Common sense knife control?

[EngrSorenson]

This is exactly the same as weaponizing a microorganism , just using double -speak because biological warfare was outlawed by Nixon and even Obama . And, I believe by various treaties .

For the love of knowledge, and purely non-partisan sharing of facts: “gain of function” could be weaponizing but it could also be changing organisms to increase our understanding in a beneficial way. The term “gain of function” means just what it means- through modification we get a new tool. Could be swords, could be plow shears.

Just because you think Nuclear weapons are especially fearful does not mean that we haven't trusted "individuals" with comparably dangerous substances. The Wuhan lab/Covid debacle being perhaps the most damaging incident to date (over 200M injured and 4.5M deaths - not counting the economic damage). Again, the focus should be on regulating the behavior and not the thing.

Here Not2Sharp is using a theory of “Covid as escaped bio weapon” to bolster his stance that we can’t trust governments to handle things, so private individuals should have the ability to own these capabilities. It’s a theory yet to be proven, so it doesn’t belong in the argument.

Thankfully, N2S probably has enough trouble with the IKEA assembly instructions that we’re not worried about the next bio weapon coming out of his basement. I think allowing citizens to have atomic bombs and biological weapons is a horrible idea. An easier case would be that no one ever should have them. The devastation they cause is far too great to make them a plausible response option for governments, and I don’t want to die because some idiot’s dog knocked over the Petri dish in his living room.

By comparison, carrying around swords isn’t such a big deal. So what the hell? Swords for everyone!

 

[scdub]

Thankfully, N2S probably has enough trouble with the IKEA assembly instructions that we’re not worried about the next bio weapon coming out of his basement.

I agree with you about civilians possessing WMDs, however calling people dumb only weakens your standing with me and certainly others as well - FYI.
(Edit to add: If this was just a friendly joke, a little would help communicate that…)

 

[DMG]

No, I don't think you understand.
There's no direct deaths linked to Fukushima.
There's 50 deaths linked to Chernobyl.
There's 4000 deaths linked to the 42 ton MIC gas leak in Bhopal
(not sure why we're worried about civilians having this much toxic gas hanging around, but there you have it.)
There's >70,000 deaths linked to Hiroshima.
We're way off course here, but there's no way I could get behind a private citizen owning biological or nuclear weapons.

I also read that the earth is flat, contrails are tools of the government, and Tupac is dead.


A guy trips and falls on his knife- he'll probably live.
A guy accidently shoots himself- well... it's one guy.
A guy accidently blows himself up, and there's a chance his mistake is costing other people.
These three things do not have the same impact and it's impossible to regulate mistakes.
Personally I'm willing to accept the risk that is equivalent to the casualties in an average car accident.

Are you a shill for the nuclear power industry? Your death numbers are far from reality.

 

[The_Iron_Joe]

Are you a shill for the nuclear power industry? Your death numbers are far from reality.

For those too lazy to look into it...

From BBC regarding Chernobyl;

"According to the official, internationally recognised death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl while the UN estimates that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure."

Tricky thing about radiation poisoning... Not everyone dies all at once from it.

IIRC, the disaster at Fukushima resulted in 1 death due to radiation exposure.

 

[EngrSorenson]

Are you a shill for the nuclear power industry? Your death numbers are far from reality.

I got the Chernobyl figure here, which states:

According to the official, internationally recognised death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl while the UN estimates that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure.

So perhaps it's misleading to say that 50 deaths were "linked" to the disaster, I should say 50 deaths were attributed to the initial disaster. I stand corrected. The article goes on to say that:

Even now the Ukrainian government is paying benefits to 36,525 women who are considered to be widows of men who suffered as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

I guess the point of the article is that the death toll attributable to the meltdown isn't possible to really know. So long term effects have to be included.

But then long term effects weren't included in my comparison with the Hiroshima bomb- that's just initial fatalities. We know that radiation has killed more people than the initial blast.

I think my point still stands that an atomic bomb is far more deadly than a nuclear reactor meltdown.

For a better read, I found this article here.

Fukushima currently has one death from radiation and ~600 from evacuation stress, which is considered indirect. Further, it seems that there's very low risk for chronic illness from the incident.

More interesting is the discussion of why the two events have such different long-lasting impacts.

So no- I've no interest in defending the nuclear power plant- it just seems that the two most significant meltdowns are not equivalent to an atom bomb explosion, ergo I don't know why anyone would think we're more safe with citizens owning A-Bombs.

Bring on the swords, however... you've all talked me into bladed weapons of all kinds if I can convince you to not pursue atomic weapon ownership.

 

[Chronovore]

A lot of knife laws are relics of the past. In Virginia carrying any kind of Bowie is illegal. I can only imagine why this came into being a law back in the day. How many drunken brawls did it take for people to say these things are really dangerous or maybe women became really uncomfortable with men carrying giant bowies strapped to their sides setting in the pew next to them at church.

Knives like balisongs and karambits look rather menacing. In reality people trying to use these kind of knives stand a better chance of hurting themselves than anyone else. If they have no training. But you know they look scary.

That's another problem with frivolous or unnecessary laws. They hang around on the books. Some of the more arcane or ridiculous laws might be funny and show up in books or YouTube videos, like a prohibition on killing sasquatches in a particular county. However, some of these could be used by an overly zealous prosecutor, perhaps as add-ons to other charges, and that's not a good thing.

Some of the prohibitions on knives actually have their roots in racism. For instance, look into the laws against switchblades. Coincidentally, some of the early examples of gun control in America have racist roots as well.

 

[Danke42]

Are you a shill for the nuclear power industry? Your death numbers are far from reality.

 

[DocJD]

but it could also be changing organisms to increase our understanding in a beneficial way.

That is the big lie and excuse to bypass laws that specifically forbid increasing the infectiousness and pathogenicity of any organism for humans .

They have taken a virus that did not easily infect humans and made into covid as we know it .

This is exactly the process used to weaponize microorganisms . Illegal , immoral , and a crime against humanity .

 

[EngrSorenson]

That is the big lie and excuse to bypass laws that specifically forbid increasing the infectiousness and pathogenicity of any organism for humans .

They have taken a virus that did not easily infect humans and made into covid as we know it .

This is exactly the process used to weaponize microorganisms . Illegal , immoral , and a crime against humanity .

I know… I know… “you don’t get it man… that’s what the establishment wants you to think, man…”. There’s folks out there that believe Chernobyl was a cover up. I can’t argue with you, because there’s nothing to argue against.

At any rate, this is bordering on a political discussion and shouldn’t be further discussed.

 

[DocJD]

At any rate, this is bordering on a political discussion and shouldn’t be further discussed.

Agreed .

 

[DocJD]

A weapon means any object, device or instrument designed as a weapon or through its use is capable of threatening or producing bodily harm or which may be used to inflict self-injury including, but not limited to: any firearm (whether loaded or unloaded) air guns, pellet guns, BB guns, all knives, blades, clubs, metal knuckles, numchucks, throwing stars, explosives, fireworks, mace and other propellants, stun guns, ammunition, poisons, chains arrows and objects that have been modified to serve as a weapon.

A weapon Definition | Law Insider

Sample Contracts and Business Agreements

www.lawinsider.com

Italics are mine for : "capable of threatening " . That's very broad and encompasses numerous things not normally called weapons .