Police seize klingon weaponry in raid

[Broomstick]

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

Then justify the need for private ownership of cars
Then justify the need for privately-owned knives in private kitchens
For that matter - justify ownership of forks
Justify ownership of common cleaning chemicals, such as bleach
Justfiy ownership of fuels such as gasoline
Jusfity the need for using natural gas or propane for cooking and heating
Justify ownership of table saws, power drills, nail guns, drain clog remover, nail polish remover, turpentine, disposable lighters, BBQ grills, bug-kiler, and just plain old ordinary matches.

All of which are "potentially dangerous"

Maybe we should outlaw martial arts and weight training while we're at it, since it makes an unarmed human "potentially dangerous".

I dont know why you're bitching about owning things, this isnt about ownership it's about carrying around in public.

Well, it's going to be pretty fucking difficult to get my laundry done at the public laundromat if I can't carry fucking bleach into it to keep my whites white. Not to mention pretty fucking difficult to even BUY bleach if it's not allowed at the public grocery store.

I own things like tools and chemicals because I have need/reason to use them. I am going to have a hell of hard time using them if I'm not allowed to transport them to where I need to do the work, whether that's home from a store or out to a vacant field somewhere or whatever is required.

If your concept of ownership is so restrictive as to forbid use of that which I own then it is the same thing as forbidding something.

And you know what people arent allowed to use cars in public without testing and licenses.

No shit, Sherlock, but a car is a lot more complicated than a fucking knife blade.

Gas systems need to be installed and monitered by professional engineers

Actually, you CAN install your own gas system... it will require inspection prior to the gas company turning on service. At least in this country you can do that - from what I've seen in your posts, apparently you can't wipe your own ass in your country without licensing and certification.

and a lot of tools wont be sold to those under 16...solvents of all sorts are illegal to sell to those under 18 and there are licenses for dealing in toxic chemicals.

I'm over 16
I'm over 18
I'm even over 21.

Yes, SOME toxins require a license. Many more do not. I am a responsible adult human being. Why should I be inconvenienced by ignorant morons who can't follow the rules?

The level of controls varies from item to item, but there are various different ones.

And I find where you draw the line to be an intolerable restriction of my freedoms.

You'll also find the police here take a dim view of folk walking about with nail guns and portable drills in public without a reason too...

Define "reason".

How about - I want to do some home repairs so I bought this at the hardware store and that's why it's in a bag in the back seat of my car.

How about - I want new steak knives, officer, and stopped at K-mart to buy them and that's why they're in this bag on the seat next to me.

How about - I have cockoraches in my kitchen and that's why there's a can of bugkiller in this here bag I am carrying into my house.

How about - I'm going for a vacation in the backwoods and that's why I have a hunting knife.

For that matter - I'm going for a vacation in the backwoods and that's why I want to check my rifle in this appproved carrying case in baggage before I board the airplane.

There are a LOT of reasons why people own and use various items. Some things are dangerous enough - such as cars and guns - to require licensing. I don't view pocket knives in that category. If things are that bad we need to outlaw pointy sticks and rocks as well.

[Keevan_Colton]

My goodness you are either a complete fucking retard like HDS and Alyeska, or you havent actually read anything about the state of affairs in the UK.

If you have a legitimate reason to be carrying a blade, for example you're a chef on the way to or returning from work. So long as what you're carrying is safely wrapped not just in a pocket etc where it can be quickly drawn it's legal to carry it.

It's been stated many times already. You can transport a blade IF you have a legitiamte reason to do so. If you dont have a legitimate reason then you can be charged.

It's not fucking rocket science.

You CAN carry a blade that's 3" or less so long as it is not a fixed blade and not a spring or gravity operated blade.

You CAN carry a larger blade or similar tool provided you have a legitimate reason to do so and it is carried in a safe manner in line with the law. The law required that it be stowed either in a bag, carrying case or in the back of a vehicle and that you dont carry it about longer than is neccesary.

You CANNOT carry blades about with you just because you want to.

[Keevan_Colton]

In Scotland, around half the murders are committed with knives. When we start having large numbers of murders committed with bleach, thrown gasoline or propane, or forks, let me know.

If you want to argue that we should outlaw that which is most frequently used as a weapon you at least have a leg to stand on. Arguing we should outlaw something because someone might get hurt is bullshit because the world in an inherently hazardous place.

If you're justifying ownership of all those "dangerous things" based on the idea that most murders are committed with other items then OK by me.

Its not outlawing knives it's outlawing carrying them in public without a legitimate reason.

[Sharp-kun]

Define "reason".

Not "I'm going to the pub".

