Debate Studded Bracelet Contreversy

Ah, I meant all bracelets with studs. (Including the ones with the little flattish studs, which look like the backs of regular snaps.) I'd be the first to agree that if a trend is developing where the long or especially large studs are popular weapons, they shouldn't be allowed. But to say ALL studs... Well, it just seems silly to me.

First, you're assuming that these people are capable of taking such a mature approach to the issue. XD Most people who are going to scream about the ban are teenagers, and being a teenager is all about conformity (yes, even the "rebels" who say they're not comforming). They're not just going to go "start another trend."

And second... they're teenagers. It's not as if they have the option to just pick up and move.

But why would you wear a loaded gun if you didn't intend to shoot it? (Self-defense would still involve shooting it, mind you.) At the very least, your intent would be to intimidate or shock.

Granted, the studded look has the same effect - to make the wearer look tough and/or rebellious. (Whether it actually does that... well.) But wearing a studded bracelet doesn't automatically involve intent to use it as anything beyond a fashion statement.

Don't get me wrong - I really don't give a damn if people can wear these things or not. I think it's just as silly as any other clothing statement. But it reminds me of the idea of random drug searches in schools - essentially, how far can you go towards removing the rights or privileges of the many for the offenses of the few? Is it fair to ban something because one or two people have used it in a way it was not intended to be used, and someone was hurt because of that? Yes, it shows that care needs to be taken in the manufacture of items which can become makeshift weapons. But I state again, outlawing ALL studded bracelets - regardless of stud size, shape, and weight - would be overkill.

 

which is exactly the same purpose as the bracelet, just on a lower level.

but it does. it's purpose is for people to intimidate others simply by wearing it.

i believe it was used exactly as intended, that's what's wrong with it. as for banning it for the offences of a few i've no problem with that :sweat: simply because i don't think it is the offence of 'a few'.

 

oh, is that why i wear one? i never knew.
i wear one because i like it.

okay, so when they came out with them, the company's intent was to poke america's children's eyes out? sorry, i just dont agree.

your post, modified a little. read yours, then read mine.

actually, i wear things because i like those things, not because it's a trend, but i see what you mean, most nonconformists are all the same.anyway, the reason i'm mad, is that this is amreica, the so called "land of freedom", and i, and the majority of the ppl that this affects, am being penalized, and i have done nothing wrong.

according to the law, yes. all you have to do is pass a little test to get the permit.

ok first of all, i care about the way i look just as much as you, regardless of my opinions, so try not to sound so condescending, k? what do you like to wear? including makeup. ill find a parallel.

guns are legal. murder is and always will be a bad thing, regardless of the use, because the use is part of what makes it murder. the use of a bracelet does not make it a bracelet.

if you had a choice of whether you want to go, fine, but you dont. therefore they have no business banning a harmless thing like black clothes/makeup and green hair, simply because they dont like it. the image they project now is one where they like to mess with other people's business, and cant tolerate an image or opinion different from theirs.(btw, i think banning spikes in school is fine, since you have to go, and you cant just leave if you are afraid.)

 

Wearing something just because it's a trend i think is shallow, and you should just wear it because you like it, just like Takamatsu_ does.

I agree with this statement. But the truth is that if one person does it then there are countless other violent idiots out there that will probably do the same. This seems to be the only way that new laws are introduced these days, one person does something violent and then the government tries to bring in a law so that it won't happen again.
Clothes should be an expresion of who you are and how you feel, not a weapon.

 

wouldn't surprise me. like i said, why do you like it?. chances are it's for the reason i mentioned.

no, their intention was only ever to make money. they just have no morals and don't care how they do it. When they design an object like that don't try and tell me they're not aware of how it's going to be used/abused.

as i've said 3 times already, a thumb is a personal object that can't be banned, and serves a billion useful purposes. the same cannot be said for the braclet, so logicall you ban it before it's used for violence.

still doesn't make it ok.

huh? so you're saying it ain't even a bracelet?, that would make it a weapon without even a lame-*** guise?

these people are minors, they aren't legally responsible, therefore they shouldn't have a choice of whether to go to school or not because they aren't capable of making that choice. You follow the rules, and when you're deemed capable, you're given the choice, and eventually can fight to change the rules if you don't like them. messing with their business and moulding them in readiness for society are two different things. how many doctors have you seen recently with green hair? :anime:. You follow rules just like this where ever you go in life. People really need to get used to it, cause it aint gonna change anytime soon.

