Go Flip!!!

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by cfsmtb, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0

    Yeah, the bad, gory old days of "having one for the road" and the Six o' clock swill. Do some research on the pioneering work of Dr John Birrell, here's a start:

    Blood on Bitumen (Part Three)
    http://150.theage.com.au/view_bestofarticle.asp?straction=update&inttype=1&intid=428
    Author: Graham Perkin. Source: The Age. Date: 21 Jun 1959

    FOR AND AGAINST COMPULSORY TESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS

    One car smashes into another; a driver with bloodshot eyes, thick speech and a severe attack of the “after-six staggers” climbs from the wreckage. Is he too intoxicated to drive?

    The Victorian community does not know. For quite legitimate but controversial reasons it does not accept the only available standards by which the driver’s condition can be judged.

    In the opinion of police, the British Medical Association and, guardedly, lawyers and the courts, blood-alcohol tests are the best means of judging whether or not a man has been drinking.

    Blood tests do not necessarily prove that a man is drunk; only that he has been drinking. But it is the drinking man with a motor car who dominates the accident statistics.

    Until some form of definite physical test of his condition is established as the law, this drinking man is almost beyond the law.

    On the face of it, great injustices are being done by the existing law. The conviction rate for drunken driving before magistrates is 75 per cent. Before juries the conviction rate is 10 per cent.

    The inference is that those with sufficient money to brief the best counsel and to arrange the most complete defence have a 90 per cent chance of of acquittal?

    Blood-alcohol tests are at present made only by consent. A refusal cannot be admitted as evidence since the 1958 amendments to the law.

    More than 70 per cent of suspect drunken drivers refuse blood tests. This would appear to be an indication that the police are prepared to take “no” for an answer.

    *

    I have watched the interrogation of a number of suspected drunken drivers.

    Their right to refuse a blood test was, in all cases, put to them clearly and fairly, and there was no attempt to change their minds.

    Some of the men were beyond logic or reason, and could have been persuaded to put their names on a consent form without undue argument.

    The 70 per cent who refuse the test obviously are enjoying a considerable extension of their rights as citizens compared with the 30 per cent who consent.

    The 1958 B.M.A. special committee considered these anomalies and recommended that the issue of a driver’s licence should depend on the driver’s consent to take blood-alcohol tests, breath tests or any other approved tests of alcohol level in the blood.

    Refusal to consent would automatically cancel the driving licence for a statutory period.

    The B.M.A. also recommended that any car driver with a blood-alcohol level of 1 per cent or more should be guilty of an offence.

    Six and a half glasses of beer, or six and a half ounces of whisky, drunk in five minutes, would give the average drinker a blood-alcohol level of 1 per cent.

    Of course, the average drinker would drink more slowly than this. He would also regularly eliminate and perhaps take food as he drank.

    A maximum of nine glasses of beer between 5 p.m. and 6.15 p.m. would probably allow a drinker to keep his blood-alcohol level inside the permissible limit.

    An honest drinker who is also an honest driver could hardly complain that this limit interfered with his drinking.

    The B.M.A. recommendation, in effect, means compulsory blood tests. It also means that blood-alcohol above a mandatory level is an indication that you are incapable of driving whether you hold your liquor or not.

    *

    Professor R. D. Wright, professor of physiology at the University of Melbourne, objects on both these scores.

    He has strong support from the Associated Brewers and less vocal support from the legal and other professions.

    The crux of professor Wright’s objections is that compulsory blood tests are an invasion of privacy and therefore an attack on personal freedom.

    “Should we compel a man to provide the evidence to convict himself?” he asks. “To accept this proposition is to deny the basis of British justice.”

    But similar compulsions have been accepted in the public interest for many years. If, for example, we travel abroad there are a series of compulsory vaccinations and inoculations.

    Professor Wright acknowledges that a community must accept some limitations on its freedom up to a point. Blood tests, he thinks go past this point.

    Professor Wright holds no brief for the drunken driver. “I keep off the roads between 6.15 and 7 p.m., because there are drunks in cars everywhere looking for accidents.” He says.

    The Victorian Police surgeon (Dr. John Birrell), the foremost advocate of compulsory blood tests, agrees that compulsion would be a breach of liberty.

    “But,” he says, “this particular liberty involves the freedom to drink as much as you like, to judge your own condition when you are in no condition to judge, to drive your car and to kill or maim with little prospect of penalty.”

