this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
135 points (99.3% liked)
World News
38563 readers
2778 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a futile attempt to establish safety, and it is done so that it can be claimed that something has been done.
If some person has the intention to do any harm to others, this person would not be stopped by any restriction to carry any weapon.
The real issues lay much deeper: A growing number of refugees and asylum seekers that want to work, but are prohibited to do so, but at the same time these are competing in an already tight housing market. Raising costs of living, growing inequality, growing envy and a part of the population which is on the brink of shiftig into a nazi movement, with a growing resentment to foreign people. It takes more than putting up a sign that says that weapons are forbidden beyond this point to solve these problems.
Also, in Germany there is no reason ever to walk around with waepons. Compared to other parts of the world it is pretty safe here.
Putting up a sign that states that weapon are forbidden would have the same impact as putting up a sign that forbids wild fires in the forest or flooding near a body of water.
I don’t understand. No law prevents anyone from doing what’s forbidden. Are you saying all laws are futile? Otherwise what is different with this law that makes it futile?
Also, we usually can do many things at once or in succession. We can raise prices on sugary food, start programs to inform the public about the impact sugar has on health, make school lunches more healthy etc. Would you complain that it is futile raising prices if it was the first thing proposed or would you say “Good, let’s do this and also the other things.”?
I do not say that all laws are futile. The difference with this particular measurement is that it is odd to me, that a no-weapon zone is being established, as it is quite unusual that Germans carry around weapons in general. At least not where I live. People carrying around weapons of any kind is just not a thing here.
There are other laws, speed restrictions for instance. I get that there is a necessity to enforce such thing, as people have cars and tend to drive faster than they should. Speeding with a car is more common than carrying a weapon. That's why this law makes sense, as it adresses the issue right there. Speeding doesn't have an underlying issue that causes drivers to speed.
The thing what makes it futile in my opinion is that a restriction in carrying weapons does not solve the underlying issues (the root causes of socio-economic inequality, among others) that probably lead to harming others with knives. It's just treating the symptoms, not the root cause.
I’ve never witnessed someone pouring chemicals into a river. I guess that means no laws are needed in this regard ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The problem with this specific law is that it isn't practically enforceable. You'd need to regularly search people entering this zone, which we will certainly not do.
Law's only matter if you can expect them to be enforced. Raising prices is easily enforced (because it would be done via taxes which are checked for correctness already).
Laws will persuade people that care about the risks of their actions to not take certain actions. If you know that there's heavy speeding enforcement in an area, and you can't afford a ticket, you are less likely to speed. Likewise, if you worry about going to prison for a few years, then laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons is likely to persuade you not to unless you feel like your life would be in more danger if you were unarmed. People that don't care if they go to prison are unlikely to be persuaded by laws prohibiting their criminal behavior.
Yeah. You ban knives, people will switch to axes, machetes, bats, pipes, chains, brass knuckles, and so on. I've been saying this for a long time about the US as well. You can ban guns in the US and you'll just end up with knife crime like this. You need to actually address the root causes of socioeconomic inequality that actually drives crime (and lack of mental health care too).
I think I'd take knife crime over mass shootings.
Yeah, because a semi or fully automatic assault knife can just as easily be used from the window of a hotel to make dozens of victims.
And criminals having knifes will just mean the police has to start wearing knight armor and carry swords and shields.
Your comment aligns perfectly with the Reich wing gun nuts, but you try to sell it using "let's adress inequality"... Do both!
Allowing the amount of unregulated firearms into your society as the US does and then prohibiting the CDC to actually research gun deaths is just weird to everyone else. But does perfectly line up with the statistics that non-whites die from gun violence at larger %... So then it's OK.
How do you propose we lower the number of guns in our society in a way that disarms criminals and doesn't violate people's right to self defense?
Vote 2/3 majority Dems into both houses and change the fucking constitution to shut op the "muh rites" argument and enact sane gun control.
That's not how Constitutional amendments work. You have some homework ahead of you.
Uhm, 2/3 in both house and congress and then to the states, isn't it?
Good luck getting enough states to agree to this "seize everyone's guns" idea.
In fact, good luck getting 2/3 of Democrats in congress to agree to that.
So the government can decide what rights are? If the Republicans get a 2/3 majority and amends the Constitution to say that LGBT+ people can be killed at any moment, does that make it right?
Also, let's assume your proposal happens. What specific policies do you mean by "sane gun control"?
The government decides what rights are. Correct. Republicans with 2/3 majority can and very likely will say something like that about LGBTQ people.
Do you believe that Nazi Germany was justified in killing 11 million people? Because that's the logical conclusion of your belief.
You're making a jump here that I have a hard time believing you're making in good faith..
Saying "The government makes the laws and decides what rights people have" is just miles away from saying "the government is justified in making whatever laws it pleases."
