Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jun 16 2006, 07:51 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5087802.stm

Look at picture #2, they turned that in, dang...

Posted by: Platinum Jun 16 2006, 07:58 PM

yay, a rambo knife and a dull blade. when they start turning in wakasashis and machettes call me.

Posted by: John Campbell Jun 16 2006, 08:10 PM

Bah. That's not a knife. http://www2.ci-n.com/~jcampbel/images/photos/seax.jpg is a knife.

Posted by: Butterblume Jun 16 2006, 08:13 PM

That I would call a shortsword .

Posted by: Ancient History Jun 16 2006, 08:13 PM

That's a Gurkha knife, also called a kukri.
[/edit] The dull blade in the original link, that is.

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 16 2006, 08:28 PM

Heh, I find it funny that they decided a few of those knives were "terrifying". If anything the only person who would get hurt would be the bloke trying to pack the damned thing in their trou.

I also find it interesting that they showed an expended LAAWS Rocket and said it could shoot 350m. It can't shoot any farther than you can throw it in that state!

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 16 2006, 08:29 PM

Posted by: Lazerface Jun 16 2006, 08:38 PM

Pic #4 is now saved on my hard drive in the "examples of blood magic ritual daggers" folder.

Posted by: Muzzaro Jun 16 2006, 08:40 PM

The punch blade (the one listed as "terrifying" on pic 4) is near enough useless. I've seen many stuff like that at our local Cash Converters, all this gothic "knife" stuff that looks so scary, and is pointless. I'd rather buy the fairies they sell. Some of them are cute.

*coughs* anyway.

Posted by: Lazerface Jun 16 2006, 08:47 PM

That's why it's a "ritual". You've got a live body that's tied down. How the hell are ya gonna miss?

"Dammit, Bob, I critical glitched and sacrificed myself."

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jun 16 2006, 08:52 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 16 2006, 09:06 PM

This does pose an important question. What did they expend it on?

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jun 16 2006, 09:58 PM

Either it's military surplus or they used it on some hit. I remember reading a few years ago some biker gang battles in some scandinavian country and one of the biker places got hit with a rocket launcher. It's been years, lemme see if I can find that news article. Had me thinking those biker gangs are really going hardcore. I don't think the mob even use rocket launchers in their fights, but what do I know...

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 16 2006, 10:51 PM

most likely someone took it with them when leaving the army.

alltho i dont live in the UK, i live in another european contry, and i recall holding one of those that someone had from their days in uniform.

that they turned it in must be some kind of joke. but that its presented as a deadly weapon is a pure propaganda move.

and about that "klingon" dagger. sure its just for show, but someone will still probably try to use it, and if can in theory produce some nasty wounds with all those edges

nah, who am i kidding. those things are sold in novely shops around there...
plus matching polearms and lot of other stuff...

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 12:11 AM

..... Good grief. What are people thinking?

First guns, now knives? What's next, "Club amnesty?" You'll have blokes turning in their sporting goods!

This god-damnned bleeding-heart "guns are bad" liberal shit needs to fucking die in flames! This is FAR BEYOND reasonable measures for public safety when ornamental LETTER OPENERS are being turned in as dangerous weapons!

Posted by: nezumi Jun 17 2006, 12:15 AM

We should start shooting liberals more.

Oh, I know!! What about Liberal Amnesty! You can turn your liberal in for cash! Libertarians aren't really dangerous, but we'll accept them too.

Posted by: Muzzaro Jun 17 2006, 12:32 AM

ShadowDragon, i disagree. A novelty letter opener will slide in real nice between the ribs, just as easily as if it was a knife. I'd rather people open letters with their fingers, than go outside tomorrow and get some kid stick me through chest with a purdy paper-knife.

I live in Wolverhampton, England, in an area full of Chavs. I'm afraid to go out at night! There is an increase in knife related attacks too, and some of them are stupid. People getting killed for saying "hello", bouncers getting attacked for doing their job. One guy got stabbed while holding his child in his arms and the assaulter just walked off going "I did him, i did him good". Some people out there are total and utter psychos, to the point where you have to be paranoid to survive. I swear, if i knew how to get them over here, i'd carry a freaking stun-gun. I'd rather end up in court, than be laid down in a wooden box.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 12:43 AM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 17 2006, 12:59 AM

There goes the neighborh... err... thread.

About the LAW: It's not like an expended LAW is a weapon at all, so I don't see why you'd need some kind of amnesty for turning it in. Though it might have originally come into that person's possession through less-than-legal means...

About the silly knives (#4, #6): They sell that crap all over the place these days. Cracks me up seeing them in RPG Con stalls stacked next to serious replica swords.

About John Campbell's seax: Does http://www.jyrekom.fi/asiakas/taiter/kuvat/hukari56.jpg count too?

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 17 2006, 01:40 AM

The outlawing of knives in the UK has nothing to do with public safety. Its just a way for the secret international vegaterian-vegan cabal conspiricy to piss on us meat eaters. Without knives there is no way for us to cut our steaks.

Of ocurse, some don't carry knifes for self defense. Some people carry knives in case they have to cut thing. You'd be surpriszed how often that need actually comes up in a day. There are boxes and tightly sealed plastic packging. There are ropes and cords. There are the seatbelts of trafic accident victims who are about to be englfed in flames due to an ignited fuel leak.

Posted by: Ancient History Jun 17 2006, 01:53 AM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 02:08 AM

Someone else likes the Mythbusters, eh?

Posted by: Ancient History Jun 17 2006, 02:18 AM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 03:01 AM

Not even a digestive expansion could get me to eat coca-cola raw steak...

Posted by: knasser Jun 17 2006, 07:49 AM

Posted by: mfb Jun 17 2006, 07:56 AM

so... any figures on the number of knives turned in by folks who actually make a regular habit of stabbing people?

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jun 17 2006, 10:20 AM

Somewhere between 0 and 3. (assuming some of them loot their victims)

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 17 2006, 12:24 PM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 01:11 PM

Shrike, dude... You win a cookie, and a sigging.


He's right. You are responsible for protecting yourself. The police? Their job is to enforce the laws. I don't know about England, but in America the police have been time and time again absolved of any blame in failing to protect an innocent person from a predator.

While it is true, I would say, that every policeman would rather take a bullet or a knife than let you take it, that policeman may not be in range to take the knife or the shot for you. In fact, even in a densely packed urban zone with a lot of policemen, their response time may be up to ten minutes - time for a cruiser in the area to figure out which building or alley or street you're on, time for them to find somewhere to park, and time for them to thunder back from their parking spot to where you are.


Now, if someone's broken into your flat with no idea you're home and they're only out for your money, this is an acceptable response time. Even if they don't catch the perp red-handed, your insurance (you do have insurance, right?) will cover the loss if the police fail to recapture your stolen goods.

But what if he's out for your blood? What if he wants to rape and strangle your little sister, mmm? He's probably drunk or high or both or else MAJORLY unstable to decide to commit B&E followed by a little sexually-aggrevated A&B.

Are you 100% percent certain you could fight this guy off physically? If your name is Arnold Schwartzenneger, you probably could turn this guy into meat. Even if you don't spend as many hours at the gym as most wageslaves spend at their desks, you might be able to.

What if you're not home. Can your little sister acomplish the same feat, or are you going to come home to find the flat's door off the hinges, her cold body with blue lips laying on her bed in an obscene spread-eagled pose and the liquid evidence of the heinous act seeping from her vagina?

Could you live with that, safe and sound in that she didn't escalate the situation by drawing a knife to defend herself?

Now, what if he's got a knife? Hers or your chances drop dramatically. Even Arnold's muscles won't protect him against 6-8 inches of cold steel.


Simply put, you[/o], not the police, are in charge of your security. The rich and the famous? They don't have to be. They can hire bodyguards. They can also hire chaufers and chefs - most of us make do being our own chaufer and chef. We also have to be our own bodyguard.


Now to get back to a personal example. I was driving home one day from college, it was a bright, sunshining day, weather was beautiful. This is a small town, technically rural in nature. I decidedto take the back roads slow, singing loudly and off-key to my radio.

Some asshole in a big black ford pickup, despite the fact that I was only doing five under the legal speed-limit, decided to tailgate me. This was when I drove a tiny 1992 Chrystler Acclaim. (I've since graduated to a 1998 Dodge Durango XLT. It's the size of a pickup truck with an 8-cylander magnum engine to match. This thing has some serious horses going for it.) The dude eventually decided to squeal off behind me, burning out and tearing off down the road (speed limit 25, children often play on this road) at about 60.

