Debate Studded Bracelet Contreversy

Backstory:
I was at the General Store the other day, wearing my studded bracelet and hanging out with my friends (and yes, being a little louder than average). A cop that was there was asking us to be quiet so we would be, but then we'd crescendo. So needless to say, the cop was pissed, he started yelling at us, me in particualar (nothing new there) and suddenly he goes, "See that bracelet you're wearing?" I replied, "Yeah." And then he said, "That's a felony punishable by five years in jail. Make it disappear, or I can arrest you right know."

WTF

So it's true. In Massachusetts it's a felony to wear a leather bracelet with any type of metal studs (necklaces and belts too), and all because some pisshead tough-guy wannabe got in a fight wrapped one around his knuckles. That isn't the problem really, the problem is that the other kid in the fight lost one of his eyes.

Questions:
Is outlawing studded bracelets a good or bad thing? Was it the appropriate course of action? Does it abridge my freedom of speech.

I think it's horrible, the government (state or otherwise) should not be aloud to regulate what I wear. Just because some kids got in a fight, everyone must suffer? I should be able to wear what I want, when I want, and where I want.

 

Just a side thought, it's probably not a good idea to taunt a cop.

Well you can look at it one of two ways. The first way is that, yes, outlawing the bracelets is a perfectly logical and reasonable decision. After all, how would you feel if YOU got your eye poked out with a stud bracelet? You'd probably never want to come within ten feet of one again, and besides, those things DO make pretty good weapons. If you saw some guy wearing a knife on his hand, wouldn't you feel a bit, I dunno, threatened? Same situation, only taking a different form.

On the other hand, you can make a weapon out of just about anything these days, so in that respect you could say that outlawing them is silly, since someone else is probably come up with a new trend that's just as (if not moreso) lethal.

Does it abridge your freedom of speech? No, not really. Drunk driving is illegal, guns are illegal (unless you have a permit), and I could probably name a whole list of things that are illegal because they are potentially harmful or dangerous to civilians. This really isn't any different.

No you shouldn't. If I walked into an airport with a bomb taped to my jeans I'd get arrested in about two seconds.

 

try carrying a pencil nto a general store. twice as dangerous as a studde bracelet. i belive it is just an attempt by the people with power to keep people looking "respectable".in my school, you can be suspended for having any color hair that isnt "natural" (purple, blue, white) but i dont know of a single teacher or so called "respectable" student who hasnt bleached or streaked his/her hair. now, im not a doctor, but i dont think people are born with streaks(naturally, i mean) but they are allowed, because the people in power think it looks good. (school board, principals, etc.) same for "unnatural" makeup. as long as it looks nice and skanky, and fits with what is normally accepted, youre fine. try anything white or black, and you go home. not to mention the teachers fail you, if they dont like the way you dress. of course, it may NOT be true. did you look it up? if not, its just as likely he was being an ***. ive been accused of being in a cult by a cop because both me and my friend were wearing black!! i told him we werent, and his exact words were "dont try to pull that sh** on me, son, ive been doing this for twenty years." also, i'd like to see them try to give a minor 5 years for a damn bracelet.(if youre a minor) that would make nationwide news. a spiked bracelet may be a weapon, but its the least of your worries in an actual fight. you shoudl worry about, oh, i dunno, the knives/guns/pencils/chains/bottles people are ALLOWED to carry.

as reasonable, as oh, say, compact mirrors? or a purse where you can hide about any weapon you want, far more dangerous than a bracelet? ive had my cousin try to stab me befoe, and yet i continue to train with knives. if you take something away so it wont be used illegally, those people who were willing to break the law with it before, well that doesnt make them wanna obey the new law, it just disarms the law-abiding people.

under that logic, we should all wear mandatory skintight uniforms, so noone could hide a weapon. i agree, bombs and airports dont mix, but it really isnt the same as having something sticking out of your wrists. bombs, for one, dont have very much use in terms of defense, while a bracelet is a primarily defensive tool, if used in combat. the first "bracelets" were called bracers and were used only for blocking. anyway, thats not the point behind spiked bracelets. they are there to look good, and its the same as taking hairpicks away from girls. they are far more deadly than a bracelet, but they are accepted by the people who run things at the time, while the bracelets arent. i'm sure hairpicks have been used as weapons more than the bracelets, as have pencils and the tools in shop or plumbing class.

 

Before I go any further, Naruto, when you say they outlawed stud bracelets, do you mean ALL stud braclet (even the dull harmless ones?) Or just the ones that are about 3 inches tall and very, very sharp. Those are probably much more lethal then even the sharpest of pencils, but yes, point taken.

