Debate Studded Bracelet Contreversy

hey naruto, one thing, the cop had a right to tell you to shut the hell up if it was unreasonable to just walk somwhere else, or if you were irritating someone else who also needed to be there, but the bracelet crap was bad.

along with some flesh, if you wanna continue the analogy.

ok, maybe they do, but it's very rare. the overwhelmingly larger use is as a weapon. a bracelet was, in all its time and with all the people wearing them, used as a weapon once in massachussetts. lol, now that i think of it, even though you can decide who is a coalition troop, you cant decide wich side is the terrorists. you would just have to decide what cause you would support. and actually some people have done just that with the cannon from a tank. they left it on the tank, but a hood ornament is all it is used for now. one of them was Jesse James, and i cant remember the other one. i know that Bam Margera got a large military truck(no guns on that one, but i cant be sure about the others) along with who knows how many other vehicles.

yeah, i wear one because i care how I look. again, if i loved someone, her looks wouldnt mean anything, becoause, if she's just ugly, she cant help it, and if she dresses in a way that i think doesnt look good, well thats her choice. i dont have any right to tell her how to dress.

ok then, you really dont like anything that could aid someone in a fight, that isnt neccesary, am i correct?

if a state cant rise up against a government that has gone bad, it isnt free. if weapons were banned to everyone but the military, i would be british. i dont know what that would entail at this point, but it wouldve extended the oppression tht the war was about until the king got tired of it(that rarely happens, by the way) also, disarming the public would give the government absolute power, and according to history, that's never good.

a list of tools commonly found DURING a fight, organized into clubs, throwing tools, blinding tools, and stabbing/cutting tools.
CLUBS baseballbat, pipe, broom, small log/large stick, walking stick, rock,
THROWING TOOLS broken glass, ashtray, knife, rocks, canned food, canned drinks, glass bottles, large bolts, books, baseballs, golfballs,
BLINDING TOOLS(cleaner, hot coffee, hot food, salt, tabasco sauce, gravel, sand, screws)
STABBING/CUTTING TOOLS
broken glass, knife, glass bottles, large nails, screwdriver, broken pvc pipe, hairpick, chopsticks(if you like oriental restaurants), pens, pencils, metal nailfiles, sewing needles(if you know someone who sews) axe(if you camp)
this doesnt include strangulation tools, since anything strong and flexible can be used, including the shirt youre wearing. those are all common items, and youll usually have access to a large number of them at any given time.

 

it would indicate that there aren't enough cops, and that if you mind your own business you could probably get away with wearing one anyway. the cops don't make the rules, just enforce them. this law was probably passed due to public pressure, but it's not really goig to be enforced, that one both parties seemingly win.

i think the two really do go hand in hand though.

hardly a true analogy, it won't solve all crime, true, but it will remove some of it. isn't that better than nothing?

again, everything here already serves a specific purpose. (who carries a chair in their back pocket?)

it's cleaning up after others because these others created a dangerous product which found it's way into dangerous hands. banning them is cleaning up after them.
it's not your responsibility, no, but you have to decide whether or not you're going to prevent future violence with them, the concequences from that decision ARE a responsibility you must wear.

yep. prooves my point quite nicely i think.

yet it is used violently, it is used by law-breakers, perfectly suited for such use, and used by an unknown figure.
i said do what they can to remove law-breakers. isn't it better to stop law-breakers before they commit a crime rather than end up with a cadavar and a sorry *** in a cell?.
if commit a violent act, your *** belongs in a cell, but why leave an accident waiting to happen on the streets?. out of all the analogies you've tried to throw at this debate, not a single one is in the same catergory as the bracelet, a dangerous object with no other functional use.

you can stay away from these areas, but that's not an excuse not to clean them up.

aha! the nail in the coffin!. the obvious purpose is violence, so i should be outta business. isn't the obvious purpose of this bracelet violence?, a fashion accessory can be anything, there are a million bracelets out there, this is the only dangerous type i've ever seen. if you put a strap on the rocket launcher is it a fashion accessory? i like the look of rocket-launchers, i think to wear one would be an extension and public statement to the fact, 'don't i look cool'
i've got no ill intent. just a harmless love of rocket-launchers.

another victory to morality. :anime: . you two would be one of the few in this world. but i'll tell you what, when you marry, post me a picture of your wives, and i'll judge you then. :catgirl:

then why not wear one of the million others that aren't banned? this bracelet must do something special... that none of the others do....

well, why should you?.

this analogy would be accurate if your printer was radioactive, otherwise it has nothing in common with the debate.