 

Lots of teenagers like to intimidate, yes. It makes them feel like they have power over others, because teens are stuck between childhood and adulthood, which gives them less freedom than they want. But wanting to look intimidating and wanting to actually hurt people are two seperate things.

Oh, but I bet the companies never imagined that the bracelets would be popular as weapons. If they thought there was a likelihood that enough people would use them that way to get the bracelets banned, why would they make them? They can't sell very many if they're banned. And besides, we know how lawsuit-happy American parents are. You think the companies want that?

 

why do you like your avatar?

my point was that you said your self that the person is the problem, not the tool

aha! now youre getting it! just because the law says so doesnt make it right!

i havent seen any doctors with green hair, but i have seen people who are just as happy with their life, with far less work. and as for molding us to fit into society, whether i have the skills to get along in life has nothing to do with my appearance, yet people keep trying to make me look the way they want. and as for fighting, youre only given a chance to voice your opinion in a way that will cause change if you have accepted this "molding", regardless of your reasoning or intelligence. anyway, what would it hurt if a doctor DID have green hair? if he knows what he's doing, i dont care if he has 7 arms. the choice for going to school isnt one for minors to make, i agree, but when you HAVE to go somewhere, every day, they shouldnt be given control of things that dont affect the learning environment. i know some will say weird colors distract in the classroom, but i can say from experience, they dont. what does, however, is the constant attempts to control other people's appearance and opinion.
its been scientifically proven that when someone is put in a position of power over people, they become cruel and arrogant. they take offense when someone should DARE have a different opinion than them. it was done on about 100 tests. 90% of the time this happened. of course, this was something i knew a long time ago, as did many others.

 

agreed, but how can someone else distinguish between the two until after they've committed a violent act?

i disagree, they would have to be very nieve/ignorant not to. If you made a heap of these things in workshop, would it cross your mind that they're dangerous to sell to kids in the school?. i think it would. and lets not forget the processes that go into product development are a LOT more thorough than my analogy.

my avatar was free, is a bracelet?. i choose my avatar because i enjoyed the show it was from. The only time i can accept someone would use something without a reason is if it was free, because ppl get pleasure out of anything that's free. the bracelet has no background/history like an avatar, so the only reason you could have to wear it is to feel threatening/powerful, or to fit in with a social group .

both are at fault. in the good old days, if you stole, you had your hand cut off to stop you from doing it again. it's both a punishment and a prevention. It is also effective because this person can never get their hands on another one to commit the same crime. We can't do that now, so only the person can be blamed in this case. the same cannot be said for bracelet, the person is primarily responsible, but so is the manufacturer and the distributers.
the best solution to the problem is to punish the offender/s and then remove the opportunity for the same offence. (ideally we like to learn from our mistakes :sweat2: )

:catgirl: exactly!. i'd hate to think we could live in a society where we can't/don't question the rules we run on. that doesn't mean they're ALL wrong though. personally i think it's wrong that we allow anyone outside the millitary to carry a weapon, but the law say's we can.

have you ever gone for a job interview with a green mohawk?. if so did you get the job? everyone's judged on their appearance. i don't agree with it anymore than you, your skills are the only thing that matters in my mind as well, but if you also agree with this, then why wear a radical bracelet as an extension of your personality?. Isn't that hypocritical of your thoughts?

plenty of young people would agree, but the bases of the green hair is to defy convention. the older genrations wouldn't accept it, whom are the same ppl who ban it from schools. If you live and work in a situation where you don't deal with these generations, then it wouldn't be a problem. but how many jobs are there like that?.

schools teach ppl who don't want to learn or be there. the only way to do this is through power and control. if a school can't control the kids, then they won't learn. that's why they have rules. If they could do anything, they would.

