Police seize klingon weaponry in raid

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-27 04:19pm

I believe that kind of logic has been shown to be nothing but bullshit in this thread by several posters. To me thats just authoritan fearmongering.

The ban as previously mentioned is hardly going to affect the crime-rate either since it doesn't strike at the cause (such as poverty, unemployment, drugs), only at law abiding citizens, the "fuckwits" don't care. It's just a ban made in a "think of the children"-type hysteria that I am just more and more certain off is just a ploy to get a certain someones approval ratings up.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-05-27 04:25pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:I believe that kind of logic has been shown to be nothing but bullshit in this thread by several posters. To me thats just authoritan fearmongering.

The ban as previously mentioned is hardly going to affect the crime-rate either since it doesn't strike at the cause (such as poverty, unemployment, drugs), only at law abiding citizens, the "fuckwits" don't care. It's just a ban made in a "think of the children"-type hysteria that I am just more and more certain off is just a ploy to get a certain someones approval ratings up.

Does that apply to the use of plastic bottles too?

These things add up when put together, banning the carrying of knives alone doesnt stop the problem, but when you add it together with other things such as the use of plastic containers for alcohol and CCTV coverage of the areas around nightclubs and more police officers on duty at peak times, better response times and so on...it does all add up to make things better than they were.

There is no such thing as a magic bullet, but lots of little steps can add up.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2006-05-27 04:29pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:I believe that kind of logic has been shown to be nothing but bullshit in this thread by several posters. To me thats just authoritan fearmongering.

No, it hasn't. go back and reread the thread, you will notice several people have pointed out that weapons can escalate violent situations. There has been no attempt at a rebuttal to this, only pathetic strawmanning that other objects can also be used as weapons, even though these objects are frequently less dangerous or simple to damage someone with than knives.

Ordinary plain fuckwits who might entirely legally carry a knife without intending to use it may arrive in a situation where they would use it instead of their fists or other less lethal items, because you can't stop people from fighting, but you can make it harder for them to damage each other whilst doing so.

It's just a ban made in a "think of the children"-type hysteria that I am just more and more certain off is just a ploy to get a certain someones approval ratings up.

No, as pointed out it's a utilitarian principle. The aim of the ban is not at criminals but irresponsible people. You can't take the irresponsibility away from them, so you take the knives away. The societal good of stopping a pissed up twat with a knife from stabbing someone instead of just punching them outweighs the societal good of allowing people to carry knives.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-27 05:03pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:I believe that kind of logic has been shown to be nothing but bullshit in this thread by several posters. To me thats just authoritan fearmongering.

The ban as previously mentioned is hardly going to affect the crime-rate either since it doesn't strike at the cause (such as poverty, unemployment, drugs), only at law abiding citizens, the "fuckwits" don't care. It's just a ban made in a "think of the children"-type hysteria that I am just more and more certain off is just a ploy to get a certain someones approval ratings up.
Does that apply to the use of plastic bottles too?

These things add up when put together, banning the carrying of knives alone doesnt stop the problem, but when you add it together with other things such as the use of plastic containers for alcohol and CCTV coverage of the areas around nightclubs and more police officers on duty at peak times, better response times and so on...it does all add up to make things better than they were.

There is no such thing as a magic bullet, but lots of little steps can add up.

I think the plastic bottles are worse than the knife ban actually. It's one of those things I have trouble thinkig is not a joke.

No, it hasn't. go back and reread the thread, you will notice several people have pointed out that weapons can escalate violent situations. There has been no attempt at a rebuttal to this, only pathetic strawmanning that other objects can also be used as weapons, even though these objects are frequently less dangerous or simple to damage someone with than knives.

Ooh yes it has and it hasn't been answered. The only one with a strawman here is you since my argument is not that weapons will not cause a possible escalation of violence but wheter a ban will help or wheter it is worth the cost incurred in civil liberties. There has been no rebuttal to the point made by Darth Wong earlier in the thread that it would not be worth the effort and money better spent on other things that would easily save more lives earlier, and thats from the same utalitarian perspective you speak of and I agree. This is a waste of money and effort better spent elsewhere.

