You clearly haven’t seen the state of my hedges.
4 Likes
You might want go back to the link and scroll down a little farther.
"A call from the British Medical Journal was published several years ago, arguing that many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon, according to the BBC.
Researchers consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed."
Again, this is NOT satire.
That was actually one of the reasons it was discontinued, as well as the obvious proliferation/security issues. Eric Schlosser’s (Command and Control) covers this in the history of nuclear accidents and close calls.
Actually, We have the same happening here on Rio de Janeiro. After a knife attack spree, is now unlawful carry “armas brancas”, which include not only knives and swords, but scissors, letter openers and nail clipping tools. Essentially, any tool that can be used as “melee cutting weapon”.
A very, very, VERY bad worded law.
1 Like
On the other side, they have much less chance to escape if YOU are armed.
That simple, if you criminalize gun possession, only criminals will have guns.
Sure we can pull out a whole trove of funny off topic correlations.
What’s really surprising to me is gun fatalities have decreased as more guns become available. I would have expected the opposite.
See chapter four of freakanomics. It is neither off topic, funny, or irrelevant. I also linked to an introduction to the Hypothesis.
Here is the link again.
1 Like
right, I was referring to IE vs Murder, music vs oil, and Temp vs Pirates
And those were silly examples of well known, silly logical fallacies.
Similar to the logical fallacy that more guns make us safer.
1 Like
but what about the logical fallacy that more guns make us less safe?
You are 34 to 78 times more likely to die from a self inflicted gunshot than stop or survive a violent crime.
This has been debated to death. Guns make you less safe by an order of magnitude. That is not a fallacy.
2 Likes
and 20 times more likely to die of heart disease while you contemplate your next reply.
I eat sausage, I drink scotch, I shoot guns, and I drive too fast.
The common thread between these is I recognize these things are dangerous, and I appreciate that the gubmimt has regulations on transfat, alcohol, guns, and speed limits.
So like a good Engineer, don’t derail this train.
2 Likes
Criminal home invasion, typically involving physical abuse of homeowners, has been on the rise in my neighborhood for quite some time now. The cops never get there until too late.
The surest protection against crime is availability of good jobs in your area.
8 Likes
9 Likes
Revealing of bias.
One might plausibly argue “mostly useless”. But it is obviously not “entirely useless”.
Don’t think of it as a coordinated assault. Think of it as helping to guarantee the possibility of guerrilla warfare in the event of a tyrannical government occupying parts of US territory (occupation required deploying infantry, which is riskier if there’s guns hidden around the place).
So ignore any study put out by a biased source, even if the study itself doesn’t have any obvious statistical or methodological flaws (I assume you would have mentioned these if you knew about them)?
The solution to a flawed study is more and better studies, not a blanket accusation of bias against the source.
1 Like
I think background lead contamination has more legs as a theory than the abortion rate thingy.
3 Likes
I can’t seem to remember the last time when some psycho bludgeoned dozens of people to death with a single rock.
3 Likes