This is very vague and multi-topical. what were the conditions, where is this info taken from, what does it have to do with whether a studded bracelet is dangerous or not?. I don't think if you take away a bracelet from a kid that he's likely to become cruel and arrogant as a direct result. come on! :anime:

this whole thread boils down to what's more important, someone's idea of a fashion accessory, or someone else's safety?

 

I seem to remember something about people in America being "innocent until proven guilty," not the other way around.

Again, though, this is why you ban the bracelets from areas like schools, where people don't have a choice about going - so that there's not risk of them being exposed to threat. But to ban ALL of the bracelets ENTIRELY is, once again, overkill.

I mean, let's look at beer. Beer has no functional purpose, other than to inebriate people. Yes, some drink it to feel more confident and less inhibited and not to get wasted, but that's still within the bounds of it's basic use. And beer, in excessive amounts, makes people very stupid and potentially dangerous. This is very common knowledge. Drunk drivers claim lives all the time. But is beer completely banned? No. And the reason is that 1.) people like it, and 2.) not everyone who drinks a beer is going to run over some kid because of it.

Do I think there should be restrictions on beer and other alcohol, more restrictions than there are now? Yes. Do I think there should be restrictions on what kind of fashion accessory is inappropriate to wear, and where some of them can be worn? Yes. Do I think that beer and/or studded bracelets should be completely and entirely banned because there's a danger that some people are abusing them? No. There are many, many people who enjoy their alcohol and their fashion statements very responsibly.

Did the thought cross their minds that "Gee, I could poke somebody pretty good with this"? Yeah, most likely. But I still don't think they'd have sold the things if there was enough reason to think they would see more than a few isolated incidents. It's more risk to the company to make a few bucks and then be swarmed with lawsuits than to not sell them at all. I can't imagine that they would foresee enough violence to get the bracelets banned.

Just like people who wear the bracelets enjoy the look it gives them, the crowd it associates them with, and the symbolism of it.

And that's not a reason?

Fitting in is one of the most important goals in human society, whether we like it or not. People spend years and thousands of dollars trying to make themselves fit in. (Think: nice clothes, nose jobs, health clubs, dance lessons...)

Many, many people like studded accessories because it associates them with their friends, with their favorite music, with things that their parents don't really approve of. That's OK. No matter how valid a reason you might think that is, the fact remains that it's important to many people to wear these little symbols. I'm just saying that I think they deserve the privilege of wearing the ones that don't pose a significant threat. If you could show me statistics that said 50%, even 10%, of the people buying the bracelets intended to use them only as weapons, I'd be all for banning them. But I don't think that there's any real danger in the flat-stud kinds, or the ones with tiny studs, and I don't think that very many people really do use them as weapons. Sure, get rid of the big pointy studs, but what's wrong with the other kinds?

No, but I did get a job when I had my hair dyed blue in highschool. XD A nice, respectable filing job at that. *chuckle*

Which is not to say that appearance isn't important - someone who's deliberately trying to look like a rebel may not be the best worker. Or, they might be a very good worker with a desire to see how far their skills can get them if they look different. You never know.

Not really. If your skills are the only thing that matters, then it shouldn't be an issue if you choose to look a certain way. Looks are not defining.

I've never been goth or semi-goth, punk, raver, etc. - but I did dye my hair blue at one point, and I do own a set of small leather bracelets tied to look like barbed wire, which I sometimes wore when I was in highschool. (They're perfectly soft and pliant, however.) It's not that I felt the look defined me or made a statement about me, it was just fun.

The reason that schools are forced to teach that way is because the teaching methods are ineffective, the school lacks the funds to provide a complete learning experience, and the staff may be incompetent. It's because of these problems that students are determined to rebel; they don't enjoy learning for it's own sake and are taught that they should fight their education all the way. But that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, green hair and studded bracelets aren't a detriment to the learning environment unless the teacher makes it an issue, or the student is disruptive anyway.

