Invention begs questions of Second Amendment.
A new invention by a couple of dads in Boston should have this country up in arms, so to speak, about the Second Amendment. According to a local news report, these fathers have invented a bulletproof backpack.…
Article comments
76 - Dustin
Response to #68.
Thanks Dr Dreadful. Yes it truly is a classic. No truer words have ever been said - it makes patriotic blood pump through my veins, just by saying them. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they created the bill of rights. As you know, a government who fears armed citizens is truly a government to be feared. I have no problem with the government restricting guns from criminals. It's outright bans on gun ownership/bearing by law abiding US citizens that I don't like. And don't tell me that there isn't any place in the US that does that. Look at DC, New York, and other cities like that where only the thugs have handguns. Thugs prefer it that way as it makes them feel safer to work their craft. The Brady folks & anti-gun groups like them won't rest until all guns have been taken away from the law abiding citizens. I won't rest until all the non-constitutional gun bans are done away with. Who is the government of DC & New York to tell a woman that she can't carry a handgun to protect herself from rape? Don't they know what the word infringe means? What happened to free choice? It works with abortion, why not gun ownership?
77 - Ray Ellis
Are you pro-choice, Dustin? And how do you feel about smoking bans in public places? And finally, who determines what constitutes a "criminal" when restricting gun ownership?
78 - Dr Dreadful
Look at the UK - since the gun ban was introduced violent crime has increased by more than 40%.
I do look at the UK, frequently, because I'm from it. A word of caution about this commonly-used pro-gun talking point. While I agree with you that the British handgun ban - introduced in a piece of knee-jerk legislation after the Dunblane school massacre - has done nothing to reduce or combat gun-related crime (the 40% increase refers to gun-related crime, not general violent crime as you state - although that also has risen dramatically in recent years), correlation in this case does not equal causation.
Britain has never had a high instance of private gun ownership. So, criminals have never really had to worry about whether their victims are armed, because 999 times out of 1000 they aren't/weren't.
The reasons for the rise in violent and gun-related crime have their roots in a broad range of complex social issues, and we're still trying to figure them all out so that we can effectively do something about the problem.
79 - Dustin
Ray Ellis: - I'm pro choice on abortion as long as it isn't a late term abortion - I can't imagine someone wanting to shred up an alive baby that is already finished developing into a child - at that point I believe the child already has its own right to life. Why is a mother who dumps her baby in a dumpster a criminal, while a doctor can abort the same baby a day earlier & call it abortion? I personally don't like smoke, but I'm for free choice of business owners to decide on their own smoking policy & the free choice of their customers to choose to patronize the place or not. A "criminal" as defined by current gun laws is any convicted felon, as they loose many rights such as the right to vote & the right to keep & bear arms. Since Felon's already are not able to buy guns by any legal means, there is no point in additional gun restrictions. The criminals break the law when they buy the guns on the black market, just like they break the law when they commit violent crime. We should lock up violent criminals & throw away the key.
80 - Dustin
Response to #78
Thanks Dr Dreadful, very well said. I too agree that statistical correlation does not always equal causation. That is very true. With something like crime how can we look at any one thing & say it caused all the increase or decrease in that area. It would be ridiculous. There could be thousands of variables. The only true way to find out would be to have a test area & a control area where all the other variables are held constant except for the variable being tested. For example, if we could have two UK's, one where a handgun ban was introduced, and a 2nd where it was not, but all other variables were held equal. Then we would finally know the answer to the age old question - do gun bans help reduce crime. Unfortunately such a test environment is all but impossible to create, so all we can do is look at what changed at the same time the gun ban was introduced, and say that one or a combination of those things caused the increase in violence.
The one thing I do know to be true is, that crime has never decreased in an area where gun bans were introduced. So banning so called "assault rifles" (a term redefined by the now expired Clinton gun ban to mean any normal semi automatic rifle that has 2 or more "evil looking" features defined in the ban, such as being black & having a pistol grip) did not help. Banning handguns in the UK, Washington DC, New York, Australia, etc, did not help. Such laws only make it more difficult for law abiding victims to defend themselves. In all cases gun bans have had a correlation of a rapid spike in violent crime & gun related crime, which makes the correlation hard to ignore, but as you said, it is not conclusive.