You have a point that it may have been outlawed because of its menacing appearance, but I have an off the topic question. If you're supossed to be suspended for unnatural hair colors, why hasn't anybody been suspended?

Well it probably was true, but I agree with you in that the 'five years' thing could very well have been an exaggeration.

I totally agree with you there, but that can be applied to just about any dangerous weapon (most of which are still illegal anyhow).

Yes a purse can hide a dangerous weapon, but if you make said weapon visible, you would probably be arrested (if caught). Again, this can be applied to just about anything, but they're not going to outlaw purses. I may just be dense, but I really don't understand what this has to do with much of anything. Yes, it may have been ridiculous that they've chosen to outlaw stud bracelets, but the fact of the matter is that whether or not people choose to ABIDE by the rules, people are still going to make them. This debate is over whether or not it was ridiculous to outlaw stud bracelets, not whether or not it's reasonable to outlaw weapons in general.

I know that perfectly well, I was just responding to a comment made by Naruto stating that he should be allowed to where anything, anywhere, at any time. Which, of course, he shouldn't.

This is, again, delving into the theory that just about everything can be a weapon, which I stated in my first post. You can't make EVERYTHING illegal, so they're, of course, going to choose the 'weapons' that they think are most dangerous or lethal.

Then again, are you sure Naruto that this cop was telling the truth? On second thought, it does seem pretty odd that an entire state would outlaw stud bracelets because of one little incident. Incidents like that happen all the time with quite a few miscallaneous objects, and it does seem odd to just pick one out of the blue and make it illegal.

Anyhow, I've thought more on it and while I still think it was a little overzealous to outlaw the bracelets, it probably isn't going to affect anybody much in the long run. People are, of course, probably going to figure out a way around the law, and (unless they enforce it strictly) eventually people will probably be seen wearing stud bracelets again, if not as openly as before.

 

Here's a question for you: Is it only illegal to WEAR the bracelets, or is it also illegal to sell or purchase them?

I can see the logic in outlawing something which is shown to be dangerous... But at the same time, there's a line between a fashion statement and an intent to harm or disrupt. It's rather silly to outlaw studded bracelets in general. I mean, think of all the things that can be dangerous in a fight - steel-toed boots, belts with heavy, sharp buckles, hoop earrings (which can and do get torn out)... The fact is that one of the nastiest cuts I've ever seen up close came from a shard of an ordinary ceramic bowl; my mother slipped and landed on it, and now has a two-by-one-inch L-shaped scar on her thigh. It needed internal and external stitches. Fact is, just about anything can be a weapon in the right circumstances.

I mean... should we outlaw boxcutters? ~_~

 

all these objects you list are made for a specific functional purpose, they're only dangerous if they're used with an intent to harm. a studded bracelet has NO functional purpose. they're simply a fashion statement of the mentality 'i'm a radical son of a **** and i don't care for rules. People who wear these things are typically the people who will get involved in fights. the ones who aren't are making the statement anyway. Grannies who buy a ceramic bowl arent. if i saw someone wearing a boxcutter as a fashion accessory i'd be worried.

of course it is. the school has an image to project to the comunity. that image isn't green-haired radicals and goths who wear dangerous objects as a fashion accessory.

so you're saying we should just give up, legalise guns and murder?

if you haven't figured it out already, i think it's a good thing. it's a dangerous object that exists solely to intimidate. as for freedom of speech, don't people have the right to the use of both their eyes? it's a two way street.

this is a real arrogant statement to make, and this would be exactly why the cop was p***ed off in the first place. If you live in a country, you abide by it's laws or leave, rules like this are made for community at large. what's more important, the right for a radical to 'express' themselves through their fashion, or the safety and piece of mind of majority of the community?

 

I honestly don't know why pencils and knives are being used as arguments here. Pencils are made to write. Knives are made to cut food in mealed, wood in construction, boxes for opening, and other such uses. They all have a place in the world of utility that's meaningful and thus is why they aren't outlawed. They were made for utility, not necessarily to kill.

Now, why were studded bracelets made?

To make you look 'cooler' when you are a teenager. Honestly, I think that's not a real utility-viable way. It looks as much a weapon as it is a fashion statement. Based on most of them that I saw, they either have those huge spikes coming out of them (heavily dangerous) or those pill-shaped or cylindrical studs (not quite as dangerous, but it can hurt a helluvalot more). It is very easy to use as knuckles and suddenly turn a fashion statement into a weapon. Knives generally aren't allowed in a school and usually isn't carried by teenagers - knives that kill, anyway - unless they live in, say, Harlem or such. Pencils are rarely used as weapons - teenagers rarely carry them unless in school, and they should know what would happen if they decided to do that in school.