No, as pointed out it's a utilitarian principle. The aim of the ban is not at criminals but irresponsible people. You can't take the irresponsibility away from them, so you take the knives away. The societal good of stopping a pissed up twat with a knife from stabbing someone instead of just punching them outweighs the societal good of allowing people to carry knives.

There ain't going to be any "societal good" from this. And I don't go removing rights because of a few people. As Mr. Bean said the number of people stabbed is bloody low and not worth the effort and liberties removed.

And the hell it's not about criminals, now thats moving the goalposts. It sure is about them too and they aren't going to be affected by this. And whats the main reason for wearing any knife beyond what you'd wear at work as a tool? The reason are pricks who knife other people, either for mugging or just because they're violent bastards, which by the way I doubt are going to be much bothered with following this ban either. How to lower the amount of stabbings and knife murders in a way that actually works... Hmm, well if you lower crime then you lower the need to carry knives and with less knives around, less accidents.

Violence and crime will continue their merry way irregardles of wheter the society has a high or low level of legal weapons ownership and we're going to continue see laws like this whittling away evermore freedoms in the name of security with ineffectual bans like this. The real factor is poverty, the cure is creating jobs and good welfare for the people, but I don't expect politicians to realize that when they can capitalise on things like this instead.

Jade Falcon · Post by **Jade Falcon** » 2006-05-27 05:13pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:*looks over collection* (remember I'm a professional, I just have this many because I can)

remind me to never move to the UK. BTW I'm thinking of getting a Kukri (hey it's a utility knife....)

remember the best reason to be a chef/cook. because it's an open excuse to indulge in pyro and sharp objects fetishes in a constructive manner.

Well this is from a site that sells swords in the UK, and it covers the bit about work related blades.

THE LAW YOUR KNIFE AND YOU

Despite what you may have been led to believe, our knife laws are amongst the most sensible in the modern World. In Great Britain we benefit from laws which promote the sensible use and collecting of fine cutlery, yet discourage those who seek to abuse what are, in effect, artistic, well engineered tools.

What You Can't Have ...

The following items are banned from sale within the UK (although if you already own one you may keep it, but not use it outside of your own property) ... Switchblades, automatics or 'flick-knives', gravity knives, balisongs or 'butterfly knives', push daggers, belt buckle knives, sword canes, or knuckle-duster knives. Late on in 2004, an amendment to the law was introduced which restricts the sale of any knife which is not readily detectable by the normal methods of detection, ie: either x-ray or metal detection, unless it can be proven that the knife's sole purpose is for the preparation of food. So for instance, the Cold Steel CAT Tanto or Lansky Knife are now prohibited within the UK.

You may not buy any knife designed to look like something else, for instance a knife which appears to be a pen, (and it doesn't matter whether the pen works or not, it's still a concealed weapon)!

What You Can Carry ... The Criminal Justice Act (1988) says that you may carry a knife with a blade length of 3.0" or less so long as it is capable of folding. That means no fixed blade knives. But use your loaf - a knife has no place at a football match, in a pub, nightclub or school and becomes an offensive weapon in these circumstances in just the same way as a screwdriver, or any other innanimate tool.

But I NEED a Bigger Knife ... If you wish to carry a larger knife then you must have 'reasonable cause'. That means that you must be able to prove that you had a genuine reason for carrying the knife. You may carry a larger cutting tool if it is associated with your work (for instance a chef may carry a 9.0" butchers knife roll to and from work), or if it is associated with your sport, (for instance a fisherman may carry a 6.0" fillet knife, or a hunter may carry a 4.0" fixed blade hunting knife).

