England: Ban Bricks?

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Dad died after blow from brick

A YOUNG father was killed when he struck his head on a concrete pavement after being punched to the ground by a brick-wielding thug. Dad-of-one Edward Jones, 25, was trying to calm down Daniel Vella, 22, when the aggressive younger man smacked him in the jaw with the improvised weapon...

Source: The Sun

What are those Brits doing leaving all those dangerous assault-bricks laying around where thugs can pick them up and use them as murder weapons? Shouldn't they all be cemented into buildings?

I, for one, am opposed to this proliferation of assault-bricks that are freely available to every street thug.

[AWL71 0]

Yes, bricks should be banned along with knives, baseball bats, and any other device or object that can cause harm to humans. It was the bricks fault after all! The person that used the brick was in no way responsible for his actions.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I, for one, am opposed to this proliferation of assault-bricks that are freely available to every street thug.

I think your proposal to ban bricks is just a ploy by you and your elitist clan to ensure that only the rich can afford assault bricks. You and your ilk, like Rosie O'Donnel, want the 'little people' helpless while your drive around in your SUVs armed to the teeth with bricks and surrounded by the helpless masses.

I propose that we tax all the rich (those that make over $25,000 per year) a 50% tax in order to afford the government the ability to provide to ALL free government bricks. Also, free houses made of straw and/or wood (note brick houses will be in short supply for a brief time). (minus administrative costs in implementing an affirmative action brick provider as the preferred vendor of government-provided assault bricks).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Once again, Rehmwa, you are delusional, this is obviously a scare tactic of the political left to ban liberties such as brick ownership. This brick wasn't even fully automatic. If the thug would have been missing his brick, he'd have used a pointy stick or flame thrower or machine gun, instead.

We need to preserve the right to 'bear bricks' and not let the erosion of our right continue.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

You both are delusional - bricks are evil in, and of, themselves.

Bricks are design purely to kill. Nothing else. You think you can use a brick to build a house? NONSENSE.

They are they just to kill. They came directly from the design of rocks - historically used for violence.

The children need to be educated to reject bricks and instead to play with dolls and think about protecting trees and tundra.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 3]

If they banned bricks they'd have to build their houses out of straw, or maybe sticks. Little piggies.

[Zipp0 1]

Couldn't they use that rubber mat stuff they use on playgrounds?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[DZJ 0]

[shakes head in disbelief]

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

[shakes head in disbelief]

Why? I'm not surprised at all.
If JR is joking or being serious - where's the difference?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

[shakes head in disbelief]

Why? I'm not surprised at all.
If JR is joking or being serious - where's the difference?

It's a reoccurring tactic JR uses to attempt to point out the futility of banning guns. His line of reasoning is that since nearly anything can be used as a weapon, all weapons should be available to everyone.

This is somewhat tortured logic, but I'm nearly certain you can easily see that, in this case, it takes far more effort to kill a person with a brick than it does to point a gun and pull its trigger.

The other part of this is the JR would argue that if the victim had been armed with a gun, then the perp may have been deterred from attacking him. While there may be some validity to this line of reasoning when it comes to defense against a man with a brick, it completely fails in logic since if guns were made more available in England not only would they be more available to the victim, but probably the perp as well. In that case, the person that gets the first shot in is the one that probably wins and in this case, more than likely, that would still be the perp.

Essentially, no matter how you look at it, this story fails the logic test as a pro-gun story.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

t takes far more effort to kill a person with a brick than it does to point a gun and pull its trigger.

that certainly depends on the aggressor and his relative experience and skill with a brick vs with a gun

now, brickguns, those are really dangerous

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

Quote

now, brickguns, those are really dangerous

This is one of the reasons fully automatic brick guns have been outlawed.

Well . . . that and the recoil is kind of a bitch.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

[shakes head in disbelief]

Why? I'm not surprised at all.
If JR is joking or being serious - where's the difference?

It's a reoccurring tactic JR uses to attempt to point out the futility of banning guns. His line of reasoning is that since nearly anything can be used as a weapon, all weapons should be available to everyone.

