OK, but that's going back to legality based on the practicality of limiting access to weapons, not based on the designed purpose.
That statement of mine only applies if you take into consideration the part where I explained what I mean by design. I fail to believe that taking a small tree branch and ripping off the side-branches into a stick is an equivalent to designing it for the purpose of whipping. I feel it would be rather difficult to tell what purpose was a home-made shiv designed for.
As I pointed out, that compromise has already been made, not just for guns, but in many areas of life, and serious proposals for changes to weapon policy should address that existing compromise. People have been killing each other since long before guns were invented. Even now, people are killed with knives, blunt objects, and fists. An effective ban on all weapons would not eliminate violent crime. The video I linked earlier wasn't just for a joke. Lots of policies depend on weighing costs and benefits against human lives, and that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future.
I realise this, and I realise that in most cases those solutions are of the "as close as we could get" nature. As in "we don't want to be sacrificing any lives for this, but the way the world works forces us to make compromises". I'm looking at possible ways to improve on that system to make it a little less morally ambiguous.
Note that I said "things like" a KA-BAR. The KA-BAR itself was designed in part for fighting as a military weapon / tool, so it would run afoul of your proposed design-based restriction, but nearly identical hunting knives would not. And this inability to apply similar restrictions to functionally similar things is what I was criticizing. Do you think that Bowie knives should be less restricted than daggers?
I know the flaw of the idea that you're pointing out. Which is why I mentioned using the currently existing standards and limitations as well as ways of determining legality as supporting rules to compliment the proposed system where it's nature does not allow for a quick and simple verification.
Depends on what you mean by "full quality". Making a similar blade is a task that would take me a few hours, as I mentioned earlier (a shiv like you mentioned above would be a task of a few minutes). 1095 steel is cheap, widely available, and easy to heat treat. Subtle bits of the handle ergonomics would be hard to reproduce, so a knife I'd make wouldn't be as comfortable to use, but that wouldn't make it less stabby. I could make something functionally very much like the Fairbairn-Sykes knife, with a tapered rhomboidal blade, full tang, guard, pommel, and the balance point in the handle, sharp enough to shave with and strong enough to stab through sheet metal. My garage is better-equipped than most, but just having a grinder makes it easy to produce sharp, stabby things from most metals.
Again, pot example, the ease of manufacturing it does not have to relate to it's legality. Also, when I mention things being illegal I don't mean to say that I want the police force to raid every house and search for home-made shivs. There is a certain layer of legality between barely legal and barely illegal that in my opinion does not have to be enforced fully coherently, nor kept to in all situations.
But wait, does that mean that Mr Perfect Law want to allow his laws to be flawed and disregarded? Doesn't that go against his idea of a perfectly clear and enforced law?
Well, no. I am aware of the nature of the world around me and I know that drawing a clear and obvious line between things is not only often difficult, but sometimes near impossible. Sometimes determining whether something should be legal or not may be just as puzzling as trying to determine the boundary between life and non-life
Do you mean to say that cleavers ought to be outlawed? What kind of thickness do you have in mind?
I have a machete with a 24" blade, which I use for clearing brush and limbing trees (it's much better than a saw for this). Keep in mind that the KA-BAR and Fairbairn-Sykes knives have blades about 7" long, which is shorter than many kitchen knives. What length do you have in mind?
Like what? Convex vs. concave grinds? The shape of the point? Serrations? Civilian knives run the gamut here.
What materials would you restrict? Military knives are usually made of strong but relatively cheap steel, like the 1095 I mentioned. Civilian knives are sometimes made of such alloys, but there is also a lot of variety with things like stainless steel, alloy steel, and ceramics.
This is a 12" carving knife, and this is a 7cm folding karambit. Which do you think would be a more dangerous weapon (considering that they have a similar grind and are made of similar materials)? What about between a 7" KA-BAR and a 7" survival knife?
...which is why I don't have a solid set of already existing and established rules to answer any of these. You have to let them get figured out as you go where appropriate, and base the rest on already existing limits, foreign or domestic, in the same legal range.
I should mention though, a cleaver is for cleaving meat, it's shape is a proof of it's design not being to kill, so the thickness/length limitations do not apply, due to it not being an ambiguous case.
The idea isn't that semi-automatics are needed, it's that they are convenient. They don't have to be fiddled with after each shot, and if the first shot doesn't bring down the target animal, a second shot can be placed before it runs off injured. But fine, semi-automatic rifles should be illegal. That's getting back to a legal distinction based on the weapon's capabilities, not its designed purpose.
I don't think so. I mean, I can see how you got there, but the capabilities are an effect of the design, Val. What I'm still limiting is the design, the capabilities that it provides just get hit in the process. Which is how I intended it to be.
