🇳🇱
@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
> 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. 🙂
@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.