Machetes...Weapon of Choice in Boston.

[Fescue4u]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/08/16/city_gangs_turning_to_machetes_police_say/

"It seems to be that machetes are the weapon of choice," said Detective Brian Kyes, spokesman for the Chelsea police. "In the past couple of years, we've confiscated at least 50 machetes that have been used in crimes in the city."

Amazing how criminals have SO MANY "weapons of Choice"

[skippythwndrdog]

1. Ain't it a whoopin'?

What's next? I don't want to give the darlings any ideas, but what happens when they discover what they can do with a little gasoline, diswashing liquid, a bottle and a rag or tampon?

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. You forgot the polystyrene pellets

But other than that, you were right on target.

[skippythwndrdog]

15. My eror of omission. Oops. n/t

[TX-RAT]

21. Question?

Why the polystyrene

[Cronus Protagonist]

40. Molotov Cocktail

Polystyrene pellets make it work like napalm. The polystyrene keeps the flames burning longer, and it's very sticky when melted, therefore more effective.

Personally, though, I wouldn't recommend anyone try it. Too dangerous for the carrier, perhaps more dangerous for them and their friends than the intended target.

SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[-..__...]

41. Thickens the fuel mixture and makes it stick better.

Poor mans napalm. Other recipes call for using flaked "Ivory Snow".



Yes, some will criticize me for even knowing this, but if the question ever comes up on "Jeopardy", at least you'll know the answer.

"I'll take "Gunshow Nazis" for a $1,000", Alex.

[iverglas]

17. okay, I give up

I don't want to give the darlings any ideas, but what happens when they discover what they can do with a little gasoline, diswashing liquid, a bottle and a rag or tampon?

You stuff the tampon up the nose of the individual you wish to eliminate, you pour gasoline over his/her head, and then you light the tampon fuse hanging out of his/her nostril?

And s/he stands still while you do this? Are all your friends this stupid?

Or do you bring along a couple of buddies to hold him/her down while you complete the operation? And if so, could the three of you not really have figured out that a couple of boots to the head would have been a lot easier and cheaper -- and involved less risk of catching on fire?

What a strange world you seem to live in.

[skippythwndrdog]

20. The act isn't working.

For the benefit of those who are less informed; Google Molotov Cocktail.

[MrBenchley]

22. Uh, skippy.....

Google "joke" sometime...

[skippythwndrdog]

25. I took your advice. I googled joke and got this:

[iverglas]

23. Oh!

For the benefit of those who are less informed; Google Molotov Cocktail.

Now google "situations in which a firearm has been used to facilitate the commission of a crime or to cause injury or death to a human being in which a Molotov cocktail would have accomplished the purpose with sufficiently similar efficiency and efffectiveness, and without effects the nature of which would render it unacceptable to the user as a substitute for a firearm".

At the moment, it would seem to me that the ingredients of a Molotov cocktail are much more readily accessible to virtually everyone than are firearms and ammunition --

- orders of magnitude cheaper
- can be purchased by anyone regardless of age or criminal record
- can be purchased without attracting attention, and carried around undetected (unless and until assembled, anyway) without fear of prosecution

... and there also aren't any automatic prison sentences associated with using them, for those criminals who tend to consider such things before getting up to no good. And hey, I'll bet it's a lot harder to trace them.

And yet, no one seems to use them for the nefarious purposes for which firearms are commonly used.

I wonder why ...


(omission corrected)

[skippythwndrdog]

32. You're abosolutely correct!

And yet, no one seems to use them for the nefarious purposes for which firearms are commonly used.

I have yet to see the Molotov Cocktail line at my local shooting range. I've also never seen anyone hunt or shoot skeet, trap, or sporting clays with them.

As for home defense with one; I suppose it would work if one were desperately in need of the insurance settlement; provided, of course, that the homeowner could successfully convince the insurance agent that the intruder threw the cocktail.

In short:
http://tinypic.com/2imue

[iverglas]

34. have you consulted a dictionary lately?

You might want to look up "nefarious".

Perhaps you thought that *I* didn't know what it meant, and was referring to target shooting when I said "the nefarious purposes for which firearms are commonly used". Oddly, you would have been wrong.

Perhaps you need to get out your thinking cap, and think to yourself:
Molotov cocktails ARE NOT "commonly used" for the nefarious purposes in question
-- but firearms ARE "commonly used" for the nefarious purposes in question.