    *

    Mr. E. L. Burke of the Associated Brewers, says a compulsory blood test is the physical equivalent of confession under duress.

    “There may be occasions when this is justifies but, if so, such an overwhelming case must be made out to support it that all doubts about justification are removed.” Mr. Burke says.

    The supporters of compulsory blood tests agree with Mr. Burke. They believe 700-odd road deaths a year in Victoria represent an “overwhelming case.”

    And what of Professor Wright? On his own admission, drunken drivers limit his freedom to drive on the public highway between 6.15 and 7 p.m.

    All of us, including Professor Wright, have a human right to drive or walk or ride on the roads at any time with reasonable safety. That right is seriously infringed in existing circumstances.

    Compulsory blood tests are law in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland and in some parts of the United States.

    The mandatory upper limit of alcohol concentration varies between .05 in Norway and .15 in the United States. The Victorian B.M.A.’s recommendation is .1 per cent.

    According to some doctors an upper limit of .1 per cent would provide only 20 per cent certainty that the person was drunk. It would however, establish that a man had drunk a considerable quanitity.

    This of course, would be the aim of the blood test. The drunken driver is covered by the law as it stands. The man who has been drinking in fair quantities is not.

    *

    If we believe that a man drives at 100 per cent efficiency at all stages of intoxication up to complete drunkenness, then there is no need for a blood test, compulsory or otherwise.

    What are the alternatives?

    Professor Wright, suggests that police should take film and tape recordings of a suspect driver’s appearance, behavior and speech, to be submitted as direct evidence.

    Although police and State Government authorities believe the suggestion is impractical—the traffic squad would have to be equipped with cameras, and courtrooms would require projection equipment—it is worth a trial on a limited scale.

    Breath analysis is also a possibility. Dr. Norman McCallum, of the University forensic laboratory on this test at present.

    None of the tests can be completely equated with public opinion. The public has to decide whether the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly bloodbath on the roads is important enough to overcome its objections.

    The decision might be accelerated if professor Wright, Mr. Burke and the Acting Premier (Mr. Rylah) arranged to spend a Saturday night on the roads with Dr. Birrell.
     


  2. vaudegiant

    vaudegiant New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the point of the car-as-a-lethal-weapon argument is that although a car isn't 'intended' to be used as a weapon: arrogant, threatening, careless or negligent use of a vehicle quickly renders it a weapon. A gun is just a gun until someone picks it up and shoots someone. Prior to that, it is just a highly organised piece of metal. It is driver behaviour that bestows upon a car its weapon status, and thus drivers need to be educated to understand that it takes very little for them to transform a vehicle into a device capable of maiming and killing.....a lethal weapon.

    ....unless of course when the driver drives carelessly or negligently, and causes harm. In this case, the car becomes a device capable of maiming and killing. It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause harm, just to fail a duty of care.


    Pat
     
  3. "Zebee Johnstone" wrote:
    >
    > But how to change a culture? How to get people to think in terms of
    > responsibilities not rights? I've no idea... It can happen if it
    > starts early enough but you won't see major change for 30 years as
    > that's how long it would take for the kids being trained now to be in
    > the majority.


    Quick changes in attitudes to cycling for transport will happen with petrol
    at $5 - $10 per litre. And this may not be so far off!! The Netherlands had
    quite low bicycle use in the 60s. The oil crisis of the 1970s gave them a
    jolt - they realised their vulnerability to high fuel prices, and their
    minimal energy supplies. Significant legal and social changes in attitudes
    to cycling bbegan in the mid 70s and continued for the next 30+ years, right
    up to today. But the growth in cycle use was quite rapid, with big changes
    after only 5-10 years.

    > The attitude to drink driving changed in less time, with a
    > multi-pronged approach of more education and more enforcement. I
    > think it also needed to have the kicker that people could easily
    > realise "you might be hit by the drunk, you might be the drunk who
    > hits someone". Is it possible to get the same feelings in the general
    > popluation for a group they aren't part of? In a country which is
    > becoming more fragmented?


    Changes in attitudes to drink-driving were building for many years, as the
    road toll mounted. But the real clincher in changing community attitudes has
    been the big rise in use of roadside preliminary breath teasting that
    occurred in the late 80s and early 90s, combined with advertising campaigns.
    All of a sudden "if you drrink and drive you're a bloody idiot", firstly
    because you might kill someone, and secondly because you may get caught and
    do your licence. Enforcement was the clincher.