81 - Dustin
oops - correction to #80. I made an error when I said "assault rifle" - I should have said "assault weapon." An "assault rifle" is a well defined term that is defined as any select fire fully automatic rifle such as an M-16 or AK47. The "assault weapon" term was redefined in the Clinton ban to cause confusion & make people think that it was a ban on "assault rifle's" which are already highly regulated & restricted. It is virtually impossible to get a license to own an assault rifle, but since the ban on "assault weapons" has expired I can now once again buy an "evil looking" semi-automatic black rifle with an evil pistol grip such as an AR-15.
82 - Dr Dreadful
Dustin, thanks for your well-worded response: you're turning out to be a much more reasonable fellow than I thought you were when you came out with the old "cold dead hands" line!
I do, however, think you missed the point of my caution, which was that, in the case of the UK, your premise was flawed. I can't speak for New York or DC - I'm sure your figures are sound. As for Australia, if memory serves me STM has addressed the ban there on other threads where the gun issue has been discussed. You might be interested to look his comments up, if you have the time and patience.
Again, all I'm saying is that gun crime in the UK did not increase simply because guns were banned.
83 - Dustin
Thanks Dr Dreadful. I'll concede that gun crime in the UK did not necessarily increase only because guns were banned. It is probably a number of factors. I do personally believe the gun ban was probably a big factor, but it can't be proven so I'll agree to disagree.
I truly enjoy discussing political issues with folks like yourself who are able to have an open minded discussion without making it personal. I hope you have a nice weekend, and if you get a chance, go to your local range & do some target shooting. You may find it is a sport that you can really enjoy. I plan to do some target shooting myself this weekend. :)
84 - Dr Dreadful
I do enjoy shooting. I have a friend who's a retired police lieutenant (I live in the US, by the way) and now trains IRS security guards part-time at the local range. I sat in on one of his classes once, got to watch the guards practice and then had a go myself. He keeps saying we ought to go and shoot off a few rounds, but we never seem to get around [no pun intended] to it.
Although I enjoy it, I would be very uncomfortable having a gun in the house. Probably because I don't come from a gun culture.
85 - Dustin
I'm glad to hear that you enjoy target shooting too. I can understand your decision to not want to keep a gun in your home, I feel everyone should have a choice, and would never want to force anyone to have a gun who does not want one. Sounds like your friend is a good guy - if he lived in Arizona I'd even ask who it was so that I could look into his class. I really enjoy training as there is always something new to learn.
86 - A Sort-Of Concerned Citizen
You should all be ashamed of the fact that the United States has the highest rate of homicide - gun or otherwise - in the western world
The US population also dwarves that of other countries. On a proportional level, does the US still have such a higher level of homicide?
87 - Joe
A UK company has for sale a KNIFE proof school uniform, edged weapon violence is an epidemic in Europe.
88 - STM
Joe: "edged weapon violence is an epidemic in Europe."
Bollocks.
And in answer to a sort of concerned citizen: Yes, the rate is proportional to population. The US has by far and away the highest rate, especially in gun related deaths - it is way, way above the nearest western country (about three times higher), which I believe is New Zealand.
The rate puts it on a par with some of the world's most lawless third-world countries.
89 - STM
Dustin, hand guns were always difficult to own in Australia if they weren't used for sports shooting. It was always different to the US, because you really had to go through a battery of police checks.
Rifles were a different story. I have had guns in my house, and have been around guns and used them in the country having grown up in Australia, where they are still common out in the country or up in the bush.
We never considered them as a means of protection, because we have never been as fearful as you guys in relation to crime. That's the big difference: Aussies never really had guns as protection - except from some wild animals.
So when the government banned some semi-automatic weapons and made it harder for people to buy guns, it wasn't that much of an issue in the cities. Most of us welcomed it. And country people can still quite easily get licences for them.