Yes: the Nazis were in power, and took away peoples rights. Me recognising that that's how governments work does not mean I support the actions of that government or think they are morally justified in doing what they did... obviously.
But if the government can decide what rights there are, then anything they do is morally correct, no? Unless you're going to hold the government to a higher moral standard than themselves, in which case the government doesn't actually grant rights; it can only protect or violate them. If we have a higher moral standard than the law, then human rights do not come from the government, they are defined by whatever that higher standard is.
I think the Nazis were an insane and utterly contemptible political party that destroyed a struggling nation to slake their own thirst for power. But if the government decides what rights there are, then they can simply legislate out of existence the rights of anyone under their jurisdiction. Thus, anything the government does to them is justified.
You seem to be missing a key part here: I can disagree with the government. It also appears that you are confusing the concept of rights in a legal sense, and the moral sense.
Obviously not. The decisions of the government are based on what some majority wants (in a democracy, in an authoritarian state it doesn't even need to be that). The fact that a majority of those in power decide something does not make it morally right. I don't understand how that is a difficult concept to grasp?
Until relatively recently, same-sex marriages were not allowed. Gay people did not have the right to marry who they wanted. This was decided by the government. Me recognising that as historical fact does not mean I think it was morally justified to prevent people from marrying who they wanted.
Also today, we have laws granting or restricting peoples rights that the government is free to change. I do not think that the current state of our laws is the end-all-be-all of morality, and neither does my government, which is part of the reason why laws are constantly changing.
I would argue that what rights there are is inherently a moral argument. "Murder is not a right" is a moral statement, for example. The government doesn't change what rights it thinks there are without some kind of moral basis for it. Even if it's primarily done in the legal sense, we still generally act in the legal system based on a system of morality. Another example: "Compelling people to testify against themselves is wrong." It would be really useful for the state if they could do that, but legally speaking, the US recognizes that there is a right against self-incrimination.
Laws are written because someone, somewhere, found a moral fault in the law. It's just that some people believe that the only morality is power, and thus anything they do is justified. That's why we have the Bill of Rights: it's meant to stop people from simply saying "the government needs this power so we're going to give it that power." It isn't about creating rights, it's about recognizing and protecting rights that have existed all along.
This is kind of a contradiction. What the bill of rights does is exactly to codify certain rights into law. There are a bunch of things considered a right today which aren't written into the bill of rights, and there are things codified in there that a lot of people don't consider to be "natural and universal human rights". Something doesn't become morally right by being written in the bill of rights, it just becomes a legal right. And of course, the US government can in some hypothetical scenario throw out the whole constitution and write a new one, making a whole new set of legal rights.
Of course, the above hypothetical changes nothing regarding what is considered morally correct, it just changes what rights are codified into law. In fact, the bill of rights is explicit in pointing out that what should be considered a right can change over time, and several of its clauses are therefore open to interpretation.
The whole "recognizing that right X exists outside the legal system" kind of falls apart when you look at the details. For example:
This is not something that was ordained from above and has always applied to every living person. It's a right the government has decided to give you. You can agree or disagree with it, but it's a right every american citizen has nevertheless. In other countries people have a right to housing, sick leave from work, or a certain number of vacation days per year. Those are rights that the american government has decided to not grant its citizens. Again, you can agree or disagree with that decision, but the fact remains that american citizens do not have those rights. Whether any of those rights in some sense "existed all along" (even though a lot of people don't have them) is a purely hypothetical question. The question with practical consequence is which rights should be codified into law.
What I said is not a belief, it's a fact. Who sets people's rights and what rights they set are different things and the justifications are different. Understanding who and how sets the rights does not logically lead to what rights are set. The Nazis killing people was justified to them by a bag of reasons. I don't think it was justified. But that doesn't change the fact that the government sets those rights, that the Nazis were in government and they set the rights they felt justified. Understanding this might actually save lives by not letting the people who would kill get in government.
I know it doesn't lead to any particular right being set, but your argument that rights are set by the government still leads to the conclusion that, because the Nazis were in power, they had the right to decide that Jews, gay people, other ethnicities, etc. no longer had a right to life. It would also lead to the belief that the Nazis had the right to protect those people if they wanted to. It would open the door to whatever oppression, discrimination, protection, liberty, and whatever else the ever-fickle government decided. Nobody would be right to resist it because "the government sets the rights, therefore it's okay".
OK, what I'm trying to communicate is that the door is already open. It always has been. The only thing that stands in the way of oppression coming through is the persistent, collective action of citizens who disagree via multiple avenues, not just voting. If a significant enough proportion of people want the government to kill some group and there's insufficient pushback, the constitution won't stop it. It just makes it so that a larger proportion of people is needed. If >2/3 want ban on gun ownership, the door is wide open. If 2/3 want to exterminate LGBTQ people, it's just as open. Your chance of stopping any of it is to not let 2/3 want it.