There are nefarious purposes for which firearms are commonly used -- and for which Molotov cocktails, high-heeled shoes, staplers, soft-shelled crabs, and a really large number of other items are not commonly used.

As in (to make up some numbers from whole cloth):

homicides in which firearms were used: 12,000
homicides in which Molotov cocktails were used: 10
homicides in which high-heeled shoes were used: 2

robberies in which firearms were used: 20,000
robberies in which Molotov cocktails were used: 2
robberies in which soft-shelled crabs were used: 0

Getting it yet? How about if I stand over here?

I'm about to go home and sit in front of the teevee for tonight's dose of Big Brother. Maybe you'll get it then.

[skippythwndrdog]

35. Want to borrow my OED?

According to your anti pals, the mere ownership of any firearm is a nefarious act.

Try again.

[iverglas]

46. really

According to your anti pals, the mere ownership of any firearm is a nefarious act.

It's such a shame that you can't name one.

I mean, it would hardly be any form of personal attack if you were to NAME AND QUOTE SOMEONE who had said said such a thing, would it?

So I suppose there's some other reason why you don't do it ...

[-..__...]

42. "Strange"....

or informed?

Really now? You need to get out more often.

[iverglas]

48. will you give a guided tour?

"Strange".... or informed?
Really now? You need to get out more often.

Can you provide me with a map showing where I need to go in order to see people committing hold-ups and homicides by means of Molotov cocktail?

Perhaps a walking tour of the sites in some U.S. locality where famous, or even obscure, Molotov cocktail hold-ups and homicides have taken place? I'm eager to get to know this world I'm hearing about.

Heck, throw in hammers while you're at it, and maybe I won't have to walk for 40 days and 40 nights to get from one of those sites to another.

[Vladimir]

3. What do you think is easier,

killing someone with a machete or killing someone with a gun?

[slackmaster]

6. I'd find it very difficult to kill a person with either weapon

The mechanical component of the act of killing is not a significant component of what keeps me from killing people. I don't kill people because killing is wrong; it's justified only in very rare circumstances.

[Vladimir]

8. Yes but assume you were willing to kill

which is easier?

[slackmaster]

9. A gun, of course

Now let's go back to reality and deal with the fact that I'm not willing to kill except in extraordinary circumstances:

- I'm not going to kill anyone unless they need to be killed, so it doesn't matter what weapons I own, and

- In the unlikely event I'm ever faced with the need to kill someone, I'd rather have a gun than a machete.

[Vladimir]

10. Thank you

"In the unlikely event I'm ever faced with the need to kill someone, I'd rather have a gun than a machete"

Lets turn this around. In the unlikely event that you were faced with someone trying to kill you, would you rather they had a:

a) gun
b) machete
c) typewriter

[slackmaster]

11. None of the above, of course

If you can think of a way to keep people who are inclined to kill without justification from having guns without preventing good people from having them, let us know.

I say start by enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968, i.e. arrest and prosecute every one of the hundreds of thousands of people who fail the NICS check each year. Right now the prosecution rate is around 1%.

[Vladimir]

12. If you can find a way

of telling a good person from a bad person or a good person who may become bad one day, let me know.

Oh and I agree 100% with the GCA/NICS business - its more than a little scandalous that this isn't done.

[slackmaster]

13. We have to assume people are good until they prove otherwise

I'm optimistic that an overwhelming majority of people are good.

It's pretty clear that most heinous violent crimes are committed by people who have already been in trouble for committing violent crimes.

Enforcing the GCA would go a long way toward addressing the problem.

[MrBenchley]

16. That IS hilarious....

Remember, we had our "pro gun democrats" on here claiming that they HAD to skulk to church clutching a concealed weapon....

[happyslug]

27. And if they not guilty?

Remember you can fail a background tests for many reasons other than being prohibited from owning a weapon. For example your name may be on the list in error, you may have been confused within someone else and your name instead of the real criminal was put on the list.

Other possible errors:
1. You were pardoned but your name did not make the list.
2. Your conviction was reversed, but no one removed you from the list.
3. You were wanted for a crime, but than it was found someone else did it (in this case it is even possible you did not even KNOW you were on a list) and your name was NOT removed from the list.
4. The consent PFA you agreed to had expired but no one took your name off the list.
5. On the list for a Felony EXEMPTED from the list (Violations of Medical regulations, Security regulations etc that are felonies but expressly excluded from felons that deny someone the right to buy a gun).
6. On the list for a Misdemeanor or summary offense not a Felony (Only felonies prevent someone from owning a firearm).