I thought that was the end of it, so I continued to home, which was literally just up the street. Then to my shock, the dude rematerializes coming down my street, spinning his truck to block the intersection as I hit the brakes, and gets out of his truck, heading towards me. I panic - this is one big, 250 lb redneck motherfucker, and though I had him outweighed, I'm carrying fat, not muscle. I coudlen't see a weapon on him, but I had the sneaking suspicion there was a gun in that truck, and I'd have bet dollars to pesos he had a big ole' pocket knife.

I slam the car in reverse, squeal down half the street, and sideswipe someone else's car. Redneck Motherfucker decides to get the hell out of here when he sees me on my cell phone, calling the police, hysterical.

The police station is literally just up the street. I can [i]see it. I'm on the phone, hysterically telling them that he came after me, and I'm literally just up the street, my car jammed on someone else's car, and I coulden't get it moving.

FORTUNATELY, Redneck Motherfucker decided to leave that day. But do you know how long it took for that police station to hemmorage uniformed officers of the law?

Ten Minutes. Ten mother-fucking minutes, and I was literally within walking distance. Five seconds at the speed a police cruiser with the hammer down. When they did get to their cars, they burned a path to me, it's true, sirens blazing, while I'm a gibbering wreck in my sedan's seat.

But the fact is that it took them ten minutes to respond to a potentially violent and deadly encounter involving autos and agression, that occured practically in the shadow of the police department itself.

That was the day I resolved that I was going to keep shooting with my uncle until I was confident and safe in it's proper use and maintenance and storage, and apply for a concealed carry permit as soon as I'm capable.

I won't depend on the police to protect me again. I won't wait for them to haul their asses out of wherever they were and burn rubber to get to me. I don't want to kill someone, not a 16-year old, not a 60-year-old, not a 32-pound power-tripping Redneck Motherfucker who's probably late for a date with his sister.

But if they want to do this kind of crazy thing, I will be ready to stop it. I won't be a helpless victim, and if at all possible, nobody around me will be either. A responsible, safe gun-owner who carries for self-defense is not just an asset to himself, he's an asset to everyone around him, both passively and actively. This is America, you never know who's carrying. Is that guy with the trimmed beard, white shirt and blue jeans packing a firearm? Is that black-skinned youth playing B-ball? That woman in heels and a bisuness suit, how sure are you that that bulge in her pocket is her cell phone and not her 9mm?

Even if none of them are armed, they could be, and that alone gives predators pause. And when they decide to risk it, it could be the white guy with the beard drawing his piece and telling him to back the hell off of the kid - it could be the black kid telling the mother-@^@*er to leave the lady alone, it could be the lady pulling her gun on the guy with the knife acosting the white guy.

My point is that you need not fear ten thousand armed people who responsibly carry and with a solemn duty use their weapons, be those weapons fists, clubs, spears, swords, bows, knives, or firearms. It's a tool, just like any else, and if he can hurt you with it, you can defend yourself with it.

These are the guys who tend to wind up losing their firearms and their decorative and cooking knives to these "Amnesty" and "guns for cash" programs. That hoodlum, that drug-dealer, that drunk redneck who likes to push around fat boys? He's never going to give up his gun or his knife, and he always knows how to get one, even if they find his old one and take it from him. All these programs do is disarm the people in the face of violence.


And before you say "My country is peaceful and has little armed violence, I have no need of a gun", I will ask if you are male. If you are, do you enjoy sex? If you do, do you carry a condom or two in your wallet, even when you don't anticipate sex? If you don't, what kind of irresponsible jackass are you? If you are, you understand that preperation is not paranoia, and having a condom in your walllet does not mean you're a rabbit, jumping everything female. Or maybe you are, in which case you're defniately prepared.

Carrying a gun does not make you paranoid, nor does it mean you're going to flip out and kill someone. They're fun to shoot at a target range, and there are gun sports such as competitive shooting or hunting that you can engage in, if you want to. Or you can just stick with range time and a determination not to be victimized.

Posted by: knasser Jun 17 2006, 01:56 PM

EDIT: This was originally intended to respond to Shrike30's post. Shadowdragon sneaked in there before me, so when I say "you" in this post I'm meaning Shrike rather than her.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 03:05 PM

Knasser, unfortunately you forget one very important thing.


Unless he's high (on drugs, or power), he isen't going to want to risk his neck any more than you do. The same applies.

He has a knife. He's ten paces from me. I have a knife. I pull my knife, after his is already pulled. Yes, I'm thinking "This bloke could stick me..." But he's also thinking "this bloke can stick me..." Unless he's willing to risk getting stuck in order to stick me, he's going to back down and say "whatever man" or maybe just run away, because he's a coward at heart. Otherwise he woulden't be mugging people with a knife.

Now if he pulls a knife, and I pull a gun, I'm thinkg "Okay... If he gets over here, he can stick me. But I can and will kill him before that happens." On the other hand, he is thinking "HOLY FUCK, THIS CRAZY CRACKER HAS A GUN!" and unless he's high on cocaine or something, he's going to run for his scrawny little life. Even if he has a gun, I have a gun.

And if you want to quote stastics, here's one for you. You are 70% more likely to survive an encounter with an armed thug, armed with knife or gun, with yourself and your belongings intact, if you resist with a firearm than if you do not.

You know who put that figure out? The United States Department of Justice.

The army figure you quote is pertinent to soldiers in a combat zone. If someone's trying to take you prisoner, chances are he dosen't want to shoot you once he has you prisoner. But if you go for your gun, he will fire, and so will you, and then it's down to who had the drop and the better skills.

Armed thugs on the street are not soldiers. At the end of the day, they want money, safety, and enjoyment. That's why they do what they do. He dosen't want to risk his life in a battle to the death. Because he's not willing to take that chance. He's a predator, and guess what most predators do when they find out their prey has fangs?

The run away and find easier prey.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 03:08 PM

Oh, and before you say it, if he has a gun leveled at you at close range, obviously you don't want to start shit. Unless you can duck behind a corner or something. He probably dosen't have the reflexes to hit you before you get behind cover unless he's literally a foot behind you, in which case you're already toast, just do what he says. But if you have any hope of ducking away for an instant (and you usually do,) or if you're smart and have your gun somewhere you can draw it where he won't see it (guess where most people keep their wallets? Their back pockets. Going for a small-of-the-back holster and your wallet looks much the same, especially if you're wearing a jacket and it' dark out.)

Once your gun is out and his is out, it's a Mexican Standoff. Neither of you really wants to shoot. He's probably going to run away. And even if he gets stupid, I'd rather take the chance on being a faster and better shot than he is than let him have his way with me.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 17 2006, 07:29 PM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 08:16 PM

Posted by: Ancient History Jun 17 2006, 08:20 PM

Bringing this back to shadowrun, muggings must be rarer now with the nigh-universal advent of electronic currencies. Alternatives would gain favor. I can just see it now "Your kidney or your life!"

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 08:33 PM

Nah. People tend to carry comlinks. Those are expensive enough for professional Shadowrunners to scoop in the middle of the run, so they'd probably be the single most coveted item for muggers to target.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 17 2006, 09:43 PM

I suspect that there will be a window of a few hours before the victim reports his credstick stolen and this information can be distributed throuout the worldwide finiancial network. If you're fast you can get away with a small spending spree and you can even feel good about it because the bank will take most of the damage.

With comlinks you can even have E-muggings. Force the guy to transmit his bank codes to you and empty his bank account online before letting him leave.

Heck, yesterday I saw a news article about electronic pickpocketing of Speedpass RFID tags. Just walk by someone with an RFID reader in your pocket. They'll have no clue untill they are presented with a $150,000 bill at the end of the month.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 10:20 PM

Hah! Nice one, Hyz.

Guess that poor sod wound up having a whole lot of fun, eh?

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 17 2006, 10:30 PM

ah, weapon debates and dumpshock, allways a fun read

personaly, im with knasser. you dont want to give the guy at the other end any reason for giving up the last bit of logic thats operating in his mind. the moment his life is on the line, he will go into instinct mode. thats either fight or flight, or some training to the level of reflex.

if someone wanted to rob me i would hand it over, my life isnt worth lost over money or similar.

as for some crazed lunatic breaking into my home and going hannibal on me and my family. likelyhood of that may increase as the size of the city increases, but i still find it compareable to being affraid of being hit by a bolt of lightning or being on a airplane that falls out of the sky...

but thats just me, and my view of the world. and as people here on the forum most likely allready know, its not much compareable to many others view. least of all those that are from the left side of the atlantic.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 17 2006, 10:56 PM

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 17 2006, 11:20 PM

thats why good predators are sneaky, very sneaky...

Posted by: SL James Jun 18 2006, 12:31 AM

Especially the ones who can become invisible and kill you with a laser blaster.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 18 2006, 04:37 AM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 18 2006, 10:41 AM

Either way, Kage is assuming that I failed my perception check to notice a guy coming at me with a knife or a gun.

