Don't believe your lying eyes (Enco)

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

By the British are about as scared of knives as they are of guns, even though knives are as inanimate,non-living, non-conscious, and amoral as guns:

British Knife Laws: Everything You Need To Know by Tom Bower

British Knife Laws: Everything You Need To Know

Buying, Selling, and Carrying Knives and Weapons
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

Ready your fainting couches, folks: I had a Victorinox Wenger Swiss Army Knife at age 9. The thought of using one to commit a crime never occured to me. It didn’t occur tomany other boys either until, of course, the Land of The Magna Carta went stupid and passed laws like this.

Just don’t get caught within Albion’s shores with a Ginsu or a Leatherman or a Victorinox Wenger Swiss Army Knife without the right “Simon Sez”/”Red Rover, Red Rover”/”Big Brother May I”-approved pretext or you could get 4 yewrs in prison. And just hope against hope that London Bohbies would never,ever selectively enforce this against if you are a “wrong” demographic.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling, spacing, and addendum
• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling, spacing, and addendum

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn.

Where did I say what I “want”? You don’t got a damn thing,

Well you did say that differnt rules in different jurisdictions is a problem, which in turn, implies a s9lution. Sopooo…

It is a problem for states favouring stronger gun control. What I want is irrelevant to that statement. Be rational. Do better.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Enco

The countries which provide their citizens with far more safety don’t do it by making sure there that anyone who wants a gun can have one. Mostly, it’s the opposite of that.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by bringing up knives, but there is one notable difference between knives and guns. Knives are a tool we all use in everyday life and have used knives or tools with sharp edges since the cave man days.

Other countries show that life goes on even without the wide proliferation of guns. Living without knives would be a hardship.

Now, as a matter of fact I collect knives. Dangerous knives intended for combat and assassination and so forth. However, I don’t use them for that purpose. I am not interested in watching the videos so popular with gun huggers of people getting shot. Would I use a knife to defend myself if an intruder put me in danger, but if I didn’t have a knife handy at the time (a distinct likelihood) I’d defend myself with whatever was handy. A book, a sack of doorknobs, a wine bottle, whatever.

The best guarantee of not dying by gunshot would be to live in a safer country, and one way to make the country safer is to get guns off the streets.

But how did we get the rising gun death rate? That’s easy: The Second Amendment and how the Supreme Court has interpreted in it.

 

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

A brief look at recent knife deaths, comparing UK and USA. (or is it contrasting?)

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg,

As I had previously pointed out, in the U.S., homicides are counted when there is a body and evidence of an unnatural death. In the U.K., a homicide isn’t counted until there is a conviction in court. Hence, “England’s mountains green” may be more violent than everyone thinks.

Also, even if U.S. and U.K. homicide statistics were one-to-one compiled the same way, is the difference in homicide rates worth upturning and reversing the burden of proof?

In the U.S., it is the Police and the Prosecution who have to explain and justify their actions, not the Citizen.

The Police have to have reasonable suspicion of law-breaking before they can accost or pull over a Citizen and to search, seize, and arrest, the Police have to have a warrant issued by a Judge or Magistrate specifying the time and place to do the search and seizure and the persons or things to be seized.

Once arrested, a Citizen has the right to request legal counsel for Defense provided by the Court, who also has to set bail. The Prosecution must first have evidence enough to indict the Citizen, and if the Citizen is indicted, the Prosecution has the burden of proof to present evidence, allow cross-examination of witnesses and evidence by the Defense, and prove charges against the Citizen before a Judge and Jury of peers beyond a reasonable doubt.

The knife laws in the U.K. completely reverses that and places the burden of proof upon the Citizen, not the Police and Prosecution.

When the burden of proof is reversed, it’s inevitable that the innocent will be convicted and imprisoned. And as Penn & Teller: Bullshit pointed out in the duo’s episode about the death penalty, for every innocent person imprisoned or executed, there is at least one guilty person still on the loose.

Do people on an Atheist Forum really need an explanation and defense of the importance of the burden of proof?

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Fellow Unbelievers,

As you may surmise from my spelling errors, I need another prescription of glasses. 🥸🤓

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

I can concede an error of fact. What I’ll never concede on is the righteousness of self-defense and owning the means of exercising it. It’s pretty much key to enjoying anything else good in life.

• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Autocorrect error

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

@ Enco

The functions cars perform are a daily necessity for most American adults as well as for the American economy. Highway deaths are a regrettable side effect of a tool that benefits every American. At the same time, we could have fewer highway deaths if we could get car traffic to be much sparser by getting the public to use affordable or even free public transportation.

Nothing made by human beings is “free” and Americans like speed, choice of itenerary, and space in-between, things public transportation simply doesn’t provide.

Guns, on the other hand, are not even close to a necessity,

That is not your choice for anyone but you.

As for property, it’s hard to have any sort of wealth without property.

Tell it to the City of San Francisco. You’ll leave your heart there too, since that is your property as well. 😁

There’s no credible comparison to be made vs. cars or guns.

Yet you’re the one who brought them up together.

Finally, the more I argue with pro-gun people and experience their blindness to reality, their concoction of far-fetched defenses, and their blind loyalto to the object of their devotion…

…the more it starts to look to me like a religion.

I and other supporters of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are not the ones anthropomorphizing and imputing life and moral agency to inanimate objects. Check your premises, Bub.

• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Changing tags

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by bringing up knives

You brought up knives. Try to keep up with yourself.

Other countries show that life goes on even without the wide proliferation of guns. Living without knives would be a hardship.

Well, that is the hardship the U.K. has now. And that’s the thing about disarming Citizens. Once people are disarmed, you can do anything with and to them.

I am not interested in watching the videos so popular with gun huggers of people getting shot.

Oh, the movies made by Hollywood types such as Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwartzenegger who make movies where Rambo or The Terminator kills dozens at a single swipe of the automatic rifle, while in real life these stars condemn common Citizens exercising the right to defend themselves with semi-automstics? Fuck these hypocritical assholes.

Would I use a knife to defend myself if an intruder put me in danger, but if I didn’t have a knife handy at the time (a distinct likelihood) I’d defend myself with whatever was handy. A book, a sack of doorknobs, a wine bottle, whatever.

Best of luck to you, but something that keeps an attacker at more than two arm’s length would be best.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Enco

I have lived for years primarily using public transportation and when that wasn’t sufficient, taxis or Uber-type transport took over. Now I realize life is more complicated for families but even there public transportation could serve a lot of their needs.

I think that more public transport would make for a calmer and more humane society because as I have discovered, on a bus or urban rail car, you can think without dividing your time between that and safe driving, you can read, or even close your eyes and bliss out.

Once again, look at other countries and you’ll find public transportation suffices for much of their travel needs, even for those who do have cars.

Whether someone needs a gun is not a matter for me to choose, of course, but whether they choose to have a gun can be induced by a paranoia based on a risk which to some extent is outsized and created in their minds by industry and NRA subliminal propaganda fortified by Youtube videos showing typically shop owners thwarting robberies by shooting the robbers. It’s violence porn.

And no, there’s no comparison between watching Arnie or Sylvester in violent movies, which we all know are fantasy, and actual video of people shooting people.

San Francisco and property. What are you getting on about?

Yeah, I did bring up cars vs guns validly pointing out that there’s a correlation between the quantity of a cause of death and deaths. Are you denying that? A fool’s errand.

I’m not “anthropomorphizing” anything. Guns don’t kill people. Guns help people kill people. I never said otherwise.

“Once people are disarmed, you can do anything with and to them.” Yeah, that’s also true in the other countries which don’t have guns and are far safer places to live.

“Best of luck to you, but something that keeps an attacker at more than two arm’s length would be best.” That distance is also what allows a person to walk into an office or a store or a classroom and kill people from a distance, Enco.

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

As I had previously pointed out, in the U.S., homicides are counted when there is a body and evidence of an unnatural death. In the U.K., a homicide isn’t counted until there is a conviction in court. Hence, “England’s mountains green” may be more violent than everyone thinks.

This isn’t true for these data sets, however. The Scotland data set includes unsolved cases, and the England and Wales set includes cases where a suspect hasn’t been identified.

[DavisModerator]

Good to see Reg that, at least in 2019, stabbing rates were fairly identical in the US and the UK. Gun homicides in the US were all, ON TOP of the equal level of stabbings in both countries. Huh. It’s almost as though, having an enormous pile of guns and very little regulation is, at the very least, problematic. Once again, glad I don’t live in a violent prone state with minimal gun control. God damn frightening.

• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Davis.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen, Autumn, and Jake,

To address your concern for the safety of “society,” I will concede something:

Yes, an armed citizenry would pose a danger to a specific sector of “society,” namely, criminals such as Belle Rose’s former partner, who live by preying on the Life, Liberty, and Property of others.

However, this is not what most people have in mind when upholding “public safety” or the safety of “society.” Because, well, the safety of criminal predators does not matter.

Those who play the stupid game of preying upon other human beings should expect the resulting stupid prizes, including the possibility of getting shot by their victims.

Sorry, Jake. Not everybody can be a friend and not all problems can get smoothed over with Mother Nature’s Good Herb. The Shanty only has room for the peaceful.

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

I will concede something: Yes, an armed citizenry would pose a danger to a specific sector of “society,” namely, criminals such as Belle Rose’s former partner, who live by preying on the Life, Liberty, and Property of others.

Seriously, what the fuck are you doing?

[UnseenParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

TheEncogitationer wrote:

I will concede something: Yes, an armed citizenry would pose a danger to a specific sector of “society,” namely, criminals such as Belle Rose’s former partner, who live by preying on the Life, Liberty, and Property of others.

Seriously, what the fuck are you doing?

Kool-Aid. Rev. Jim Jones flavor.

People in homes with handguns more likely to be shot dead, major study finds

Most American gun owners say they own firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones, but a study published this week suggests people who live with handgun owners are shot to death at a higher rate than those who don’t have such weapons at home.

“We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects” from living in a home with a handgun, said David Studdert, a Stanford University researcher who was the lead author of the Annals of Internal Medicine study.

Now, while the increased rate of death was small, the important point is that the increased personal security the gun industry and NRA promote not only failed to materialize, but actually the opposite happened.

The increase in safety people may feel by owning or having a gun around is just that, at best. A feeling.

As guns have flooded onto the streets, the increased safety and security the gun industry and NRA use as a selling point turns out to be a false marketing trope.

A couple years ago death by gunshot surpassed auto fatalities as the leading cause of death for teens.

I’m just wondering how bad it will get before the majority of Americans want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed or rewritten.

[Author]

Posts