🇳🇱
@mjambon Word violence is even worse than physical violence... You cant outrun a word!
@freemo We don't though? We (UK) also have laws about possession of knives that are primarily weapons (eg locking blades or "zombie" knives, and possession of offensive weapons
@VoxDei I was very careful in my wording. I specifically said "only violence" not "the only weapon"
Moreover, the fact that you have laws that restrict guns is not the same as showing that knives are reasoned about the same as guns, they arent.
@freemo But that was my point? Nobody's saying (well, I'm not) that gun violence is the only type that can be addressed through the legal system and all the others are just down to the perpetrator. For gun violence, knife violence, whatever, if there's a weapon involved you need both the weapon and the wielder. To address it you can/should always address both sides of that fact, surely?
And we do. I've never seen anyone say that you should address gun violence solely through gun laws, and I've never seen anyone say that you should treat knife violence solely as a problem with violent people.
> But that was my point?
As long as you know its tangental to the point I was making thats perfectly fine, and im happy to discuss.
> Nobody's saying (well, I'm not) that gun violence is the only type that can be addressed through the legal system and all the others are just down to the perpetrator.
Correct, no one is saying that, nor did I imply anyone was. What I did say is the rules that people use when talking about gun violence is always radically different than the reasoning around any other type of violence.
> For gun violence, knife violence, whatever, if there's a weapon involved you need both the weapon and the wielder.
Sure, thats not one of the ways in which people reason differently. So sure, thats expected, normal, and largely irrelevant to anything I said, so yea sure.
> To address it you can/should always address both sides of that fact, surely?
Both sides of what fact? I dont think anyone, not me or the original comic suggests you dont need a murder weapon with some weapons over others.
> And we do.
Do what? Im still very confused what point your trying to make.
> I've never seen anyone say that you should address gun violence solely through gun laws
Yea, I never said I saw anyone do this either. No one claimed this was an issue.
> I've never seen anyone say that you should treat knife violence solely as a problem with violent people.
Nor has anyone in this thread claimed this...
You said you had a point to make that apparently is irrelevant to any point I made... Im not sure I understand what that point is, or even if its a point that I or anyone would disagree with. It still looks like your missing my point and responding to something unrelated I cant track.
@freemo OK, then I think I'm misunderstanding what you were saying. The cartoon you posted seemed to be saying that gun violence was the only kind for which we blamed the weapon, for all other kinds we blamed the person behind it. I had read your words as giving the same message.
I was disagreeing with that and saying that while "blame" per se lies with the human in every case (obviously, it cannot be the "fault" of an inanimate object that something happened), we can and do address both the human causes and the weapon causes in all cases to try and reduce a given type of violence.
But like I say, I think I misunderstood your point, so my apologies.
> OK, then I think I’m misunderstanding what you were saying.
It seems so, but no worries I am always happy to explain what I meant in more detail for interested parties.
> The cartoon you posted seemed to be saying that gun violence was the only kind for which we blamed the weapon, for all other kinds we blamed the person behind it. I had read your words as giving the same message.
Yes that is more or less what the cartoon is saying, but I cant speak for the author beyond the obvious. I think that overall you are lost in nuance though, if not in a way that the author was misrepresented certainly in a way that misrepresents my point in sharing it (again no biggie I can explain).
> I was disagreeing with that and saying that while “blame” per se lies with the human in every case (obviously, it cannot be the “fault” of an inanimate object that something happened), we can and do address both the human causes and the weapon causes in all cases to try and reduce a given type of violence.
Yes, i wouldnt argue with the fact that both the weapon and the person tend to be addressed in various set of laws. As I said my objection is not that both components are considered, but rather the fact that when the weapon is a gun, the logic in how those two are addressed completely abandons the logic applied to the other weapons or even other situations that arent murder, and instead applies completely contrary logic, which in turn results in a very different and nonsensical laws that often make the problem worse not better.
Anyway all that said may i make a suggestion. Perhaps your next move (And perhaps your first) should be to ask me to clarify my point **before** disagreeing with it :) While perhaps a bit late feel to ask me and ill be happy to elaborate further and discuss the specific details and reasoning of my post
@freemo As I say, apologies - I thought I understood your point. I'm still not sure I do, I'm sorry - taking the UK as an example again (my knowledge elsewhere is very limited, though entirely possible I'm also wrong about the UK), handguns are banned outside gun clubs, rifles, shotguns or certain air rifles (and cannons, slightly strangely) require either a firearms or shotgun certificate to own I believe, but once you've got that open and concealed carry are both legal (though you'll get treated like a live rattlesnake if you carry a shotgun around the supermarket, I imagine). Knives that are classed as "offensive weapons" are banned in public places. If anything the knife has stricter treatment?
> As I say, apologies - I thought I understood your point.
I know thazt probably came across as if i was insulted, I wasnt. and I know you engaged in good faith. I am just saying that you probably will have more productive interactions if you invest time up front asking questions and probing a statement first rather than trying to debunk it (which is fine to do after the fact).