Partly, but there's also the issue of the privilege of many being revoked for the crimes of the few, which is an age-old problem.

 

that's why they've been banned, and not everyone who wears them thrown in gaol. no-one's being called guilty when they're innocent, they're just being denied the opportunity for the crime.
beer's a difficult one like guns, both have been around along time, and i think the big reason you forgot, is that they'ed be almost impossible to remove from society. if i remember correctly, i think it was america?? that banned alcohol at one point in it's history. it didn't fair well.
personally i think they should both be removed like the bracelet. true, people can use both responsibly, but they're both accidents waiting to happen, and do happen, all the time. what world needs drunken gun owners?.

agreed, but we also have to decide whether it's worth the cost. we could prevent all the problems and death if we had the guts to get rid of these things. Would you be willing to forgo these trivial pleasures so strangers could live?. it's ok to say i use them responsibly, but you've got the chance to stop others from miss-using them. Will you take that chance, or will you say it's not my fault nor problem?. This is the attitude/reason that there are people starving in third world countries. It's not your fault, but you've got the chance to stop it, you've just got to pay the price. A very small one at that i might add.

you didn't answer my analogy though did you? If you made a series of metal spikes on a chain would you think 'that would look cool around someone's neck' or 'gee that thing cause cause some pretty major dammage'.

yep, but my av was free, and can't/hasn't been used as a weapon.

exactly, 9/10 times you won't get the job. It's like going into an interview saying 'i like to defy authority.' That doesn't go well in a job.

you can't, that's the point. we can't judge the potential until it's too late.

if there's a better method i'm all ears.

as i said earlier in the post, would you be willing to give up this privelige for others?. or will you ignore them and have their death's/injuries on your concience?.

so they should be banned in schools because kids are forced to go there, but left in society because law abiding people can choose to stay away from people who wear them?. That's like saying murderers are ok to roam the streets because we're not forced to go there, we can avoid them?

 

true, but i'd like some people from both sides of the argument to be allowed to participate in the decision.

the reason that we dont get the job is part of what we're arguing about here.

by earning respect instead of demanding it.

no, it isnt. someone who is known to kill shouldnt be allowed to do it again, but someone who has done nothing wrong shouldnt be punished.

no they arent. it's just as easy to but one illegally, or in another state. banning uzi's has proven that. all thats being done is punishment of the ones who DONT break laws. honestly, do you belive someone who is willing to punch someone in the face with a spiked bracelet is going to obey a simple ban on them?

then any new item should be illegal if it looks nasty? also, you contradicted yourself:

according to you, he couldnt have judged that.

 

we are. ^_^

explain please. why should you get the job in this situation?.

that's a phrase, like 'work smarter, not harder'. it has no value because it has no direct application.

my answer to that is in the next quote you took from me, and your next arguement is nothing new. i've countered it several times already. it doesn't mean that banning uzi's was a mistake. some people may be able to get their hands on one, but it's a hell of a lot harder, and punishable just to possess one. The fact is there'd be alot more crimes from uzi's if they were legal.

if it has no real use and is dangerous, than yes, it should be looked at very carefuly. the manufacturer has a responsibility to make things that aren't dangerous.

and no, you've taken my quote out of context. i said you can't judge whether someone buy's one of these things with intent or not until they've commited a crime with it. Anyone can judge whether an object is dangerous or not regardless of whether it's been used in a crime or not. potential and intent are two completely different things.

 

maybe i should get the job, and maybe i shouldnt, the point is that is should be based on ability, not appearance.

direct application: stop trying to force people to respect you. earn respect by teaching in a way that provides a good learning environment, without trying to restric things that harm no one. also try to get to know youre students by more than name and appearance.

youre right. people can judge what things are more dangerous. glass ashtrays, lighters, knives up to six inches in length, etc. are all more dangerous and completely unneccesary, but legal. they have also been used in more far crimes than the bracelet.

youve said that potential and intent are two different things. now which is it?
nothing was taken out of context. both were all you said on the subject at the time.