nope, it's also used as a weapon, remember?

very good, now that you see my point, where do you draw the line?. is there a ratio of violent to non-violent usage that determines whether it should be banned?. if so what is it?. and used once?. call me a cynic but i don't belive that for a second.

so then you selectively care about looks then?. what about someone who was disfigured by an attact from one of these bracelets?. it wouldn't be their fault they're ugly either.

yep.

only if the military remains loyal to that government.
brittish?, that would probably entail us thrashing you at rugby.
(wait, we do anyway..)
king?, so who's the king of America again? i forget.
you still have the right to vote you know. the state doesn't pull out it's guns and plunge into civil war every time they want a change of government, they vote. you know, a much more civilalized approach. highly democratic and all.

and how many of these things have no primary functional purpose?.
how many of these things do you carry with oyu everywhere you go?

 

so, if i like something that looks like that, that means i like to poke people's eyes out?

if you dont go into those areas, you have no right to tell the people who live there what to do, unless it is an actual offense, like attacking someone.

if someone chooses to look a certain way, i have no right to tell her it's wrong. if someone cant help it, it still doesnt affect my decision. i care about how i look, but i am not so arrogant that i would think less of someone for how they look.

the "king of america" was henry the 8th for quite a while, if i remember right, but america was only being colonized at that point. that was what i was referring to.

baseball bat, sticks, rocks, broken pvc pipe, chopsticks, glass bottles, metal nailfiles, hairpicks, baseballs, golfballs, tabasco sauce, glass ashtrays. all of these have no use except in a fight, or because you like them, or like to do things that require them. anyway, as for carrying them in your pocket,

since i dont feel like searching through all of these posts right now, i wil just refer you to the list above.

 

Well, if it's not going to be enforced, then what the hell was the point of passing it anyway?

But a bracelet DOES serve a purpose. Whether it's "useful" by your standards or anyone else's is not the point. There are many, many, many objects in this world that are merely decoration, but that in itself is their purpose.

Well, like I said - I'm all for getting rid of the big spiky studs. I notice you haven't acknowledged my differentiation between studs which have been proven dangerous and ALL studs.

I'm not just taking some idealist "protect freedom of expression by removing the ban entirely" stance here. I do think that the inch+ spikes are a bit much. I've said that numerous times. But I STILL haven't seen it proven, or even argued, that ALL the studs need to be banned to prevent violence.

You're exaggerating. Who's been killed by a bracelet thus far?

But see, again, going after the bracelets isn't really addressing the issue. If the law is not being publicized or enforced consistently, explain to me how it's going to do diddly-squat to help the problem?

I still say that instead of banning all the bracelets, it'd be better to ban the more gratuitously-spiked ones and focus more on, say, deterring youth violence by identifying problem individuals through behavior. Symptomatic treatment can only go so far, and usually ends up being FAR less helpful than addressing the cause.

Because NOT ALL OF THE BRACELETS ARE DANGEROUS.

Because the law promotes a discriminatory attitude against a particular style of dress; it's too broad.

Because the people who are going to commit these crimes don't need a bracelet to do it.

No. It's obvious purpose is to be WORN AS AN ACCESSORY TO A PARTICULAR FASHION.

Which is why some people have private collections of vintage weapons, with appropriate permits.

So, you see, it's entirely possible to like something that looks or actually is dangerous without wanting to use it against anyone.

Oh, so now you're making me a lesbian, eh? *laughs* 'S alright, if gay marriage is ever legalized across the US and my soulmate turns out to be an ugly woman, I'll make sure to invite you to the wedding. ~_^

So you wouldn't be even a little bit irritated if something you really liked was banned, because a small minority of the people who owned it abused it?

Look, this isn't exactly the most important issue we've seen in the last decade. But the fact remains that I think the ban is too broad. It's unnecessary. I won't go lobbying at the White House to get it changed, but I do still think that there are better alternatives (a partial ban, or restricting the bracelets from certain areas).

Maybe you should answer that one, considering what a point you were making about thinking of the welfare of others, and a person's responsibility to society. ~_^

As are many other items of questionable value to society.

How about perfume? Tell me there's a societal need for perfume. I bet I could blind someone quite nicely with an eyeful of cheap cologne.

You bet there is. If one person in a million uses an item as a weapon, how can you justify banning it when everyone else is being responsible? But if, say, eight out of ten people are making it a weapon of choice...

And don't ask me to quote exact numbers, because you KNOW how hard it is to quantify such things. But I think it should be logical that a SIGNIFICANT TREND is grounds for banning; an isolated few cases is not.