> I’m still not sure I do, I’m sorry
Oh im sure you dont because I have made no attempt to explain myself. I keep prompting you (and suggesting) that you ask, but i havent volunteered it. The reason for that is because early on when i pointed out you were arguing against a point that wasnt mine your response was "but it is my point"... So i tried to listen and understand you and never saw what point you were making, and while you did make one it wasnt contradictory to my own and you still hadnt asked me despite knowing i had a different point.
> taking the UK as an example again (my knowledge elsewhere is very limited, though entirely possible I’m also wrong about the UK), handguns are banned outside gun clubs, rifles, shotguns or certain air rifles (and cannons, slightly strangely) require either a firearms or shotgun certificate to own I believe, but once you’ve got that open and concealed carry are both legal (though you’ll get treated like a live rattlesnake if you carry a shotgun around the supermarket, I imagine). Knives that are classed as “offensive weapons” are banned in public places. If anything the knife has stricter treatment?
None of that is new information to me or contrary to the point im making.
My suggestion remains the same, if you are interested int he original point and want to discuss I still think you should ask me what my point was. You keep saying your not sure you understand what it was, and try to argue against it... but you keep skipping the step where you ask me "Hey, so if i misunderstood your point can you explain it?" :)
@freemo OK, sorry, I guess I'm just used to people (including me) just explaining their point to me, asked or not. That's the internet for you! I'm interested, if you would like to explain your point to me then yes please, but I'm going to bed now so I'll be leaving the discussion here anyway. But thank you. 🙂
@VoxDei if i leave it here will you read and discuss in the morning? If so ill leave it. IF your out and wont read it, no worries.
@freemo Um... I mean I'll read it, but work and kids to sort out in the morning, so I doubt I'll have time to pick up the discussion then. All honesty this probably already went on longer than I wanted, I am genuinely interested in your point and I may reply later on, but I'll be up front and say I may not. Completely understand if you don't want to spend time explaining to me in those circumstances. 🙂
You might wish to know that UK has a similar attitude to anything with a blade.
@freemo To be fair, they usually make that argument about *mass* homicides, which are considerably easier to carry out with a gun than with a bat, garrote, or knife.
@LouisIngenthron Sometimes they do, yes. Often times not so much.
The real question is, do they compare other things that can easily be obtained to kill large numbers of people at once and hold it to the same scrutiny? That matters less to me than if a non-mass weapon is treated as a non-mass weapon or not.
@freemo I mean, I think the majority in this country is good with having your ID checked when you buy poison, explosives, or operate a heavy vehicle, so yeah.
@LouisIngenthron Oh really? Everytime I made explosives I never had to give an ID or had any barriers, same when i bought poisons. I have also never once heard a liberal argue that common poisons should be regulated... It would take absolutely no effort for anyone to buy the components of a high yield explosive or poison and use it.
@freemo Components are different. You can't reasonably stop people from making weapons. You can only place restrictions on purchase and ownership. The vast majority of people aren't interested in the effort it takes to make such things, and those that are are probably already being tracked by the feds.
@LouisIngenthron We arent talking about complex components, we are talking about mixing two things and getting a high yield explosion.
Why cant i reasonably prevent people from buying 2 chemicals that when mixed makes a high yield explosive. But its perfectly reasonable to say a person cant buy the components of a gun? Buying the trigger group of a gun, separate from the slide, separate from the bullets are all restricted to buy individually AND combining them is illegal. Why can i do one and not the other?
As for poisons, those arent even components, high-potency poison can be bought in the vast majority of circumstances (there are some exceptions) with no restrictions.
@freemo I'm not denying the simplicity. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and this is a reasonable place to draw it. You can't stop people from buying gasoline or styrofoam, but you can make it illegal to combine them or sell branded napalm.
As for the poisons, "no restrictions" is nonsense. You're definitely going to get your ID checked when you buy poison, just like you do when you buy a lighter. It's not the full background check, but there will be *some* check that at least you're an adult, and it probably stores that ID swipe in some databank somewhere for future investigators.
> I'm not denying the simplicity. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and this is a reasonable place to draw it. You can't stop people from buying gasoline or styrofoam, but you can make it illegal to combine them or sell branded napalm.
Yes, no one is saying drawing the line somewhere is a problem. The problem is that as i stated the reasoning and logic and where you draw the line all has radically different rules for guns than any other source of death and violence.
For guns both the gun, its contituent parts, and even further modifications to said guns are all either illegal or regulated significantly.
Yet for anything else it isnt. Poisons you can get outright, explosives you are welcome to have in "disassembled" form and even once assembled are often legal until used improperly. I can literally go and buy a tank of CO with no regulation and its ready to mass kill. stick it in my backpack, open the valve and leave it and everyone on an entire train would be dead... didnt even need to assemble it.
There is nothing remotely equivelant int he logic behind how a disassembled gun or constiuent parts of a gun are treated, or even a whole gun, as compared to how poisons and explosives are treated, not even remotely comparable.
@freemo I suppose the counter-argument to that is that the number of homicides actually committed with the above-mentioned methods aren't remotely comparable either.