Don't forget it's there though. If you stop off in Tesco's for a can of beans on your way home take the knife off of your belt and secure it in your glove box, or your local Bobby will be unimpressed at your excuses. Don't Give The Police A Hard Time ... Ensure that you comply fully with the law. The Police take breaches of knife law very seriously, and take our advice, you really don't want to be caught on the wrong side, it's just not worth it. Please note that this information is supplied for your information only. We are not solicitors nor policemen, so please follow the links for more 'official' information, or speak to a solicitor for legal advice. The Knives Act (1997) The most recent law to affect knives in Great Britain effectively banned the sale of any knife suitable for combat. Although in theory this could mean literally ANY knife, the spirit of the law is there to protect us all. It's left "grey" enough to exercise a little self control for those clearly seeking a collectable path, yet shuts down any avenue for violent use.

PLEASE NOTE: THIS PAGE IS SUPPLIED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY, AND REPRESENTS ONLY OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW. WE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY LEGALLY TRAINED NOR QUALIFIED IN ANY SUBJECT OF LAW, NOR DO WE CLAIM TO BE. FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING CURRENT UK LEGISLATION AND LEGAL ISSUES PLEASE CONTACT A SOLICITOR.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-27 05:15pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Does that apply to the use of plastic bottles too?

These things add up when put together, banning the carrying of knives alone doesnt stop the problem, but when you add it together with other things such as the use of plastic containers for alcohol and CCTV coverage of the areas around nightclubs and more police officers on duty at peak times, better response times and so on...it does all add up to make things better than they were.

There is no such thing as a magic bullet, but lots of little steps can add up.

I think you deserve a more detailed answer. Yes it does refer to the plastic bottles. In a way it bugs me more than banning carrying of knives. I don't have any problems with more police around the like though. But as I've said, I think the best way to combat crime is to combat poverty and you do that by bringing good jobs for the people. Efforts should be primarily focused on this.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-05-27 06:45pm

I'm pretty sure sword canes are still sold. A place in Preston has them, IIRC, and one of my brother's friend's father has one ever since he had his leg buggered up by a robbery incident in a bank he was in at the time (nerve damage, needs cane, so cane with a sword in was handy).

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2006-05-27 07:24pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:

I think the plastic bottles are worse than the knife ban actually. It's one of those things I have trouble thinkig is not a joke.

A little off topic, but I like the idea of plastic beer bottles. Having to clean up broken beer bottles is not the healthiest thing for the fingers. Wading into a lake or river barefoot after a party might not be the wisest thing to be doing in the summer. As a more extreme example, in China, there was (is?) a problem with exploding beer bottles because of cost-cutting at bottling plants. Some people have been badly disfigured and injured by defective bottles that go off like a grenade from the slightest of knocks.

As for weapons potential, apart from the obvious jagged glass neck, the beer bottle bottom can be knapped into an arrowhead.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-05-27 07:28pm

Joe wrote:If he had screamed "QAPLA!!!!" this would be the greatest story ever.

It would've been even better if he confronted the police when they tried seizing his Batleth and screamed "Perhaps today IS a good day to die!"

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-27 07:35pm

I'll fight plastic beer bottles to death! They ruined sodas and they shall not ruin beer. Cheap chinese beer isn't something that affects bottles in finland either so I'm not swayed here.

Anyways I would just say use gloves to pick up used bottles. A small price to pay for good beer I say. I just don't see the danger from glass bottles being used as improvised weapons to be so great as to require wide sweeping bans and goverment intervention, according to the site I linked it's1.5 glass incidents per 70,000 served. Why not tackle binge-drinking with some informative campaigns instead? Let's say you own a pub and don't want to serve glass pints, well fine by me, I shall not patronize your establishment nor drink it's lager, if that'll do ya.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-05-28 02:52am

Vendetta wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:I believe that kind of logic has been shown to be nothing but bullshit in this thread by several posters. To me thats just authoritan fearmongering.
No, it hasn't. go back and reread the thread, you will notice several people have pointed out that weapons can escalate violent situations. There has been no attempt at a rebuttal to this, only pathetic strawmanning that other objects can also be used as weapons, even though these objects are frequently less dangerous or simple to damage someone with than knives.

