Ban Baseball Bats?

Status
Not open for further replies.

280PLUS

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
3,349
Location
gunnecticut
I was just reading an article in Shooting Times (IIRC) and it was talking about how the gun ban in Britain and Ireland is so effective that the weapon of choice is now the baseball bat. So there are those (naturally) pushing to ban baseball bats.

The local baseball teams are worried...

IMHO if they ban ANYTHING over there it should be warm beer and blood pudding!

yuck...

:rolleyes:
 
Let's see, if memory serves, the top three mass murders in the United States were done with Jet Fuel A (9/11), Diesel fuel (Timothy McVeigh) and gasoline (NYC nightclub).

Therefore, all petroleum products should be banned, immediately.
 
You people are all putting the cart before the horse.

Clearly, even to use those three items, shermacman, one needs HANDS with which to manipulate them.

I think that the obvious solution is to amputate the hands of everyone soon after birth. The earlier it's done, the more adapted the children will be to living without being able to pick up or handle anything.

Of course, we will have to pass a law mandating that shoes be worn, because even those born without hands naturally often manage to learn to use their feet as substitute-hands... and we can't have that because who knows, they might figure out how to pour gasoline and strike matches using their toes!

Hands are also used for beating people to death even in the absence of all other weapons.

Of course... when the banners discover that people just start kicking others to death, they'll ban feet too. Off they come at birth just like the hands.

Really, then, the only way to stop people from having the capability of harming others is to simply euthanise them at birth. Solves all of our societal problems.

AND it would eventually return the earth to the animals, so the animal-rights people would be pleased too! Wow, what a great solution, now that I think about it... :p

-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
 
After baseball bats it'll be cricket bats. Then hockey sticks. Then regular sticks.

Then lead pipes. Then PVC pipes....



If they just executed violent criminals on scene, it'd cut down on violent crime drastically..... "You have the right to remain silent.... BLAM!" :D
 
I wonder if they argue about which "caliber" bat is the most effective.

I always preferred the 31 oz Louisville Slugger myself.

Of course I was only hitting baseballs with it.

:p

Jeffrey is kinda on the right track, cause even when everything else is banned, there'd still be rocks. How could they ban rocks?
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember that bans in other countries almost always lead to an increase in violent crimes and not a reduction. Such crimes as home invasions seem to sky-rocket in places with out-right bans for law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, is it not true that concealed carry states have steep reductions in crime as compared to states that ban?

One more question: Are the bans in other countries so effective that they actually reduce "gun crimes" in the long run? Or is that not even true?
 
Seed,

From what I've heard, getting draconian enough with gun bans does indeed, reduce gun crime. However, we do contend that there is no difference between being shot to death, stabbed to death, choked to death, poisoned to death, beaten to death, etc... The problem is that the measures they take to reduce being shot to death results in more of all the other categories, outweighing the gain.
 
Jeffery, I bow to your superior wisdom. I hadn't thought things out to their logical conclusion. With all humans euthanized at birth, or aborted before birth, then the EarthMotherNurturingSpiritGaia could return to the peaceful Garden of Eden before we contaminated everything.

Now, the only thing left to do is get rid of the animals, fish, birds, bugs and all creatures who eat other creatures! From bacteria to whales! Kill everything that kills! Then true peace will reign on the vast dead planet once called Earth!
 
Ya know, I was arguing with a middle of the road (read liberal) republican from the city the other night about hand guns etc. Well, we talked about england and how they had banned guns blah blah and how the violent crime rate soared. He went on to tell me, though, that thier violent crime rates were very low to begin with. Now, we were at a social function and he didn't have a computer or papers to prove this, but he's a credible guy. I'm just not sure if it's true. Did the countries that banned guns and had a huge surge in violent crime have a miniscule violent crime rate before? Never hurts to have more ammunition for the gunfight, er, debate. ;)
 
Two different arguements, Jobu07.
One is the percent increase. That is what your Liberal friend is relying on. If the crime rate is very low and there is a tiny spike increase then the percentage increase could be large, but since you are starting out with a small number the crime rate (the number of people victimized per thousand population) would still be small.

That is not what has happened in Britian. They started out with a very low crime rate. Then the sheeple allowed themselves to be disarmed, the government brought in thousands of immigrants to clean toilets and the crime rate and the percent increase have skyrocketed. The violent crime rate in the US doesn't make the top ten industrialized countries list.

European crime rates
 
I have been contemplating a little trip to OZ for a few years now for some outback fun. After reading that link, I ain't so sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top