One more reason why guns laws won't do anything without more information on what exactly they hope to achieve by passing them.
I personally enjoy living in a city that bans knives and guns. I find it comforting to know that it's not likely for someone I pass to have a gun. I also can't go a single day without passing a dozen cops. However, there is plenty of data telling us there isn't enough data to make arguments one way or another about gun laws - no consistent, comprehensive studies exist that clearly point to legalizing or banning guns that will make an impact in either direction. I believe in funding studies that can give us an answer to that very problem.
What city do you live in? I thought Chicago was the toughest city for knife laws and a blade under 2 inches is still legal there. Who took Chicago's crown?
UPDATED:
I did a little research and it seems that Pell City, Alabama has taken Chicago's crown:
Sec. 13-25. - Weapons — Carrying off of one's premises.
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry off of his premises any knife or
instrument of like kind or pistol within the city; provided, on the trial for
such offense the defendant may give in evidence that at the time of carrying
such weapon or pistol he had good reason to apprehend and attack, which may
be taken in mitigation of the offense by the judge in trying him; provided
further, this section shall not apply to persons who are permitted to carry
such weapons by the laws of the state.
I need to go back through Alabama state law and see how they handle chefs and people that hang sheetrock. I would love to know the back story on this ordinance. As it stands this ordinance seems like an egregious restriction on commerce.
Do you live in Pell City? I would love to hear if you ever see any ramifications of this ordinance in daily life.
Less biased means not just a different institution, but a different culture, the "public health" culture appears to be totally biased and has published a string of self-refuting junk science papers in the most prestigious journals like the NEJM and JAMA.
I don't know, but given that public health is so important, fixing it would seem to be a top priority. If what you say is true, then the situation is far worse than just "some biased people use taxpayer money to criticize gun ownership", and I'm certainly not going to admire anybody who simply defunded one small portion of it to protect their pet issue while ignoring the rest.
You sound as unhappy as the fund raisers for Republican politicians have been since Newtown when I tell them I'm completely tapped out for political money this year, call me back next year....
Heh. You and I clearly have different approaches to politics. Anyone calls me asking for money gets hung up on. I never give money to politicians, because that's insane. The money would go to far better use if I give it to that homeless guy who spends it on crack cocaine.
Well, my approach to politics is in no particular order learning the issues and people, advocating for or against the former, donating money where I think it will do good, sometimes volunteering time, and of course voting. All of them have paid off enough times that I see no reason not to continue, and they hardly strike me as insane.
WRT to donations, I made 5 sets of political donations in the last year or so, and 3 of the 5 were "successful" in that the politician or cause succeeded, and in the case of the politicians they're doing exactly what I want ... aside from asking me for more money this calendar year ^_^.
Where are you finding these worthy politicians? I've never seen one who was both worth supporting and had any chance of winning. I can't tell if I'm just really picky, in a bad area, not paying attention, or what.
As for the donations, none of them are local. On the other hand, I now live in an area where the politicians are in general aligned with my positions. And then there are cases where one must absolutely be fired, and the people largely agree: https://www.google.com/search?q=rita+hunter+jasper+county
Indeed - there seems to only be two very polar groups in this discussion. Those that are adamant guns are a good thing, and those that are adamant that guns are a bad thing. I'm somewhere in the middle - I'd love to know which is really the right answer - does having a gun really make violent crime less likely? Does everyone carrying a gun make people more likely and more quickly to resort to violence to solve problems?
If you live in NYC only blades greater than 4" are banned in public places unless being transported for a legal purpose. Otherwise all knives seem to be legal to possess.
I also think there is a restriction that pertains to open carry versus concealed (even if concealed means a spyderco clipit hanging inside your pocket).
I personally enjoy living in a city that bans knives and guns. I find it comforting to know that it's not likely for someone I pass to have a gun. I also can't go a single day without passing a dozen cops. However, there is plenty of data telling us there isn't enough data to make arguments one way or another about gun laws - no consistent, comprehensive studies exist that clearly point to legalizing or banning guns that will make an impact in either direction. I believe in funding studies that can give us an answer to that very problem.