Ordinary plain fuckwits who might entirely legally carry a knife without intending to use it may arrive in a situation where they would use it instead of their fists or other less lethal items, because you can't stop people from fighting, but you can make it harder for them to damage each other whilst doing so.

It's just a ban made in a "think of the children"-type hysteria that I am just more and more certain off is just a ploy to get a certain someones approval ratings up.
No, as pointed out it's a utilitarian principle. The aim of the ban is not at criminals but irresponsible people. You can't take the irresponsibility away from them, so you take the knives away. The societal good of stopping a pissed up twat with a knife from stabbing someone instead of just punching them outweighs the societal good of allowing people to carry knives.

minor question, what about people like me?

I still use my dissection knives for 40k (I stopped taking college biology long ago, and couldn't sell them back to the book store.), I still occasionally spar with my swords, and I professionally use a very large collection of knives, many of which (like my full set of dissection turned modeling knives are designed to cut deep through flesh and joints, my machete and my flat shovel I keep in my car, are leathal, but used for only constructive purposes, I know how to disarm a knife wilelding opponent and well I know which knives look scary but only are good for cutting pasties (which I still use everyday since I work around pizza). I even have stone age tech, super sharp glass knives.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-05-28 09:14am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:minor question, what about people like me?

I still use my dissection knives for 40k (I stopped taking college biology long ago, and couldn't sell them back to the book store.), I still occasionally spar with my swords, and I professionally use a very large collection of knives, many of which (like my full set of dissection turned modeling knives are designed to cut deep through flesh and joints, my machete and my flat shovel I keep in my car, are leathal, but used for only constructive purposes, I know how to disarm a knife wilelding opponent and well I know which knives look scary but only are good for cutting pasties (which I still use everyday since I work around pizza). I even have stone age tech, super sharp glass knives.

You dont need to carry any of these about on the street with you and taking things to and from work is allowed provided you need them for work.

Carrying a machette in your car isnt a good idea with the laws here, what the fuck do you need a machette in your car for anyway?

As for swords, they're fine for martial arts purposes, collection or re-enactment. Though again, no carrying them about with you on the streets.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-28 10:09am

Needing something isn't a preqeuisite for being able to have something. Yosemite doesn't need to justify having a machete in his car one iota, nor does he need to justify carrying a knife on his person either. The need for justification lies soley on the person/goverment suggesting the banning of this, they need to show that there is a dire need to remove such liberties and that by doing so they will save enough lives to warrant the civil liberties taken away.

I think that the statistics we've seen show this is not so and that it is an ineffective means of saving lives. Diminishing returns I've heard people call it. It pertains to how much "safety" you get from removing civil liberties.

To make an example. Instigating backgrounds check and permits on the sale of firearms is a pretty good return on investment, a little liberty given up but it keeps felons and people with history of mental problems and the like from being able to purchase legal firearms. A very good trade off. One could maybe even push it as far as a weapons license similar to a drivers license but no further really.
Just banning guns will disarm the law obiding populace for no good reason and substansially lower liberties and also the quality of life for very little security in return (that is if you accept that crime arises from other things than merely owning firearms, which I believe is empirically proven by now).

Now given the amount of traffic accidents I think the goverment has not a leg to stand on here when they could be doing so much more to tighten traffic regulations, increase drivers license requirements for instance and also increasing police efforts on monitoring traffic. This is the optimal solution from a combined rights and utalitarian perspective IMHO. A long term investment to improve welfare and provide more jobs would also do alot more than any bans wold ever accomplish in reducing crime.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-05-28 11:11am

What is so wrong with people having to show a need for something that can potentially be dangerous?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-05-28 11:14am

Also, even though it is totally unrealted to this more things are also being done to help combat traffic accidents. Speed cameras for one thing...