[Broomstick]

It's been stated many times already. You can transport a blade IF you have a legitiamte reason to do so.

In that case - who decides "legitimate"? You? Parliment? A random assortment of your neighbors?

How codified is the list of legitimate reasons? Is this something were an officer of the law makes a judgement call, or something else?

No, I'm not as familar with "what's happening in the UK" as I am with what's happening in my own backyard. For that matter, I don't know what's going on in Bumfuck, Arkansas, either. I pay more attention to local events that affect me than what the British are putting up with, why is that mysterious? I'd expect you to care more about what's going in your backyard than what's going on in mine.

[Keevan_Colton]

It's been stated many times already. You can transport a blade IF you have a legitiamte reason to do so.

In that case - who decides "legitimate"? You? Parliment? A random assortment of your neighbors?

How codified is the list of legitimate reasons? Is this something were an officer of the law makes a judgement call, or something else?

The police have discretion to decide what is legitimate and what isnt. Provided you exercise some measure of intelligence there shouldnt be a problem with anything you listed above. For example in the case of buying knives and carrying them home, a bag to carry them and if the police officer asks, the reciet showing you bought them that day would mean you'd be fine.

Carrying things safely from one specific place to another for a purpose is fine. When I was still rraining in sword fighting I often transported swords, once or twice the police stopped some of us transporting things to or from the hall we used for training, but with a couple of calls to coroborate what we were doing and we were on our way again. Police officers here have a great breadth of discretion as part of their powers.

If you are exercising proper caution in transporting things you will be fine with regards to the law. In all your examples an officer would likely check to corroborate your story and if it checks out send you on about your day.

No, I'm not as familar with "what's happening in the UK" as I am with what's happening in my own backyard. For that matter, I don't know what's going on in Bumfuck, Arkansas, either. I pay more attention to local events that affect me than what the British are putting up with, why is that mysterious? I'd expect you to care more about what's going in your backyard than what's going on in mine.

Yeah, though as this thread is about the UK it might be best to read whats been said about it already in this thread and in the posts split from it about what the state of affairs in the UK is before wading in.

[anybody_mcc]

Just compare the difference between drivers license testing in the US vs Europe.

Just compare having the right to defend yourself in the US vs. being unable to defend yourself in Europe. Although it would be more accurate to say parts of Europe because I am aware that Europe is not full of clones nor are all those countries exactly alike.

Please , name a country where you cannot defend yourself.

[Darth Wong]

Just compare the difference between drivers license testing in the US vs Europe.

Just compare having the right to defend yourself in the US vs. being unable to defend yourself in Europe. Although it would be more accurate to say parts of Europe because I am aware that Europe is not full of clones nor are all those countries exactly alike.

Please , name a country where you cannot defend yourself.

In America, "defend yourself" means "carry a gun on your person at all times". It has something to do with the lawless "frontier tradition" even though there is no more frontier.

[Alyeska]

My goodness you are either a complete fucking retard like HDS and Alyeska, or you havent actually read anything about the state of affairs in the UK.

Real mature Keevan. I actualy bothered to provide proof of my claims when you requested. It was even a UK source. You of course completely failed to provide ANY when requested.

And you call me a fucking retard when you didn't back up your claims.

[Keevan_Colton]

My goodness you are either a complete fucking retard like HDS and Alyeska, or you havent actually read anything about the state of affairs in the UK.

Real mature Keevan. I actualy bothered to provide proof of my claims when you requested. It was even a UK source. You of course completely failed to provide ANY when requested.

And you call me a fucking retard when you didn't back up your claims.

I'm not the one so dumb as to insist on evidence to prove that you cant use something you dont have.

[Alyeska]

Debate Rule #6 Keevan. Prove it or concede the point. I am calling the bet. Back up your argument with proof or sit the fuck down. I am tired of you acting like a jackass, demanding proof of others and refusing to back up your own claims.

[Darth Wong]

Debate Rule #6 Keevan. Prove it or concede the point. I am calling the bet. Back up your argument with proof or sit the fuck down. I am tired of you acting like a jackass, demanding proof of others and refusing to back up your own claims.

What sort of statistics would you be looking for?

[Keevan_Colton]

Debate Rule #6 Keevan. Prove it or concede the point. I am calling the bet. Back up your argument with proof or sit the fuck down. I am tired of you acting like a jackass, demanding proof of others and refusing to back up your own claims.

What sort of statistics would you be looking for?

It's not any sort of statistics I've argued. I've simply pointed out that not having a knife precludes stabbing someone with that knife. He wants proof of that...