    --
    Cheers
    Peter

    ~~~ ~ [email protected]
    ~~ ~ _- \,
    ~~ (*)/ (*)
     
  4. In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:16:33 +1100
    vaudegiant <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > ...unless of course when the driver drives carelessly or negligently,
    > and causes harm. In this case, the car becomes a device capable of
    > maiming and killing. It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause
    > harm, just to fail a duty of care.


    Well... I think all crashes require two mistakes, not just one.

    Are all car/bicycle crashes an exception to this?

    Is it always the mistake of the driver that causes the problem? Is it
    almost always that?

    Zebee
     
  5. vaudegiant

    vaudegiant New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0


    Plenty of crashes would only require one party to be at fault. It gets back to the repercussions of a particular action or act. If a cyclist does something stupid and is involved in a crash with a car, chances are he/she will be the only one to suffer physically. If a driver acts stupidly or carelessly, and crashes with a cyclist, well................

    Clearly, there must be greater onus on the driver to proceed with caution, more so than a cyclist. We all should act responsibly, and some should act more responsibly than others commensurate with their potential to cause harm.


    Pat
     
  6. Plodder

    Plodder Guest

    --
    Frank
    [email protected]
    Drop DACKS to reply
    "vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]
    >
    > Plodder Wrote:
    > > --
    > >
    > > A weapon implies a weapon user. Drivers don't think of themselves as
    > > weapon
    > > users, so it's easy to think "this argument doesn't apply to me - I'm
    > > not
    > > setting out to hurt anyone, so my car's nota weapon." The rest of the
    > > argument becomes invalid.
    > >

    >
    > I think the point of the car-as-a-lethal-weapon argument is that
    > although a car isn't 'intended' to be used as a weapon: arrogant,
    > threatening, careless or negligent use of a vehicle quickly renders it
    > a weapon. A gun is just a gun until someone picks it up and shoots
    > someone. Prior to that, it is just a highly organised piece of metal.
    > It is driver behaviour that bestows upon a car its weapon status, and
    > thus drivers need to be educated to understand that it takes very
    > little for them to transform a vehicle into a device capable of maiming
    > and killing.....a lethal weapon.
    >
    > > Except in rare cases where a driver deliberately drives the vehicle in
    > > such a way as to cause harm, a motor vehicle is simply a means of
    > > transport.

    >
    > ...unless of course when the driver drives carelessly or negligently,
    > and causes harm. In this case, the car becomes a device capable of
    > maiming and killing. It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause
    > harm, just to fail a duty of care.
    >
    >
    > Pat
    >
    >
    > --
    > vaudegiant


    No. A gun is a weapon. That's all it is. It's built with the intention of
    causing harm. It can be used as a "non-weapon" (display piece, target
    shooting, etc) but it is a weapon by design. A motor vehicle is not a weapon
    by design. It's designed as transport. It can be used as "non-transport"
    (e.g. deliberately driving at someone) but it's not a weapon by design.

    I could kill or harm someone with a cotton wool bud if I try hard enough.
    That doesn't make it a weapon. It makes it an object USED as a weapon.
    There's an element of intent. By describing a motor vehicle as a weapon,
    there's an implication of intent. Drivers won't associate themselves with
    that - "when I drive, I don't intend harm, so the argumant doesn't apply to
    me." In this way, the emotive argument becomes ineffective because people
    see it as not relevent to them.

    You're right in writing: "It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause
    harm, just to fail a duty of care." However, that failure does not
    constitute the intent to harm which is contained in the concept of 'weapon'.

    Perhaps it's hair-splitting, but I'm a philosopher by training so that's my
    job :p

    me
     
  7. giantvaude

    giantvaude New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Point taken. Split away.
    A gun is an inert object that becomes a weapon only when someone picks it with the intent to use it as such. If I use a gun as a walking stick, it is not a weapon but a walking stick. If I use a car as transport, then it is transport. If I drive in such a manner that any reasonable person could expect that I might injure or kill (drunk/drugged/speeding etc) then the car becomes more than just transport, but something else......whether you could say it becomes a weapon may be stretching it a little, but it becomes something very much less benign than simply a means of transport.



