Also what sort of example are we setting to everyone else. That it's okay to go carrying around knives to protect yourself - if they're only used in defense? That's exactly what police have tried so desperately to campaign against, because it's utterly foolish. There's a TV advert of some youth on a bus that thought like that, he was obviously disarmed and the knife was stabbed into him by his attacker. Now he's paralysed neck down, for defending himself.

Edited February 10, 201015 yr by Moose

 

Harmless gun aficionado or notorious serial killer.

Also what sort of example are we setting to everyone else. That it's okay to go carrying around knives to protect yourself - if they're only used in defense? That's exactly what police have tried so desperately to campaign against, because it's utterly foolish. There's a TV advert of some youth on a bus that thought like that, he was obviously disarmed and the knife was stabbed into him by his attacker. Now he's paralysed neck down, for defending himself.

Yeah, because cops are always there to protect and to serve, and 99 out of 100 times, carrying a weapon will result in the weapon being used against you.

 

Because it was on the telly, right? It must therefore be true.

Is that the Australian bushwacker killer or some such catchy name. Shot a bunch of tourists and city people out hiking.

Is that the Australian bushwacker killer or some such catchy name. Shot a bunch of tourists and city people out hiking.

 

Ivan Milat

Edited February 10, 201015 yr by Hell Kitty

Yeah, because cops are always there to protect and to serve, and 99 out of 100 times, carrying a weapon will result in the weapon being used against you.

 

Because it was on the telly, right? It must therefore be true.

 

It was true, that's the point you muppet.

 

Not all TV is fiction. Maybe in the States.

 

edit: and yeah quite frankly even if the chance was only 1 in a 1000, sod that. I'd rather lose my phone and be able to walk.

Edited February 10, 201015 yr by Moose

It's not like they are asking to carry around a Glock 17.

You can in Texas

They don't have to use the damn knife to defend people. Look at Sukwinder Singh, that fellah who intervened in a street robbery.

It was true, that's the point you muppet.

 

Not all TV is fiction. Maybe in the States.

 

edit: and yeah quite frankly even if the chance was only 1 in a 1000, sod that. I'd rather lose my phone and be able to walk.

I know it's true, I gathered that much from your post. The message they are trying to get across with the ad, though, needn't be.

 

But the point is that when you're being mugged (or, especially when otherwise attacked), you aren't in control at all. So the idea that just giving up everything you're carrying will protect you is as much a mental paper armor as carrying a weapon.

I wouldn't say you are totally out of control when you are being mugged. You certainly don't have the initiative, but ther are a lot of different ways to act, any of which may be appropriate depending on the person assaulting you.

You know in other news a christian working for british airways lost her appeal for not being allowed to openly wear a cross around her neck at work.

You know in other news a christian working for british airways lost her appeal for not being allowed to openly wear a cross around her neck at work.

 

Wearing a crucifix isn't a mandatory aspect of the faith, though. Kind of obvious when you think about it. Would have been a bit morbid before the guy died.

It's not like they are asking to carry around a Glock 17.

You can in Texas

 

Which is one of the more ****ed up American states. And I'm only referring to their Intellectual Property laws, let alone their weapon ownership laws and stance on Creationism as a 'valid' scientific theory!

Democracy in action. Very successful state in that regard.

Heres how I see it: Sikhs are human beings, just like anyone else. They aren't better or worse than any other religion (or non religion) out there and therefore deserve no special privileges, particularly in regards to carrying dangerous weapons around. What makes a Sikh more worthy of being allowed to carry a weapon than a Christian, a Buddhist or a Muslim?