And before folk start with the usual "speed cameras dont really help, people just slow down near the cameras and then drive fast between them" bullshit (usually found amongst those who insist that a car needs to do 0 - 100 mph in some stupidly short time anyway) the cameras are now networked in some areas. They track the time between cameras and then calculate your average speed to work out if you're going to fast.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-28 11:42am

Keevan_Colton wrote:What is so wrong with people having to show a need for something that can potentially be dangerous?

Well for one it gives the impression that it's any of the goverments bussiness to decide what I may possess for whatever reason they might cook up this week, I am sure you know where that can lead. It's just the wrong kind of thinking in my opinion. You begin at the wrong end. The goverment shouldn't ask why should you be allowed to have XXX in the first place, the goverment should ask if there really is a need dire enough to remove a liberty. Like if it's causing widespread injury or loss of life in the society and wheter removing it will have any effect. Thats the way to go about it.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2006-05-28 12:44pm

His Divine Shadow wrote: Christ is that because glasses and bottles can be used as weapons? Is that really so?

If you've ever seen Glasgow late on a Saturday night, you'd understand exactly why it's that way.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-05-28 12:53pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote: Christ is that because glasses and bottles can be used as weapons? Is that really so?
If you've ever seen Glasgow late on a Saturday night, you'd understand exactly why it's that way.

Amen to that.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-28 12:57pm

Well, hey it's your contry and your laws. I just have a hard time imagening it, that people could be so violent that they surpass my own binge-drinking nation of little perkeles.

I still think the oppositions arguments are stronger though.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/lo/opinion/7021070.html

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-28 02:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:
No, I am saying that it is also possible that violence could escalate even if there were no weapons within a hundred miles of the altercation. Now it really does seem to me that you're advocating the point of view that the prescence of a weapon will increase the level of violence beyond what might have occurred were the weapon not there. Am I misinterpreting your statement?
Not now. You were before, when you claimed that I was saying weapons turned people into criminals.

Minor nit; the comment that started all this rolling was not directed at you, it was actually more directed at Plekhanov after his comment about how granting the right to carry a knife will "result in the deaths of people".

Darth Wong wrote:That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying weapons tend to escalate the level of violence. You can't seriously believe that two guys who look like they want to brawl and two guys pointing guns at each other strike you as situations of equal danger.

Absolutely not; that's where the weapons control argument is strongest: if weapons are indeed denied to the general population, it is true that it will be harder for people to immediately maximize damage.

Darth Wong wrote:It is quite possible to kill someone in a completely legal fashion with a weapon because you panicked... But if you weren't toting the gun around, and didn't panic and shoot some kid jumping your fence, there would be one less death, wouldn't there?

Also true, and you mentioned liscencing schemes before. Ideally I have no problem with liscencing schemes because they would, presumably, require some sort of safety and awareness class involved. In an ideal world it would be un-necessary; since anyone that bought a gun or other weapon would be aware and responsible for safe handling thereof... but in the real world, I had to show proof of training to get a concealed weapons carry permit, and to be honest that does not strike me as a bad idea at all. I've seen way too many yay-hoos at shooting ranges that should not have a pointed stick, much less a firearm.

Darth Wong wrote:
Coyote, re: gun control logistics wrote:Because of two reasons: It wastes law enforcement resources criminalizing an entire portion oif the population that has done nothing wrong.
Not according to an exclusively rights-based ethics system. From a utilitarian system however, if it could be shown that social harm is mitigated in some way by this policy, then the policy would be a good idea and resistance to the policy would be harmful.

But it would have to be compared to what social good-- if any-- is being served by not imposing a strict gun control regime (in this context, I'm using "gun control" meaning confiscation and restriction, not simple liscencing).

The famous study by Gary Kleck, a criminologist based out of Florida, performed an extensive study on defensive gun use and found that there were potentially up to 2.5 million legal, defensive uses of a firearm in any given year. This was interpreted as potentially 2.5 million criminal acts that were prevented by gun owners who were not law-enforcement personnel.

