Here in the land of more-guns-than-humans it feels so much more bleak.
You cannot buy a kitchen knife because people MAY use it cause harm.
It is like forbidding the use of roads because it MAY be used to <insert illegal activity here>. Uses (usage?) of roads are even more broad than uses of knives.
I think it is easier to argue in favor of knives (or against the prohibition of ... of knives) than guns, for this reason alone.
Now if the government thinks there isn't really a good reason to have a phone they can't hack ( because they are the good guys right.... and in theory need court orders etc - so there is legal oversight ) then they will see such phones in the same light and consider banning.
This is at the core of the argument - and why governments ask for a special backdoor - as they accept a generally secure phone ( to stop your neighbour snooping ) is a good thing, but they are used to being able to tap phones and open letters if a judge gives them permission.
Obviously the ironic thing is most phones probably already do have special backdoors - but only for the country where the makers reside - and that countries government doesn't want other governments to know or have acccess.
And in the case of fridges - there is no argument there that they aren't legit reasons to own.
In the case of knives - zombie knives don't really have legit use, whereas kitchen knives do.
Yes I can. I have knives I bought recently in my kitchen.
How could you possibly believe that people in the UK can't buy knives? Do you realise how foolish that sounds?
You also can't carry one in public without reasonable cause - which in the end is decided by a judge.
Here is the relevant section from our current laws: https://danskelove.dk/straffeloven/134b
And Southend in England tried to do the same (but failed...)
I wonder if they are going to do anything about at least a thousand number of other items that may be used to cause bodily harm to a person. What about something related, such as forks?! Bags?
The irony.
Just as foolish as these ways are to prevent violence.
These criminals might switch to forks, better get your Government get one step ahead of them.
And no, you cannot buy kitchen knives if you are under a certain age, it is ought to prevent a lot of crimes, I am sure.
A gun can be used for recreational shooting.
A gun can just be an historical collectors' piece.
A gun can be used in researching bullet proof vests and other equipment for a startup looking to sell to law enforcement/military.
There are many reasons for gun ownership. Ultimately, the reason should be that the individual is free to do as he/she chooses so long as he/she doesn't initiate a violent interaction.
The most often cited reason for banning firearms is the prevention of school shootings. For some reason, everyone is focused on the gun and not the fact that students wish to do violence at schools. What is it about the modern educational system that students wish to perpetrate violence in the schools to other students and teachers? Why isn't the mental health of the American youth at the center of this conversation?
Why is "wide range of use" being used as the metric rather than "societal good"?
While there are downsides, there's more to it.
Not literally, but there was some criminally bad warfare going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Balaclava
The ultimate point of gun ownership isn’t sporting or even self defense, though they are useful for both. The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it.
Some people may not like that today but if you go back and read what people wrote circa 1775 and forward, this is the clear rationale.
It’s been doing that for at least two decades, yet I’m still waiting for you people to get on with it.
But my opinion doesn’t change the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.
That way lies fascism and anarchotyrrany.
This is very much absurd.
No spray, no airgun, no folding mace, absolutely nothing can be used in self defense.
Except for the alarm.
/s, if not obvious. Strange times.
Care to explain?
On the other hand IIRC it has a lower rate of at least some types of violent assault.
One possible explanation is the healthcare system - fast treatment makes a big difference to the chances of surviving an attack (and are one reason murder rates have fallen over the years, and why developed countries have much lower murder rates). Does anything in the US system delay treatment significantly?
If I understand the proponents correctly: Ostensibly it is to defend one's property and people from a tyrannical government.
Just for an exercise, let's say you believe that. And let's say that day is here. The tyrannical government has arrived and has necessitated your use of assault rifles.
The people you're shooting, what are they wearing? They're almost certainly wearing uniforms; police and/or military.
From the proponents' standpoint, the reason to have assault rifles is to kill police and soldiers.
The police quite often destroy antiques handed in by people who know about the bans but not the exceptions.
I have a multitool I bought long before the ban, that is now illegal to carry routinely. I bought one with a significantly longer blade for my daughter which is perfectly legal to carry.
The something is killing police and soldiers. That's the quiet part.
Unless the tyrannical government has presented itself at the compound in a force of plumbers and actuaries.
If the government is allowed to have them, the people should be allowed to have them. Anything else would be inviting tyranny, as has been demonstrated ad nauseam by pretty much every government ever.
Feels unsafe man. We should look towards free and egalitarian countries like Congo, Sudan or Zimbabwe where citizens have access to the same hardware as the military and they use it regularly to deal justice, competing with the local military. Much better.
Canon to the right of them, canon to the left of them canon in front of them volleyed and thundered. Stormed at with shot and shell boldly they rode and well, into the jaws of death into the mouth of hell rode the six hundred.
Additionally, it is OK for you, because it might not be of interest to you, but given that the UK is doing all sorts of absurd stuff, what would happen if they did something absurd with regarding to the thing you like?
And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?
Could it be they feared having a permanent national army, so did the 2A instead? Only later to realize having a standing army were necessary after all?
No that couldn't be it. Because then there would be no rational reason for keeping 2A and flooding the country with deadly weapons.
Guns are more likely to cause accidental death or suicide than to save your life. Big cats and bears can be dealt with using sprays and other measures.