I was in a gun shop recently buying something for a mate, and while I was there (15 minutes), two ex-Army WWII vintage Lee-Enfield .303 rifles and a German-built Mauser, all in full working order, changed hands, so it's not how most Americans think it is. Getting gun licences is harder in town, but you can still get 'em and there are still plenty of them around.
The new laws were designed to stop lunatics getting hold of high-powered semi-autos, and since the ban - in 10 years, touch wood, there hasn't been a mass shooting of the Port Arthur/VT kind here. That, I think, is where the idea should head in the US - not in a total ban.
Crims from organised crime gangs in Melbourne are still shooting the shit out of each other, mind you, but there are different feelings about that - some even regard that as a community service. I don't because people can get caught in the crossfire, but so far they haven't. Mostly, the shootings have been in the safety of the crims' own homes and cars (or each other's).
90 - Alexis
Besides a bullet-proof backback to protect school children, parents should consider issuing their kids the bottom portion of a kitchen pressure cooker, capable of withstanding most bullets, bombs and fists, as a protective helmet. Seriously, this would be a great idea in that each pressure cooker pot comes with an attached handle and hook eye that can be used to hang the device on the sides of their desks for instant use, or easily attached to a student's belt. In an emergency, one can use the pot as a weapon to fend off attackers or as a cooking vessel in event of earthquakes and natural disasters. A frying-pan may be used for protection for the student's backside, not only against bullets, but swats from the principal's paddle when they are tardy to class.
91 - Dustin
Thanks for your comments STM. I would venture to guess that at least 51% of Australian politicians probably agree with you or the new gun restrictions probably would not have been able to take place.
Some interesting info that you may not be aware of however is that although more than 640,000 registered guns made illegal by the new laws were confiscated from law abiding Australians & destroyed when the new restrictions went into effect, the criminals still have their illegal guns because they don't ever bother to register them. Australians are not allowed to have the guns that they are still allowed to own (with permit) ready for self defense - they have to keep their gun locked up someplace separate from the ammunition, although criminals can break into a home & reach the homeowner in seconds with a perfectly functional gun. Since the new restrictions in Australia went into effect armed robberies are up 69%, assault with guns up 28%, gun murders up 19%, home invasions up 21%. If taking away some of the rights of law abiding Australians helped reduce crime, than perhaps there would be little to disagree with. However, in my opinion the results simply don't justify the means, especially when the results are so overtly negative.
Australia is not unusual in this result. Every single country & city that has done similar things has had the same type of negative result. Criminals really do prefer unarmed victims - they are emboldened when they know that they are safe from their victims. In the US criminals are more afraid of running into an armed homeowner than the Police (at least in the areas where guns are not banned), which is the way it should be. If we were to remove that deterrent, we would most likely have a massive increase as well, just like we have seen in local areas like DC & other cities that have instituted local gun bans.
I concede that the 100% of the result can't be tied exclusively to the new gun laws, as there could be other variables in the mix. I just propose that the results make it look like no gun ban that I have ever been aware of has ever had the intended result of reducing crime. The only result I have ever seen is law abiding citizens loosing some of their guns & rights, and the criminals taking advantage of newly disarmed victims. Criminals break the law by definition, they laugh at gun laws & are in full support of them.
I saw a really nice DC gun rights poster the other day that states the situation nicely. It showed a woman holding a gun aimed at a would-be rapist. The caption said something to the effect of "This rapist won't have to worry about disarming this would-be victim, because the politicians will do it for him." I'm for freedom of choice for law abiding citizens - I choose to be armed, and I'm fine with the fact that many choose not to be. I hope I never need my gun for anything other than target shooting, just like I hope I never need my fire extinguisher, fire alarm, or homeowners insurance. I hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. I'm not afraid or paranoid, I'm simply prepared.
92 - Tracy
I think this is a great idea, there have been 3 school shootings in the last three weeks. This world is getting crazy, why not give have something to help.