The above errors seems to be the reason the vast majority of people are denied weapons when they use the Instant check system NOT that it is illegal for them to buy a gun.

[Vladimir]

29. Presumably these facts

would come out during the criminal proceedings. It does seem silly to me that one can fail a background check and not be persecuted. There is then no incentive for criminals not to try, and if the system is as bad as you say in terms of people wrongly on the list, one must assume it is as bad in the other direction...

[goju]

31. NICS is worthless

At least from my perspective, I cant see any real benefit. Criminals might test the system and fail, but it wont prevent them for getting ahold of a gun. All NICS does is hassle people who have a "blip" on their record.

Were they to prosecute those who failed the check, it probably wouldnt warrant any serious penalty anyway, or would it? Either way, word would spread amongst criminals and the NICS would become nothing more than a hassle for law abiding citizens, as it mostly is now.

[Vladimir]

37. Well if word did spread

then presumably criminals would no longer shop at outlets that did background checks. So their options to get a gun would be reduced. Ergo, fewer of them would be getting guns.

[slackmaster]

38. Penalty for making false statement on BATF 4473 up to 5 years

Federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison.

[goju]

51. Hmmm

Any idea how many of those who have been prosecuted have received the full sentence? That does sound like an appropriate penatly.

Im one of those with a minor offense from a few years ago. No jail time, just a fine and unsupervised probation yet I still get delayed on every application. Its irritating and serves no purpose.

[iverglas]

18. reality

Now let's go back to reality and deal with the fact that I'm not willing to kill except in extraordinary circumstances: ...

What's the reality you inhabit that persuaded you that the question:

What do you think is easier, killing someone with a machete or killing someone with a gun?

... was about you?

[slackmaster]

39. Give me a break iverglas

Must you always nit-pick so?

How about if I rephrase it as "Now let's go back to reality and deal with the fact that normal people are not willing to kill except in extraordinary circumstances..."

Would that make you happy?

[iverglas]

47. nah

How about if I rephrase it as "Now let's go back to reality and deal with the fact that normal people are not willing to kill except in extraordinary circumstances..."

Defining a problem out of existence really doesn't make the problem go away, does it?

And do you imagine that *this* might have been my point?

Your response is only a response if what it was responding to was something that related to normal people and only normal people.

Normal people don't go around shooting people. Okey dokey then.

But heck -- SOMEBODY sure does.

So why would we be talking about normal people, and why would you imagine/pretend that we are?

[skippythwndrdog]

56. As you have reminded me:

Du is an open message board. Any post is open to a reply from anyone.

It's a goose and gander thing.

[iverglas]

57. how unfortunate for you ...

Du is an open message board. Any post is open to a reply from anyone.

... that your contribution has nothing to do with the subject that was at hand -- which was the fact that someone had chosen to address a question ABOUT someone else / the world in general as if it were ABOUT him/her exclusively, not to address a question TO someone else / the world in general as if it were TO him/her -- although the latter would indeed have been equally improper if it were entirely obvious that the question DID NOT RELATE to him/her.

Really, in any event, the question was quite straightforward:

What do you think is easier,
killing someone with a machete or killing someone with a gun?

You see? And you see how

I'd find it very difficult to kill a person with either weapon

just ISN'T AN ANSWER?

Anybody's free to answer the question indeed. If only someone had answered it, eh?

Shall I go stand over there and repeat the question? It's an open-book test; go ahead and read the materials before answering ...

[MrBenchley]

4. Yeah, it is...

All the more reason why these murderous imbeciles should be prevented from walking into a gun store and buying an assault weapon....

[billbuckhead]

5. But I thought criminals could ALWAYS get guns

Another myth about gun control proved wrong by reality.

[MrSandman]

7. And if guns are unavailable...

Criminals will not substitute other weapons.

Another myth about gun control refuted.

[Baclava]

14. And I once had a friend killed with a 2x4...

...thus, we should immediately close the home improvement store loophole...how dare these criminals have access to these deadly weapons - why, anyone can walk in and buy one....even children!

[enfield collector]

19. chimpy allowing more logging will flood the streets

with assualt studs

[iverglas]

24. that's some myth ya got there

And if guns are unavailable...
Criminals will not substitute other weapons.
Another myth about gun control refuted.

