What? Violence without guns?!

[Neoteny]

Why argue for something if you can't offer a feasible compromise? "Other people" are notorious for fucking things up anyhow.

[Dancing Mustard]

So you're saying that because people are illegally carrying knives, we all ought to be immediately allowed to do so?

Doesn't that logic lead us to the conclusion that it's impossible to ban anything, because the minute somebody breaks your law and carries it... why it's only reasonable to let everybody else defend themselves in like fashion.

Ethnic youths have started carrying is carrying a rocket launchers you say? Oh gosh, well then it's only reasonable to arm myself with the "necessary tools to fend off assaults from armed thugs".


So far as I can tell what you appear to be arguing for is state-permitted arms-racing against criminals, but with some arbitrary (and seemingly logically inconsistent) cut-off line added on because you realise that your logic sounds even more absurd than usual when you realise that it can be used to justify everybody running around with howitzers.

[Napoleon Ier]

So you're saying that because people are illegally carrying knives, we all ought to be immediately allowed to do so?

Doesn't that logic lead us to the conclusion that it's impossible to ban anything, because the minute somebody breaks your law and carries it... why it's only reasonable to let everybody else defend themselves in like fashion.

Ethnic youths have started carrying is carrying a rocket launchers you say? Oh gosh, well then it's only reasonable to arm myself with the "necessary tools to fend off assaults from armed thugs".


So far as I can tell what you appear to be arguing for is state-permitted arms-racing against criminals, but with some arbitrary (and seemingly logically inconsistent) cut-off line added on because you realise that your logic sounds even more absurd than usual when you realise that it can be used to justify everybody running around with howitzers.

You've misunderstood the crux of the argument. On the one hand is the extreme is the total deprivation of all and any rights to hold potentially offensive weapons. Kitchen knives, batons, your own two fists...on the other, the idea that average citizens can purchase nuclear warheads. You need a line, but it has to be drawn under the assumption that people do have a right to self defense and that this needs to be factored in when deciding where to draw it. From there, where you draw the line ha also to be based on empirical evidence: which suggests more guns does equal less crime. Maybe not less gun crime, but overall homicide rates go down.

[The1exile]

You've misunderstood the crux of the argument. On the one hand is the extreme is the total deprivation of all and any rights to hold potentially offensive weapons. Kitchen knives, batons, your own two fists...on the other, the idea that average citizens can purchase nuclear warheads.

So what you're saying is that the validity of weapon ownership should be decided ultimately by economic status - they get what they can purchase?

[Ditocoaf]

Ah, so the solution to the North Korea problem is to allow all countries to buy nuclear arms? Or does it only work with individuals? Should all individuals be able to buy nukes? Am I taking it too far with that example? How about rocket launchers? Still too far, or maybe not? Where do we draw the line? Exactly where does reasoning flip to it's exact opposite?
I expect an answer to at least 5 of those questions.

There's a balance you need to respect. Clearly, empowering individual with the right to possess nuclear weapons, or indeed heavy machine guns, is unreasonable. However, if you're going to be logically consistent, yes, think about it: the right to self-defense implies you should be allowed to carry knives. Or are you seriously suggesting that ethnic youths aren't already armed with these? Unless you're prepared to entertain this ridiculous notion, there is no reason not to allow honest citizens the right to arm themselves with the necessary tools to fend off assaults from armed thugs. Arms proliferation isn't something our government will be able to stop, weapons will cross our borders out of the sight of customs officers, Lord knows all manners of drugs do and indeed illegal immigrants.

Again... since arms proliferation isn't stoppable, where do you draw the line in amount of firepower? The criminals have heavy machine guns... why shouldn't I? The terrorists have grenades, why shouldn't I? Where and how do you draw the arbitrary line?

That's where legislatures and law courts come in: the axiom of liberal and democratic government is that anyone has the right to do anything that doesn't harm other peoples' rights. Where you draw that line, in matters of self-defense, free speech, or whatever, is a tricky issue, but fundamentally, a combination of judiciary and legislative influence allow this line to be drawn more or less clearly for the executive to enforce. The line won't be perfect, but hey ho, Utopia is unachievable. Textbook Montesquieu. However, at the level of private citizens, you can't deprive them of what others are going to have and use against them. Terrorists and foreign powers need to be dealt with by States or CItizen Militias.

And that was political philosophy-101, courtesy of Napoléon Ier, thanks for listening.