Now, this is not a way of saying "the few killed each year are worth the cost", a cynical interpretation, but the possibility of 2.5 million crimes prevented must be weighed against how many crimes are actually committed with firearms.

(edited: I accidentally had "6 million crimes prevented" instead of 2.5 million. I don't know why I had 6 in there. --Coyote)

However, it must also be borne in mind that the crimes committed with firearms has to be further sub-divided. Actual criminals who already have firearms that they got illegally would not be deterred by gun control laws since they are operating outside those strictures to begin with. At best, things such as "crimes of passion" (ie, drunken brawls, cheated spouses, etc) and gun suicides would be hampered, as well as accidental shootings.

However, in regards to the accidental shootings, it is stated...

Incidents in which householders shoot family members mistaken for burglars and other criminals have occurred, but they are extremely rare. Studies indicate that fewer than 2% of fatal gun accidents involve a person accidentally shooting someone mistaken for an intruder. With 1409 fatal gun accidents in 1992, this implies that there are fewer than 28 incidents of this sort annually. Compared with about 2.5 million annual defensive uses of guns, this translates into about a less than 1-in-90,000 chance of a defensive gun use resulting in this kind of accident.

In regards to the cost, there is both monetary loss and personnel. The Canadian gun control plan is, apparantly, hampered by inefficiency in this report, where it points out the financial cost...

The goal of the gun control action plan is to reduce the gross costs of the gun control program in Canada to approximately $67 million annually by 2008-09.

The cost of officers and manpower is not mentioned in the article but it goes without saying that someone has to do the data work; if not an actual police officer then someone will be drawing that government paycheck.

...[it's] like saying that criminalizing the act of driving a car without a license "puts the onus of responsibility in the car, rather than the driver".

Well, actually, in the US (I presume in Canada as well?) you can own and operate all the cars you want without a liscence, so long as you are driving on your own private property. On a public road, however, paid for and patrolled with the use of public taxes, then public standards must be adhered to. But driving is a priviledge, not a right... and while owning an actual weapon may or not be a "right" in some countries, it would be hard to find someone who felt they had no rights to defend themselves from an attack.

In the long run, the "car/gun" comparison, while handy, is not as comperable as it may seem, and can lead to a lot of digression...

[quote="Darth Wong"

Coyote wrote:Again, a distortion. Murder is clearly a crime; whereas simply owning or carrying a weapon is not. The two are not comperable.

Thoroughly irrelevant to the argument, where you were saying that the failure of gun control to eradicate murder means that it was a waste of time and I was showing how that same logic could be applied to prison sentences for murder. [/quote]

I don't believe anyone truly thinks that there will be a day when murder does not exist; but while locking murderers up does have some obvious and proven social value (getting them away from the general population) the success of gun control to impact murder is still a topic of debate. Many see its effectiveness as very poor, of course I adhere to this point of view.

Darth Wong wrote:
Coyote wrote:They are blaming the thing and hoping that by removing these "evil talismans" they will remove the rot.
What a load of bullshit; it's not about putting moral blame on an inanimate object; it's about recognizing that humans are stupid, irrational creatures and should not be trusted with weapons by default, at least not without some kind of licensing scheme.

Then it stands to reason then that the time, effort and resources poured into "gun control", a program of debatable value, would be better spent on education. I'd recommend gun safety classes taught as part of the civics program in schools-- not a "go out and buy a gun" class but simply th efacts: this is what is can do, what it cannot do that you may see in movies, how to check if it is safe and unload it. Even someone who loathes guns should know that in the intersts of public safety, but again, this is my opinion on the matter. People motivated later in life to go out and buy a gun can take a safety test based on what they learned and be approved to own weapons afterwards, provided they are of legal age, et al.

The problem being violence in society, what does any "weapon control" do to address the problems that fester crimes?
You honestly don't realize that this is a red-herring, do you?

