SpudFiles

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:More people are killed by bees every year than are killed in spudding accidents - do beekeepers go out of their way to point out that beekeeping can be safe if carried out responsibly?

No, beekeepers wouldn't, but no-one will try and ban bees. Firstly, actually enforcing a ban on bees would be difficult. You could ban the keeping of them, but that wouldn't deal with the billions of wild bees.
Then you'd have an uproar from the millions of people that like honey.

Also, someone dying by being stung by a bee is not big news - it will happen dozens to hundreds of times a year. It's a tragedty, but not worth any broadcast time.
A spudgun death is however pretty big news, so it gets big coverage. That gets a much bigger response, with a much smaller community to defend it.

If someone wanted, I imagine they could go out in the street and get many thousands of signatures to ban spudguns, but try the same thing for bees, and you'd be lucky to get many at all.

But whatever, it doesn't really matter to me if spudguns get banned in the US.

that whould never pass as a federal law, maybe some very liberal state like califonia, I'll just move to the mid west

_Fnord wrote:I really don't think there is much of a chance of spudguns getting banned, at least in the US.
People in the government have much bigger problems right now and probably couldn't care less about a couple idiots blowing themselves up every year.

I think you are being a bit optimistic. The "gov't" has a unfortunate tendency to spend inordinate amounts of time worry about things of very little importance (gay marriage, banning flag burning, getting religion into gov't ...) at the expense of more important, and more difficult, problems (the war in Iraq, the economy, deficit spending, health care ...).

A politician can look busy by attaching a non-problem. They don't alienate voters and they look good in the press. It is almost a truism that anything your typical politician is actually doing anything concrete about is probably of very little real importance.

>>>>>>>>^<<<<<<<<<Best post ive read in a long time!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890799/posts

There is another link. No it wasn't me! Boogieman isn't dead lol. What an idiot.

jimmy101 wrote:

_Fnord wrote:I really don't think there is much of a chance of spudguns getting banned, at least in the US.
People in the government have much bigger problems right now and probably couldn't care less about a couple idiots blowing themselves up every year.

I think you are being a bit optimistic. The "gov't" has a unfortunate tendency to spend inordinate amounts of time worry about things of very little importance (gay marriage, banning flag burning, getting religion into gov't ...) at the expense of more important, and more difficult, problems (the war in Iraq, the economy, deficit spending, health care ...).

A politician can look busy by attaching a non-problem. They don't alienate voters and they look good in the press. It is almost a truism that anything your typical politician is actually doing anything concrete about is probably of very little real importance.

the federal government would never approve such, only a state or local government would, not many people pay attention to local legislation cause their small potatoes and the news has little coverage we mainly focus on the executives

and plus the federal government is far from making a national legalization or ban on gay marriage, or religion and government stuff, those are state issues “Kansas bans teaching evolution”, “this state just legalized gay marriage” “that state ban gay marriage”, but flag burning was a real federal issue but I’m pretty sure that was done by the supreme court

@Jimmy: Very fair point. Attacking the non-issues creates the impression of work - very much favourable to being seen as a waste of political space.
I admit, the technique has worked somewhat on me. Reading the newspapers, there are a lot of articles that detail politicans doing just that.

The problem is that with spudguns, there aren't many voters to be alienated. Much of the forum (and presumably spud-dom as a whole) is well below voting age - and a lot of those who are voting age are from different countries. (As a slight aside, it seems to me that the average age of US users is lower than that of that of the ROW. I may be mistaken, but that's the impression I get)

There might be some support from the firearms community who might see it as starting to pave the way for tighter gun control, but that would be a bit optimistic.

Joanna: Exactly, banning spudguns is a "non-issue". Any politician that went after a ban (could be local, could be federal) would be claiming they are saving lives by banning "dangerous" homemade guns. Very few people would complain and the politicos would look like they accomplished something "significant".

Of course they wouldn't actually be accomplishing anything of significance.

The same politician who went after lowering the Feds bowering limit would be labeled "Anti-patriotic" since it would almost instantly shut down the wars in Iraq and Afghan'n.

iknowmy3tables: How do you figure the fed's would never go after such a ban? All it takes is a congressman or senator looking for a "look I'm doing something important" project.

The feds have a large number of gun control laws; silencers, full auto, sawed off barrels, interstate transport etc. What makes you think they wouldn't be inclined to add another? Besides, it wouldn't even take a federal law. Any politician could just ask the ATF to reclassify spudguns. A little pressure from a couple powerful Senators or Congressmen would be all it would take. It would instantly be illegal for a minor to build a spudgun. Firing within most city limits would be illegal.