[Alyeska]

Keevan outright stated the existance of knives automaticaly causes more danger. I have asked him half a dozen times to actualy post evidence to support this claim.

[Alyeska]

Link

I asked Keevan to provide proof that the mere existance of weapons (specificaly knives) automaticaly increases the likelyhood of danger.

Rather then actualy actualy provide proof to back up the claim, he altered his statement slightly to say "no knife means no stabby". He continued to refuse to actualy provide proof that the existance of knives automaticaly increase danger.

[Darth Wong]

Keevan outright stated the existance of knives automaticaly causes more danger. I have asked him half a dozen times to actualy post evidence to support this claim.

The EXISTENCE of a certain type of weapon?

Are you a fucking retard? That's like saying that the existence of nukes causes no more danger; the danger is self-evident simply because the object can cause so much more damage than, say, fists. That doesn't necessarily mean there will be more deaths (and there are those who would argue that nuclear weapons actually prevented many war-related deaths), but to argue that the existence of a certain class of weaponry does not elevate the danger level in any given situation where those weapons are present is utterly ridiculous.

Take an example: you are walking down the street and some gangsta punk is jawing at you. You try to ignore him, he starts following you. If the two of you were armed with weapons, would this situation be:

A) More dangerous than if you were both unarmed
B) Less dangerous than if you were both unarmed
C) No change compared to being unarmed

Seriously, you would have to be eight different kinds of stupid in order to believe that magically eliminating the weapons from any given situation would not have any effect on the danger level.

[Alyeska]

That is the potential danger. In the real world, things do not always work out like that. There are a lot more factors to take into account.

For example, the bit with Scottland having a high rate of knife deaths and knife attacks. That is proof that in Scottland, the existance of knives is a serious risk. However, thats just a single part of the United Kingdom and doesn't cover many scenarios.

[Darth Wong]

That is the potential danger.

And that is a redundant term. Danger is always "potential"; once it becomes actual, it is harm, not danger.

[Alyeska]

A potential danger does not necessarily materialize into an actual danger. Keevan's argument essentialy boils down to the assertation that a potential danger is a very real danger. The thing is, if no actual danger is in evidence, there is no need to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

If you have a city where 50% of the people own knives and 1 in 10 people are killed by a knives before they turn 30, this is a very serious real danger. That would most definately warrant banning or severly restricting knives.

Now lets say you have another city where 50% of the people own knives. Only in this city 1 in 1,000,000 people are killed by knives before they turn 60. For all intents and purposes, the danger is non-existant. It is a potential danger that is not actualy a real danger. Banning knives would not make logical sense. In fact, banning or severly restricting knives probably would do very little at this stage. Those who comit the crimes would either find some other weapon, or would simply ignore the law to begin with.

[Darth Wong]

A potential danger does not necessarily materialize into an actual danger. Keevan's argument essentialy boils down to the assertation that a potential danger is a very real danger. The thing is, if no actual danger is in evidence, there is no need to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Define the difference between "potential danger" and "real danger" in the example I gave you.

[SirNitram]

Danger is always potential. When it's become an actual event, it's no longer danger, it's damage. Danger is the potential for getting shock, shanked, or infected with malaria. You don't call it 'danger' when it's happened, unless you're referring to the potential for worse(The danger of dying from bleeding once you've already been shot.).

[Alyeska]

There are a lot more factors then that. In an unarmed situation the attacker could be relying merely on physical intimidation. In an armed situation, the attacker could be relying on other means, and the victim showing resistance with a weapon could easily change the ballance.

Whats more, your example fails to take into account the possibility of the attacker being armed and the victim being unarmed. The Attacker being unarmed and the victim being armed. Or either the attacker or victim having superior arms.

Though in your example without any real specifics, I have to say that the answer is C. Both sides are effectively equal no matter what. The potential for harm is greater with weapons but offset by the fact that victory is likely to occur with less chance of harm to the victim. So there is no change.

However, your entire example is rather convuluted because it ignores all manner of variables and possible situations.

[Coyote]

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

[thejester]

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

I live in one of those societies. Your contention is bullshit. Societal norms dictate that if someone bigger/stronger than me has a go, chances are someone will help me, call the cops or whatever. And frankly, I would rather loose my wallet and get a bruised ego then get into a potentially fatal fight with some junkie.

[Uraniun235]

Seems to me that what is basically in contention here is the right to engage in an arms race with the criminal element of society.

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

I live in one of those societies. Your contention is bullshit. Societal norms dictate that if someone bigger/stronger than me has a go, chances are someone will help me, call the cops or whatever.

Have you never heard of the case of the woman who was murdered in the street while dozens of people watched from their apartments but did nothing?