You seem to be missing part of my point. This isn't a "tricky balance" situation, about how far is too far... because this isn't a minor line. This is a line where on one side, "allowing people access to destructive force makes them safer", and on the other, "allowing people access to destructive force makes them less safe." I was pointing out that such a theoretical line would flip law to it's exact opposite... making such a line unlikely on a gradient. What needs to be found isn't a carefully chosen line on the gradient of how destructive a weapon is... such a thing is logically without a brightline. What needs to be decided is something like "objects whose primary purpose is to cause physical harm" do more harm than good when public... if you disagree with that, then find some other phrase to back up your viewpoint of "handguns are okay but machine guns aren't". Simply drawing an arbitrary line in the sand is just that: arbitrary.

[Napoleon Ier]

You seem to be missing part of my point

Because you didn't read mine.
.

This isn't a "tricky balance" situation, about how far is too far... because this isn't a minor line.

Oh, but free-speech is?

This is a line where on one side, "allowing people access to destructive force makes them safer", and on the other, "allowing people access to destructive force makes them less safe." I was pointing out that such a theoretical line would flip law to it's exact opposite... making such a line unlikely on a gradient. What needs to be found isn't a carefully chosen line on the gradient of how destructive a weapon is... such a thing is logically without a brightline. What needs to be decided is something like "objects whose primary purpose is to cause physical harm" do more harm than good when public... if you disagree with that, then find some other phrase to back up your viewpoint of "handguns are okay but machine guns aren't".

This doesn't work because you deny individuals the right to self-defense.

[quote]Simply drawing an arbitrary line in the sand is just that: arbitrary.

Yeah, but I'm not advocating an arbitrary line so much as one determined by the dialectic of need for defense and possibility of causing harm in which a balance is reached through the counter-weighing actions of the separate branches of government.

[pimpdave]

everybody running around with howitzers.

This is a great image.

BRITISH STREET THUG #1: "Um, yes, excuse me, you have gotten too close to me, and are not within my effective range, would you be so kind as to back up about 100 yards that I might bombard you with my artillery?"

BRITISH STREET THUG #2: "Yes, I see now that I too have gotten too close, and will indeed back up. However, I need to fire off some rounds to place my shot accurately, and if you would be so kind, please do not fire a return barrage until after my second round."

BRITISH STREET THUG #1: "Cheerio!"

[MeDeFe]

everybody running around with howitzers.

This is a great image.

"Um, yes, excuse me, you have gotten too close to me, and are not within my effective range, would you be so kind as to back up about 100 yards that I might bombard you with my artillery?"

"Yes, I see now that I too have gotten too close, and will indeed back up. However, I need to fire off some rounds to place my shot accurately, and if you would be so kind, please do not fire a return barrage until after my second round."

"Cheerio!"

Direct fire is accurate enough for distances of up to 7km.

[pimpdave]

Direct fire is accurate enough for distances of up to 7km.

So there's no such thing as being too close to a howitzer?

I guess that makes sense.

Fair enough, change the joke.

Instead, think of everyone walking around dragging a howitzer behind them. That's funny, right? (or wait, let me guess, they're usually attached to a flatbed truck or something else that would ruin my funny joke that was making me laugh)

[Snorri1234]

This isn't a "tricky balance" situation, about how far is too far... because this isn't a minor line.

Oh, but free-speech is?

Free speech is certainly not a tricky balance situation. It's supposed to be absolute except for a few instances where it causes harm to the public (like screaming FIRE! in a movietheatre).

[Snorri1234]

Direct fire is accurate enough for distances of up to 7km.

So there's no such thing as being too close to a howitzer?

Well, if you're standing directly in front of it I fail to see how anyone can miss you.

[MeDeFe]

Direct fire is accurate enough for distances of up to 7km.

So there's no such thing as being too close to a howitzer?

Well, if you're standing directly in front of it I fail to see how anyone can miss you.

And even if they do you'll probably die from the shock wave.

[d dark]

i'm not sure what your point is meant to be. have americans forgotten what a world without guns is like? i can assure you, it's wonderful.

[d dark]

I'm saying we should allow people to empower themselves to the point where they can put up a reasonable amount of self defense, hence the common person should be able to respond to a lethal threat with lethal force. If everyone had the ability to project lethal force it would happen very rarely, I believe they call this mutually assured destruction. It's very relevant that their has never been a shooting at an NRA rally but that the columbine and Virginia Tech massacres both occurred in supposed "gun free zones."

they both occured with guns as well. you're a shitty troll and you know it.

[Ditocoaf]

You seem to be missing part of my point

Because you didn't read mine.
.