That's a big assumption. Not many of these guys are all that sneaky and a bag of potato chips. He's ten paces from me, I whip out my gun. If he makes ANY sudden moves towards me, I'm not going to hesitate.

Now of course, I'm not going to be fucking stupid if he DOES sneak up on me. Of course I'm going to give him my fucking wallet, I'm not suicidal.

Posted by: knasser Jun 18 2006, 11:42 AM

EDIT: I THINK I'VE SAID EVERYTHING NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN MY POINT OF VIEW, SO I'M DONE WITH THIS TOPIC NOW. IF PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING, THEN I'M CONENT WITH THAT.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 18 2006, 01:45 PM

We'll be kind and just assume that you are one of the wierdos that went in for the oral gun cyberware, and are now packing heavy ordinance where you soft pallate used to be.

Don't worry, I can talk my way out of this one. <opens mouth> <BLAM!> See? worked like a charm.

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 18 2006, 02:12 PM

Posted by: Dawnshadow Jun 18 2006, 02:48 PM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 18 2006, 04:01 PM

You could say a dictionary is "incorrect" when it only gives a definition/definitions that account(s) for a minority of the usage of that word. Dictionary definitions are also often technically wrong (see: clip vs. magazine) even when correct in that they describe common usage, in which case it isn't the dictionaries we should be mad at but the people who use the terms incorrectly. (And this seems to have been Kagetenshi's point in the first place.)

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 18 2006, 04:54 PM

but then language changes over time. just take a look at the word gay...

who is to say what the corret use of a word is?

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 18 2006, 05:02 PM

A lot of times the lack of completeness in the definition of a word in a dictionary is the price of the dictionary. Most people dont buy one in the first place and if they do, they spend very little on it thus limiting the amount of room dedicated to each word. I mean when its time to buy school supplies for the hell spawns would you spend $10 on a Dictionary and the other $100 on supplies or buy a really good Dictionary and blow the whole school supply budget on the one thing?

And words change meaning all the time, which really pisses me off also. People continue to use words incorrectly and eventually the word changes meanings.

Dictionaries from what I have seen have always described words base on common usage and will always define words on common usage. Languages change, its natural. Only few dictionaries give old meanings to words, thats why we have Etymology. Even pronouncation and spelling change over time which is then changed in the dicitionary or added as alternate spellings, which again pisses me off. In school alot was incorrect, its a lot, but now alot is accepted, thats the only example that comes to mind at present.

EDIT: To answer hobgoblin.

Dictionaries are who say what the definition of a word is, until enough people use it incorrectlly then the Dictionary changes its meaning to fit the common usage, then itll say what the meaning of the word is again till again the word changes meaning again.

Posted by: Rajaat99 Jun 18 2006, 05:37 PM

What a great way to get rid of a murder weapon.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 18 2006, 05:40 PM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 18 2006, 05:46 PM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 18 2006, 05:51 PM

If they dont check its ballistics to see if it matches anything, then dust it for finger prints then link back to a known criminal that will roll over on you.

A lot of criminals are now renting out guns to low level thugs in the city. Big drug dealers and such will give the gun to petty crook for a large some of cash. When the petty crook is done he returns the gun. Suprisingly its working, well not so suprisingly, the drug dealers usually have more and bigger guns.

The bulk of the weapons turned in at these things are old pieces of crap that arent worth anything to the criminal or a lawful citizen and they turn them in for free basketball tickets or $50 what ever is being given away.

We use to have a lot fo things in my state, till a reporter discovered that the bulk of weapons were rusted out junk turned in by people that admitted they only wanted the tickets or their father had died so they turned in his guns because they didnt want them in the house with their kids. Which is not what the programs were aimed at. They were aimed at drug dealers adn crooks to get the illeagel guns off the streets and otu of dangerous hands.

Posted by: knasser Jun 18 2006, 06:29 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Jun 18 2006, 06:32 PM

So this just changed from a knife discussion, to guns, to dictionarys? Wow, only on dumpshock.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 18 2006, 06:45 PM

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 19 2006, 12:04 AM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 19 2006, 12:26 AM

Shhhh, logic will confuse them.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 12:33 AM

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 19 2006, 01:20 AM

hmm, i wonder if this thread will ever reach the length of some gun control threads i have seen spawn (and maybe helped spawn).

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 19 2006, 01:25 AM

If only to mock irrational UK weapons laws.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 19 2006, 07:05 AM

That sort of message would be one way to make sure this gets that long.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 19 2006, 09:17 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 19 2006, 11:27 AM

Posted by: nezumi Jun 19 2006, 02:27 PM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 19 2006, 02:30 PM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 19 2006, 02:32 PM

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 19 2006, 04:23 PM

of society need that every person in it is armed and tried to use it, i call that a failure...

but im going to step away from this thread now. i have seen one to many of these...

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 19 2006, 04:50 PM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 19 2006, 04:57 PM

Or the fact that I just love going to the range and popping a cap in that paper's ass. (If you didn't recognize this as sarcasm, get help.)

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 04:58 PM

At first pass I read "pauper's ass" and wondered why you'd be out shootin poor people at a range.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 19 2006, 05:04 PM

Honestly, both Knasser and Shrike are right here. I'm going to add a little bit more to this and call it at that.

I recently got an apartment with my g/f. One of my only stipulations was that there WILL be a gun in the house. She fo course was adamant in refusal to this as she hates guns. And I won't attempt to mince words here, firearms serve only one purpose, to kill. A knife is a utility tool that can also kill, but guns serve only that one purpose. Unfortunately all I happen to own is a .22 target pistol that I loaded with some fragmentation rounds, I would much rather have a pump action shotgun, the idea being that I need only cock the gun.

Think about it, you B&E a house, you hear the very audible and HIGHLY recognizable sound of a shotgun. Your options now are A. Risk getting shot or B. Turn around and leave. Seeing as a shotgun need only be aimed in the general area of a person if loaded with shot and not slugs, most people would choose B. If they don't, then chances the chances that they would have caused bodily harm to any inhabitants is already very high.

Would I carry a firearm on me if I had the option to do so? It would depend on many factors. But CA doesn't allow most private citizens to get a CCW. If I were going someplace potentially dangerous to myself, I would carry one regardless of the laws (carrying is only a misdemeanor).

There are many statistics to be considered however. Not simply the odds of getting shot unarmed vs odds of getting shot while armed. You want scary statistics? According to the LAPD 1 in 4 people on the freeways pack heat.

Posted by: stevebugge Jun 19 2006, 05:05 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 05:16 PM

Guns stored in your home have one of a two possible consequences in relation to breakins:

1) Someone breaks in while you're home and the gun dissuades them.

2) Someone breaks in while you're not home and the gun becomes a new toy for a criminal somewhere.

A better option is just to not have your home broken into at all. Discovery has a show caled It Takes a Thief that I've recently gotten addicted to. A couple of ex-burglars talk someone into letting them break into their home, and then afterwards give a security renovation followed by another unanounced breakin to see if habits have changed enough to keep the burglar out.

In every episode I have seen where a gun is involved, either the gun was stolen, or it was secured well enough that it couldn't be stolen, and also couldn't be gotten to in time of need.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 19 2006, 05:36 PM

You shouldn't have a gun to stop thieves. That's just silly. If a thief breaks in and steals your stuff then that's okay. Things can be replaced. If a thief steals your gun while you are away then more power to them. A gun can be replaced. No, the gun should be for people who don't intend to steal anything.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 05:46 PM

In which case you're probably still better off just making it so they can't get in easily and go on down the street. If they're coming with mischief in mind they're probably armed themselves. I'd rather my neighbor lose the duel than me, and having a strong outer perimeter is a good way of ensuring that.

If they're coming specifically for you, then you're probably in trouble, but even then a good perimeter will give you the time you need to get your gun out of the gunsafe.

Posted by: knasser Jun 19 2006, 06:43 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 06:48 PM

That statement also left me dumbfounded, but I got busy and couldn't reply, then forgot all about it. I can only assume it was phrased wrong, as I can't imagine anyone thinking that all policemen are the sort of people that would give their lives for a stranger.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 19 2006, 06:57 PM

Posted by: nezumi Jun 19 2006, 06:57 PM

Just so you know, the cost of a pretty standard pistol is about comparable to a SINGLE high-security lock (Medeco, the company they recommend on that show of yours? Yeah, about $150 a pop new. Now count how many doors you have.) If I lose a $300 gun when my house is robbed, I can deal with that. On the other hand, if I drive a robber out with that gun and save thousands, well, that's not a bad gamble all told.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 07:02 PM

Unless that lockbox is very sturdy and bolted to the floor it's just a handy carrying case when you get burglarized.

nezumi: You can live with the idea that your lax security may result in innocent people being killed by your gun? This isn't a $300 xbox they're running off with, it's a $300 killing tool. Sure, if they really want one they can get one, but why give one for free?

