Bats don't kill people. People kill people with bats.

MACaver said:
Nah, listen to Charlton Heston when he says: Guns don't kill people... APES with guns kill people!"
Click to expand...
Nah, it's not guns or people or apes that kill people.

It's not even the bullets.....

Gaping wounds, organ damage, bleeding and other trauma kill people.:lol:
 
So fate deals a card and someone dies. Whooo! Let's ban everything and sit inside doing nothing. If we did let the people say that banning this type of activity that has been played for years/decades, then we may as well ban budo. After all, look at the track record of MA injuries and death.

Before the west got hold of MA, loads of people were dying in large fields with sharp and blunt instruments. People were getting killed by "ninjas" for some reason. Maybe Congress should decide that MA and budo is far too voilent and ban it if the people said so.

Loads of people were getting battered and blown up medieavel Europe in what the Sealed Knot perform now perform at festivals of history. So let us ban that also.

Maybe we should get rid of aeroplanes as for some reason, they seem to crash. The Titanic sunk, let us ban floating icebergs or unsinkable boats. Horse riding is dangerous, so we should stop riding horses for fun and pleasure.

No matter what we do, there is a risk with everything. Electricity can kill, but we plug in our computer to the mains as we are sure it is safe.

Maybe we should let the 1980's theory of everything is ok and bring back the Care Bears so we can all be touchy feely and care a lot with disregard to everything else in the world. Let the PMRC and other paranoid groups of safety get back into the public eye and tell us how to run out lives once more.
I am just glad that I live in the UK. If the peer group people like America started up here, they would get slapped and told to keep quiet for being a numbnut in public.
 
I think we need to look at the degree of risk, and then at anything riskier that would require greater attention.



Regards,


Steve
 
Yes, degree of risk, and the risk to the willing participants vs. bystanders. Practicing archery in your small back yard while someone's kids play next door is too much risk...
 
arnisador said:
Yes, degree of risk, and the risk to the willing participants vs. bystanders. Practicing archery in your small back yard while someone's kids play next door is too much risk...
Click to expand...
In the UK, ye olde English lore says that you can practice archery in your back garden on a Sunday while a priest watches during the hours of church. And if by accident, you happen to kill any member of your family, you can not be tried for murder.

Even in the 14th century, they knew about risks, so why harp on about it now?
 
Ok, the deal is they want to try to cut down on fatalities by replacing wood with aluminum bats. Is there really any proof that wooden bats don't cause balls to go at high speeds? I mean, we see how the pros play, and they tend to use nothing BUT wooden bats! Maybe they should put fins on the bats to increase wind resistance. Or maybe use whiffle balls, so the ball doesn't go too fast. Ok, i understand, they lost their son, which IS a horrible tragedy, but I won't be convinced until they can actually show definitive scientific proof that a wooden bat would have prevented their son's death.
 
deadhand31 said:
...I won't be convinced until they can actually show definitive scientific proof that a wooden bat would have prevented their son's death.
Click to expand...
Scientific proof is rarely relevant in these cases.

  • The media will take these kinds of human interest stories and milk it for what it's worth as higher ratings mean more money from their sponsors.
  • Then the politicians will make their decision based on what is good for their political career, actual statistics will be irrelevant compared to that.
  • Then the average citizen will grumble about another stupid law that makes no sense to them and life will move on as usual.
 
My take on if they decide to experiment with the cause and effect of bats, wooden or otherwise.... How are they going to test it? Are they going to line up children and throw bats at them? Equate it down to how hard a bat should be thrown before severe trauma ensues resulting in death. Are people dumb enough to warrant a finding on how hard it is to throw a bat to kill someone?


Or will they pay someone to sit around, push paper and figues to get an answer so they can get the tenure that they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Senate Filibuster Rule Change...

Previous Thread

Woman That Found Finger In Chili Arrested

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top