This isn't a "tricky balance" situation, about how far is too far... because this isn't a minor line.

Oh, but free-speech is?

This is a line where on one side, "allowing people access to destructive force makes them safer", and on the other, "allowing people access to destructive force makes them less safe." I was pointing out that such a theoretical line would flip law to it's exact opposite... making such a line unlikely on a gradient. What needs to be found isn't a carefully chosen line on the gradient of how destructive a weapon is... such a thing is logically without a brightline. What needs to be decided is something like "objects whose primary purpose is to cause physical harm" do more harm than good when public... if you disagree with that, then find some other phrase to back up your viewpoint of "handguns are okay but machine guns aren't".

This doesn't work because you deny individuals the right to self-defense.

Simply drawing an arbitrary line in the sand is just that: arbitrary.

Yeah, but I'm not advocating an arbitrary line so much as one determined by the dialectic of need for defense and possibility of causing harm in which a balance is reached through the counter-weighing actions of the separate branches of government.

Free speech could be a brightline situation: "this amount of offense is okay, but this amount isn't"... but I don't see it that way. I instead say "offense is always okay, but direct physical harm isn't," as in the classic "fire in a theater" example. What I'm saying you should do is do the same with gun rights: instead of saying "this amount of firepower is dangerous, but this amount does more good than harm," you should say, "____ kind of thing is never okay, and ___ kind of thing is always okay," no matter how much either one is.
Personally, I don't want to deny individuals the right to defend themselves. But a weapon is a tool to cause harm to others; what is needed is something that only keeps you safe, not hurts/kills others that you think are dangerous. That's my definite definition, no gradient of intensity comes into play.

[hecter]

Why don't we make bullets really expensive and Kevlar vests really cheap?

[heavycola]

Or are you seriously suggesting that ethnic youths aren't already armed with these?

Oh dear, more scattergun racism. By ethnic i assume you mean simply 'not white'...
I don't expect this to be read, but:
I have just researched and written an article about youth gangs in London - not as a hug-a-hoodie lefty, but to analyse why gangs tend to coalesce around (and often name themselves after) council housing estates. Turns out it is down to several factors: instinctive territoriality, the physical geography of monotenure estates, the strong social bonds generated among people living in inward-facing, low-income communities...
here's the thing: knife crime and gangs are inextricably linked in our inner cities. But the racial profile of those gangs is proportional to the racial profile of the area. Kids don't identify themselves as black or white anymore, but from this estate or that estate - and what has happened:
a) Division along racial lines among inner city youths is no longer the norm.... which has meant that
b) inner city white kids join gangs and carry guns and knives too.

I realise it was a throwaway napoletroll-o-racist line, but you haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about. As per.

[b.k. barunt]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.


Honibaz

[Nobunaga]

Or are you seriously suggesting that ethnic youths aren't already armed with these?

Oh dear, more scattergun racism. By ethnic i assume you mean simply 'not white'...
I don't expect this to be read, but:
I have just researched and written an article about youth gangs in London - not as a hug-a-hoodie lefty, but to analyse why gangs tend to coalesce around (and often name themselves after) council housing estates. Turns out it is down to several factors: instinctive territoriality, the physical geography of monotenure estates, the strong social bonds generated among people living in inward-facing, low-income communities...
here's the thing: knife crime and gangs are inextricably linked in our inner cities. But the racial profile of those gangs is proportional to the racial profile of the area. Kids don't identify themselves as black or white anymore, but from this estate or that estate - and what has happened:
a) Division along racial lines among inner city youths is no longer the norm.... which has meant that
b) inner city white kids join gangs and carry guns and knives too.

I realise it was a throwaway napoletroll-o-racist line, but you haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about. As per.

... HeavyCola, I don't suppose your article could be made available to folks interested in reading it? On a web site or someplace? Sounds interesting.

...

[jiminski]

As i understand the law in the UK:

Disclaimer: i have not read up on this and can not be arsed to. I have no esoteric knowledge at all, so i am completely winging this next passage of FACT!

FACT:
You are not allowed to carry anything solely as a weapon but the law is allowed to be subjective, based upon the case at hand. (that is oversimplification i am absolutely certain) For example, you can carry a baseball bat if you were playing with it in the park. If you are attacked, you can use the bat in your defence.
Also, if someone comes into your home and attacks you, you can use a metal fire-poker or a carving knife to protect yourself but stabbing someone repeatedly while they are indisposed would still be frowned upon.