The show gives tons of ways to keep people out of your house. They don't even give every house a security system. Just stronger doors, locks, and windows can make the guy move on. And of course, a security sign is a lot cheaper than a security system, and has as much power to keep a burglar out. The actual system only comes into play if they disregard the signs and come in anyway.

I've never seen them recommend a company, and Medeco doesn't ring any bells, but I haven't seen all the episodes.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 07:02 PM

Also, what's a "high-security like?" I'm sure it's a typo but I can't decipher what it's meant to be.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 19 2006, 07:07 PM

A security company sign is priceless and I've actually thought about it several times. They have to take the risk of actually seeing if you have said security system. Also... a $300 firearm? I personally wouldn't fire it... A good handgun will cost at least 2x that amount.

And yeah, the lockbox is more for keeping someone unwanted out of it at the time. And its illegal to have a gun either w/out a trigger lock or a locking box in your house here in CA. And you never know when children will be around.

Of course... the box is heavy enough that it could make a decent weapon in its own right

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 07:10 PM

Man clubbed to death with pistol lockbox. Legislature being considered to ban lockboxes. Story at eleven.

Posted by: Lindt Jun 19 2006, 07:39 PM

Frankly Id like to think the cutlery in my kitchen and the caverly saber on my wall would be much more attractive weapons then the over/under in my basement, locked to the wall. I dont consider my empty trap gun a peice of home securty. Thats what my dog is for.

Damm I sound like such a hick now...

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 07:58 PM

Is the dog trained? If not, it might not be as useful as you'd think. It's kinda funny how many seemingly big and scary dogs knuckle under when opposed.

One of my ex-roommates had a big dog (part lab, part I have no idea what). It would throw a huge fit whenever you got near, but if you actually walked towards it the posturing would stop. I had a Great Pyranese once that hated people he didn't know. As big as those things are he was scary as hell, but you'd have to actually corner him to get bit (which happened to a couple of friends that thought they were Dr. Doolittle).

Posted by: nezumi Jun 19 2006, 08:07 PM

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 19 2006, 08:08 PM

The general public's understanding of the role of a trigger lock frightens me. Most people seem to think that it's something you put on a loaded gun so that the trigger can't be pulled... and are largely unaware that the risk of setting off a loaded gun by putting a trigger lock on it is significant.

X-Kalibur: my Glock 23 was $450, including the spare magazine, cleaning tools, case, and through-action lock that it shipped with. You can buy a Mossberg Maverick for about $250. A Kel-Tec P-32's MSRP is $300.

There's a difference between "inexpensive" and "cheap." The P-32 is a .32 caliber hold-out, but one of the better-made guns in it's class and quite reliable. The Maverick is a "no-bells-and-whistles" pump shotgun that is durable, reliable, and well-fitted. Glock handguns are one of the most widespread handguns of the last 20 years in both private ownership and law-enforcement use, and I've seen deliberate attempts to get them to break down (dragging them behind cars down the road, shooting the slide with another firearm, taking them apart and wrapping the components in a salt-water soaked sock for a week, dropping them out of low-flying airplanes, leaving them in wet sand, gravel, bead-blasting medium, or paste overnight...) that haven't stopped the Glock recieving all this abuse from being able to fire, although in some cases the weapon had to be cycled manually for some of the shots. A number of good pistols retail for over $600, but a number retail for significantly less.

----------

Part of responsible gun ownership is keeping your gun. This doesn't just mean knowing how to keep someone from taking it out of your hand, it means knowing how to secure it in your home or vehicle in such a way that a thief doesn't know it's there, and/or isn't able to remove it in any sort of reasonable way. A lockbox bolted to a structual component is sort of the minimum reasonable level of storage that should be utilized as any sort of long-term storage arrangement. I'm a fan of gun safes that are heavy enough that their removal is impractical, but lockboxes add the accesibility that is necessary for a defensive firearm.

----------

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 19 2006, 08:18 PM

I'm highly familiar with Glocks and how good a firearm they are. I've never seen any for that low before however. SiG, Glock, H&K, and Colt are your best bets for side arms (H&K being good for any type of firearm). Colts of course are all going to be overpriced these days since they no longer produce to the general public.

Speaking of BS laws (and things like a knife amnesty)... the US law that makes (or made, was it repealed?) gun makers liable for lawsuit if their gun is used in a killing. As if they can possibly control what is done with a gun after it is shipped off to a store. I don't see car manufacturers responsible for accidents on freeways unless it was a known problem with a model/make of a car that caused it.

Posted by: stevebugge Jun 19 2006, 08:30 PM

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 19 2006, 08:34 PM

Inflation of gun prices can happen due to a variety of reasons... living in CA may be one of them. Glocks are remarkably inexpensive considering their quality. I've found H&K products to be pretty reliable, but they run into the problem of being a little (or a lot) overpriced, and having had a "by Wookies, for Wookies" approach taken in terms of their ergonomics.

While there have been some lawsuits trying to seek restitution from gunmakers for crimes committed by people using their products, there isn't a law in the US that holds them responsible. Every once in a while, legislation will actually surface attempting to protect them from that kind of extortion, but I'm not aware of anything broad-reaching being in place yet.

Posted by: Dewar Jun 19 2006, 09:02 PM

So is it illegal to own ornamental knives in the UK then? Or did someone turn in 500 letter openers just to get rid of them?

Posted by: knasser Jun 19 2006, 10:13 PM

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 19 2006, 10:24 PM

I must say, it's baffling how high the crime is in the UK given that no one has guns. (comparatively, obviously some people do). To quote Bill Hicks, it just goes to show how polite the English are... "Gimmie your wallet..." "Alright".

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 20 2006, 02:49 AM

Switchblades, balisongs, and gravity knives are illegal in Washington, but thumb-opener folders are just fine. What's the stance on them in the UK?

Posted by: Enigma Jun 20 2006, 07:49 AM

I live in Australia, where the laws are far more restrictive on owning things that are sharp or that fire bullets than in the US and the UK. I am also a prosecutor and I am incredibly glad we don't have laws (or bills of rights) allowing any person to own a gun.

I can say from constant professional experience that the rate of crime here is massively lower than that in the US because your average criminal committing a violent crime (including robbery) is massively out-gunned by any on-duty police officer. Obviously there are other factors at play - socio-economic status perhaps as well as population, but it is indisputable that readily available weapons equals greater rates of certain crimes, especially robbery (which is holding someone up in Queensland, not burglarising houses which is a different offence). It is rare for criminals to be armed with a firearm here. It is still not uncommon for criminals to have knives, but it is apparently less common here than in the US or the UK.

Personally, I am very happy to have sought and obtained sentences involving imprisonment for people who carried guns and thought that they had the constant right to do so. We occasionally get some lunatic here asserting a right to bear arms and amassing a stockpile, and usually their life in the community ends with a few years imprisonment and losing their shiny guns.

Technically it is illegal in Queensland to possess a weapon (including a knife, most bladed instruments, a firearm, replica firearm or thing capable of firing a projectile) without a lawful excuse, and it is not a lawful excuse to say that you needed it for self defence. It is also illegal (and a more serious offence) to simply produce any such weapon in a public place, whether or not you threaten someone with it.

I have had to speak to the families of a lot of murder victims. I have had to try and take statements from people who have lost most of their brain function as a result of violent crimes committed on them. I have had to help rape victims through giving evidence at trial because it's too upsetting, and as far as I am concerned every single gun and knife that isn't available for some brainless idiot to commit a crime with is a victory.

One of the happiest moments I've had as a prosecutor (and possibly the funniest) was recently reading a statement of a person charged with a unrelated offence which was quite serious. He was taken to the police station for processing, and part of that procedure is for the police to ask if he has any concealed weapons he wishes to declare prior to being searched. The guy in this case produced a "very large cucumber" from his pants and said to the police "I need it for protection in case I get attacked on the street." When criminals are resorting to vegetable protective measures, something is going OK as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 20 2006, 08:45 AM

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 20 2006, 09:16 AM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 20 2006, 09:47 AM

The crime rates used for Australia and the US in the ChronWatch.Com article are not comparable.

Compare, for example, the very low 3.19/1000ppl figure from the FBI records for 2001 to the 7.57/1000ppl figure from the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems from 1998-2000. This is mostly because the FBI record is for aggravated assault, while the Australian study deals with all assault, including attempts and threats.