Where'd ya find it, in the NRA debating manual?

The key word, of course, is "substitute".

As I was just asking skippythewhatsit, I think it was: is a Molotov cocktail a "substitute" for a handgun?

Are liver and onions a substitute for a popsicle? Maybe if you're really, really hungry. Not if what you're wanting to do is soothe the finger you just burned on the stove.


Here's an idea.

How about we all go over to "guns in the news" and identify the situations in which a Molotov cocktail could have been substituted for a firearm, with the same likely effect, at the same risk to the user, and without effects not intended or desired by the user.

Or a machete, or a length of rope, or the jawbone of an ass ...

[LibLabUK]

26. Well that explains that!

"or the jawbone of an ass ..."

I always wondered how some people seemed to be able to talk out of their bums... they have jawbones down there! ;D

[iverglas]

28. I'll bet you know

But I'll bet there are many who don't. So the following explanation of the joke isn't for you, it's for those who undoubtedly need it in order to get the joke. Which they will then pronounce unfunny anyhow.

And he found a new jawbone of an ass,
and put forth his hand, and took it, and
slew a thousand men therewith.

And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass,
heaps upon heaps, with the jawbone of an ass
have I slain a thousand men.

Sounds like it would be a whole lot more useful than a Molotov cocktail, or even one of those bullet hose thingies.

Jawbones of asses control, I call for!

-- Auntie Humour

[Zynx]

30. You can substitute a hammer for a handgun

The effects will be just about the same when used in an argument.

[iverglas]

33. well thank you

for that reasoned and comprehensive rebuttal of everything I might have thought of saying.

The effects <of substituting a hammer for a handgun>
will be just about the same when used in an argument.

I guess they will.

Unless your argument is with a person considerably larger than yourself, or someone a few metres away from yourself and not looking the other way, or someone with a few friends present ... or really, someone who doesn't just choose to stand still while you beat him/her over the head with a hammer.

I mean, if that's what most people who are killed by firearms are like, if they really could have been killed just as easily with a hammer, it would probably have been much more entertaining to stick a tampon up their nose, douse them with gasoline and light the tampon fuse hanging out of their nostril.

And it's just a funny thing that, despite the fact that hammers are pretty much a dime a dozen and available to pretty much anyone at pretty much a moment's notice, so few people in the US are actually killed by hammers as compared to the number of people killed by firearms.

I wonder how this can be?

[Zynx]

44. Actually, there are a lot of blunt trauma killings in the US.

Hammers, bats, fists, etc. Substantially more of these than killings by rifles.

The handgun is the weapon of choice for personel defense and roaming assault, but there are plenty of alternatives, even if you got rid of handguns.

The point is that "weapon of choice" stuff is garbage. There are substitutes. In the case of assault weapons, there are remarkably good substitutes, such as shotguns, .40 cal and .44 mag pistols and short hunting "brush guns". In the case of handguns, there are not as many adaquate universal substitutes, but if you look at what the gun is used for, you can find all sorts of variations.

Robbing a store: Different sort of gun. Or implied gun.
Hanging out and being ghetto: Short-barreled rifle or shotgun.
Mugging someone: Just about anything that looks like it could hurt.
Killing or maiming someone in an argument: Knife, hammer, bare fists, screwdriver, misused stun gun, misused pepper gas, etc.

I don't like handguns, but the idea that all problems would be solved by getting rid of them is total bullshit. People who want dangerous weapons on their person will come up with something.

And I've been mugged both by a guy with a baseball bat and a guy with a handgun, and believe me, there is not a whole heck of a lot of difference.

However, I was carrying (as opposed to a gun) a Stasi surplus East German spring baton, which amounts to a collapsing metal whip that can tear off an ear, cut a gash in one's face or break a neck if you don't use it "correctly". Baseball bat Goon ran off when I whipped that out, and I belted Gun Goon in the temple with the solid steel base of it and hauled ass before he could get up.

Helps to be able to recognize when a guy has his safety on.

[Vladimir]

45. Well done with your baton

however, if I had to choose between being mugged by a baseball bat and a gun, I know which I, and I bet most people in general would pick. Hint: the answer may have something to do with the range at which you can use the weapon, and the chances of you dying if the weapon is used on you.