A bit of sport shooting isn't worth having to train kindergartners in active shooter drills.
Doubt. More like 70K. Far fewer than incidents where guns were used to cause harm.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-...
Who decides? Someone who doesn't like how the last election turned out?
Some person who decides the police are being too tyrannical by asking them to turn down their stereo for neighbourhood peace?
Honestly, when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?
This has mess written all over it.
Also, it should be noted that the army and police are made up of humans too.
As has been pointed out in various war tribunals doing something under orders doesn't entirely absolve you from moral duty.
It likely reduces knife crime. Much as denying sales of lighters and flamable fluids to minors makes fires started by children less likely. (This deeply offended me as an adolescent who enjoyed burning things.)
Is there a benefit to society of allowing minors to buy knives?
We don't have laws to make bad things like murder completely impossible. We do it to make them less likely.
Fires though, I can definitely believe it does prevent some arson.
> Is there a benefit to society of allowing minors to buy knives?
The default is "no ban". You need an argument the other way around. I think it is a silly question by itself. Is there a benefit to society of allowing people to skydive?
If a kid really wanted to hurt another, could have done it through other means. Could it be that more kids in the US have violent tendencies for whatever reasons? It would be nice to figure out those reasons.
In the wake of the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff I remember Americans saying that going armed to a protest (not just that guy but others) was reasonable and routine because you might need to defend yourself if things go bad. In much of the rest of the west the general idea is that if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go.
But that's the point - if the courts have found that defense is lawful, then it becomes a question of why it's possession (not even use and proportionality) would not be. Then you end up in a weird state where people can make up reasons to have a hammer or something else on them rather than have something potentially more reasonable/effective like pepper spray. Allowing some limited non-lethal tool seems reasonable if defense is actually something to support.
Is there some research on this? Not just talking about guns, but even things like pepper spray.
"if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go."
I generally agree with this. I do wonder how this fits in the overall system. This assumes there are places that you could need a weapon, or where weapons could be used against you. It also assumes you always have a choice to avoid the area. If these high risk areas exist, how does the entire population avoid them? If that were even possible, the threats would also redistribute. Examples like Rittenhouse might be textbook for easily avoidable situations that turned bad (hence the news coverage), but I'm not sure it's representative of the full range of situations (the stuff that doesn't make the news).
Sure, they chose to put a civilian in charge of the military, but I was always under the impression this was to keep the military from interfering with the normal process of government.
It’s almost like gun enthusiasts are, conveniently, completely incapable of processing the concept of “force multiplication”.
The base purpose of a gun is shooting things, generally living breathing ones.
I could kill a guy with a stick, a rock, a frying pan, a blanket, etc…pretty much most things; however, none of those things exist expressly for that purpose.
Simple concept, huh?
https://www.history.com/articles/black-panthers-gun-control-...
Your second amendment defenders are actually on the side of tyranny, ready to torch the Capitol a second time when their caudillo orders so.
[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/polands-top-cop-accidenta...
In fact the loyalists did.
>This has mess written all over it
History doesn't come with nice tidy procedures and unanimous agreements on action.
historically, when a government became too tyranical, either the government went on and on, or people did the quiet part
it’s is both slang for sports uniform (usually shirt) and also is a type of fabric material super common in clothing [0]
[0] https://fabricwholesaledirect.com/collections/jersey-knit-fa...
I disagree with some of the implied answers, especially paragraph three, but:
> Where is the line on tyranny?
> Who decides?
> when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?
Like I said, these are excellent questions. An individual with a strong moral compass should have answers that differ from “not me” and “somebody else”.
Cars (especially trucks) can help you achieve similar aims, and are much harder to restrict.
The military and police are human, but they're also the main path towards control. If you treat them good, they'll treat you good, likely until they slip too far and are unable to back down without facing consequences.
It's mostly a good way to avoid situations like Cambodia's killing fields since that was also done by humans.
It'll result in a mess, but a mess is better than torture-to-death camps and famine.
Besides, we can use the extra license taxes from people with multiple fridges to raise funds for the schools.
You don't hate the children, do you?
Though it's sad to see the gangs are starting to collect local taxes - before you know it they will start behaving like the awful government that they have replaced!
And while it may seem unfair that your favourite peccadillo is deemed illegal - on balance it's a much better system than every man, woman and child for themselves.
One of the ironic aspects of the situation in the US is that the fear that is used to justify the need for guns is by and large there because everyone has guns......
Very few people in the UK are troubled by the thought that they might need a gun to defend their home or person, as there is no expectation that you will be attacked by somebody with a gun.
There is also no expectation to be threaten or shot by police with guns either.
Sounds like your hunting rifle still qualifies.
But the words "critical mass" don't seem much more helpful than the definition of tyranny. The questionable boundaries apply, it's like a "you'll know it if you see it" thing.
The problem here is perception. Some people may "see" an outrage that causes them to act. While others don't. Jan 6 and George Floyd riots are two examples of people "seeing something" that caused them to act.
But if you are going up against the most well funded military in the world by some margin - well, whatever is seen had better motivate a LOT of people.
It doesn't, anymore than the freedom of speech is only in the context of one of the other rights mentioned in the 1st amendment.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