So here we have the studded bracelet. A piece of clothing, so you can't really discriminate against that. A wonderful and easy-to ready weapon that can hurt just as much, if not more than, brass knuckles. And there's already been reports of it being used in a fight. Haven't you noticed that these bracelets usually go in a set with similar belts and other spike-protruding clothing? For a while they start looking like insane gladiators rather than teenagers.

So why is it so wrong to outlaw the studded bracelet? It's but a fashion statement in the world, compared to the pencil which if outlawed, forces everyone to use the non-eraser-friendly pens or those eraser pens that gets the damn ink all over the place and writes horribly anyway. If you outlaw the knife, you outlaw all bladed utensils (exaggeration does wonders) and soon we'll be opening boxes with a bludgeon or some such.

You don't have the freedom to wear whatever you want. You are exaggerating greatly there. You have no right to run around in the streets wearing only your birthday suit. You have no right to run around in the streets in full plate armor and swinging a sword around. You really have no right to run around in the streets with such a weapon that easily kills such revealed on your person. Do people usually have knives and such standing out on their clothing? Probably not. There are reasons that weapons are HIDDEN if brought in most environments, and wearing a studded bracelet (which is now a weapon, as observed) is more or less brandishing a weapon that can be used.

 

Hah. Stupidest thing ive ever heard.
Yeah you can carry a concealed weapon wirh a stupid permit that requires no work at all, but no wear a studded bracelet and you have to go to jail, i have many many many studded bracelets dont they think that they should go after people who ear them? dear god they sell them at clares and they are so much pontier than mine are, considering mine are quite dull cause i dont want to get in trouble, again i dont really think people would do that, i can do much more damage by throwing the heel of my fist to the nose, you get nocked out, and with the bracelets what do you get? prolly not even a scratch!

 

Bracelet studs are usually metallic, so a good bash with them is as good as bashing with brass knuckles. It allows you to break a nose or crack a bone a lot easier. If it is pointy, it can stab too. I don't think you can stab with your knuckles.

 

well a blow to the nose upwards can crash your skull which can be pretty scarry, perfect for self defense, also a hit to the eye with your thumb and it can cause permanent blindness. stupid pigs.

 

The simple fact, though, is that 99% of people who buy studded ANYTHING are doing it just because they think it looks good. They're never going to use their fashion accessories as weapons. (I had several friends who went very goth-punk in highschool, and none of them ever even thought to use their bracelets as spiked knuckles.)

Steel-toed boots and hoop earrings have a specific functional purpose?

I happen to own a pair of steel-toed boots, actually, and I can tell you now that the only thing they do is add about two inches to my height and make me feel kinda b*tchy. XD I could just as easily wear regular tennis shoes, as I do most of the time. Steel toes in boots have no real purpose most of the time. It's just a statement.

And, incidentally, I have been kicked by someone wearing steel-toed boots. Hurts like a b****. It wasn't a malicious kick, it was accidental - still gave me a bone bruise on my shin that stuck around for about two months. But I recognize that the percentage of people who would buy and wear steel-toed boots or shoes for the purpose of using them in a fight is fairly small.

I could understand outlawing the inch-long metal spikes on those bracelets; those always seemed sort of gratuitous to me, and it's easy to see where that could put an eye out. But to make all of the bracelets illegal... I can't say that I don't see and understand the intent, but it crosses a line bit of a line.

But on the other hand, what about the potential for these items to be used in self-defense?

All in all, I'd say that perhaps banning bracelets or belts with large studs from schools might be a better measure than banning them entirely. It seems like overkill.

The difference between outlawing a weapon - a knife which is not dinnerware, a gun, brass knuckles - and outlawing a fashion item which has the potential to harm is simply this: weapons have no function other than to cause harm. Fashion accessories may cause harm, but only in the hands of those who are malicious enough to abuse anything they can get their hands on. These same people could just as easily carry a soda bottle around to smash over someone's head.

 

Actually, where I work, steel-toed boots are required as we deal with a lot of heavy items (vendor and OCS delivery) so they don't want lawsuits if two 25 pound cases of glass Snapple bottles drops on our foot. ;P Of course, it's a small, family-owned business so they can make such demands. Figures, can't do much to protect our wrists and fingers, which get cut up a lot though. ;P

Anyways...

