Common sense knife regulation

[Manfred Belheim]

No-one has a right to intimacy you disgusting misogynist!

(not being serious, reference to other recent threads, etc)

 

[Farm Boy]

Hell hath no fury.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What about the gunblades like in Final Fantasy?

Remember those?

I was surprised to find out that there are actually a few historical examples of handguns with blades attached to them. While they didn't have the whole BFS thing going on back then, apparently at least a few people people hundreds of years ago thought it a cool idea too. Given their (non) prevalence one can guess at the practicality, at least w/o giant spirit monster things making the wielder super human.

The existence of "Natural rights" is pretty damnded debatable, to put the right to bear arms into that category even more so.

If you are willing to go down that argumentative track, you must realize you're rejecting other natural rights too - including more obvious ones like life and freedom.

The "refined from ore" line is entirely arbitrary. Technology and information control have made the original intent of the 2nd amendment's existence pretty hard to execute in practice today regardless of circumstances.

Well, under Fascists,the natural rights of the individual citizen are squashed by the State. How bizarre the left has become.

Fascists are far from the only group that has done this to a population once taking power. USSR wasn't fascist, but that was no solace to millions of people when it came to natural rights.

He sort of has a point though. "Rights" are only natural insofar as a society defines them. There's no universal property that defines human rights beyond what humans are willing to enforce for themselves. If someone with enough power wants to take something away, they can. When making policy decisions or planning how a country should be run from a legal perspective, it's an important point to remember lest natural rights erode as those with the ability to remove them stop seeing them as natural.

Natural rights are guaranteed by GOD not men.

Afraid not. There are countries that enforce rights that don't even believe in God the way Abrahamic faiths do. And if someone starts infringing on those rights, it is up to people, not any form of god, to stop it.

 

[Commodore]

It certainly doesn't strengthen the argument that gun regulation will inevitable lead to increased knife/other weapon crime though.

That's not the argument though. The argument is that a violent criminal is going to be violent, regardless of any weapon laws.

All it shows is that knife crime has risen here for some other reason(s).

And that's the only point those who are against weapon regulations have been trying to make. If the goal is crime reduction, it makes no sense to attack the symptoms while ignoring, or not really even trying to discover, the root cause.

But even these can and are subject to community regulation,

I chalk that up to humans' natural tendency to only care about rights when it is convenient.

 

[Farm Boy]

You have an interesting definition of God there TMIT. God requires not spirituality, God is, and will outlast the sons of Abraham. So say the sons of Abraham at any rate.

To claim a right is natural is to claim that society causes direct, rather than simply knock-on, harm when it is suppressed irrespective of the trappings of specific culture. That its suppression is an unnatural state of affairs that, while it may linger, will continue to cause harm until ultimately rectified.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's not the argument though. The argument is that a violent criminal is going to be violent, regardless of any weapon laws.

Sorry, I thought you were bringing up the argument of gun non-control advocates because you were saying that the surge in knife crime evidences that argument. Seems you were just saying that argument applies here too. Or something like that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You have an interesting definition of God there TMIT. God requires not spirituality, God is, and will outlast the sons of Abraham. So say the sons of Abraham at any rate.

I mean, with equal testable consequences it can be used any which way. The point is that no hand in the sky is going to come slamming down on the evil doers unless human beings or (far less likely) aliens make it happen.

 

[Farm Boy]

Correct, but then why saddle us with such an obviously stupid definition of God?

Seriously though, it's like people ragging on the Old Testament to people who have already acknowledged that our interaction with God has replaced it. The new one requires significantly more of people. As if progression isn't the goal and it shouldn't be demonstrated.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

Without commenting on the rest of your post, I would like to suggest to you that on this one point, there is a difference. I think you might agree that the public's perception of the safety and stability of their society is more dramatically harmed by those less-frequent mass-shootings than the more frequent, isolated shootings? Would you (also) agree that the random element of the mass shooting as opposed to the (generally speaking) more personal/individual-motive based nature of the isolated shootings also contributes to that heightened public fear-factor?

In other words, I think the public tends to be more afraid of some random lunatic or fanatic will mow down a bunch of folks at random because you never know who's next. Contrast that with individuals becoming so upset at a person they know and have some very-specific understandable motive for murdering, like "He cheated on me!" or "She has drugs that I want!" etc., where people can at least make sense of who is likely to get shot and why.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Correct, but then why saddle us with such an obviously stupid definition of God?

Seriously though, it's like people ragging on the Old Testament to people who have already acknowledged that our interaction with God has replaced it. The new one requires significantly more of people. As if progression isn't the goal and it shouldn't be demonstrated.

