It's entirely possible that those bats are being used for something other than playing baseball considering aforementioned unpleasantness.

What, no whiffle ball bats? I wonder why not?

nivekious wrote:It's entirely possible that those bats are being used for something other than playing baseball considering aforementioned unpleasantness.

Given what's shot up the charts between them, I'd say you've hit that on the head.

There aren't enough criminal thugs in London to drive up sales like this. This is an unintended consequence of gun control: The citizens of London are unable to own a gun to protect themselves and they've realized that law enforcement arrives just in time to fill out a report and far too late to be of real assistance. So, what can you keep under your bed just in case... apparently a baseball bat is the best they can do.

and, since the thugs don't have guns either in Britain, the baseball bats probably work pretty well as a deterrent to getting attacked.

The police baton has risen to number one but has apparently been pulled.

craigthom wrote:The police baton has risen to number one but has apparently been pulled.

Yeah, I imagine Amazon has to be going through a bit of a moral quandary on whether to sell weapons (that are not explicitly offensive or defensive) into a state with such riots. You could liken selling baseball bats to London with selling machetes to Sudan.

wabwab wrote:There aren't enough criminal thugs in London to drive up sales like this. This is an unintended consequence of gun control: The citizens of London are unable to own a gun to protect themselves and they've realized that law enforcement arrives just in time to fill out a report and far too late to be of real assistance. So, what can you keep under your bed just in case... apparently a baseball bat is the best they can do.

Yes! If only those poor Brits had enough guns to properly menace each other. Then everything would be just fine and their violent crime would be as low as ours here in America.

forget a baseball bat - I would think a properly placed blow with a cricket bat would do some damage as well, and most households already have those around.

The only person to have broken a cricket bat in a match (or so the legend goes) is some guy named George Herman Ruth (aka the Babe)

Too bad they couldn't buy the SOG tools from Woot.

llandar wrote:Yes! If only those poor Brits had enough guns to properly menace each other. Then everything would be just fine and their violent crime would be as low as ours here in America.

Gun control does not effect violent crime, you can do some research and look into this and see that many countries that allow citizens to possess guns in numbers similar to the united states also have less gun related violence, and many countries with little or no gun possession to private citizens often have a higher violent crime rate. In a world without guns watch the stabbing rate climb such as the recent string of knife attacks in China. It doesn't matter if people have guns or not, people who are not happy and don't see a way to better their situations through legitimate reasons will turn to violent crime. Do some research before you say america's violent crime is a result of gun ownership. Also more often than not gun violence is not committed by people who are lawful gun owners. Then there's the old adage if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

llandar wrote:Yes! If only those poor Brits had enough guns to properly menace each other. Then everything would be just fine and their violent crime would be as low as ours here in America.

I'd take facing a thug with a gun over a bat any day if I was equally armed. I only weigh in at 120 lbs, but I can shoot a full mag in rapid succession for a 6" group at 15 yards with any of my pistols. When it's me and my family's safety at risk, I'd like the scales tipped in my favor, thank you!