Huh? What? Hills?
Well sure, you Brits hunted all the snipes to extinction!
Forgive me if I don’t accept as prima facie that the entire essay I cited is wrong from beginning to end. Believe it or not I do actually care about facts and logic; which is why I take with a large lump of halite yet another flat assertion that of course if something purports to refute the case for gun control, it’s got to be wrong. Dismissing something submitted in good faith (even if it in fact turned out to be erroneous) as “tripe” that supports “biases” is hardly the way to convince anyone of which side the blatant misinformation and errors lie on. I’m endeavoring to discuss the issue in good faith; I’m not certain you are.
Sure, we’re capable of feats of absurd moral panic. I don’t think we have a monopoly on that though.
Can something really go from being a liberty in the countryside to a public nuisance in a city? Something that you can do provided no one else objects doesn’t sound like much of a liberty.
I don’t know what you’re asking
The situational theory of civil rights: something’s a liberty if society can afford to allow it to be, otherwise it’s okay to restrict as circumstances require. The problem is that once the principle is conceded, someone can always make a case that circumstances require it.
What do you suppose would happen if someone tried to drive a herd of cattle through the streets of New York at rush hour?
Not by name. A law bans non-food additives, which is a very logical thing to do. Enforcement of the law on candy while ignoring the spirit of the law is another matter, but it’s a good law in itself.
There were cattle stockyards and abattoirs in Manhattan as late as the 19th century. If someone wanted to today for some purpose other than to be a troll, I imagine something could be worked out. Simply declaring that everything is at the government’s sufferance is rather a different proposition.
Or how about riding your horse inside a public library? I’m pretty sure you probably already have many situational constraints on your rights, but they’re less visible to you than those that are foreign and weird.
So there would have to be a justification for it? Sort of like the situation demands it?
Before we go any further, do you mind saying if you believe in the concept of rights and liberties at all? If you don’t, we’re arguing from axiomatically different stances and there’s no point.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s any point in this argument.
We participated in SantaCon/Santarchy on the Southside in Pittsburgh one year. Basically a bar crawl with everyone dressed in Santa costumes.
Along with the bars we visited, we did a hushed walk through a library, single file. We got strange looks and spooked a few people.
I believe it’s called “reasonable conditins of time, place and manner”. I can blare out a gospel revival on loudspeakers in the middle of the farm at 3 am, but in the middle of a residential suburb I’ll get a noise complaint. The swing of your arm and the tip of my nose and stuff like that. Analogies down the road for other conduct that involve rights and liberties.
Similarly, exceptions for ‘good reasons’ are written into the preamble of the UK knife laws.
Far too many people, mainly younger people, in the UK carry knives. When asked, they will usually say it’s for self-defence. If guns were readily available, many of those people would carry a gun for the same reason. Of course, drug dealing is closely associated with this trend.
One saving grace is that knives require close contact, while guns work fine at a distance - sometimes at a considerable distance.
When someone says “British people are pretty paranoid about knives” it assumes that we are a homogenous society, which is far from the truth. Most Brits don’t even think about knives except when there is some horrendous murder reported in the media.
The point of banning knives over a limited size is to give the police the power to treat anyone carrying one as a [potential] criminal. The same rule applies to iron bars and combs with sharp points. I had a cop friend who told me how they would stop private-hire taxis and find a length of scaffolding or a heavy screwdriver beside the driver’s seat. Clearly there as a weapon.
Whatever else, many of us on this side of the Atlantic, do find the American love affair with guns extraordinary, despite the frequent shootings, followed by hand wringing and little if any action.
From the BBC today:
Guns are the leading killer of children in America, and the numbers are rising – not declining. This is outrageous and unacceptable. Americans agree and want lawmakers to act on common-sense gun safety reforms.
>President Joe Biden
The statement continues: “Instead, this past week Americans saw national Republican elected leaders stand alongside the NRA in a race to the bottom on dangerous laws that further erode gun safety.”
Children means including 18 and 19 year olds and excluding infants, just so we’re clear it’s not without disingenuity
Fair enough. Once they hit eighteen they are fair game I guess.