Thread: British Law?

Thanks Gugi, but I believe that making laws against the object is next to useless. Making the laws against the misuse of the object would be far better. Many countries have laws against the manufacture and use of drugs, but drugs are still manufactured and used. The drug is outlawed and so is the misuse, but neither have much affect. Laws only control the honest. Criminal behaviour is criminal by dint of disobeying the laws of society. The person is the problem, not the tool they choose to use. All this is of course my take on the subject, and you may not agree with any of it. It's what makes the world such a wonderful place though. We each can discuss our views, withought getting the knives out...If you'll pardon the pun.


Mick

I'm not a politician, just trying to be a somewhat impartial observer. Despite all the high words and aphorisms the vast majority of people when push comes to shove do prefer safety to liberty, in my view that's just a fact of life.

The thing is that making policies is not as simple as it may seem on the surface. Yes, I agree that the problem isn't the object but the behavior, but at the end of the day I'm much more of a pragmatist and definitely not an ideologue. May be I could save all my taxes and let all these poor/military/sick/government/unemployed/etc. people who depend on the bankrupt US government live (or more precisely die) due to foolishly depending on an entity that is unable to honor its commitments. I'm pretty sure I'd fare better if I don't have to support completely unnecessary defense (or more precisely offense) budget, or people who had bad genetics/made bad decisions/had bad luck. Being relatively young, healthy, well educated, etc. the odds are in my favor, but I'm not quite sure I want to live in a violent social darwinism, even if I'm near the top of the food chain.

One of my problems with being outraged at various foreign laws is the lack of thread on a recent US bill/law S.1867 Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) which generated some media coverage but no outrage whatsoever from the US population, or even a mention in this forum section by all those 'liberty loving colonialists'. Section 1031 explicitly states that under suspicion for terrorism the US military has full authority to do whatever they please to whoever they please. And the US president's problem with the bill was that it may limit his authority to do whatever he/she pleases.


BTW the second entry at Dumb Laws in New York. Crazy New York Laws. We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws! is not all that bad. Where I live it's exercised on a pretty regular basis

Originally Posted by gugi

the vast majority of people when push comes to shove do prefer safety to liberty, in my view that's just a fact of life.

I think this here is where we find where the root cause of the disagreement is and where common ground is lost.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (edit, really Benjamin Franklin, see next post), those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. For many Americans, that's a truism. It's why so many Americans have a problem with the so-called Patriot Act. It's why so many Americans believe in the right of self-defense. This is why you see Americans afraid of big government telling the individual what he can and cannot do in the name of public safety.

I, for one, subscribe to this particular belief.

I think you're referring to Benjamin Franklin's:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Ha ha, the debate continues! Good stuff...

This is an American forum where people are allowed to carry weapons in the name of self defense. That's all well and good. The original post was about UK citizens not being able to carry weapons in the name of self defense. That's just the way it is here. Right or wrong we can't carry a knife for that reason, but we can carry a knife to be used as a tool.

I work at an outdoor centre teaching bushcraft to kids and love to demonstrate knife safety to kids. Some parents are all for it and some against it but the main thing is teaching a respect for a very useful tool to a younger generation. I stress the difference between seeing a knife as a tool and a weapon. The way I see it is if kids grow up using them in the correct manner they won't see them as a taboo subject or weapon in later life hopefully. In Scandinavian countries even prisoners in the past had knives as they were seen as a tool that every man should carry. That about sums up my outlook on them, a very useful tool that should be respected and used properly. That fits in well with the laws here but doesn't quite fit in with the American attitude towards them. Nothing wrong with your beliefs but they're very different to the beliefs of the general populace here in the UK...

Being keen on the outdoors and a maker I've noticed Americans tend to prefer larger tactical styled knives for the most part. Over here people sway towards the Scandinavian approach to smaller knives being used differently for the same tasks. I have to admit I'll take a shorter blade over a longer one anyday and use it to do just as much with. Both style of knife work, it's just down to what we prefer to use and how we use them. All good in my opinion.

Yes we have more sweeping laws saying what people can and can't do in the UK. That's how it is and it won't be changing any time soon. We just have to roll with that. It would appear as though the times are changing everywhere and not always for the better. Again, that's just life, things constantly change. I guess we should have seen it coming with authors like George Orwell and Ray Bradbury and many others but that's most likely a discussion for a different time on a different forum. In the meantime stay safe and enjoy using your favorite knife, it's certainly one of the finer things in life to me!

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

I think you're referring to Benjamin Franklin's:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin

I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by markdfhr

I, for one, subscribe to this particular belief.

Me too, by the way.

Originally Posted by markdfhr

I think this here is where we find where the root cause of the disagreement is and where common ground is lost.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. For many Americans, that's a truism. It's why so many Americans have a problem with the so-called Patriot Act. It's why so many Americans believe in the right of self-defense. This is why you see Americans afraid of big government telling the individual what he can and cannot do in the name of public safety.

I, for one, subscribe to this particular belief.

As the french say the proof is in the pudding or in this case in the voting record of abovementioned Americans. 90% approval ratings for the legislature means it's all not much more than words with no real consequences.

Originally Posted by gugi

As the french say the proof is in the pudding or in this case in the voting record of abovementioned Americans. 90% approval ratings for the legislature means it's all not much more than words with no real consequences.

I'm not following you here, Gugi. If by legislature you mean Congress, well, Congress is perpetually unpopular in this country and the butt of jokes, especially the House. Not that they are not an honored institution, but they certainly don't have 90% approval ratings right now.

As for the voting record of the aforementioned Americans, many Americans, especially those interested in the Second Amendment, are single purpose voters. In other words, they can like a politician but if they go against a particular voter's beliefs on this particular subject, they won't get that voters vote. This is a very dedicated group of people and I would believe they would stand behind the sentiments that I had previously stated, even if I attributed the idea to the wrong founding father.

They most certainly do have 90% approval and that's pretty much the long term historical rate. This is the reelection rate, which is the actual approval. I don't really believe what people say when it doesn't cost them anything to say whatever they want, so the poll numbers that you hear in the media are pretty much meaningless. The truth is in the election day numbers.

Also those single issue voters are a tiny minority, otherwise this country will look very different. At the end of the day US is a representative democracy and it is exactly what the voters want it to be. And the long term trends show exactly what I said - by huge margin people prefer security to liberty. It's pretty much the same everywhere else in the world though, I think it's the Darwinian selection that ensures it.