Funny, I grew up in a rather ghetto neighborhood, went to a public highschool with plenty of goths and punks, and this is the first time I've heard of a specific incident where that type of jewelry was used as a weapon.

I think someone ought to look for statistics relating to this debate... Maybe I'll do that in the morning.

 

my point was that politics and society has changes alot since the days of robin hood and his merry morons.

since you've ignored my point completely, i'll just let this one be.

i think public pressure. the authorities probably thought it was best to be seen to be doing something to prevent the problem. Whether or not it's enforced is politically irrealavent in the end. In fact it's probably ideal that way, because those pushing for action get a new law, (satisfaction) and the people wearing them don't loose their fashion accessory and start ethical debates like this one.^_^. Thus no party complains. it's quite the clever solution i think.

true, but where you run into problems is when you try and decide whether 'esthetical beauty' outweighs a dangerous potential in such an object. If say a large painting had metal spikes in it, then i wouldn't have a problem, because;
a)- chances are it's a one off
b)- it's too big and impracticle to be too dangerous to exist.
so i think the beauty to danger ratio (if you will) can only be measured on an object to object basis.

ok, i'm willing to dive into your distinction. ^_^.
haven't be proven dangerous?. Unless i'm mistaken no-one here knows which kind have been used in violence right?. so why the assumption?
Logically the stud kind would be used for violence in exactly the same circumstances as the inch+ ones right?. have you seen brass-knuckles before?, these things are not very big at all, and about as sharp as your elbow, but they're dangerous as hell. The studs are smaller granted, but they'd still hurt alot.
Have you had a baseball cap with one of those small stud like things at the top?. If someone hits that when you're wearing it, it hurts a bi***. As i'm sure you know, the point size of impact is what's really important. (this is what makes a sharp point and blades/wedges cut.) If you think about the shape of a dome stud, when it impacts with something, the very top of the stud is where all the force is concetrated. a dome has an infinitely small impact point. No matter how much you 'zoom' in on the top, it still curves, right?.
a 60kg women (or man ~_^) wearing high heels puts the equivilent weight of an elephant in the point of impact of the shoe's heel.
Think for a minute about how much force is translated from a thrown punch into this miniscule metalic point. The fact that it doesn't appear to be 'sharp' is decieving. I'll try to find some stats on this.^^.

no idea. we can't say it hasn't happened though. we'vew got no proof either way.

obviously it's not. It's just a placebo for those demanding a solution.
if it was enforced and publicized though i think it would help.

i couldn't agree more. however, i think the best treatment of all is both symptomatic AND eliminating the root of the problem. I think this particularaly because i think it isn't feasable to completely eliminate the root of the problem as you outline.

agreed, the leather one's aren't. as i mentioned above, i think the studs are dangerous indeed.

doesn't it also discriminate between rich and poor? gay and straight?. The law's a hypocritical *** in many respects.

removing a single object to eliminate violence may seem incredibly narrow-minded, but isn't the law worked case by case?. there's not going to be one simple solution. I'm not saying removing these things will stop violent people from being violent. But i think it's logical to ban it. It's one less dangerous object in the world, right?.

it's a disguise i tell you!!! it's Osama without his turbun! lol.
don't they say the best place to hide something is in the most obvious place?.

these things are controlled though. You can't meander the streets with them.

lol. s'rry 'bout that missy.^_^. i'll settle for a beer-drinking yob then. ^_^.

probably, but if it was being used in crimes then i'd let it be. restrictions would be a nice idea, but i don't see what possible restrictions could be put on these things.

ha!. are you insinuating something here?. :catgirl:
two gay people marrying has no concequences for me so i see no legal reason for it to be illegal. so there's your permission from me to marry your ugly wife. :anime:

it hasn't happened though, so i see no reason to question it. If it did then i really can't say what my position on it would be.

i'm not asking for figures, i'm mearly pointing out how difficult it is to draw the line. As for trends, they're not a true indication of figures. If everyone in the world has one, then 1 in 100 becomes a much larger figure than if 100 000 people in the whole world owns one. The victims aren't percentages, the number of victims is much more important to me than the percentage of victims to items.

i agree. It's amazing we've gotten this far without even bothering to prove if the things have been banned yet. all we've got is a story about a pissed cop who started all this. I'd have a pretty good laugh if these things haven't even been banned yet. or if there's no reported cases of violence with these things. :blush:

 

you said tht none of these have another functional use. i refered you to a list of weapons with no other functional use. how is that ignoring?

lol yeah. at least we'd know each others stand on it though... maybe :dizzy2:
i've enjoyed it anyway.