If there were a rash of high-profile mass-poisonings, I'd wager the same people *would* be calling for tighter restrictions.
> I suppose the counter-argument to that is that the number of homicides actually committed with the above-mentioned methods aren't remotely comparable either.
That is one common argument, and that common argument shows my point well.
The fact that people, as you point out, argue against guns due to the deadliness of the weapon. Then refuse to apply that same concern on more deadly things then that means the deadliness of the weapon isnt the issue, they dont mind more dangerous things being accessible. So now the argument becomes "this weapon is used to hurt more people than other more deadly weapons, so THAT is the reason it should be illegal.
Then this logic likewise fails in fantastic fashion. Melee weapons are the most commonly form of weapon used in the USA (bats, blunt objects, knives, etc) for assaults and violence (which would include homicide) Melee for example is ~160K a year where handguns are ~150K a year.
So again if logic was actually applied consistently then melee weapons, being the weapon most often used to inflict violence would be our top concern and most regulated form of weapons, not guns.
> If there were a rash of high-profile mass-poisonings, I'd wager the same people *would* be calling for tighter restrictions.
There is already a consistent pattern of other weapons being used for violence more often than handguns.. I dont hear the screams to regulate bats or knives.
@freemo Lol, "melee weapons" is not a category on the same level as "handguns". That's not a fair comparison.
If you want to do "melee weapons" vs "ranged weapons", that would work. Or likewise, "handguns" vs "pocketknives" would be comparable.
> So now the argument becomes “this weapon is used to hurt more people than other more deadly weapons, so THAT is the reason it should be illegal."
Yeah. Not illegal, but restricted for sure. If kids start murdering each other with katanas because it's a meme on TikTok or some such bullshit, then, yes, restrict the sales of katanas until that bullshit dies down. You could make the same argument for AR-15s. Don't ban them outright, but add an extra week of waiting period or a higher age limit so the dipshit radicalized young kids can't get their hands on the meme rifle as easy.
@LouisIngenthron Well at that point then melee would be more inclusive and include physical weapons, so in that case you'd still have melee be even MORE the top choice than before, by a bigger margin. In fact that category alone would outshadow every other.
> Yeah. Not illegal, but restricted for sure. If kids start murdering each other with katanas because it’s a meme on TikTok or some such bullshit, then, yes, restrict the sales of katanas until that bullshit dies down.
Except we dont... Cutting instruments are used in violent crimes as the top 5 choice of a weapon, above even rifles and assault weapons... so yes thats already happening and you dont see anyone making cutting instruments illegal or asking for background checks.
@freemo Same reason we don't unduly restrict cars. Because they're tools, not just weapons. We can't overly restrict such tools and still have a functioning society.
@LouisIngenthron And now yes another prime example of my point, (thanks your proving me out step by step for me)
Exactly they are a tool, not **just** used to kill. Same with a gun. It is a tool that saves lives, is used for experimentation purposes (tons of physics experiments have been done utilizing guns), is used in sports, its used simply to make a loud noise for a purpose (starter pistols), its used for fun and to practice skills, its used as a safety device (breaking out of a sinking car)... there is a near endless list of things guns are used for other than violence and other than as a weapon.
So yes, yet another perfect exampkle how people will abandon all the same logic they use on everything else on guns.
@freemo Oh come on. Some tools can be used as a weapon and some weapons can be used as a tool, but that doesn't make them interchangeable. A rifle is a weapon, not a tool.
@LouisIngenthron As a matter of semantics perhaps, but semantics isnt what matters here, function and effect does.
If we call a gun a weapon or not is irrelevant. What matters is if it is used as a weapon to either harm someone or threaten to harm them, more often than it is used as a tool, that is, to serve some function that is NOT to harm someone but rather something else.
I would argue the overwhelming majority of times a gun is used in the USA it is used not to do harm or threaten to do harm, but for some other purpose (usually non-violent sports, or non-violent recreation)
I wonder how many concealed cars we have seen? Thanks to this enlightening discussion I am all convinced now that guns are in fact mainly tools used in physics experiments.
It is interesting how you can always find counterarguments. The more intelligent and creative you are the more adapt you will be at establishing a coherent worldview matching your personal convictions.
The internet is a force for good … ;-)
Pretending you are dumber than you are to make a poi t is a horrible tactic. You know thats neither what was said or suggested, and as such added nothing of value to the conversation.
While physics experiments arent, obviously, the norm the fact remains the overwhelming majority of the time guns are used it is not to kill things or threaten to kill things. The overwhelming use of most guns are for recreations (friends going out and shooting at a range)
My point was beyond that and the argumentation smacked of sophistry imo.
So, you believe that the civilian and recreational use of guns outweighs military and paramilitary training. Interesting. For those “recreational” uses anyway attack rifles and many automatic weapons would likely not make sense.
But then, noboby needs to carry guns in public and guns could be kept locked away at sports clubs for pure and maximized recreational utility?
@freemo no, they believe in word violence too.