    Pat
     
  8. In aus.bicycle on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:48:54 +1100
    giantvaude <[email protected]> wrote:
    > reasonable person could expect that I might injure or kill
    > (drunk/drugged/speeding etc) then the car becomes more than just
    > transport, but something else......whether you could say it becomes a
    > weapon may be stretching it a little, but it becomes something very
    > much less benign than simply a means of transport.


    A bicycle has been used to kill someone just recently.

    So hand yourself in you user of a weapon!

    I think calling it a weapon is counter productive for the same reason
    plodder does.

    On the other hand, used in an advertising campaign it could do its
    part for education.

    Consider something like this:

    A roo shooter or police officer, or soldier, or all three, some
    suitably legit user of a weapon. Shown using it responsibly. Then
    shown being careless and someone is hurt. Then the same person in a
    car being careless. Someone is hurt. Voiceover "there is no
    difference - they are just as dead whether you are careless with a gun
    or a car. It only takes a moment of inattention. Don't be the one
    standing there crying that you didn't know it could happen to you"

    Zebee
     
  9. Euan

    Euan Guest

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    > In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:16:33 +1100
    > vaudegiant <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> ...unless of course when the driver drives carelessly or negligently,
    >> and causes harm. In this case, the car becomes a device capable of
    >> maiming and killing. It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause
    >> harm, just to fail a duty of care.

    >
    > Well... I think all crashes require two mistakes, not just one.
    >


    Bollocks. Rear enders only require fault from one party.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  10. Euan

    Euan Guest

    Plodder wrote:

    > (1) I do wish people would stop referring to a motor vehicle as "a lethal
    > weapon".



    Euan wrote:

    > You see if you've got people who want to operate lethal machinery, which is what cars are in the wrong hands,


    I stand by that. In the wrong hands cars are lethal weapons. So are
    bicycles but it's much rarer for a cyclist to kill a third party than it
    is for a motorist.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  11. In aus.bicycle on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:31:08 GMT
    Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    >> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:16:33 +1100
    >> vaudegiant <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> ...unless of course when the driver drives carelessly or negligently,
    >>> and causes harm. In this case, the car becomes a device capable of
    >>> maiming and killing. It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause
    >>> harm, just to fail a duty of care.

    >>
    >> Well... I think all crashes require two mistakes, not just one.
    >>

    >
    > Bollocks. Rear enders only require fault from one party.


    GOing to depend on why the one in front was stopped.

    And as Bleve and I went round and round about this the other day,
    there is a difference between mistake and fault.

    I said two mistakes. It isn't the same as fault.

    For example, as a two wheeler, if I get rear-ended, then one of the
    mistakes was mine - I wasn't watching for someone to make a mistake,
    so I didn't take action to avoid them. Which most of the time I can
    do.

    Doesn't make the fault mine, does make one of the mistakes mine.

    There are cases where the bod being rear-ended can't do anything about
    it certainly. But not all rear enders are single mistake crashes.

    Zebee
     
  12. In aus.bicycle on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:36:43 GMT
    Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I stand by that. In the wrong hands cars are lethal weapons. So are
    > bicycles but it's much rarer for a cyclist to kill a third party than it
    > is for a motorist.


    I wonder how much of that is exposure?

    How many chances to bicycles get?

    (Yes, the relative weights is the biggie, but how much of a factor is
    exposure?)

    Zebee
     
  13. Euan

    Euan Guest

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    > In aus.bicycle on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:31:08 GMT
    > Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    >>> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:16:33 +1100
    >>> vaudegiant <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> ...unless of course when the driver drives carelessly or negligently,
    >>>> and causes harm. In this case, the car becomes a device capable of
    >>>> maiming and killing. It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause
    >>>> harm, just to fail a duty of care.
    >>> Well... I think all crashes require two mistakes, not just one.
    >>>

    >> Bollocks. Rear enders only require fault from one party.

    >
    > GOing to depend on why the one in front was stopped.


    No it doesn't. You said all crashes require two mistakes. Clearly all
    crashes don't require two mistakes. You're wrong.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  14. Euan

    Euan Guest

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    > In aus.bicycle on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:36:43 GMT Euan
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> I stand by that. In the wrong hands cars are lethal weapons. So
    >> are bicycles but it's much rarer for a cyclist to kill a third
    >> party than it is for a motorist.