Likewise, the figure used for the rate of rape in Australia is in fact the amount of victims of sexual assault, including "rape, sexual assault, sodomy, buggery, oral sex, incest, carnal knowledge, unlawful sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and assault with intent to rape." The FBI figure is for forcible rape, which is a far more limiting category. I could not find comparable figures for rape for the two countries on a quick glance.

How surprising that a pro-gun site would misrepresent statistics to bolster their arguments.
(As do anti-gun sites, in similar measures.)

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 20 2006, 10:19 AM

Oh good, a survey where the questions asked of both nations are the same.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

All statistics given are for the year 1999 (the most recent that both countries have statistics for). The units are crimes per 100k people.

Completed homicides
US: 4.55
AU: 1.81
US leads by 2.51x.

Total recorded assaults:
US: 805.21
AU: 706.69
(there is also a category labelled "major assaults" that there is no information for, for Australia)
US leads by 1.14x.

Total recorded robberies:
US: 147.36
AU: 118.98
US leads by 1.24x.

Total recorded burglaries:
US: 755.29
AU: 2,188.08
AU leads by 2.90x.

Total recorded rapes:
US: 32.05
AU: 74.23
AU leads by 2.32x.

From this source, we can glean that your odds of getting killed in the US are significantly higher than in AU. Your odds of getting assaulted or robbed are similar, although the US is slightly worse off (it'd be nice if they included statistics for "major assaults" in Australia). Your odds of getting raped or having your home burgled are significantly higher in AU than in the US. It'd be nice if we could get numbers that would show the trend of the last 7 years or so... do you know of any more recent surveys?

This picture is certainly more favorable towards Australia's rate of crime than the earlier one, but it hardly qualifies as being "massively lower than that in the US."

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 20 2006, 10:31 AM

Just looking at crime rates, it absolutely doesn't. For example, according to the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute in 2002, 30.1% of Australians had been victimized by crime (robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats), while in the US the figure was 21.1%.

However, as NationMaster says, "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." For example, according to the same UN study you quoted, Finland had 101.5 total crimes/1000ppl per annum, while Colombia had 4.987.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 20 2006, 04:42 PM

Maybe Columbia is just a very safe country.



Broad crime statistics tell us nothing about the effectivness of any firearms ban. Specific crime statistics can.

From the US Buearu of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fidc9397.txt
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

• Armed robberies were more likely to be completed, resulting in loss of property, than unarmed robberies. Higher completion percentages occurred for robberies committed with firearms than for robberies with knives and other sharp objects or blunt objects/other weapons. Robberies committed with knives and unarmed robberies were completed at similar percentages.

• For the 9-year period beginning in 1993, the percentage of rapes/sexual assaults that was completed did not vary significantly depending on the offenders' possession of a weapon. About 71% of rapes/sexual assaults involving no weapon were completed; of such assaults with a weapon, 67% were completed.

• Of all violence with a weapon, the crimes committed with blunt objects/other weapons were the most often associated with victim injury (36%). Twenty-eight percent of the crimes with knives/sharp objects and 15% of crimes with
  firearms involved injury. About half of victims of robbery by offenders armed with
  blunt objects/ other weapons sustained an injury during the crime.
  
• About a third of victims of robbery by unarmed offenders (36%) and offenders armed with knives or sharp objects (31%)sustained injury during the victimization.
  
• Offenders armed with any weapon other than a firearm inflicted a serious injury during about 1 in 7 robberies that they committed.
  
• Victims of robbery by offenders armed with blunt objects/other weapons were more likely than victims of robbery by offenders armed with a firearm to be attacked without a prior threat.
  
• Victims were injured in a third of all assaults by offenders armed with blunt objects/other weapons. Less than a third of assaults by offenders armed with guns or knives resulted in injury (13% and 26%, respectively). Victims of offenders armed with a knife or sharp object were the most likely to sustain a serious injury; 12% of such offenses resulted in serious injury.

• Serious injuries include gunshot or knife wounds, broken bones, loss of teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and undetermined injuries requiring 2 or more days of hospitalization.
  
• Minor injuries include bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches, swelling, chipped teeth, and undetermined injuries requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization.

• Offenders fired their weapon in 17% of all nonfatal handgun crimes (or about 2% of all violent crimes). In 3% of all handgun crimes, the victim was wounded. The offender shot at but missed the victim in 14% of all handgun crimes. Victims did not report if offenders had tried to hit the victim or missed intentionally.

• Between 1993 and 2001, about 61% of all victims of violent crime reported taking a self-defensive measure during the incident. Most used nonaggressive means, such as trying to escape, getting help, or attempting to scare off or warn the offender. About 13% of victims of violent crime tried to attack or threaten the offender. About 2% of victims of violent crime used a weapon to defend themselves; half of these, about 1% of violent crime victims, brandished a firearm.
  
• 38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the weapon.
  
• A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.

• A weapon was used in 91% of these crimes. In 4% of the homicides, the offender used a means such as strangling, punching, and kicking. Information about the weapon used was unavailable in 5% of all homicides.
  
• Seventy percent of homicide victims were killed with a firearm. Handguns were used in 56% of all homicides.

• 28% were killed because of an argument
• 19% were killed during the commission of another crime, including 11% during a robbery and 7% during a drug law violation
• 7% died as a result of a juvenile gang killing.
  
  
• Stranger 13.9%
• Spouse 6.9%
• Other family 7.8%
• Boyfriend/Girlfriend 4.4%
• Other Acquaintance 32.6%
• Relationship undetermined 34.4%

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 20 2006, 04:47 PM

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 20 2006, 04:48 PM

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 20 2006, 05:30 PM

If I'm reading your statistics right, Hyzmarca:

If you're robbed by someone with a blunt instrument, 50% get injured. 36% for unarmed robbers, 31% for knife-wielding offenders, 14% for gun-wielding offenders.

If you're assaulted with a blunt object, the odds of injury are roughly 33%. Knives, 26%, guns, 13%. The serious injury rates are amusing by definition, since "knife or gunshot wounds" automatically qualify as a serious injury.

The odds of being injured defending yourself from a crime with a firearm are roughly 20% (down from roughly 50% if you're unarmed or have some other weapon).

----------------

Statistics can be made to say all sorts of things, but what I glean from this is that the only time that defending yourself from a crime with a firearm increases the chance of you being injured is when your attacker also has a firearm (which makes sense... you may have just started a gunfight with someone who wasn't originally planning to shoot you). This increase in the rate of injury is 6-7%. The increase in the rate of injury trying to defend yourself against a gun-wielding criminal if you do not have a firearm is 36-37%.

Against any other kind of assault or robbery attempt, we see a drop in injury rates ranging of 6% to 30% when the victim defends themselves with a firearm. The only situation in which trying to defend yourself with something other than a firearm does not lead to an increased rate of injury is defense against robbery with a blunt object, where the injury rate is already 50%.

It seems reasonable to assume that the injury rate would be higher among people who chose to defend themselves (by any means) partially due to the fact that they chose to defend themselves once it became apparent they were going to be hurt, or had already been injured. A logical leap from that point would be that the same population that is choosing to defend themselves would see a higher level of injury even if they didn't defend themselves, but we have no statistical evidence to figure out how much of an increase that might be.

It's always a situational call, but the numbers indicate that the only situations where you're more likely to get injured defending yourself with a firearm than taking any other action are the situations where your attacker also has a firearm... and you've always got the option of not drawing your own weapon if the situation looks bad.

Posted by: Kyrn the Second Jun 20 2006, 05:48 PM

Gentlemen, I applaud your search fu. I haven't seen people back themselves up with data like this in quite some time. Kudos.

And I wonder if there's any way we can publicly shame the British government for the farcical practice of "knife amnesty"?

Posted by: nezumi Jun 20 2006, 06:03 PM

Posted by: knasser Jun 20 2006, 06:13 PM

A few random observations without conclusions.

The USA is a big place with a wide range of living conditions within it. Giving an average homicide rate is a little meaningless when we don't know the distribution curve behind it. I.e. If there were 10 homicide in a thousand in California and 1 in an thousand in Minnesota, is it useful to say that the average is 5.5 in every thousand? For purposes of comparison with another country it probably isn't appropriate. For example, if the living conditions for most of Australia more closely approximate Minnesota than they do California, then a country wide comparison of homicide rates is very misleading. The statistics would mean that if the homicide rate were the same, then Australians are four times more likely to shoot you. My point of course isn't that this is true, but that blanket comparisons are probably misleading.

