|
Post by the light works on Apr 30, 2014 17:12:58 GMT
They could do the myth of carrying the victim rolled into a carpet.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 30, 2014 17:30:18 GMT
They could do the myth of carrying the victim rolled into a carpet. Done in the Halloween special (I think), even if that was a 'dead' body the principle is the same.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 30, 2014 18:00:47 GMT
They could do the myth of carrying the victim rolled into a carpet. Done in the Halloween special (I think), even if that was a 'dead' body the principle is the same. I must have missed a few episodes.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 30, 2014 18:07:40 GMT
Given the number of myths they have tested over the years no one could be expected to remember everything all of them.
|
|
|
Post by maxman on May 2, 2014 10:47:50 GMT
Guns legislation in the US is, for the most part, on the state level, not the municipal level. Municipalities can pass noise bylaws, gun free zones (which basically invite crime), and acknowledging CCW licenses.
That said, California has - famously - restrictive laws. Currently, it seems like California, New York and Maryland are trying to out-Canada Canada (oddly, none are trying to copy Austrailia). What I mean is that they're trying to out-do each other and Canada for ridiculous and ultimately useless gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 2, 2014 13:47:32 GMT
Guns legislation in the US is, for the most part, on the state level, not the municipal level. Municipalities can pass noise bylaws, gun free zones (which basically invite crime), and acknowledging CCW licenses. That said, California has - famously - restrictive laws. Currently, it seems like California, New York and Maryland are trying to out-Canada Canada (oddly, none are trying to copy Austrailia). What I mean is that they're trying to out-do each other and Canada for ridiculous and ultimately useless gun laws. if by ridiculous and ultimately useless, you mean laws that are poorly written, poorly enforced, and usually not useful in managing the problem - which is people having guns who shouldn't for reasons of incompetence or instability; I agree.
|
|
|
Post by maxman on May 2, 2014 14:35:39 GMT
I was also referring to the numerous studies (by Congress, the CDC and Harvard Law, to name a few) that find there is no correlation between strict gun laws and crime rates.
There's also the Canadian studies by Dr. Mauser and by Dr. Langmann that focussed on Canadian laws and crime, and found that no Canadian gun law passed between 1974 and 2008 has had any effect on crime.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 2, 2014 14:46:22 GMT
I was also referring to the numerous studies (by Congress, the CDC and Harvard Law, to name a few) that find there is no correlation between strict gun laws and crime rates. There's also the Canadian studies by Dr. Mauser and by Dr. Langmann that focussed on Canadian laws and crime, and found that no Canadian gun law passed between 1974 and 2008 has had any effect on crime. I can mention one that had an effect, but I can't cite the exact state that passed it. one of the eastern states passed a law that any crime that involved a gun was a federal crime. it didn't cut down on the number of drug dealers - but they stopped carrying guns.
|
|
|
Post by maxman on May 7, 2014 19:20:59 GMT
I can mention one that had an effect, but I can't cite the exact state that passed it. one of the eastern states passed a law that any crime that involved a gun was a federal crime. it didn't cut down on the number of drug dealers - but they stopped carrying guns. That is actually an example of crime control, not gun control, as it deals with punishing criminal misuse of firearms, and not dictating who can own which firearms.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 7, 2014 22:42:46 GMT
I was also referring to the numerous studies (by Congress, the CDC and Harvard Law, to name a few) that find there is no correlation between strict gun laws and crime rates. There's also the Canadian studies by Dr. Mauser and by Dr. Langmann that focussed on Canadian laws and crime, and found that no Canadian gun law passed between 1974 and 2008 has had any effect on crime. As a buddy of mine from Maine that I met in Iraq once said: Making laws about who can possess which guns and why only takes guns away from the people who weren't prone to break the law in the first place. The people who have registered guns. Most guns used for crimes are either unregistered or stolen, so you're not taking anything away from the criminals. You're just making law abiding citizens easier targets for them. Anyway, all this gun talk is off topic. Going off of FormerMarine's suggestion about the zip ties, what about testing how difficult it is to get out of restraints in general? We've all seen the various (more or less) ingenious ways of getting out in movies and on TV, such as chewing the rope, cutting it with various things found lying/hanging around or sticking out somewhere and even breaking the chair that you're tied to. How many of those methods would actually work and can it be done in any reasonable amount of time and without attracting too much attention from the noise you make? Test with different types of rope - hemp, nylon, paracord etc. and maybe even generous amounts of twine-like string. Which is harder to cut? Test with duct tape used in various ways - the usual taping the hands together with a loop around both wrists, the meaner one where you tape the wrists and then also loop over between the hands to tighten it and make it look more like a set of handcuffs and the 'figure 8' where you cross over and under each hand continuously. Which is harder to get out of/cut? How much harder does it get when you tie people behind their backs? How about when you tie them to an object (pipe, chair, steering wheel of a car etc.)? Or how about when you tie their hands and feet together? Maybe do a test with the team trying to figure out the best ways to get out for themselves and then having someone with training (ex SOF maybe?) teaching them some methods. That should give a comparison as to how well your average person without training would do.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 8, 2014 0:16:38 GMT
I like the improvised knife idea. they can use some form of simulated arms to determine how much damage it does, as well.
|
|