ThinkGeek Umbrella Brings Police to College Dorm

[blurr91]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]So you are saying that the students that panicked and called the police should have instead been armed, because putting guns in the hands of people who are already freaked out is a good idea. Right. What if they decided to just blow the guy away then realise it was an umbrella when it was too late.No amount of debate will ever convince me that it is right to encourage carrying firearms in school.You realise you just compared the USA to Iraq for being full of guns and dangerous.[/citation]

First I have to ask you where you are from. It's very obvious you are not from the states. You don't have the gun culture nor the understanding of it.

Is it possible, that these students who panicked (in this case or in the VT's case) did so because they knew there's nothing they could do if faced with an armed attacker?

It is an entirely different feel when you are armed. You are less afraid of extraordinary situations, more aware of your surroundings, and feel a sense of responsibility both to yourself and to those around you.

Let's say I'm armed with a pistol. I see a guy in the parking lot with what appears to be a katana. Would I panic and call the cops? Or would I pay attention to this man, assess the situation, and maybe call the cops later if the vibes are not right?

As for the Iraq comparison, would you say Iraq is just like the US in every single respect?

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Possible false causality: Would it be any different in Iraq were there no guns? Last time I checked, a lot of the violence is coming from IEDs... Same goes for Israel, which actualy has fairly low domestic violence because of the pervasiveness of guns. People wanting to cause harm have resorted to IEDs and the like to cause harm, and they seem to ultimately cause less than a single guy with a gun did in VT because there was nobody else with a gun around to stop him...Not saying you are wrong, but comparing Iraq and the US in terms of violence based on gun ownership is not an argument for causality... Particularly in terms of domestic violence.[/citation]
I'm not arguing causality, Switzerland was mentioned earlier and I have spent quite some time there. The society is already peaceful and the few murders that do happen are mostly caused by visitors from neighbouring countries - predominantly Italy - so having guns everywhere isn't going to affect their outlook on life. However in Iraq there is a general low value attributed to human life.
So when a society has become so desensitized to violence is it really a good idea to have lots of weapons around?
Remove all guns from the USA and do you think crime rates will decrease or increase, maybe, they will stay the same for certain crimes. Muggings for example, but instead of people being shot they will be stabbed instead. But things like holding up jeweley store or a bank, not as easy when all you have is a kitchen knife. High school massacres will be a thing of the past, the nut-job may get as far as stabbing 1 or 2 people and the big jock will take down the guy by smashing his head in with a fire extinguisher.

Banning guns in the US is never going to happen, but I reckon they should do what Chris Rock said, make ammo so expensive you would think twice about it.
http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

 

[blurr91]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Banning guns in the US is never going to happen, but I reckon they should do what Chris Rock said, make ammo so expensive you would think twice about it.http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II[/citation]

That will not survive a constitutional challenge. The 2nd Amendment never mentioned the word "guns." Instead it used the word "arms." Ammunition is part of "arms."

Remember, the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the 1st. Once the 2nd falls, the 1st will follow.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]That will not survive a constitutional challenge. The 2nd Amendment never mentioned the word "guns." Instead it used the word "arms." Ammunition is part of "arms."Remember, the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the 1st. Once the 2nd falls, the 1st will follow.[/citation]
Well, seeing as making a bullet $5000 isn't banning it either I don't see what the point of that was. The right to bear arms, if you can afford it!

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Well, seeing as making a bullet $5000 isn't banning it either I don't see what the point of that was. The right to bear arms, if you can afford it![/citation]
I'm pretty sure that 'the right to bear arms' also covers placing insanely large taxes on arms so as to make them virtually impossible to obtain.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]I'm pretty sure that 'the right to bear arms' also covers placing insanely large taxes on arms so as to make them virtually impossible to obtain.[/citation]
No it doesn't, you just made that up to sound cool

 

[eddieroolz]

The police were vigilant already, so the overreaction is understandable.

I want that umbrella though, it looks awesome!

 

[bsbsbsbs]

There was a sword fight outside my local Maccas the other night! Nothing like the sound of sword swish.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Well, seeing as making a bullet $5000 isn't banning it either I don't see what the point of that was. The right to bear arms, if you can afford it![/citation]

Nice way to fuel a violent ammunition black market!