 

Yes, but they have lost the privilege of wearing them. And, I'll reiterate this one last time: I have no problem with the long, spiked studs being banned, but I think it's stupid to ban all studded bracelets.

And has anyone considered that one of the implications of this ban, which apparently has not been publicized very well if people are still unknowingly wearing them (the original example of this thread)? Simply put, it's now just more fodder for cops to use as an intimidation tactic when a teenager is doing something they don't like. This, to me, is more proof that there may be a mentality here that only disrespectful, lawless people were/are wearing the bracelets, so it's OK to threaten them. I'm sure that if the dangerous object had been a bit less menacing in appearance, there would be less likelihood of a cop using it for shock value ("that's a felony punishable by blah blah").

Sounds to me like people are being made guilty when they don't even know they're breaking a law, although that's not directly relevant to your point.

Yes, Prohibition. Which simply proves that lawbreakers will still break laws, and the only people penalized will be the ones who were being responsible in the first place.

Example: Remember back in grade school or junior high, where teachers would say that if ONE PERSON broke the rules, the whole class would miss recess/have homework/some other unpleasant thing? And then some jerkwad would break the rules just to get everyone else in trouble.

The idea there is that we're supposed to work as a society to self-mediate and self-rule, thereby maintaining order and laws. But it doesn't work that way. There are spiteful people who take pleasure out of seeing others hurt, and they have an irritating way of spoiling things for the rest of us. What I'm saying is that those are the people who should be punished, not the entire group.

I can see where you're coming from, but removing all things that are potentially dangerous would make for a pretty boring world. Moderate them, yes; restrict them, yes; removing them entirely is, in most cases, not necessary nor sensible.

Things that are dangerous, which ought to be removed under such logic: Motorcycles, SUVs, beverage bottles made from glass, plastic bags, fireworks (banned in many areas, but still VERY easy to get), chemicals/substances which can ignite (lighter fluid, cleaning chemicals, etc.)... You see my point? A lot of these things have safer alternatives, too, so that removing them wouldn't technically be too damaging. But all the people who use them safely would suffer for the careless or malicious actions of others.

No we couldn't. There would still be people out to hurt others, that's never going to change. There's no need to make the majority suffer and lose privileges for a few idiots.

In all honesty... No. I realize that people are going to get hurt no matter how many precautions I take as an individual, and so my responsibility is to be not create more problems, and not put myself in dangerous situations.

I would bet that most of the people who've been on the receiving end of studded bracelet violence weren't exactly keeping themselves out of harm's way, either. Not that that makes it OK that they were hurt, but I refuse to feel guilty for people who go looking for trouble, if you know what I mean.

Third world countries? Hell, there are people in perfectly developed countries that are living on wellfare-type programs and getting rotten, opened food from government assistance programs. Yes, people need to take more interest in their fellow man's health and safety, but it's also not fair to expect everyone to shoulder blame for things like poor environment, ineffective management, or violent natures.

I suppose that depends on the person, doesn't it?

But yet again, I'm not disputing the ban of the big spiky studs.

*nods to her original point that the companies most likely didn't expect a violent trend with ther bracelets*

Better pay for teachers, better training for teachers, better screening of teachers, more funding for schools, a societal change in the attitude that learning is a bad thing, and that school is a place where your rights to be an individual are removed.

In fact, I think that if schools were less controlling, there would be less motivation for students to be rebellious and disruptive. (If green hair were no longer good for pissing people off, do you really think that so many people would dye their hair?)

The violent nature of the human race is not my fault. My responsibility is to take note of and avoid, report, or remove the cause of problem situations where possible. However, I don't think that a leather bracelet with lightweight, flattish studs is a problem - just in case you were about to jump on my previous sentence. ~_^

Yes, just like alcohol is banned from certain public places. You're perfectly free to cross the street if you see someone coming who looks threatening; you can also stay out of violent neighborhoods and areas.