What you are not allowed to do is carry a fire-poker or a carving knife around with you without a sensible reason. (moving fireplaces, catering at a pig-roast .. that sort of thing!)

The law makes sense; in the main it is there to accept the peculiarities of life and still protect us when we are erred against.

Now there are areas of life and the country where i would want to carry a weapon (a handy, rounders bat for example) but i do not expect the law to sanction that. (a gun falls into this bracket, as does a rocket launcher and a flame-thrower)
If i were to be in such a situation; scoring some drugs in a very iffy area, for conjectures sake, that is my choice! I have the good fortune of not habitually frequenting such areas.

Where this common-sense rule falls down, is in the case of some endemically rough areas (as HC mentions above). In some places there is little choice about your own protection. (the reality is that the air of paranoia lessens everyones safety and the very factor of required 'self defence' creates more danger. But that is life; the stock-markets are no less determined by this paradox. And away from the general parallel: Drug dealers often make a living out of being nasty bastards. )
It is easy to understand that high principles do not exactly fit all situations but we should not change the law for the grey, amoral, anti-oasis!

If we do, how can anything change!?

We need to help re-structure them and bring them out of the spiral of violence and struggle. Or if this is too idealistic for you - we need to try to help, know we can not succeed but still not change the bloody law to suit the lowest common denominator.

If we do accept a two tier interpretation of the law, in which some areas allow citizens to carry a weapon due to the in-situ danger (the very matter of existing is deemed self defence) then we have already given up on these places and people. What that breads is the lawless, hopeless ghetto.

[heavycola]

Or are you seriously suggesting that ethnic youths aren't already armed with these?

Oh dear, more scattergun racism. By ethnic i assume you mean simply 'not white'...
I don't expect this to be read, but:
I have just researched and written an article about youth gangs in London - not as a hug-a-hoodie lefty, but to analyse why gangs tend to coalesce around (and often name themselves after) council housing estates. Turns out it is down to several factors: instinctive territoriality, the physical geography of monotenure estates, the strong social bonds generated among people living in inward-facing, low-income communities...
here's the thing: knife crime and gangs are inextricably linked in our inner cities. But the racial profile of those gangs is proportional to the racial profile of the area. Kids don't identify themselves as black or white anymore, but from this estate or that estate - and what has happened:
a) Division along racial lines among inner city youths is no longer the norm.... which has meant that
b) inner city white kids join gangs and carry guns and knives too.

I realise it was a throwaway napoletroll-o-racist line, but you haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about. As per.

... HeavyCola, I don't suppose your article could be made available to folks interested in reading it? On a web site or someplace? Sounds interesting.

...

it'll be up on the web next friday. Slightly hesitant to post a link here as it would mean the end to my intahwebs anonymity but i'll pm you a link, definitely.

[MeDeFe]

Or are you seriously suggesting that ethnic youths aren't already armed with these?

Oh dear, more scattergun racism. By ethnic i assume you mean simply 'not white'...
I don't expect this to be read, but:
I have just researched and written an article about youth gangs in London - not as a hug-a-hoodie lefty, but to analyse why gangs tend to coalesce around (and often name themselves after) council housing estates. Turns out it is down to several factors: instinctive territoriality, the physical geography of monotenure estates, the strong social bonds generated among people living in inward-facing, low-income communities...
here's the thing: knife crime and gangs are inextricably linked in our inner cities. But the racial profile of those gangs is proportional to the racial profile of the area. Kids don't identify themselves as black or white anymore, but from this estate or that estate - and what has happened:
a) Division along racial lines among inner city youths is no longer the norm.... which has meant that
b) inner city white kids join gangs and carry guns and knives too.

I realise it was a throwaway napoletroll-o-racist line, but you haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about. As per.

... HeavyCola, I don't suppose your article could be made available to folks interested in reading it? On a web site or someplace? Sounds interesting.

...

it'll be up on the web next friday. Slightly hesitant to post a link here as it would mean the end to my intahwebs anonymity but i'll pm you a link, definitely.

You don't want to end like Twill?

Can you pm me the link, too?

[The1exile]

ooh, ooh, me too.

Or just copy it, remove personal details and put it on pastebucket, and link that here.

[Ditocoaf]

ooh, ooh, me too.

Or just copy it, remove personal details and put it on pastebucket, and link that here.

Yeah, you might want to do that, because... I'd like to read it as well.

[Dancing Mustard]

... and my Axe!!!



By which I mean, I would be extremely interested in reading your article. Please PM me the details of where I might find it.