He's saying the rights are "guaranteed by god", and my intention was to point out that this isn't consistent with reality. Regardless of what you believe, historical (even very recent history) evidence suggests that nothing is guaranteed in terms of rights. I don't care if it's old testament or new . Responsibility for policy and outcomes alike are solely on us as a species, no matter what you believe happens later.

Without commenting on the rest of your post, I would like to suggest to you that on this one point, there is a difference. I think you might agree that the public's perception of the safety and stability of their society is more dramatically harmed by those less-frequent mass-shootings than the more frequent, isolated shootings?

Competent policy is not set based on the fee fees. If we hold that forcibly killing innocent people is bad, it's not reasonable to treat 1000 innocent people killed differently from 1000 innocent people killed.

I also expect that Ryika's mistaken that deaths would skyrocket as a result of introduction to more guns in London. I would expect more murders in London with guns and fewer in New York without, but given the clear access to alternatives in both cities for both single and mass murder it would be surprising if this statistic was as large as implied.

 

[Farm Boy]

who is likely to get shot

Lord howdy does that matter.

He's saying the rights are "guaranteed by god", and my intention was to point out that this isn't consistent with reality. Regardless of what you believe, historical (even very recent history) evidence suggests that nothing is guaranteed in terms of rights. I don't care if it's old testament or new . Responsibility for policy and outcomes alike are solely on us as a species, no matter what you believe happens later.

That's a strike, but I'm not sure how to pitch it slower than(my fault)...

To claim a right is natural is to claim that society causes direct, rather than simply knock-on, harm when it is suppressed irrespective of the trappings of specific culture. That its suppression is an unnatural state of affairs that, while it may linger, will continue to cause harm until ultimately rectified.

...so take your base. I mean, why would you think that claiming rights under God, necessitates airborne feet of massive size rather than human action striving in the image of God? Too much Monty Python.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Competent policy is not set based on the fee fees. If we hold that forcibly killing innocent people is bad, it's not reasonable to treat 1000 innocent people killed differently from 1000 innocent people killed.

If I am following you here, I think I disagree. (Did you mean "fear fees"?)

Competent policy, as you put it would also take into account the societal effect, not just the statistical effect. So while its undeniable that 1000 dead = 1000 dead, keeping a population content, peaceful, stable etc., is not a math problem. It's not Civ. Our beloved Civ, while admittedly loads of fun, is only a simulation of society based on algorithms and such. In real life, how the people died and the public perception of those deaths, including whether it creates societal instability, can be as important, or perhaps sometimes, more important than the raw numerical death-count.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

...so take your base. I mean, why would you think that claiming rights under God, necessitates airborne feet of massive size rather than human action striving in the image of God? Too much Monty Python.

Monty Python is fun!

Claiming rights under god is fantasy. It's less obviously fantasy than pretending some greater power is playing Populous in real life, but it's still not dealing in reality...in contrast to human rights violations which very much do have testable consequences...

I see no reason to privilege it over claiming rights in the name of fhwagads, the spud king, or the letter Q. If we don't value that the spud king guarantees rights, why should we value that a god does it?

But we do have very good reason to value human rights, both our own and others' even if we don't credit the spud king with their design.

In real life, how the people died and the public perception of those deaths, including whether it creates societal instability, can be as important, or perhaps sometimes, more important than the raw numerical death-count.

Assigning irrational emotion political power is a policy mistake, and giving irrational emotion credibility allows for some comically poor choices.

And yes, I'm aware this actually happens. I don't have to like it.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you can't take the term as it's used, and must substitute your own take on the term, the conversation is useless.

Edit: well no. The conversation isn't useless, but your words on the term are. Moreso if you feel compelled to seek out diminutive terms. Take your base man.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you can't take the term as it's used, and must substitute your own take on the term, the conversation is useless.

On the contrary, the terms have identical meaning in how they constrain anticipation in the context used. What do you expect when someone says they have god-given rights vs fhwagad-given rights? What does a god do in reality that is different from the latter? Nothing. So you're at best simply assigning the former more value because you can better guess at the person's values by substituting "god-given rights" to mean "rights somewhere in the neighborhood of what other people saying this value".

When an argument is using this to defend the idea of a specific right, it doesn't work. You're either substituting a "typical person's valuation of a right we shouldn't violate and trying to make it sound more important" argument in short form per above, or you're effectively claiming magic.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes yes, you've demonstrated you're very clever at decontextualizing when you ignore the meat posted twice in order to make it work. <claps> Take your snide-ass base Spaghetti Lord.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Assigning irrational emotion political power is a policy mistake, and giving irrational emotion credibility allows for some comically poor choices.