I mean, I can't stand people who are pushy with their religion, so I avoid them. I'm not screaming for religion to be banned. But religious curriculum is banned from public schools because people HAVE to go to school.

As mentioned, once proven guilty, you lose privileges. That's only fair. A murderer is a murderer, plain and simple. But not everyone who wears studded jewelry is going to use it maliciously.

 

cops are less likely to use it as fodder if you're not being an idiot. you could walk past 50 cops wearing one of them and probably none of them would have said anything, they've probably got bigger problems to handle.
and yes the new law should be 'advertised' properly.
as for the mentality you mention, of course you're right. the nature of the object demands it. don't you wear these things to 'express' yourself?

yes but there'll be fewer incidents related to alcohol, as i've already said in a previous post.
as for schools, i'll bet the kid had the crap kicked out of him afterwards.

there are also those who can turn a blind eye to things they can prevent.

i doubt these things are used in pre-meditated violence. they're used because they're handy.. they're wearing the damn things. take them away, and you're removing probably the only weapon most of these people have handy.

that's what i was afraid of.

so it's your reponsibility not create problems, but not your responsibility to clean up after others?. fair enough. but don't you have concience? *looks up at previous answer* no... i guess not.

see?, you answered that one yourself! :anime:

no, but someone's got to clean it up. guess that wont be you...

i think there'd be less motivation to show up.

they've been banned because they've already been used in violence, isn't that proof?.

this is the most disturbing of all your opinions. it's not the law-abiding citizens duty to avoid law-breakers. it's the governments job to do what it can to remove the law-breakers. which is what they're doing...

if i sold rocket-launchers in iraq what would you say?, lock up the individuals who use them malicously?

but it's not and never will be. will you marry someone who's butt-ugly?

when you're teaching in a class where 10 year old kids throw desks around and kids bring guns and crossbows to school and kill each other i don't think passive 'monk' teaching is the solution.
things that harm no one else?, *ahem!.*

again you're comparing it with objects with a non-dangerous primary application, something the bracelet sorely lacks.
without knives how ar you gonna make your dinner?.

replace potential with intent in my previous sentence. slight typo. doesn't diminish my argument though.
:dizzy2: these posts keep getting longer. :dizzy2:

 

now, you MUST know by now that there ARE far more dangerous weapons handy.

ok so this is the root of the problem, i hope, because it isnt a very strong stand. you cant just assume that since someone looks threatening, as he said in his post, they are lawbreakers, as you said in yours. i agree, lock up the lawbreakers, but dont punish everyone else when the lawbreaker is out of society.

no, there woudlnt. we've already said repeatedly that school should be mandatory (i.e., same punishment for not showing) but things that harm no one should be left alone. then people will be more WILLING to go.

duh. yes. the coalition forces there shouldnt be disarmed. the terrorists should.(i dont think they should still be there but thats for a whole other thread, if you wanna debate it)

you see, i'm not that shallow. yes, i would. if i really loved her, looks wouldnt be a concern.

but they dont. one person punched one other person. i was really referring to the hair anyway.

i said up to six inches, you really need a combat knife to do that? oh yeah and what makes you think cutting things isnt more dangerous than wearing a spiky braclet? people have blinded themselves ON THEIR OWN with knives far more than one incident, not to mention the fact that they are used in quite a few of the murders that happen daily.
oh yeah, and the primary application of a bracelet is WEARING it, and even though it isnt neccesary, its no less neccesary than smoking or carrying a knife. you could just as easily leave it at home, if you really need it to eat, and personally, i get along fine without one.

 

uo

Not just the pointy ones, but the dull ones too. any leather with metal studs or spikes.

I was speaking of clothing, not bombs.

First of all, I am not what is considered by most a "radical". Secondly, it's assuming that anyone wearing the bracelet is a menace to society. Thirdly, the cop was pissed because 7 people were talking while he was trying to have a conversation with someone.

Guns are legal.

Article [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[QOUTE=Amon Sena]
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.[/QUOTE]

They're useful in lots of lines of work, including mine, electrical in a construction site environment.


