, 1800 or so years later John Moses Browning will be born near here....I had a dream that if I build these he will come and create something I will love to put them on...."

"What will it be?"

"I just saw numbers...1911...I know not what the numbers signify but the stirring in my loins tells me I will love it..."

 

[Denny347]

I searched and didn't find anything about this, so here it goes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/27/acid-attacks-rise-united-kingdom/100739780/

I was really surprised USA Today would admit this:

"Toxic substances such as drain cleaner are being used as weapons more frequently, apparently as a result of a crackdown on guns and knives in recent years."

So, the gun and knife ban works.

 

[KellyinAvon]

So, the gun and knife ban works.

It depends on how you define "works".

 

[gregr]

So, the gun and knife ban works.

If not for the Second Amendment, they would ban us from keeping and bearing arms. Even though the Second Amendment is in our Constitution, they attempt to hinder us with their "common sense" gun control measures. That would be successful too, if not for all we who are members of groups such as NRA and GOA, and JPFO. It`s a shame that it`s a never-ending struggle to keep constitutionally recognized rights, but those who seek power and dominion are unrelenting.

 

[femurphy77]

People are stupid [STRIKE]sometimes[/STRIKE].

There, that's better.

 

[cce1302]

Well at least they can be comforted by the moral superiority that comes from living in a place where they are free to pretend firearms don't exist.

 

[cook4army]

If not for the Second Amendment, they would ban us from keeping and bearing arms. Even though the Second Amendment is in our Constitution, they attempt to hinder us with their "common sense" gun control measures. That would be successful too, if not for all we who are members of groups such as NRA and GOA, and JPFO. It`s a shame that it`s a never-ending struggle to keep constitutionally recognized rights, but those who seek power and dominion are unrelenting.

What really irks me, is that the courts have put "reasonably restrictions" to firearms in the form of regulations and laws. To whom are these rules and regs "reasonable'? And who exactly got to decide what was considered "common sense" as well. Was there a vote on it? Were people in the streets polled about what was considered reasonable and common sense worthy? Was I on active duty in some far off place when all of this happened? If there was, I wasn't asked, polled nor did I vote.


The biggest people who scream about reasonable restrictions and common sense laws about guns, would absolutely lose their minds if those terms were used to restrict any other constitutional amendment.

I guess this is just another example of whats good for the goose, is determined by the gander.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The biggest people who scream about reasonable restrictions and common sense laws about guns, would absolutely lose their minds if those terms were used to restrict any other constitutional amendment.

There are plenty of restrictions on other Constitutional rights. Freedom of speech certainly isn't unlimited. I'm not sure we've had much case law on the 3rd amendment. The 4th amendment's interpretations are so convoluted with "reasonableness" standards judges routinely don't understand the case law (and that's per many a judge). Etc.

While I understand the sentiment, we as a society deem what is "reasonable". From how much lead is acceptable in drinking water to how close planes can fly to each other, the concept of "reasonable" is not foreign to us nor are we slaves to absolutism. I think everyone agrees its reasonable to restrict the 2nd amendment in a jail cell. We may disagree on where the line is drawn, but pretty much everyone does have a line.

 

[cce1302]

There are plenty of restrictions on other Constitutional rights. Freedom of speech certainly isn't unlimited. I'm not sure we've had much case law on the 3rd amendment. The 4th amendment's interpretations are so convoluted with "reasonableness" standards judges routinely don't understand the case law (and that's per many a judge). Etc.

While I understand the sentiment, we as a society deem what is "reasonable". From how much lead is acceptable in drinking water to how close planes can fly to each other, the concept of "reasonable" is not foreign to us nor are we slaves to absolutism. I think everyone agrees its reasonable to restrict the 2nd amendment in a jail cell. We may disagree on where the line is drawn, but pretty much everyone does have a line.

It's not a matter of where the line is drawn, but who draws the line, and how.

1st amendment: Congress can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion, but a group of Christians are free to establish a church.

As far as lead and airplanes go, how is that relevant to constitutional discussion?

The language of the second amendment is pretty much as absolute as you can get, notwithstanding a discussion of whether we should give our fellow citizens badges and authority to imprison us.

 

[Denny347]

Well at least they can be comforted by the moral superiority that comes from living in a place where they are free to pretend firearms don't exist.

They live as they see fit. Who are we to judge them?

 

[Denny347]

The language of the second amendment is pretty much as absolute as you can get

Which means what?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

1st amendment: Congress can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion, but a group of Christians are free to establish a church.

Right, but the right is not absolute. A church is still subject to zoning laws. You can't decide to have the church of Abraham and Isaac and sacrifice a child unless the voice of God calls you off, etc. Yet none of that is written into the 1st amendment. We, as a society, agree it's not reasonable to hold knives to the throats of children or to build buildings in the island of an interstate.

There are lawsuits over noise ordinances for the Call to Prayer for mosques. Reasonable people can differ on where that level of intrusion into the interest of religion and the interest of people in their homes to be free from excessive noise is drawn. The 1st doesn't spell it out, we as a society have to apply some level judgement. However I think few people would agree I could set up concert level sound systems on my roof and damage the hearing of my neighbors with a Call to Prayer (or church bells) and be protected by the 1st. The rule may end up being relatively arbitrary number selected from a reasonable range, ie XX decibels is the max allowed...just like lead in water, etc. The standard will never be zero.