And my point is that it isn't the government that decides what rights are. You started this whole "can the government decide what rights are" discussion by dismissing out of hand the right of a person to defend themselves. I'd like for you to go up to a sexual assault victim, especially one who defended themselves with a gun, and tell them "um ackshually you didn't have the right to defend yourself because guns are evil 🤓". Or would you only do that after the Second Amendment is deleted from the Constitution?
"Sane" laws are what I think are reasonable. If you disagree, you are not reasonable.
See how that cute little argument works?
Yes, I do find it dishonest to say both "the government has the right to grant and revoke rights" and "there are only some laws that are reasonable". You can't really take a moral stance against the government like that if they decide you no longer have the right to disagree with them.
in denmark that law worked wonders and was later expanded so you are not allowed to have a screw driver on you if you are not needing it for some work. so at party disctricts or railstations no one can have stuff that can be used for stabbing.
whats the worst this law can do? a few less assholes with weapons.
Japan has very similar laws under the sword and firearms act that prevents most knives and some other "dangerous" objects from being carried without cause and even then there are typically rules about how it must be transported/stored when in public (such as the train). It seems to mostly work here. Usually, the ones who do attack others are those whom were failed by the healthcare system here (specifically, the way Japan (often fails) to deal with mental health issues).
The question is: why would anyone carry a knife in the first place? I can't think of any reason. Personally, such law wouldn't have any impact on me, because I don't carry a knife with me. I can see the intention with such law, and it probably might help to percieve a more secure enviroment.
If someone wanted to do some stabbing inside a party district, such law wouldn't stop them - unless one has to pass through a security checkpoint (which to my knowledge are not a thing).
I've carried a knife in my pocket everyday for the past 35 years or so. It's a useful tool both for actual work and mundane tasks like opening boxes/etc.
A few weeks ago I was hiking near a lake and found a bird entangled in fishing line. It would've been very difficult to free it without some type of blade. Hell, it took almost 15 minutes even with the knife because it was so wrapped up and distressed.
Also, butterfly knives are for carrying around in your pocket and then taking out to flip around in case you think it might impress someone.
Fair enough, I didn't think of that. What you described is the intended use for pocket knives, MacGyver style.
What I thought of when writing my comment were kind of hunting knives. No one needs that inside an urban environment.
Ah yeah, that makes sense. There's a big difference between a 7cm folding pocket knife and a 20cm fixed blade rambo-esque hunting knife... And I can't think of any reason to carry the latter around in a city : )
Now I'm picturing you in a reversed version of the famous Crocodile Dundee scene with him brandishing his huge knife and you going "that's not a tool. THIS is a tool!" as you get out your pocket knife 😁
https://youtu.be/YAD0a6wWFrI?si=9Wrqg5fOmZD9eA7j
I can imagine some situations. I was at a party when we were cooking and the knives were shit. Went home and brought back over an 8 inch chef's knife.
I did not have the original packaging to carry it. My cardboard and tape sheath would not have met the letter of this law
This would be the use case, where you would break the law, when entering such restriction zone. Unless, of course, your skin tone has the right shade, as police unfortunately does things like racial profiling. If pale, you were on your way to a cooking party - if darker-skinned, you luckily were caught in the act!
Unfortunately, it probably would go like that. The snippet above just said "in public" so I assumed that would include just down the street
nah. dont think so. if groups of people meet it can get heated and the less likely someone has a knife or screwdriver the better. sure, any time any one can commit any crime with whatever. but lowering the chances of getting stabbed is always a good idea.
Besides the fact that having one on you would be a crime if you are stopped and checked, instead of being handed it back and sent on your way. Using one as a weapon would be 2 crimes instead of 1.
Plus it gives a message.. this (carrying around a knife) is unacceptable in our society.
Finally the fact that a law might not be easily enforced is no reason not do have it on the books if the law enphasises what we want our society to be like (I think most agree that running around with big knifes is not something we want).
The point about people dumped into the asylum system and not allowed to do anything but be bored is an important one though. Idle hands are the devil's play things.
the problem is, that even having a pocket knife on you would get you in trouble.
Got a swiss army knife in your backpack because it's part of your EDC? Tough luck. To the police station with you
No it's not. These kid of lawn limit knife sizes and if you have a utility knife in a backpack it's also not an issue. At least if the law is sane.
ah. you did find the problem
The law limits to 6cm. My pocket knife is under 6cm.
my victorynox is a bit over 6cm
If it's folded in your backpack, you'll get it back during a stop and frisk and be wished a nice day and sent on your way.
This is about "kids" having full blown combat knives or modded butcher knives hanging around their necks under their shirt or in their belts, ready for use.