This is somewhat tortured logic, but I'm nearly certain you can easily see that, in this case, it takes far more effort to kill a person with a brick than it does to point a gun and pull its trigger.

The other part of this is the JR would argue that if the victim had been armed with a gun, then the perp may have been deterred from attacking him. While there may be some validity to this line of reasoning when it comes to defense against a man with a brick, it completely fails in logic since if guns were made more available in England not only would they be more available to the victim, but probably the perp as well. In that case, the person that gets the first shot in is the one that probably wins and in this case, more than likely, that would still be the perp.

Essentially, no matter how you look at it, this story fails the logic test as a pro-gun story.

Or he could just be having a little fun.

Play the ball, not the player.

[kelpdiver 2]

so has anyone been killed by stucco yet?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's a reoccurring tactic JR uses to attempt to point out the futility of banning guns. His line of reasoning is that since nearly anything can be used as a weapon, all weapons should be available to everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

When a person has to create a strawman argument in such all-inclusive terms in order to try and score against his opponent, it's a sure sign of his own logical defeat.

P.S. All right, who's the nut that voted to NOT ban bricks? We had a solid anti-brick consensus going against those evil weapons.

There must be someone from the big brick industry lurking herein...

[quade 4]

Quote

Or he could just be having a little fun.

Oh trust me, I find him highly amusing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

so has anyone been killed by stucco yet?

Not that I've ever heard of. And that's a good point. Maybe we should outlaw brick homes, in favor of stucco. After all, stucco is just, um, mud. And bricks consume a hell of a lot of fossil fuels to bake the darned things in ovens. So stucco is more environmentally friendly too. Save the environment, and reduce brick-crime, all at the same time!

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

It's a reoccurring tactic JR uses to attempt to point out the futility of banning guns. His line of reasoning is that since nearly anything can be used as a weapon, all weapons should be available to everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

Oh please JR, just look at your own posting history for a moment. For you to deny this is hilarious.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

• Quote

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's a reoccurring tactic JR uses to attempt to point out the futility of banning guns. His line of reasoning is that since nearly anything can be used as a weapon, all weapons should be available to everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

Oh please JR, just look at your own posting history for a moment. For you to deny this is hilarious.

I deny it, and that's serious. No where have I advocated all weapons for everyone. Show me one single message where I have said such a thing.

I'm in favor of the criminal background checks at gun stores, for example. That alone makes your statement bzzzt-wrong.

• Quote

[Royd 0]

Quote

Once again, Rehmwa, you are delusional,

That might not be far from the truth. Anyone who would debate himself on the internet, well.....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Once again, Rehmwa, you are delusional,

That might not be far from the truth. Anyone who would debate himself on the internet, well.....

Look, I just read that guy's stuff sometimes and it sets me off. Makes me just want to burn things. He has some nerve.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Or he could just be having a little fun.

Oh trust me, I find him highly amusing.

Ok, there's a post that's NOT absolutely dripping with smugness and self superiority

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

Quote

Ok, there's a post that's NOT absolutely dripping with smugness and self superiority

Whereas yours is simply ironic?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's a reoccurring tactic JR uses to attempt to point out the futility of banning guns. His line of reasoning is that since nearly anything can be used as a weapon, all weapons should be available to everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

Oh please JR, just look at your own posting history for a moment. For you to deny this is hilarious.

I deny it, and that's serious.
.....

No where have I advocated all weapons for everyone. Show me one single message where I have said such a thing.
....

You mainly referred to your ...Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares "a well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress or any other government agency from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

That's NOT applicable to every US citizen ("Everyone")???

(Scratching head, walking away in disbelief: OH, those crazy Americans....)

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

No where have I advocated all weapons for everyone. Show me one single message where I have said such a thing.
....

You mainly referred to your ...Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares "a well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress or any other government agency from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

That's NOT applicable to every US citizen ("Everyone")???

(Scratching head, walking away in disbelief: OH, those crazy Americans....)

This could be one of those English as a second language problems, though I doubt it.

There is a big difference between "guns for everyone" and "everyone (that isn't a felon) has the right to own guns." One is universal ownership, the other is universal choice.