Really, I just think people are over-reacting. ;P Oh boo hoo, we can't wear our pseudo-punkquipment anymore. Sob, sob sob. Get over it and find something new to wear, criminey. Or just bloody move.

I mean, really... If you really want to get your way, you're complaining to the wrong crowd, bub. Just leave the country so you don't have to deal with the "oh so horrendous country that banned your precious pseudo-punkquipment"

 

Ah, good point. But I think you'll agree that your average person wearing steel-toed boots on the street isn't worrying that they'll be attacked by 25 lbs. of Snapple bottles. ~_^

Well, as usual, I think most people care less about the loss of privilege over a single item as about the general principle of it. Once one thing is outlawed, it's natural for people to worry about what could be next. A sort of gateway law, if you will, tends to create a lot of defensiveness.

Reminds me of the controversy over low-riding pants... You know, whether people should be able to wear their pants so loose that their underwear is exposed. It's not specifically hurting anyone, but it IS inappropriate in many situations (like, say, school), and so the issue is freedom of expression vs. public decency.

 

On yer previous post (that would be your first one.), Dilandau, you mentioned the ban of all bracelets? Nah, I doubt all bracelets were actually banned, only studded ones. And, of course, without the metal studs, it's only a bracelet, after all. You have to admit, however, that it is reasonable to ban something that's been used as a malicious weapon with little other impact. Guns weren't banned before, but gun abuse gave the push for the need for gun licenses - such as an example of an attack using such things as studded bracelets can push the need to outlaw the studs on the bracelets.

But, yeah, it is a bit of overreaction to actually think deeply about that. There are other ways to get the effect that studded bracelets presumably give, ways that aren't as potentially dangerous, anyway.

 

Psh, I think the low-riding pants is just chalked up to being flat-out lazy and not wanting to find a bloody belt. ;P Expression my ***.

And I'd be more convinced that Naruto was more worried about the "general principle" if it weren't for the fact that he's apparently made wearing the garment a fashion for his attire.

And yes, I'd agree most people wearing steel-toed boots aren't like that, but I did want to make it clear that they do serve purposes in several delivery companies, at least here in Jersey.

 

Dude, that has to be the most MORONIC thing I have heard today. The question for that cop..." Is everyone gonna buy one of those studded belt/bracelts to beat the living sh*t out of whoeevr crosses thier path?" I think not. And by the way, glad to see you posting again Naruto.

 

Well, still.. I'd hate to see people wear armbands with blades attached just to look cool. Even if they don't plan on attacking anyone with them. I guess that guy who used that bracelet as a weapon just ruined it for everyone else.

Well, it's natural too I guess for people to commit logical fallacies. Just because one thing was outlawed doesn't mean that other things will be too.

 

I agree with many of the statements made (kind of skimmed over um, there are alot :sweat2: ) And personally i think its preposterous that they can pass a law banning the wear of studded bracelets. Studs arent really my choice in weapon o_o But um maybe i could understand more so the banning of the pointy spiky ones. but even that seems kind of stupid. They banned those in my school. Like it has been said, anything is virtually useable as a weapon, but you cant ban everything. I dont think its right to make an article of clothing illegal, in school thats one thing. And you really shouldn’t antagonize a cop, regardless. ^_~

 

I've gotta agree with you there, but hasn't anybody ever heard the phrase 'choose your battles carefully?' I mean honestly, they're just bracelets with metal things poking out of them. Whether or not they make a 'fashion statement' shouldn't really matter if they're potentially dangerous or harmful to society. And while it may have been overkill to outlaw ALL studded bracelets (instead of just the ones with like an inch long metal spike as somebody said earlier), it's not going to affect anybody in the long run. It's just a silly trend, and if it bothers people that much that they can't wear the studded bracelets, then why don't they just start a new trend? Or, as Amon Sena suggested, move.

 

they're not stupid, this arguement is. if you jab someone in the eye with your thumb you're to blame, not your thumb. you're the dangerous object, thus you should be removed from society. besides, what are you suggesting they should do, outlaw protruding fingers in public areas?. if you jab someones eye out, my thumb doesn't become dangerous, because YOU can't use my thumb as a weapon. a studded bracelet is dangerous because anyone can use it as a weapon, which is the only function of the object, thus it should be, and is banned, because it can be.

as for hoop earings, they are a danger only to the party who wears it, thus there's no need to ban it. and steel capped boots are made with a functional purpose, like we've established. it's illegal to work in many places without them because it's simply too dangerous.

some people who wear these things may not have intent, but by the same argument i could wear loaded guns on the streets without intent, does that make it ok?.