 

[jellico]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]That arguement is as ridiculous as it gets.You seriously think that having a population with a few small arms is going to beat a Government controlled military with stealth bombers, tactical nukes, spy satellites and the NSA listening in on every phone call and email whilst the "resistance" is trying to get organised?The domestic gun industry is worth billions in sales, taxes and jobs and that is the reason the archaic gun laws haven't been reviewed, just because it is in the constitution doesn't mean new amendments can't be added."It's the law" is an excuse, laws are written and repealed every day, blaming the law is just obfuscating responsibility.[/citation]
I've read several of your posts, and it has become painfully obvious that your are responding emotionally and without a firm grasp of the subject matter.

The poster that you were responding to is correct. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to insure that the people can dismantle a tyrannical government. Your counter-argument is pure sophistry. First of all, the NSA does not have the capability to monitor every phone call and email. This assessment comes from the Director of Information Security, Robert Hutchinson, at Sandia National Labs. Second, weapons of mass destruction are irrelavent as our government would ever use them against our own people on our own soil. Even if we had leaders who would consider it, the members of the military would not carry out such orders... which brings me to my next point; third, having served in the military myself, I know for a fact that a significant percentage of military personnel would REFUSE to carry out actions American citizens, especially on our own soil (in fact, many of them would go AWOL to join the resistance). Finally, if you think "a few small arms" wouldn't mean much against the might of the technologically advanced military, then consider this: a few thousand terrorists (referred to euphemistically as "insurgents"), armed with small arms and improvised explosives, caused a hell of lot of trouble in a country of 30 million people; perhaps you've heard of it, IRAQ. Now, what do you think 100,000,000 pissed off Americans armed with small arms and improved explosives could do?

If you think gun bans would be so effective at diminishing crime, then why aren't Chicago, New York, and Washington DC crime free zones?

As for your notion about ridiculously high taxes on ammunitions, need I point out that MANY private citizens can reload/manufacture ammunition in their own homes. Oh, don't get me wrong... it would definitely raise the price, but it would also have unintended consequences. It would create a huge black market. Middle class and upper class people would still be able to obtain ammunition. Criminals, who by definition don't obey laws, would also continue to be well armed and have plenty of ammo. The ones who would be disarmed are the lower class people. But, perhaps, that isn't an unintended consequence after all.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]If you think gun bans would be so effective at diminishing crime, then why aren't Chicago, New York, and Washington DC crime free zones?[/citation]

Because criminals import them from areas where guns are legal and easy to obtain (this has been proven). What would happen if there were a higher burden on obtaining guns across the entire US? No one knows for sure, but the argument that it would not reduce crime because small areas don't show a reduction when under a ban is pointless.

 

[jellico]

[citation][nom]joebob2000[/nom]Because criminals import them from areas where guns are legal and easy to obtain (this has been proven). What would happen if there were a higher burden on obtaining guns across the entire US? No one knows for sure, but the argument that it would not reduce crime because small areas don't show a reduction when under a ban is pointless.[/citation]
Man has been finding efficient ways to kill one another since before recorded history... and that ain't about to change. That idea that, a) you can effectively rid a country this large and this open of guns, and b) that simply removing a particular tool will prevent anti-social people from victimizing other is pure folly.

I think one of the best narrations I've ever heard on this matter is the prologue of the game series, Fallout:

War. War never changes. Since the dawn of humankind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything from God, to justice, to simple psychotic rage. In the year 2077, after millennia of armed conflict, the destructive nature of man could sustain itself no longer. The world was plunged into an abyss of nuclear fire and radiation. But it was not, as some had predicted, the end of the world. Instead, the apocalypse was simply the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history. For man had succeded in destroying the world; but war... war never changes.

 

[doomsdaydave11]

Having a umbrella that looks like a katana is fucking stupid. It's a cool novelty item to have at home, but not on college campus. Think, people.

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]doomsdaydave11[/nom]Having a umbrella that looks like a katana is fucking stupid. It's a cool novelty item to have at home, but not on college campus. Think, people.[/citation]
I personally think that he came out ahead here. Nothing bad happened and he came out of it with an awesome story and little bit of internet fame (which is the whole point of life right?).

 

[Guest]

That is only an umbrella with a sword handle. You can actually get those. http/caneswords.net/classic_black_cane_sword.htm

I don't know if this will work, but I will try to post a link :
umbrella sword