Taking before and after snapshots of crime statistics and drawing conclusions on them is very dangerous as it's not easy to attribute the cause. For example, in 1995 the Attorney General's office was prophesying soaring crime rates and epidemics of violence based on rising crime rates. In fact, violent crime began to plummet shortly thereafter dropping to 50% by 2000. This was popularly attributed to gun control laws, tougher policing and other "didn't we do well" factors. In fact, there's now a pretty unassailable explanation for it which is that it comes down to Roe vs Wade in 1973 when abortion was legalised and began to become more acceptable and accessible. A lot of the people who would grow up to become criminals simply weren't born. Poor single and teenage mothers who were most likely to go for an abortion had also been most likely to have children who grew up to be criminals. Oddly enough, this more statistically supportable explanation never really got the same government and academic publicity that the other explanations had. My point of course isn't that the before and after statistics are wrong, but that drawing a definite conclusion based on them, especially at this poor level of detail, is a really bad idea.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 20 2006, 06:18 PM

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 20 2006, 06:19 PM

The amusing part about comparing California to Minnesota, aside from living conditions, is that there are stricter gun laws in the first as opposed to the latter.

There is no direct correlation of course. You'd need to use comparable locations with different laws in effect.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 20 2006, 06:24 PM

Cucumber bludgeoning, sure, but I bet you could kill someone pretty easily by cramming whole cucumbers down their throat.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 20 2006, 06:28 PM

I'd be willing to bet those are lower than morningstar deaths as well, but only because I know some pretty stupid LARPers that might accidentally kill each other with medieval weapons, but very few chefs that would kill someone with cucumbers.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 20 2006, 06:45 PM

Posted by: Lindt Jun 20 2006, 06:53 PM

*ponders the effective crime if he was to induce fatal intestional blockage with a cucumber.*

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 20 2006, 08:20 PM

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 20 2006, 09:27 PM

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 20 2006, 09:29 PM

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 20 2006, 09:33 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 20 2006, 09:38 PM

I think I need an Eddie to James translation manual?

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 20 2006, 10:01 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 20 2006, 10:31 PM

Thanks!

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 20 2006, 11:18 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 20 2006, 11:21 PM

Nah, knives being made illegal won't neessarily change crime statistics such that more people get hurt. It'll almost definitely change the statistics, but trying to say how is a fool's errand at best, unless an in depth study of knives across the centuries and responses to their bannings is made. And even that won't be gauranteed to be accurate.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 20 2006, 11:28 PM

I seriously see banning knives as being on the same level as banning screwdrivers, hammers, and pieces of pipe. There's a point at which things become ridiculous, and a knife ban is already past that point.

I feel obligated to point out that pretty much any law-abiding citizen in the state of Washington can carry a gun should he apply for the permit, and we don't have roving bands of youths mugging people for money with sharpened screwdrivers...

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 20 2006, 11:31 PM

Most bans for the sake of safety are silly if the object being banned can be gotten legally. If you ban knives in a country where every knife not owned by the government is illegal then you'll probably see a drastic reduction in the number of knifings. Bannign knives when you can walk to the department store and buy one won't change a thing except to increase the penalties for knife related crimes.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 20 2006, 11:42 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 21 2006, 01:42 AM

I disagree.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 02:06 AM

As usual, very eloquent.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 21 2006, 02:17 AM

He was no more eloquent—look at it, all he says is "let's make assault, murder, and robbery illegal instead of making the tools illegal". Nowhere does he back that up, or even explain why assault, murder, or robbery should be illegal in the first place.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 02:26 AM

LOL. If you need an expanation for that you're in serious need of help.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 21 2006, 02:42 AM

He does have a point. No evidence has been presented to suggest that the legal status of these activities has any impact on their prevalence. Massive amounts are spent investigating and punishing these crimes. There must by some justification for that expenditure of resources other than principal.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 02:49 AM

Robbery and murder by definition are criminal acts. If they were not illegal, they wouldn't be murder or robbery, they'd be killing and taking. Assault is different, but that's why we've (at least here in America) defined "criminal assault" as a seperate entity.

Luckily, since they already are crimes, I can leave it up to the detractors to prove something if they want to, saving me a rather lenghty explanation that will be picked apart at leisure because there's no such thing as a post about opinion that escapes at least one person's wrath on Dumpshock.

Posted by: John Campbell Jun 21 2006, 05:02 AM

I say we legalize everything. The crime rate will drop to zero overnight!

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Jun 21 2006, 05:05 AM

John Campbell, hero to the prolitariate crime watcher and bane of trial lawyers everywhere.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 21 2006, 05:16 AM

Oh good lord, James, they were kidding

Posted by: Lazerface Jun 21 2006, 05:48 AM

For a bunch of guys role playing criminals who regularly kidnap, rob, and shoot people, we sure do care about what the laws should be defined as in order to keep the general public safe.

[/didn't read topic]

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 21 2006, 08:23 AM

As a guy who carries a gun, I sure do care about the specifics of doing so, in order for me to not spend time in jail

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 21 2006, 07:34 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 07:47 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 21 2006, 08:00 PM

I'm actually a big fan of dictionaries. I do, however, despise the corruption of words, particularly for emotional appeal. As such, regardless of what dictionaries happen to print, I deny the legitimacy of the modern popular meanings of certain words (in particular, "predator" and "hacker" rile me).

~J

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 08:30 PM

You love dictionaries except when they disagree with you? LOL

The definition of predator that you disagree with isn't the modern definition, it's the ancient latin definition. Praeda predates predator by quite a while, and predator, even back into the 16th century, was used in more than animal contexts. You're well within your rights to have the opinion that the word is used wrong, but it isn't a new usage you're disagreeing with.

I'm not sure what your problem with hacker is, so can't comment on that.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 21 2006, 08:36 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 08:41 PM

There are a lot of definitions for hacker ranging from the criminal to the negligent to the skilled. You can be a hacker and break into things, a hacker because all of your code is "hacked together" (i.e. without design). You can be a hacker because your hack code out l33tly. The problem IMO withthe word hacker is that it isn't focused enough. But you can usually tell by the context what is meant (usually it's the criminal version).

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 21 2006, 08:44 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 08:49 PM

Ah, I was misunderstanding your disagreement with predator. Feel free to disagree, but languages shift. This shift has already taken place. You can get annoyed by it or accept it.

You must have fits whenever the movie Hackers comes on TV.

Edit: Do you pummel players senseless when they want to play a Hacker?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 21 2006, 08:55 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 09:00 PM

Remind me not to try to make a character in your games. I prefer to avoid violence when possible.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 21 2006, 09:22 PM

The characters in Hackers were actual hackers. However, they were also crackers. The latter has a more narrow definition than the former in the context of electronics.

While 'hacker' refers to any enthusiest who creates or modifies software or hardware 'cracker' specificly refers to individuals who gain unauthorized access to computer networks or unauthorized use of protected software. The definitions of 'hacker' and 'cracker' may be further limited by requiring a certain level of skill or competence. In these cases 'hackers' and 'crackers' can be differientiated from 'script kiddes' who use techniques and software released by others.

Due to the broad definition of 'hacker' and the narrow definition of 'cracker' it is preferable to use 'cracker' when refering to individuals who gain unauthorized access to a computer or defeat software protections. Excluding 'script kiddies', all 'crackers' are hackers but not all 'hackers' are 'crackers.'

We can see the effects of fallacious usage more clearly by applying it to another group-subgroup combination.

The subgroup 'murderers' is a part of the larger group 'humans'

Most people would agree with the statement that all 'murderers' should be imprisioned or executed. Few people would agree with the statement that all 'humans' should be imprisioned or executed.

Posted by: stevebugge Jun 21 2006, 09:42 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 09:46 PM

Nice comparison hyz, but not really appropriate, since hacker can equate to criminal but murderer doesn't equate to human.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 21 2006, 10:12 PM

Could you point out which real jurisdictions have convicted nonhumans for the crime of murder?

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 21 2006, 10:51 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 11:14 PM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 22 2006, 01:47 AM

I think in the middle of this stastic soup, there is only one thing I can be sure of.

I have a much higher chance of placing my fate in my own hands if I have the means to effectively defend myself than if not. And that's enough for me. It's better to bring a gun to a gunfigth than to bring pacifism to a gunfight.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 22 2006, 01:56 AM

Not if the other guy in the gunfight outclasses you, but won't draw first because he wants to keep things legal and avoid jail or the gallows.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 22 2006, 02:30 AM

If he's robbing me, chances are he dosen't care about the legality of the situation.

And the stastics all strongly disagree on his ability to outclass me, since it seems likely the only range time he gets is when he's in the middle of shooting at someone who's resisting.


And anyway, dieing in a gunfight with a criminal who was going to take your life anyway is better than a dog's death.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 22 2006, 02:35 AM

I'm not talking about being robbed. I'm talking about a gunfight, old west style. I prbably should have put a smiley in there.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 22 2006, 03:24 AM

Well, that's easy then.