And yes, I'm aware this actually happens. I don't have to like it.

Sure, but you not liking something doesn't mean it doesn't happen/exist right? Wouldn't sound policy take into account the way things are, as opposed to the way you might subjectively think things should be, or how you would like them to be? Policy makers don't have to "assign" political power to emotion, irrational or otherwise, because emotion already has political power. Refusing to acknowledge this or account for it in the policy making process would also result in "some comically poor choices", as well as some not-so-comical poor choices.

I think this principle also relates somewhat to your discussion with @Farm Boy. In that conversation you also seem to be talking in terms of how you think things should be and sidestepping how things actually are. An extreme (but simple) example of what I mean is... If you (the royal you) believe that god is a superstition and therefore tax-exemption for churches is incompetent policy on that basis... you're ignoring that many people believe in god, would be outraged at repeal of tax-exemption for their places of worship and that policy makers must craft policy that recognizes that reality.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No-one has a right to intimacy you disgusting misogynist!

(not being serious, reference to other recent threads, etc)

Hmmm something just occurred to me Help me with this one CFC pals...

If there is a right to life (there is, for purposes of this question) but there is no right to sex... then theoretically, if all the menses (or womenses) decided that they would heretofore, be celibate (and would not donate their reproductive cells)... then does that mean that there is a right to life as individuals but humanity has no collective right to survive/exist as a species?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes yes, you've demonstrated you're very clever at decontextualizing when you ignore the meat posted twice in order to make it work. <claps> Take your snide-ass base Spaghetti Lord.

Okay fine. But people assert harm regardless of whether there is evidence of harm in empirical reality, allowing for "natural rights" violations on vague grounds. Besides, even the definition you used is questionable. "Direct" harm to whom? The individual or society?

It's not atypical to see those who claim there are "natural rights" (which supposedly arise from "natural law"), then turn around and say it's okay or even desirable to forcibly take resources from some people to give them to other people...despite that this is direct harm regardless of culture. Specific cultures ALLOW for different kinds of suppression, and there's no guarantee that it's "unnatural" or short-lived. Cultures might even cite religion as their basis for doing this, or they might cite other things instead.

Sure, but you not liking something doesn't mean it doesn't happen/exist right? Wouldn't sound policy take into account the way things are, as opposed to the way you might subjectively think things should be, or how you would like them to be? Policy makers don't have to "assign" political power to emotion, irrational or otherwise, because it already has it. Refusing to acknowledge this or account for it in the policy making process would also result in "some comically poor choices".

I would hope most things I don't like exist so I'm not wasting time/energy/etc.

Sound policy takes into account the way things *are*, yes. When that conflicts with emotion (which is not always), reality is what wins under competent policy.

I think this principle relates somewhat to you discussion with @Farm Boy. In that conversation you also seem to be talking in terms of how you think things should be and sidestepping how things actually are.

No. In reality, there is no god guaranteeing any right. In reality, what happens is dictated by what people choose to do, regardless of their belief framework or even whether their reasoning is coherent. That's not how things "should be", that's how things actually are. Claiming the opposite is silly.

you're ignoring that many people believe in god, would be outraged at repeal of tax-exemption for their places of worship and that policy makers must craft policy that recognizes that reality.

Rather than ignoring this, I'm pointing out that these organizations have no more valid a reason to claim tax exemption than any other randomly selected organization. Politicians use these organizations to buy votes just like they use welfare programs and information control to buy votes. I'm not denying that reality, I'm calling it out as incompetent policy.

I suppose I should disambiguate between competence in terms of "actually running the place" vs competence in "securing votes and gaining power". Unfortunately, these incentives don't align and politicians are much better at the latter by necessity.

then does that mean that there is a right to life as individuals but humanity has no collective right to survive/exist as a species?

Fun thought experiment, but in practice humanity is defining both of these right to life and continued existence. I think you'd see cloning or artificial womb tech or both/something else (depending which sex did this and what is available) firing up in short order in such a hypothetical scenario, unless both sexes stopped caring simultaneously. Though I expect mental gymnastics to justify physically forcing reproduction would win out in at least some countries too.

 

[Farm Boy]

No. In reality, there is no god guaranteeing any right. In reality, what happens is dictated by what people choose to do, regardless of their belief framework or even whether their reasoning is coherent. That's not how things "should be", that's how things actually are. Claiming the opposite is silly.

This is whiffing so hard I don't even. I get it, you have a religious opinion, there it is. It's very nice and 2 inches is totes reasonable and not small at all.

Have a nice Wednesday man.