    >
    > I wonder how much of that is exposure?


    Very little, it's simple pyhsics. The kinetic energy imparted to a
    third party by a car is orders of magnitude greater than that imparted
    by a bicycle.

    > How many chances to bicycles get?


    Based on my experiences riding in the CBD and very limited experience
    riding on shared paths, bucket loads.

    > (Yes, the relative weights is the biggie, but how much of a factor is
    > exposure?)


    Significant enough to make shared paths a very bad idea.

    Dr Eero Pasanen wrote in ``The Risks of Cycling''
    http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm
    > Cycling is not a harmless traffic mode for pedestrians.
    >
    > At least in Helsinki and in Lund (Sweden), cycling leads to more
    > police reports of pedestrian injury accidents per kilometre traveled
    > than does private motor vehicle use /1/. To be sure, accidents caused
    > by bicycles are usually less severe than those caused by cars. On
    > the other hand, only a very small part of bicycle/pedestrian
    > collisions is reported to the police.
    >
    > Conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians result in part from poor
    > planning. But also the attitudes of cyclists could be safer. One
    > could claim that many cyclists feel themselves to be "saviours of the
    > world". With their non-polluting, silent and relatively harmless
    > vehicles, they may imagine that they have more rights than other road
    > users.

    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  15. Plodder

    Plodder Guest

    --
    Frank
    [email protected]
    Drop DACKS to reply
    "giantvaude" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]
    >
    > Plodder Wrote:
    > > --
    > > Frank
    > > [email protected]
    > > Drop DACKS to reply
    > > "vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > in
    > > message news:[email protected]
    > > >
    > > > Plodder Wrote:
    > > > > --
    > > > >
    > > > > A weapon implies a weapon user. Drivers don't think of themselves

    > > as
    > > > > weapon
    > > > > users, so it's easy to think "this argument doesn't apply to me -

    > > I'm
    > > > > not
    > > > > setting out to hurt anyone, so my car's nota weapon." The rest of

    > > the
    > > > > argument becomes invalid.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > I think the point of the car-as-a-lethal-weapon argument is that
    > > > although a car isn't 'intended' to be used as a weapon: arrogant,
    > > > threatening, careless or negligent use of a vehicle quickly renders

    > > it
    > > > a weapon. A gun is just a gun until someone picks it up and shoots
    > > > someone. Prior to that, it is just a highly organised piece of metal.
    > > > It is driver behaviour that bestows upon a car its weapon status, and
    > > > thus drivers need to be educated to understand that it takes very
    > > > little for them to transform a vehicle into a device capable of

    > > maiming
    > > > and killing.....a lethal weapon.
    > > >
    > > > > Except in rare cases where a driver deliberately drives the vehicle

    > > in
    > > > > such a way as to cause harm, a motor vehicle is simply a means of
    > > > > transport.
    > > >
    > > > ...unless of course when the driver drives carelessly or negligently,
    > > > and causes harm. In this case, the car becomes a device capable of
    > > > maiming and killing. It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause
    > > > harm, just to fail a duty of care.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Pat
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > vaudegiant

    > >
    > > No. A gun is a weapon. That's all it is. It's built with the intention
    > > of
    > > causing harm. It can be used as a "non-weapon" (display piece, target
    > > shooting, etc) but it is a weapon by design. A motor vehicle is not a
    > > weapon
    > > by design. It's designed as transport. It can be used as
    > > "non-transport"
    > > (e.g. deliberately driving at someone) but it's not a weapon by design.
    > >
    > > I could kill or harm someone with a cotton wool bud if I try hard
    > > enough.
    > > That doesn't make it a weapon. It makes it an object USED as a weapon.
    > > There's an element of intent. By describing a motor vehicle as a
    > > weapon,
    > > there's an implication of intent. Drivers won't associate themselves
    > > with
    > > that - "when I drive, I don't intend harm, so the argumant doesn't
    > > apply to
    > > me." In this way, the emotive argument becomes ineffective because
    > > people
    > > see it as not relevent to them.
    > >
    > > You're right in writing: "It doesn't need the driver to intend to cause
    > > harm, just to fail a duty of care." However, that failure does not
    > > constitute the intent to harm which is contained in the concept of
    > > 'weapon'.
    > >
    > > Perhaps it's hair-splitting, but I'm a philosopher by training so
    > > that's my
    > > job :p
    > >
    > > me