 

Also, there are lots of violent sectarian conflicts within Sikhism, particularly between the various "deras" (Sikh sects with living gurus) and orthodox Sikhs. In India there have been riots, assassination attempts and other conflicts between orthodox Sikhs and the various "deras". These conflicts are often imported by Sikhs in other countries. For example, Rama Nand, one of the leaders of one of these deras was assassinated at a Gurdwara (Sikh temple) in Austria last year:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Nand

 

There are also numerous violent conflicts amongst orthodox Sikhs themselves, mostly to do with certain reform measures that some Gurdwaras have taken. Just look at the results for "gurdwara shooting" and you'll find that these are rather commonplace:

 

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=gurdwara+...mp;fr=yfp-t-701

Most ceremonial blades aren't sharpened enough to be considered as viable weapons. Personally I wouldn't mind if one was carrying a blade in of itself. A weapon is only as dangerous as the intent of the one wielding it.

Do they make intent detectors?

Do they make intent detectors?

Apparently, they do.

 

Very pricey, unstable, and requires constant maintenance. But wear one on your arm and it'll be sure to impress your friends.

Heres how I see it: Sikhs are human beings, just like anyone else. They aren't better or worse than any other religion (or non religion) out there

 

Good point which strangely enough occurred to me last night. I am, after all, arguing that a religion be accorded special positive status. But accepting that precedent it becomes logically inescapable that other religions are suitable for special inferior status. This is of course anti-liberal, and probably illegal. But at the same time, running on a bit further, we odften discuss some religions as inferior. Scientology, Aum Shinrikyo, Heaven's Gate. These all spring to mind.

 

Thoughts?

Heres how I see it: Sikhs are human beings, just like anyone else. They aren't better or worse than any other religion (or non religion) out there

 

Good point which strangely enough occurred to me last night. I am, after all, arguing that a religion be accorded special positive status. But accepting that precedent it becomes logically inescapable that other religions are suitable for special inferior status. This is of course anti-liberal, and probably illegal. But at the same time, running on a bit further, we odften discuss some religions as inferior. Scientology, Aum Shinrikyo, Heaven's Gate. These all spring to mind.

 

Thoughts?

You know most orthodox religions have changed with the times, just compare catholicism now to 13th century's. It seems to me that this particular practice needs to be amended; perhaps by the wooden dagger option. The problem here is between religion and the times.

I see where you are going with the wooden dagger option. However, perhaps we need to return to the notion that the object is for defending others. Perhaps something that was not functionally a dagger, but sprayed marker ink (tagged to the instrument) meaning that the individuals could be easily found by the police? Just a thought.

I see where you are going with the wooden dagger option. However, perhaps we need to return to the notion that the object is for defending others. Perhaps something that was not functionally a dagger, but sprayed marker ink (tagged to the instrument) meaning that the individuals could be easily found by the police? Just a thought.

If what I know of the Sikh is right, they do training with weapons. So it's not a stretch to say that a wooden dagger is an effective weapon on their hand while still being a non-lethal mean of defense. It seems to me that dagger is worn less because functionality and more because of symbolism.

I would need to check the legislation surrounding this case before making a definite conclusion, since its not clear to me what their legislation on carrying weapons and what it constitutes a weapon.

I see where you are going with the wooden dagger option. However, perhaps we need to return to the notion that the object is for defending others. Perhaps something that was not functionally a dagger, but sprayed marker ink (tagged to the instrument) meaning that the individuals could be easily found by the police? Just a thought.

If what I know of the Sikh is right, they do training with weapons. So it's not a stretch to say that a wooden dagger is an effective weapon on their hand while still being a non-lethal mean of defense. It seems to me that dagger is worn less because functionality and more because of symbolism.

I would need to check the legislation surrounding this case before making a definite conclusion, since its not clear to me what their legislation on carrying weapons and what it constitutes a weapon.

 

I totally follow you on the symbolism thing, but if it was me I'd want it to also be at least technically capable of doing something. I mean a stick of celery could be a symbolic weapon, but it would lack a certain grace.

I mean a stick of celery could be a symbolic weapon, but it would lack a certain grace.

 

Maybe not a weapon, but a stick of celery could look graceful on a person like Doctor Who.

 

Only a timelord can make a fashion statement with a veggie.