Don't get into a wild-west style confrontation.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 22 2006, 03:34 AM

Posted by: Kyrn Jun 22 2006, 03:47 AM

Most laws are written to be as all encompassing as possible. Many contracts are written to be applicable throughout this universe and all others. That's right, all other universe. Lawyers wouldn't bat an eye at using their wiles against aliens, intelligent superdogs, or stupid slightly less than above average molluskmen. Executors of the estates of wealthy cats have been sued.

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 22 2006, 03:09 PM

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 22 2006, 05:06 PM

I considered a -C for a while, but decided that .40 + short barrel + venting was going to make far too much of a fireball on the top of the gun. The G23 has some flip to it, but it's pretty manageable.

Haven't had an opportunity to try the sights out in low/no light yet, beyond "turn off the lights and do sight picture practice" (for which they absolutely rock... try it out if you ever get the chance, it'll make you wonder why they don't come standard on guns). For obvious reasons, most ranges prefer you to keep the lights on. There's a course offered through a local institution that does night firing in addition to a number of other situations that I'm planning on taking when I have the time.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 22 2006, 06:29 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 22 2006, 06:37 PM

Yeah, just movies. Few (if any) gunfights involved people standing at 10 paces and the faster guy drawing after the slower guy starts.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 22 2006, 07:36 PM

"If he shot him in the eye, he was excercizing good marksmanship. If he shot 'em in the back of the head, he was excercizing good judgement."

Posted by: Eddie Furious Jun 23 2006, 05:21 AM

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 23 2006, 09:51 AM

Being able to use your sights AT ALL in the dark makes a huge difference

While I like the 1911 as a range piece, the thought of carrying one as a defensive piece is a little iffy with me. The basic design is about a century old, and frankly, we've made advancements since then. You can get fine-tuned 1911s that are as reliable as something like a Glock or a well-maintained H&K is out of the box, but that extra work that's required to do that was always a bit of a turn-off for me. So much of shooting is personal, though... if you can shoot well with it and it's tuned to the point of rock-solid reliability, it's probably the ideal piece.

What're carry laws like in Calgary? I was under the impression it got difficult north of the border...

Posted by: Ivanhoe Jun 23 2006, 11:12 AM

Posted by: Brahm Jun 23 2006, 01:22 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 23 2006, 01:23 PM

Drop bear can equate to criminal, especially if that drop bear commits murder.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 23 2006, 04:05 PM

But no criminal court in the world asserts jurisdiction over drop bears. If no court will try them then they cannot be criminals.

Posted by: nezumi Jun 23 2006, 05:32 PM

Posted by: stevebugge Jun 23 2006, 05:40 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jun 23 2006, 05:41 PM

Drop bears are judged and executed by http://www.petprofessional.net. If you have a drop bear problem, he can fix it.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 23 2006, 08:33 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 23 2006, 09:17 PM

Its only illegal if you get caught and you'll only get caught if they find evidence linking you to the body of the police officer who really shouldn't have pulled you over.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 23 2006, 09:31 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 23 2006, 11:03 PM

Posted by: Brahm Jun 24 2006, 01:41 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 24 2006, 03:41 AM

You see, this is why the whole US/Canada merger may not be a bad idea. With luck we can get permissive gun laws and socialized health care. Of course, that could end up with highly restrictive gun laws and health care so expensive that people sell their kidney's to back-alley chop-shops in exchange for gout medicine; that would be bad.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 24 2006, 04:12 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 24 2006, 05:04 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 24 2006, 05:32 AM

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 24 2006, 05:44 AM

We;;, according to http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=257985 the most dangerous activites in America are to 'stand on the corner and mind your own business' followed closely by 'sit on the porch and read the bible'.

Should you find yourself considering either of these two courses of action, go and do something safer, like play in traffic.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 24 2006, 07:58 AM

Posted by: Brahm Jun 24 2006, 10:21 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 24 2006, 11:52 AM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 24 2006, 05:28 PM

Posted by: Squinky Jun 24 2006, 05:50 PM

Peoples opinions on Police forces are always awesome. I used to be a Deputy until about a year or so ago. I remember right when I first got the gig I suddenly started to realize that all the action movies/shows I watch had dudes dressed up like me getting their asses shot all the time. Freaked me out to see it from a new perspective, and when I run Shadowrun I have a hard time having cops be bullet fodder.

In real life, people seem to always complain about cops being corrupt, or unprofessional and generally don't like them. But on primetime tv, crime dramas reign supreme, and they are almost always full of cops who break the rules, or are unproffesional, I've never understood that.

I also used to get complaints from people that there were too many police units around, that the local government was wasting its money on them. The same people seemed to be the ones who complained that they had to wait five minutes for a police response for their accident/critical incedent when they lived on the other side of the county.

So pretty much, people are wacky. I personally dislike people having authority over me, and I can see where a lot of folks are coming from. A lot of cops become cynical and hard to deal with, and thats really why I quit the gig, I got tired of fighting with all the Egos. But it's not right to judge a persons character because of their job.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 24 2006, 05:56 PM

The Calgary police chief went on a political headhunt when city council made a change to the police budget that included a specificied increase in traffic tickets with a roughly corrosponding decrease in money coming from the city's general coffers. It was more than an understatement to say he was miffed that traffic violations tickets were blatantly being seen as a revenue source, and that the number of tickets were fiscal . Even though some council members tried to sell it as an "increase to roadway safety" issue.

I believe it was actually changed. Which didn't even really matter because the police chief had already said he was going to ignore the ticket increase mandadated by, effectively, his bosses and just do something else to make the budget work out.

So I think, at least here, we are at least a little bit short of financial budget over safety as the primary motivation.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 24 2006, 06:04 PM

Not all cops are corrupt and not all cops are honest. It's like every other profession under the sun. People are different, no matter what job they're in. It wouldn't surprise me if police forces had more fringe individuals though. In other words more idealistic do gooders and opportunistic corrupt people than a lot of other professions, simply because fo the nature of the job in having power over others.

Recently Dallas had a bunch of firings for cops that were abusing their power. One instance was a cop who got into an off duty altercation with someone at a bar and then arrested the guy the next day for trumped up charges. Unfortunately for him (but not for us) the guy he arrested had a mom or a girlfriend that worked for the city and sent the story up the chain. Haha on him.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 24 2006, 06:58 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 24 2006, 07:38 PM

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 24 2006, 10:01 PM

Thanks for the site link, Brahm, that's useful information.

Posted by: SirKodiak Jun 25 2006, 05:05 AM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 25 2006, 05:13 AM

Id preferre they out law using cell phones in moving vehicles. For almost 10 years driving has been a large portion of my career. I cant count anymore the amount of times I have almost been run into by people on cell phones, or almost running into someone because of their erradic driving behavior because they are on the phone.

If its raining so hard I cant see a car on the road without its head lights on, maybe I should pull over because pedestrians dont have headlights, nether do storm created obstructions such as fallen trees or lawn furniture.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 25 2006, 05:24 AM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 25 2006, 05:37 AM

Eh, they say the same for cars, thats why a lot of newer vehicles and most fleet owned vehicles have full time headlights. And I believe a lot of car insurance companies give discounts on insurance premiums as a added saftey feature if you have them. I just find it silly that rain has a magical factor in the situation. I have only been in one rain storm in the 13 years I have been driving that I couldnt see, so I pulled over. The headlights only reflected back and made it worse like it does in fog. I mean a light misting is enough to turn your windshield wipers on, so I should have my headlights on? The rain being kicked up by the tires of traffic after the storm are enough to cause you to turn your wipers on, so I should have my headlights on?

Sorry, im just in a arguementitive mood right now.

Posted by: knasser Jun 25 2006, 10:50 AM

If a cop makes money from people commiting a crime, such as speeding, or he is under pressure from his boss / organisation to do so, then the motivation of the cop goes from preventing crime to hoping for it.

In the UK, the Labour government has introduced on the spot fines for "loutish behaviour" and other indiscretions such as parking in resticted areas. Wheras before a policeman's motivation would be to defuse a situation and caution people, or inform someone beforehand that they couldn't pull up somewhere, the system now rewards lying in wait. And incidents that would previously have resulted in a "keep it down, lads" because they were insignificant are now written up and you'll get marched to a cash machine if yuo don't have it on you. I doubt that credit card accepting police are far behind. Note that you can't refuse to pay these fines (well, you can, but you know what I mean), instead you have to go to court to get a refund. The policeman has been endowed with the role of judge and jury also. Naturally, name address are recorded for the Database (and occasionally DNA sample).