    >
    > Point taken. Split away.
    > A gun is an inert object that becomes a weapon only when someone picks
    > it with the intent to use it as such. If I use a gun as a walking
    > stick, it is not a weapon but a walking stick. If I use a car as
    > transport, then it is transport. If I drive in such a manner that any
    > reasonable person could expect that I might injure or kill
    > (drunk/drugged/speeding etc) then the car becomes more than just
    > transport, but something else......whether you could say it becomes a
    > weapon may be stretching it a little, but it becomes something very
    > much less benign than simply a means of transport.
    >
    >
    >
    > Pat
    >
    >
    > --
    > giantvaude


    Split.....ting a bit more :p
    Any inert object can be used for a purpose other than it's design. In first
    the case above, the gun remains a weapon, but is USED as a walking stick. It
    doesn't become a walking stick unless something else occurs - melting it
    down and reusing the materials to make a walking stick, rendering the gun
    incapable of shooting a bullet, then modifying it to be a walking stick,
    etc. The gun needs to be fundamentally altered to become not-a-gun. I could
    use a gun to bang in nails; that doesn't make the gun a hammer. It makes the
    gun a gun that's used to bang in nails. It's still a gun.

    Similarly, I can drive my car down the pedestrian mall, mowing down people
    deliberately and causing great harm. That doesn't make my car a weapon. It's
    still a car.

    me...
     
  16. Euan

    Euan Guest

    Plodder wrote:
    > Similarly, I can drive my car down the pedestrian mall, mowing down people
    > deliberately and causing great harm. That doesn't make my car a weapon.


    Yes it does.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=weapon
    > 1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
    > 2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.
    > 3. Zoology. any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.
    > –verb (used with object)
    > 4. to supply or equip with a weapon or weapons: to weapon aircraft with heat-seeking missiles.


    The intended use doesn't matter, if it can be used against an opponent
    then it's a weapon. Anything else is just bullshit.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  17. In aus.bicycle on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:49:12 GMT
    Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
    > The intended use doesn't matter, if it can be used against an opponent
    > then it's a weapon. Anything else is just bullshit.


    Then everything on earth is a weapon, including a bucket of water, a
    banana, and a copy of Vehicular cycling. Which makes the word rather
    useless if it's used to describe the thing when not being used as a
    weapon. Sort of a universal noun.

    A car is a car. If it is used as a weapon, in other words to attack
    someone, then it's a weapon. Till then it's a car.

    Same same bicycle. Same same lamington.

    Some things have no other use. A double edged knife is going to be a
    weapon more often than it will be anything else, same an AK47. Enough
    that to call it a weapon is good enough.

    A car isn't a weapon very often in its life, and 99.9999% of the cars
    ever made will never be weapons.

    Zebee
     
  18. Euan

    Euan Guest

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    > In aus.bicycle on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:49:12 GMT
    > Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> The intended use doesn't matter, if it can be used against an opponent
    >> then it's a weapon. Anything else is just bullshit.

    >
    > Then everything on earth is a weapon,


    Now you're getting it.

    > A car is a car. If it is used as a weapon, in other words to attack
    > someone, then it's a weapon. Till then it's a car.


    None of which I disagree with, just correcting that a car cannot be a
    weapon, which some seem to be suggesting.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  19. giantvaude

    giantvaude New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    A car is a car. If it is used as a weapon, in other words to attack
    someone, then it's a weapon. Till then it's a car.

    Same same bicycle. Same same lamington.

    Some things have no other use. A double edged knife is going to be a
    weapon more often than it will be anything else, same an AK47. Enough
    that to call it a weapon is good enough.

    A car isn't a weapon very often in its life, and 99.9999% of the cars
    ever made will never be weapons.

    Zebee[/QUOTE]

    .....but in those instances that they are used negligently or carelessly, then I agree with you, they are weapons.


    Pat
     
  20. giantvaude

    giantvaude New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    You 1st paragraph makes sense, but the last one.......If you use your car to kill someone, you have just used it as a weapon. You do not have to change its shape or design, or the purpose for which it was created. It is still a car, but it has also become a weapon. Like bikes, lamingtons and paper airplanes, doesn't matter what you call them, if they are used to kill/injure, they are weapons.


    Pat
     
Loading...