On a side not, a believe the local law on knives is that the blade can't be longer than the width of your hand.

 

yet again i reply these other items don't deserve banning unless they serve no other purpose. and then they're only handy if the crime is pre-meditated.

nope, so you don't punish them, you give them the benifit of the doubt. but you can't tell unless they commit a crime, so you remove the opportunity for them to commit the crime. If they have no ill intent, then why would they complain?.

like bracelets that are used to bash people?

how do you decide who is a terrorist. by your reasoning it should be fine for me to sell rocket launchers to iraqies. just because they look dangerous doesn't mean they are. they could want one as a hood ornament.

hang on...you wear a dangerous object because looks are important to you right?

that's an accident, you take the risk when you use it. that's your own choice. as for combat knives, i place them in the catergory of guns, no one outside the military has a need for it, therefore it should be banned.

yes, that's an aesthetical application that could be equalled by a non dangerous object. It's not a functional application, which is the important bit.
i've outlinned my position on smoking already, and when i mentioned knives, i meant in the home. If you ban the manufacture and distribution of knives you can't use them at home. There's no reason to carry one on the street, so why would you think i condone it?. i mearly recognise that it's not feasable to get rid of them. not so the bracelet.

will everyone stop saying this already?

that's not the way it sounded in your first post, but regardless, you WERE annoying him.

many aren't.
the consitution isn't a bible. it wasn't written perfect. society changes, and the law should evolve with it. i would very much question that bearing arms is vital to a 'free-state'.

 

But wouldn't that imply that the law isn't really effective, because it's being enforced on a selective basis without regard to the use of the bracelet itself?

I've never worn one. But yes, I'd assume most people do. But I think the statement they're expressing is usually "I think this looks cool," not "I like to poke people's eyes out."

That's true. But then, there are also laws which go beyond sensibility to get rid of a symptom of a problem, not a cause.

The bracelets are merely a handy item which could be interchanged with any number of other objects - baseball bats (god, these things are involved in so many crimes, and yet they're legal), for example. Removing them will not solve the problem of violence, nor significantly lessen the occurrence of violence. It's like expecting to cure a cold by wiping your nose. You're still sick, you just get rid of a bit of the snot.

Fists. Feet. Elbows. Belts. Sticks. Bottles. Pencils. Chairs.

Weapons of convenience are everywhere.

How is supporting a gratuitous ban "cleaning up after others"? And no, it isn't my responsibility. People should learn to clean up their own messes, although sadly, not everyone does.

Oh, look. An ad-hom.

No they aren't. They're removing an item which can be used by law-breakers, but which was not intended for such use and is not used violently by most people. Not the same thing.

I could spray a bleach cleaning solution in someone's face and blind them; should we outlaw bleach? No. The proper solution would be to toss my happy a** in jail and/or therapy.

And it's only common sense to avoid dangerous people, or people who make you uncomfortable. To say "I'm going to walk into this crime-infested ghetto with fifty-dollar bills poking out of my purse, and DAMN IT, a cop had better make sure I don't get hurt!" is, well, stupid.

I'd say that the obvious purpose of a rocket launcher is violence, and so you'd be outta business. But the simple fact is that a bracelet is a damned bracelet. It DOES have a purpose, and that purpose is to be a fashion accessory.

We can't help things like horrible genetics or disfiguring physical trauma. I'd rather spend my life with someone physically "ugly" than with someone abusive, shallow, or bigoted. We all end up wrinkled and saggy anyway.

Um... The bracelet's primary application is to be a bracelet. You know, to make people feel all pretty and whatnot...

Because maybe they liked wearing their bracelet?

This is a bit like saying "You're not gay, so why should you care if gay people can marry or not?" or "You didn't ever use your printer, so I threw it out." Just because a person isn't in the targeted category doesn't mean they won't or shouldn't have an interest. I do not wear studded jewelry, and yet I still think that people should be able to. It's just a fashion.

I would think that people have even more reason to complain if they had no ill intent, since they've just lost a privilege because of someone else's abuse of it.