Heck, they could even just slap a "it is illegal to use this piece of PVC for anything other than it's intended purpose" onto PVC pipe. Spudguns would then be illegal, both combustions and pneumatics. (Take a look at a bag of fertilizer, if you use it as a source of nitrate for any purpose other than fertilizing plants you can be arrested.) So, it wouldn't even need to be a "gun control" law, it could easily be a material use law.

rules are made to be broken. In all seriousness, if there were a federal spudgun ban in the country you lived in, would you stop making/ shooting spudguns? i didn't think so.

joannaardway wrote:If someone wanted, I imagine they could go out in the street and get many thousands of signatures to ban spudguns, but try the same thing for bees, and you'd be lucky to get many at all.

It seemed pretty easy to get alot of sheeple to ban water, so why not bees too?
[youtube][/youtube]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.

Modderxtrordanare wrote:It seemed pretty easy to get alot of sheeple to ban water, so why not bees too?

They didn't actually ban water... and that was a case of deliberately misleading people.
If you go out and spout the (very lopsided) facts they did there, then yes, it sounds very dangerous. Hardly sheeple. I imagine that had you been in the same situation (not knowing what Dihydrogen Monoxide meant) you would have been dragged in as well - or maybe a slightly different situation with another important chemical for life and a complex sounding name instead.

If you went out pronouncing that you wished to ban (enter latin name of bees here) then the response would be:
"What's (latin name)?"
"It's a species."
"What species?"
"Bees."
"Get stuffed."

People know that most species have a common name, but many chemicals don't.
Spout a chemical name, they won't ask if it has a common name - Even if it did, they may not know it anyway. Spout a latin species name, and they'll ask for the common name.

And a ban on both water and bees would be very difficult to first put in place, and then police.
Spudguns, that's a few quick phonecalls and a called-in favour to put in place, and then a couple of zealous policemen to enforce it.

I was kidding though..

I was out to eat the other night and I picked up one of the local papers, which is produced in town. In the September 8 issue, they had a front page story about the incident, which had a little bit more info. Some of it was pretty shocking. Unfortunately I don't have the article with me and the paper has no website to speak of (typical), so I may have to track down a copy later to transcribe the whole thing. The paper in question in the Sheldon N'West Iowa Review, if anyone cares.

They gave a few more details into what happened. First and foremost, the cannon was not made from PVC - it was welded steel pipe! Apparently It was nothing more than a solid piece with a flat plate welded on for a cap, set on the ground like a mortar. It also stated that Ryan was attempting to light the device directly... with a punk. As I suspected before, he was also fueling it with some type of smokeless powder for shell reloading. Big no-no, as we all obviously already knew. The newspaper even acknowledged in the title that such a device was literally turned into a pipe bomb, so I suppose we can give props there.

However, what they said at the end really pisses me off, and confuses me as well. They interviewed yet another "expert", who may have been the county sheriff but I don't recall. They also interviewed the state fire marshall but I'm pretty sure he wasn't the one who said the following.

This guy made the arbitrary statement about "I know there are alot of these around, but if you have one of these, you better just cut them up and throw them away." But he also claimed that potato guns are illegal in the state, and carry with them a penalty of a CLASS D FELONY. That's a year in jail for those who don't know. I have always been under the impression that spudguns are legal in Iowa, and from the research I have done since reading that, I have been able to find NO evidence whatsoever to support such a claim. Iowa code has nothing specific on spudguns, but its wording on "destructive devices" and "explosives" and "firearms" are VERY similar to those used by the ATF; and we all know where the ATF stands on classifying these. Those who have visited spudgun.com may also recall an email from a man who successfully defended an Iowa man in court who they tried to nail for possessing one, saying it was a dangerous device; he was acquitted.

Sorry this is so long, but this is just another example of a local jackoff who doesn't know what he's talking about. If anyone else has any expert advice on spudgun legality in Iowa, please say so. I'm trying to compile as much fact as possible before possibly confronting Sioux county authorities or the paper on their mistake.

First and foremost, the cannon was not made from PVC - it was welded steel pipe! Apparently It was nothing more than a solid piece with a flat plate welded on for a cap, set on the ground like a mortar. It also stated that Ryan was attempting to light the device directly... with a punk. Shocked As I suspected before, he was also fueling it with some type of smokeless powder for shell reloading. Big no-no, as we all obviously already knew. The newspaper even acknowledged in the title that such a device was literally turned into a pipe bomb, so I suppose we can give props there.

Thanks for the insight, if those are facts then this really was natural selection at work.

I say bann the videos !!!!!!!!!!! am i right