And another thing, did you know that...<<SIGINT... No Carrier>>

HI, This is knasser. I was just joking with the stuff above. The police are actually all honest people and the government deeply cares about us. I fully support increased profiling and monitoring in order to ensure my safety.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 25 2006, 02:35 PM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 25 2006, 04:10 PM

Posted by: Brahm Jun 25 2006, 05:26 PM

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 25 2006, 05:56 PM

do not most cars these days come with a automatic cutoff for headlights so that you can leave them on the weaker setting 24/7 and have them turn on when you start the car?

if not, get yourself a cheap relay (or whatever its called) and attach it to the main battery cable and the headlight wire...

as for cell phones in a car, get a handsfree. either a wired one or a bluetooth based one. some new model cars even come with bluetooth handsfree buildt into the car itself.

worried about battery life? i belive i have seen some that you can plug into that "lighter" socket, and work just like a speaker phone...

on the topic of speaker phone. more and more phones come with that feature buildt in to

but then im used to being able to pick and choose the phone i want as both big carrier in this nation use the gsm network and sim cards...

from what i understand, thats not a option in some other nations...

Posted by: SirKodiak Jun 25 2006, 09:00 PM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 25 2006, 09:14 PM

I already agreed with Brahm, I know headlights are good for saftey, I was just being a prick last night.

And why not outlaw cell phones in cars. They past legislation to make headlight use required where you and where I live, though I still dont turn mine on till I cant see.

I do however refrain from using my cell phone while driving, much to the dismay of my former bosses that thought I would answer it anytime they called. They were always mad at me because I wouldnt answer the phone while driving and only called them back when I got to my destination. Which sometimes was 2+ hours away.

Washington DC has already outlawed cell phone use in the city. So why shouldnt other cities and states?

And I agree with that study also. Using a phone is nothing like talking to a person in your car. Even sitting in my house on the phone I lose the ability to concentrate on other tasks, where if there are people in the room with me I can have the same conversation and continue to do things normally.

I use to do tech support and talking to customers on the phone and writing it all down in their case file was a real skill. Most times I wrote short hand notes on a paper pad then after the call typed it all in.

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 25 2006, 10:38 PM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 25 2006, 11:11 PM

I think the problem with cell phone handless sets isen't that you can't talk and drive at the same time. People do all the time - when we have a friend in the car. When people who have radios in their cars use them. Hell, when we're flying planes, we're talking almost nonstop.

The problem with cell phones is when you pass a connectionless area, it frizzes, and the person on the other end goes "What did you say?!" And you have to dedicate some brain-time to remembering what you just said and repeating it. Then you get frustrated because they say it again and again, and sooner or later driving is the back-burner task and talking is the primary.

And you do not want driving to be the back-burn task.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 25 2006, 11:37 PM

Talking on the phone creates a type of virtual space between the talkers. A talker's mind is on this virtual space more than it is the road. On the other hand, speaking to someone who is in the car does not usually create such a virtual space since real space is sufficient for the conversation.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 25 2006, 11:45 PM

Physical over hands free isn't that huge a deal. How many people drive with their hands at 10 and 2, unless shifting gears, all the time? Some do. I even do it fairly regularly, but certainly not all the time. But then I drive a lot of gravel roads/offroad, and that's pretty damn critical to be on top of stuff right away.

The problem with a phone in hand is shoulder checks to that side must be more pronounced to get the same view, and poor shoulder checking already is a problem so this can exasperbate the issue.

The second problem is related to what I already talked about, ettiquette. If for some reason I'm on the phone with a handset in hand and something urgent comes up I have made it my first instinct to literally drop the phone and get that hand back on the stick or wheel as needed.

Once again it is an ettiquette thing about cell phones. When someone is in the car they can visually see that the driver diverting attention from the conversation to operating the vehicle. For most people (i.e. the people other than say a psycho-spouse who just has to be paid attention to all the time ) this is good enough to let it slide. But on the phone there is no such visual clue for the person on the other end to:
a) understand the driver isn't being rude
b) STFU

Posted by: Brahm Jun 25 2006, 11:54 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 26 2006, 12:01 AM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 26 2006, 12:23 AM

There is no such thing that is so important that it cant be dealt with in time. Especially in the business Im in. IM not a doctor on call to do that liver transplant, so if its that impotant, tough cookies.

So me taking 2 hours to get back to you shouldnt be that bad.

When my boss calls me up and says I need you to drive 300 miles from home to do something that is only going to take you 15 minutes to fix Im not stopping on the side of the road because the boss wants to know where he put his car keys. And stopping on the side of the road is almost as dangerous as driving on the road using the cell phone. Its amazingly stupid the questions I get asked on a routine basis. Shit my bosses should know, shit the project co-ordinators should know. I guess I dont pull over right away to call them back because I hate them also.

And as far as only noticing bad drivers using cell phones because they stand out isnt so. I notice the bad act first, then the driver.

I can give more stories on how I see bad cell phone drivers, but thatll be boring.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 26 2006, 12:47 AM

I bet you fucking hate truck drivers. Or are radios etc. exempt?

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 26 2006, 01:16 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 26 2006, 01:28 AM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 26 2006, 02:00 AM

I do hate certain truck drivers. Long haul drivers are generally good drivers, the short haul drivers, mostly local delivery guys suck ass. They get 9 to 5 pay or paid by the trip. SO they try to do as much as fast as possibble and tend to say fuck traffic and the laws.

My friend has always tried to bring up truckers, cabbies and police using the radio while driving as counter points for cell phone banning. While his arguement that ther are more of those then cell phone users may have been true in 2000, almost everyone has a cell phone today. My house alone has three of them.

But the thing is, none of these people sit and have conversations on these radios for extended periods of time. In fact the FCC says they cant. The truckers use a citizen band that they cant keep tied up, the Police use an emergency band that requires they put breaks in their messages to make sure another person isnt trying to really an emergency on that channel. Taxis use a citizen band also adn they pretty much only talk on the radio while parked anyway.

EDIT: I cant be overstating it that much if laws are startign to be passed to stop cell phone use in moving vehicles, the cell phone companies print literature stating that its a dangerous thing to do. But thats just my opinion. Go ahead and keep driving with your cell phones stuck to the side of your head. AS I cant tell what you do for a living or how much time you spend on the highway, so I cant say how much of this you see. I on the other hand spend 5+ hours a day on the roads.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 26 2006, 02:26 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 26 2006, 02:33 AM

Experiments do show that cell phone use reduces reaction time. Of course, so does drowsiness.

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 26 2006, 02:39 AM

If you think that I think all laws are good and warnings are anything more then litigation protection I must not be doing sarcasm well or I havent posted here a lot lately.

I guess the only thing I can say is that in all my years cell phones have nearly caused me to have many accidents.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 26 2006, 02:45 AM

I didn't really think that was your opinion, but when you justify a statement (one that is a public worry, like many legitimate and not-legitimate fears) by saying that laws and warnings take the same position, the only reasonable non-circular conclusion is that your position is that laws and warnings are, in general, always about legitimate concerns. If you accept that laws can be based on false fears and warnings can be protection from litigation from those who use products outrageously or negligently, the fact that laws and warnings exist that agree with your point merely means you aren't the first to think of it (which you didn't claim).

I would also question your assertion that cell phones nearly caused you accidents. It's far from impossible, but neither is it foregone—it is also possible that bad drivers nearly caused you to have accidents, and that the fact that they happened to be using a phone is mostly irrelevant.

~J

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 26 2006, 03:04 AM

Ok, when a person using a cell phone cant look over their left shoulder to see me coming and pulls out of a drive way and I nearly hit her. I claim the cell phone as fault.

If a guy on his cell phone is laughing and joking with the person on his cell phone so much he dosent yeild the right of way at a yeild sign and nearly runs into me, I blame the cell phone. Which happens many times at this on ramp, almost always people on cell phones, the people not on cell phones have been pretty much good at yeilding right of way.

When I was driving down the highway and approached an on ramp a guy on his cell phone dialing almost hit the side of my car, I blame the cell phone.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 26 2006, 03:19 AM

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 26 2006, 04:17 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 26 2006, 04:40 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 26 2006, 05:04 AM

Has anyone ever considered that the biggest cause of automobile accidents and negligent crashes is the failure of the agencies responsible for road safety to impliment a functional gridguide system. The technology that would allow cars to drive themselves along a road with imbeded magnetic markers has existed for more than a decade. The technology for a car to judge the speed and distance of antother vehicle and adjust ts own spped accordingly is even older.

The fact that people still have to drive their own automobiles is an utter failure of all persons involved in road construction and safety. Countless lives could have been saved if automatic driving were implimented on a wide scale.

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jun 26 2006, 05:06 AM

Have I ever said it wasnt the persons fault? The cell phone its self isnt making the person drive badly. But it certainly facilitates bad driving. Much like knives dont make people kill other people, but they certainly make it easier for people to do it. Placing blame on inanimate objects is pretty stupid.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 26 2006, 01:04 PM