Actually, I do realize that it is off on another chain of thought, and germane to the discussion only at such a "big picture" level as to be impractical in this scope of discussion. But violent crime doe snot happen in a vacuum, and events before the crime occurs, as well as how the post-crime events are handled, can factor into whether or not further crimes are committed in the future. But again... whole 'nother thread.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-28 02:27pm

Another good thing is that the current laws forbid you from carrying weapons in bars and such in the USA. CCW or no CCW.

I think the laws are entierly adequate as is with permits and background checks and also stipulating where you can carry and not as well as additional licensing for being allowed to carry at all.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-05-28 02:33pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:Another good thing is that the current laws forbid you from carrying weapons in bars and such in the USA. CCW or no CCW.

I think the laws are entierly adequate as is with permits and background checks and also stipulating where you can carry and not as well as additional licensing for being allowed to carry at all.

That actually varies from state to state.
IMHO, one of the things that people from other countries find difficult to understand about the US is that while everyone has to comply with Federal laws, there are some very significant differences between the laws of the several states on certain matters.
For example, Massachusetts and Texas have very differing laws on both gay rights and gun rights.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-05-28 02:39pm

Oh yes, I just thought the bar thing was pretty much true nationwide in any state that allows CCW, pure assumption on my part, whops. I've been thinking about that and given the US differing so much in laws and even sociologically from state to state, maybe one should compare european countries to US states as opposed to the entire US compared to the entire EU.

Or alternatively compare the whole EU to the whole US.

I would like to see a graph comparing homicide rates in the US states and gun onwership rates to see if there is a correlation or wheter it's more of a social issue, like poverty and such.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-05-28 05:49pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:What is so wrong with people having to show a need for something that can potentially be dangerous?

In a free society, people need not justify themselves. The very nature of a free society is that people be allowed to do what they wish so long as it doesn't infringe on others. I should never have to justify myself to the government as to what I enjoy doing or what I have on my persons. It should always be the governments responsibility to justify its actions. Your line of thinking effectively makes things illegal until the government has granted it legal. That is completely wrong.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-28 05:55pm

HDS, there was something like that awhile ago, and it seemed to me that gun control and gun owenership rates had little to do with overall crime. Towns with strict gun control had low overall violence; towns that required gun ownership -- there are a couple-- also had low overall violence.

Lots of weapons in private hands doesn't seem to harm Boise, Idaho, all that much, but lots of guns in private hands seems to scare the bejeezus out of folks in LA. There are enough guns in Boise per capita to make even the most stalwart of latte-sipping New Yorkers to soil his J. Crew boxers, but we don't have the correlating crime rate that some might expect.

I believe that we have as much violence in the USA and the EU, really, but it is different kinds of violence. We have high crime rates compared to European cities, but at the same time it is rare to have mass riots break out after, say, a football game, with entire neighborhoods getting torched. We also didn't have the violent political organizations that existed in Europe during the 70's. For some reasson we're willing to rationalize criminal violence but political violence does not gain much respect in the States. I'm not saying it never happens -- Waco, OK City-- but it generally does not take off and run like, say, the Red Brigades or Baader-Meinhof did. Those movements lasted for decades, IIRC.

The thing is, some of this violence gets reported as 'criminal' and the Police have to deal with it, some of it gets reported as 'political' and counter-terrorist teams deal with it. And some crimes don't get reported at all, leaving the erroneous assumption that a given community may be peaceful. The current situation in Arizona City on the southern border of Utah-- scores of crimes in a single day in that community, but they don't report 'multiple child marriage' to any cops since they're the ones engaging in it (an extreme example).

Anyhow, it all goes back to one of the things I'd mentioned earlier-- how violence as a means of dealing with problems is viewed and accepted in a given society. For a wholly different perspective, think about 'Honor Killings' of women in the Arab-Muslim world. Perfectly legal to them... abhorrent to us. And frequently carried out with knives.