Received: by 10.101.17.5 with SMTP id u5mr2104985ani.6.1317833445590;
        Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: thingiverse@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.101.59.3 with SMTP id m3ls1875609ank.1.gmail; Wed, 05 Oct 2011
 09:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.156.24 with SMTP id i24mr161467ano.14.1317833444012; Wed,
 05 Oct 2011 09:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by z8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:50:43
 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <b7003fe5-279e-4f2f-b677-eb1e4eedcad3@z8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Subject: all this talk about weapons....
From: tmo <tmoph...@gmail.com>
To: thingiverse <thingiverse@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

in all seriousness,  what exactly is a weapon?

someone could seriously injure if not kill another person with a
screwless heart gear thrown out of a moving car.  it fits perfectly in
ones hand, it can be rotated so its spikey.  give that to a ill
tempered 3 year old in a kindergarten setting and someone is going to
get hurt.

i know that is a stupid example but where is the line drawn?  who
draws that line?

and ultimately what and who are you protecting from banning this
stuff?  kids see more weapons and violence on tv than at any point in
history and parents park them in front of that for hours a day.

all of this discussion on weapons is meaningless until there is a
clear cut definition of what is, what can be and what isn't a
weapon.

if thingiverse were to ban weapons, thingiverse would suck if i was
the person deciding what is and is not a weapon.  everything is a
weapon in the hands of someone who is creative and wants to do
violence to others..