[iverglas]

50. willst thou not take up my challenge?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x79585

Leaving aside post #2, I think it is (I'm not asking for clairvoyancy), tell us which of the firearms in that thread could have been replaced by the people in possession of them with hammers or fists or anything much else, to the same effect.

The accidental shooting death of the child in post #3? The drive-by homicide of a stranger in post #6? The shooting deaths of two people in post #10? (What success do you suppose a 67-yr-old man would have had if he'd gone after them with a hammer, let alone his fists?)

C'mon. There's an absolute wealth of opportunities right here on this board for you to prove your thesis.


The handgun is the weapon of choice for personel defense and roaming assault, but there are plenty of alternatives, even if you got rid of handguns.

The point is that "weapon of choice" stuff is garbage. There are substitutes.

I have no doubt at all that you could come up with numerous cases in which a substitute could have been used to the same effect. I am also absolutely certain that I could come up with 20 times as many where there was no substitute that would have been used, or even could have been used had the user been daring and creative and determined enough to try one.


I don't like handguns, but the idea that all problems would be solved by getting rid of them is total bullshit.

Indeed it is! How fortunate we, here, not to be having to try to reason with anyone foolish to say such a thing.

[MrSandman]

36. Naaah...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=31061#31148

on edit: I'm not the NRA plant this week...s

[iverglas]

49. well that was nicely incoherent

A link to a post by one of our former friends saying nothing relevant to this discussion, with no comment on either my post or the one linked to. Ta, eh?

[MrSandman]

52. For source of Substitution myth...

see post 109


I don't know why it keeps going to post 48.

[iverglas]

55. well, that's my post alright

I'm just not seeing it as "source of Substitution myth".

From that post, this would be a summary:

You do know about elasticity of demand, right? Demand does not necessarily "go someplace" when price rises or supply declines. Some of it simply goes away -- or more accurately perhaps, at least to some extent, simply is not met.

That seems to be the exact opposite of the "substitution" argument.

In some cases in which there is "demand" for, say, a handgun in order to accomplish a particular purpose, if a handgun is not available, the demand doesn't necessarily "go to" a hammer -- it just goes away.

Some obvious reasons would be:

- a hammer would simply not accomplish the purpose (e.g. terrorizing a bank manager into handing over the contents of the vault -- OR killing more than one person without getting stopped or injured/killed one's self OR killing someone who is at a distance that is more than arm's length)

- a hammer would not accomplish the purpose without unacceptable risk to the user (e.g. killing a large, strong person surrounded by several large, strong friends)

- a hammer would not accomplish the purpose without unacceptable emotional consequences for the user (e.g. a person who just isn't psychically prepared to beat somebody's brains in -- the notion of killing itself doesn't cause enough emotional discomfort to be a deterrent, but the notion of beating somebody's brains in, and the knowledge that this will require more than an instant to do, require close contact with the person being beaten during that time and be kinda messy, do cause sufficient such discomfort)

People who want a handgun for one of those purposes, or people whose purposes are subject to some of the personal considerations mentioned, just aren't going to substitute "hammer" for "handgun".

And my thesis can be rebutted very easily, as I've said, by going to "guns in the news" and demonstrating how the outcome of each of the shootings reported there would have been the same if the shooter had instead been armed with a hammer. Or anything else at all.

[-..__...]

43. You come off as an educated informed person...

I'll give you that, but these personal issues of yours need some attention.

Try to relax for a change.

"liver and onions".

:eyes:

[Jack_DeLeon]

53. Machete Porn...

I have myself one of these with the black full hand guard.

http://knivesrus.com/product/OKC22

Really nice machete, definately like the handguard, you are alot less likely to lose you grip while swinging it than on the models without a handguard.

[Jack_DeLeon]

54. Now thats interesting.

from the article...
Under Massachusetts General Law, machetes are legal to carry in public.

Nice, in Tejas the limit the size of the knife you can carry is 5.5in. Althought you are exempt from that law if you are on your property or using the knife for hunting/fishing/whatever.

[MrSandman]

59. Similar here...

Shorter length. But then one can carry a handgun with no permit.

[Phantom_5C1]

58. Once again......

I'm going to have to correct you on this. The VPC, :puke:2,000 Mom March and the Brady Bunch say that so-called "assault weapons" are the weapon of choice for criminals.

Of course you remember the recent string of drive-by bayonetings and all those shooters the police were never able to locate because they used a flash suppressor. :eyes: