Common sense knife regulation

[Commodore]

A lone judge making a speech upon his retirement does not make policy. Wake me if any legislature takes up this cause.

"Knife control" has become policy in the UK though. At least in London it has. While it's not the specific proposal this judge is talking about, it has become a crime to carry a knife on your person in public in London. You also cannot buy a knife in the UK if you are under the age of 18. They even have certain types of "banned knives".

Don't believe me? Well, maybe you'll believe the UK's official government site regarding the matter: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

And why is the government of the UK going to these lengths to control knives? Because knife crime is skyrocketing, especially in London. And what is one of the most common arguments gun advocates have made? Take away guns and criminals will find some other way to kill people. And the point of making such arguments is to make the point that banning weapons does nothing to stop violent crimes because people who want to be violent are going to be violent, regardless of their access to weapons.

"But banning weapons will limit the damage those violent people can cause!" Yeah...not really. London's murder rate has surpassed New York's for the first time in history, so it seems criminals not having access to guns (and soon knives) isn't slowing them down at all. Sure, someone may not be able to mow down 40 people in one event, but it doesn't matter how quickly murders happen, all that matters is how many. Let's say both New York and London experience 1,000 murders in a single year. Would it really matter if New York's were all done through mass shootings, while London's were all done as one off, isolated crimes? They both still had 1,000 murders. In fact, I would say London's problem would be worse in that scenario because it means they have more murderers overall than New York.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Gun control by the British to limit the importation of guns and gunpowder through the Intolerable Acts following the Boston Tea Party was the straw that broke the camel's back. Why don't people get this?

So here again you have some goofy idea to impose less sharp knives to cut down on crime and in England...of course.

What is remarkable is more ownership of weapons leads to a drop in violent crime in America.

 

[Ryika]

"But banning weapons will limit the damage those violent people can cause!" Yeah...not really. London's murder rate has surpassed New York's for the first time in history, so it seems criminals not having access to guns (and soon knives) isn't slowing them down at all. Sure, someone may not be able to mow down 40 people in one event, but it doesn't matter how quickly murders happen, all that matters is how many. Let's say both New York and London experience 1,000 murders in a single year. Would it really matter if New York's were all done through mass shootings, while London's were all done as one off, isolated crimes? They both still had 1,000 murders. In fact, I would say London's problem would be worse in that scenario because it means they have more murderers overall than New York.

The difference is, New York would have an "easy" way to reduce these murders in that example, simply by removing the guns and thus reducing the 100 guys who each killed 10 to 100 guys who can each kill... maybe two on average.

When you're already at a level where each crime is a personal crime that's one person killing another person, then there isn't much that you can realistically do by legislating weapons, other than to make the criminals choose ever-more exotic weapons.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Natural rights are guaranteed by GOD not men. That is basic John Locke's theory of natural rights. The whole point of the American revolution was Britain sought to usurp the natural rights of the American colonists. It is actually written that it is our duty to overthrow such tyranny as trying to take away the basic right to self-defense.

Those without weapons are utterly impotent.

The USA is not a democracy in any way. That is a sham. We are a loosely connected group of states containing over 330 million citizens in rural and urban regions. If it were a demcracy, then 100 urban areas would violate the autonomy of the rest of the country. No thank you, no mob rule here on sacrosanct aspects of the government and the compact between politicians and citizens.

So you are saying that the right to bear arms is a natural right coming from God that cant be object of discussion by men. Are you including the freedom of religion among such God-given rights?

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Of course the freedom of religion is from GOD as well as a natural right due to free will. You have the right to believe or not believe or not practice.

You can discuss whatever you wish, but the Founding Fathers most feared a democracy and thus ensured by careful balances of power that the abilty to amend the Constitution was extremely difficult.

The Anti-Federalists flat out would not agree to a Federal government (and was very limited by design) unless it was clearly stated what some of these natural rights were. Mostly it is about limiting the federal government and what they must not do to limit these fundamental natural rights.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

But you are trying to imposse your religious vision to the whole community affirming there are a number of God-given rights which are not subject to the will of men and therefore cant be regulated or forbidden by said community.

 

[Commodore]

but I'll draw the line at any weapon which can't be produced without refining ore into metal at some point in the production process.

You would be contradicting yourself then. You said you think humans should be allowed to use their brains for self-defense

You can make use of your brain and the human penchant for tools

Wouldn't that include using my brain and my natural human penchant for tools to refine ore into metal and manufacture a firearm?

So why can I use my brain to make a spear for myself, but can't use my brain to manufacture a firearm for myself? Or use my brain to make enough money to pay someone to manufacture a firearm for me?

New York would have an "easy" way to reduce these murders,

Except the current situation in London is proof that removing weapons doesn't reduce the number of murders. All it does is reduce the number of murders committed with that particular weapon. It also proves that removing weapons does nothing to address the root cause of why those murders are happening in the first place.

Another example would be the Australia gun ban in 1996. While the Australian government will pat themselves on the back because crime rates did fall after the ban, they are a little dishonest by attributing that decrease to the ban. Crime rates were already falling in Australia prior to the ban, and continued to fall at roughly the same rate after the ban that it had been prior to the ban. That shows that violent crime was already on the decline and banning guns did nothing to speed up that decline.

The point being that access to guns is not what was fueling crime in Australia, nor is access to knives fueling violent crime in the UK. There are clearly other issues causing the rise in violent crime, but instead of actually putting in the effort to address it, their government is trying to take the easy way out by pretending to do something by banning weapons.

It's not entirely the government's fault though. The people pressure the government into hasty action when something starts to go a little wrong in society. They panic and start demanding the government "DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!" instead of realizing that problems don't get solved overnight and to properly address the issue may take months, years, maybe even decades depending on the severity of the problem.

So you are saying that the right to bear arms is a natural right coming from God that cant be object of discussion by men. Are you including the freedom of religion among such God-given rights?

I see what you are trying to do here and I'm going to interject here before you try to spring your "gotcha!" moment. While he includes God in his description, belief in God is not necessary to believe in the concept of natural rights that no law should be able to limit or take away. I'm an atheist and I still firmly believe in the idea of inviolable natural rights that all humans have. The right to self-defense being one of those rights and the right to bear arms as outlined in the 2nd Amendment being an extension of that natural right to self defense.

But you are trying to imposse your religious vision to the whole community affirming there are a number of God-given rights which are not subject to the will of men and therefore cant be regulated or forbidden by said community.

I knew it. I was hoping to get my post up before you tried to pull this.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

But you are trying to imposse your religious vision to the whole community affirming there are a number of God-given rights which are not subject to the will of men and therefore cant be regulated or forbidden by said community.

Nope, that was the Founding Fathers' vision and basic American history.

Despite some myths, the Founding Fathers were deists,not Christians, and so hardly representative of say Christian conservative Republicans. And heck, Thomas Paine was an ardent antitheist and Ben Franklin a scandalous person and not a Christian. They would say that these natural rights come from Nature togive themselves an out rather than deal with the Christian colonists supporting their political vision.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I see what you are trying to do here and I'm going to interject here before you try to spring your "gotcha!" moment. While he includes God in his description, belief in God is not necessary to believe in the concept of natural rights that no law should be able to limit or take away. I'm an atheist and I still firmly believe in the idea of inviolable natural rights that all humans have. The right to self-defense being one of those rights and the right to bear arms as outlined in the 2nd Amendment being an extension of that natural right to self defense.

I knew it. I was hoping to get my post up before you tried to pull this.

It is the same if you include God or not.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And why is the government of the UK going to these lengths to control knives? Because knife crime is skyrocketing, especially in London. And what is one of the most common arguments gun advocates have made? Take away guns and criminals will find some other way to kill people. And the point of making such arguments is to make the point that banning weapons does nothing to stop violent crimes because people who want to be violent are going to be violent, regardless of their access to weapons.

I mean that might be a good argument if we'd just very recently banned guns. Rather than in 1903....

Whatever's causing an upsurge in knife crime, it's certainly not people finding alternatives to guns.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Think how goofy these sound.

Common sense Free Speech regulation.
Common sense Freedom of Assembly regulation.
Common sense Freedom of the Press regulation.

Balderdash.

Try 1996 for an English handgun ban other than Northern Ireland.

 

[Commodore]

It is the same if you include God or not.

Not really. But even if it were the same, saying everyone has inviolable rights isn't contradictory at all. Nor does it violate the rights of those who don't believe in that concept because all that concept really says at its most basic level is that I can't prevent you from exercising your natural rights and you can't prevent me from exercising mine.

To frame this in the self-defense argument: You and I both have a natural right to defend ourselves in anyway we see fit as long as it's not violating the natural rights of others. I choose to defend my home with a firearm. I'm guessing you don't. Both of our choices are completely valid under the concept of natural rights. Now if I started campaigning for laws that would make firearm ownership compulsory, that would violate your natural right to self-defense because you would be forced to defend yourself in a manner not of your choosing, but rather in a manner that was forced upon you by an outside entity. Just as it would be a violation of my natural right to self-defense for you to campaign for laws that would force me to give up my firearms.

I meant that might be a good argument if we'd just very recently banned guns. Rather than in 1903.

It actually makes the argument stronger. It shows that private ownership of guns has been out of your hands for quite some time and yet recently crime has been on the rise. That strengthens the argument that weapon regulations, however strict or lax they may be, have little to no influence over violent crime rates.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

You would be contradicting yourself then. You said you think humans should be allowed to use their brains for self-defense



Wouldn't that include using my brain and my natural human penchant for tools to refine ore into metal and manufacture a firearm?

So why can I use my brain to make a spear for myself, but can't use my brain to manufacture a firearm for myself? Or use my brain to make enough money to pay someone to manufacture a firearm for me?

If you need weapons to protect yourself and see them as a natural right, it means you live in a Hobbesian natural state where everybody is your enemy. You are thus entitled to weapons that you could produce in such conditions. That means you have to be able to make the weapon yourself (since every other human is the enemy) from components and materials that you can find in nature.
If you are able to make your own firearm without the use of refined materials, existing technology or outside help you can have one, but I doubt any gun made under these restriction would be more useful than a club or a bow.

 

[Commodore]

If you need weapons to protect yourself and see them as a natural right, it means you live in a Hobbesian natural state where everybody is your enemy.

Not necessarily. Part of humans "using their brains" to defend themselves is being able to ally with other humans to increase defensive capability. So if I want a gun to defend myself, then I would use my brain to identify and ally with the people who have the capability and resources to help me manufacture that firearm.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It actually makes the argument stronger. It shows that private ownership of guns has been out of your hands for quite some time and yet recently crime has been on the rise. That strengthens the argument that weapon regulations, however strict or lax they may be, have little to no influence over violent crime rates.

It certainly doesn't strengthen the argument that gun regulation will inevitable lead to increased knife/other weapon crime though. All it shows is that knife crime has risen here for some other reason(s).

 

[Ryika]

Except the current situation in London is proof that removing weapons doesn't reduce the number of murders.

Complete nonsense, all it proofs is that a city can have high murder rates even if guns are forbidden.

To show that "removing weapons doesn't reduce the number of murders" in that example, you'd have to either bring easily available guns to London and see what effects it has - my prediction is that it would likely make the number of murders skyrocket way above what itis now - or remove them from New York to see if the number of murders goes down.

All you've done so far is to compare two situations that are completely different but happen to have similar outcomes.

Another example would be the Australia gun ban in 1996. While the Australian government will pat themselves on the back because crime rates did fall after the ban, they are a little dishonest by attributing that decrease to the ban. Crime rates were already falling in Australia prior to the ban, and continued to fall at roughly the same rate after the ban that it had been prior to the ban. That shows that violent crime was already on the decline and banning guns did nothing to speed up that decline.

The point being that access to guns is not what was fueling crime in Australia, nor is access to knives fueling violent crime in the UK. There are clearly other issues causing the rise in violent crime, but instead of actually putting in the effort to address it, their government is trying to take the easy way out by pretending to do something by banning weapons.

This is what I would categorize as an anti-argument. What you're basically saying there is: "We had a situation like that, and there actually was a correlation, but I don't think there was a causal link!" - well, whether or not that's true is irrelevant, more so, this whole part of your post is irrelevant. It would only be relevant, if guns were removed but crime stayed the same.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Not really. But even if it were the same, saying everyone has inviolable rights isn't contradictory at all. Nor does it violate the rights of those who don't believe in that concept because all that concept really says at its most basic level is that I can't prevent you from exercising your natural rights and you can't prevent me from exercising mine.

To frame this in the self-defense argument: You and I both have a natural right to defend ourselves in anyway we see fit as long as it's not violating the natural rights of others. I choose to defend my home with a firearm. I'm guessing you don't. Both of our choices are completely valid under the concept of natural rights. Now if I started campaigning for laws that would make firearm ownership compulsory, that would violate your natural right to self-defense because you would be forced to defend yourself in a manner not of your choosing, but rather in a manner that was forced upon you by an outside entity. Just as it would be a violation of my natural right to self-defense for you to campaign for laws that would force me to give up my firearms.



It actually makes the argument stronger. It shows that private ownership of guns has been out of your hands for quite some time and yet recently crime has been on the rise. That strengthens the argument that weapon regulations, however strict or lax they may be, have little to no influence over violent crime rates.

It is the same in the sense of both being only opinions.

I think there are some minimun basic rights which i would call essential rather than natural. Essential to keep social stability and keep life worth of being lived, but not natural in the sense of being the 5th fundamental force of the universe, or being given by God to Mosses at some middle-east mountain.

These include right to life, right to intimacy, private property, etc. But even these can and are subject to community regulation, and are debatable in the way they must be protected or be excercised. Even the most fundamental of all, the right to life, is object of debate, some defending the death penalty, some condemning it, or the right to abortion, eutanashia...

Same for the right to self-defence. A way to implement it is to forbid the right to bear arms. That way armed people cant violate the right of other people to self defense using his superior weaponry which would render the other person defenseless. Thats a way. Another way is to pretend everybody and his dog should bear arms. Both ways are debatable and since it affects the communnity it is the community who must chose through democratic and legal ways. Pretending to imposse your way because you think it is God's way or Mother Nature's way, is... well... It is like your opinion, man.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

These inckude right to life, right to intimacy, private property, etc.

Incel! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

 

[Farm Boy]

It certainly doesn't strengthen the argument that gun regulation will inevitable lead to increased knife/other weapon crime though. All it shows is that knife crime has risen here for some other reason(s).

Right! And with people leaning back on their old standbys of bludgeons, edges, and points... armor is effective again! Dust off those old cloth pastel monstrosities and drape them over spiffy new plastic/foam padding!

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Incel! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

What?