Depleted uranium is chemically toxic but civilian-legal and widely used. Enriched uranium, whether as an oxide in a civilian fuel rod or pure metal in a nuclear warhead, is one of the most highly controlled substances in the world because of what it can be used for, not the designed purpose of whatever it happens to be a component of. I gave this as an example to point out that legal restrictions usually care about the capabilities of something dangerous and not so much its designer's intent, and there's a good reason for that.
Yes. For that in substances.
These substances and materials are then used to make devices and weapons, working mechanisms.
And substances are legally limited on a different basis than already completed weapons. Of course. I agree. What's your case here? A substance or even a weaponised substance are different than an already functional nuclear warhead, and are judged by different standards because of it. How is that a point?
So if a hunting rifle company designs a semi-automatic rifle to efficiently kill deer (like in the ad I linked earlier), that would be fine? Or do you consider every semi-automatic rifle to be inherently derivative of military rifles (and therefore designed to kill humans) even if the action is different and a lot of effort has gone into designing it to kill deer (or varmints, as with the small-calibur versions)?
I cannot seem to be able to find a single design solution in any of these rifles that points to it being designed "to kill deer". If you have one please quote it and be specific. I see in it many design solutions geared towards the ability to kill living creatures. I presume it is similarly effective against mammals, reptiles, and birds. And humans are among mammals, I might add. So it is for killing, including killing people. Maybe due to the calibre it might not be designed for killing rhinos, but unless the bullets have an auto guiding system which visually recognises a deer and locks on to it, this weapon is NOT designed to "kill deer".
Do you think that this should be considered a military vehicle?
There is a fine line between a military vehicle
, and it's civilian adaptation. "Hummer H1, H2, and H3. The H1 is a civilian derivative of the HMMWV, while the H2 and H3 are based on regular GM truck chassis' and styled after it."
Or going the other way, if you gave a hunting supplier a cluster bomb design, and they turn it into something that eliminates all the deer in a forest, its purpose would be "hunting" rather than "efficiently killing humans"?
Not directly, but it protects the shooter when the gun's barrel gets hot. When does the barrel get hot? When a lot of shots are fired in quick succession. When are shots usually fired in quick succession? At shooting ranges and in running gun fights. So while it's not a big issue (or a feature which I think should be banned), barrel shrouds aren't very important for the purposes of hunting or personal defense.
Back to the same thing again then. The barrel shroud is designed to increase the safety of the operator. And by that is not a design that can be banned. The need for this design solution comes from the gun's capability to fire a large number of rounds per minute, which is a feature of it, a symptom of design. The design that allows high fire rate is the semi-automatic/fullauto nature of the gun and the design of the magazine to hold a larger number of rounds. And those designs get shot down.
If you take a bolt-action precision rifle designed to fire rubber bullets you are free to slap a barrel shroud on it if you wish. Not a necessary or even useful design solution, but not one that makes the weapon more lethal either.
To some extent, they (and you) aren't considering that different places really do have different circumstances. Most of the "west" isn't very wild these days, but a lot of Alaska is, and (unlike Japan and the UK) there are a lot of places with low populations and not much police presence. And historically, each place has had different weapon policies. Since the feudal era, Japanese citizens have largely been restricted from owning the primary weapons of the day. England has long had some legal provisions for citizens to have weapons (though not as long as Japan's restrictions), which have become more restrictive with guns over the last century or so. The English Bill of Rights provisions formed something of a base for policies in the colonies, where hunting and low-level conflict were rather important. The US Constitution (also much younger than Japan's restrictions) strengthened these policies with the Second Amendment. As such, while there have been some restrictions placed on gun ownership in the last century, economic progress had made guns more available over time. From a chronological perspective, Japan's weapons restrictions (in place since it was a "barbaric and undeveloped" country) are much less modern than the UK weapon policies, which are less modern than the US policies apart from the recent tightening of restrictions.
That is true. The USA is a different example than most of the world. Which is why, before we started this conversation, I already pointed out that I do not believe that weapon restrictions would work well in the USA, nor would I champion them in the current state of the country. What I'm arguing here is what I happen to consider a very good and effective solution to gun violence and violent crime in countries. I don't think it would benefit the USA. That also does not mean that the USA should not be trying to slowly make their way into being a safer country, with lower crime statistics, that would become grounds for the type of reforms I'm proposing to become effective and work the way they are intended to.
Also, I wouldn't use the word "modern" for this particular example. "New" would suffice. "Modern" implies both newer and better, or somehow more sophisticated. Which these laws are not. They are just newer, because the country is younger, and didn't have the time to grow to a point at which such laws would become obsolete. Using your logic I might just as easily state that communism is more modern than democracy. Or that burning witches is more modern than crucifixion.
Once the USA grows old enough, some of the laws and solutions that even now are simply obsolete, but still kept around due to them being customary, will slowly become a burden to the country's development. Once they start hurting enough, they will inevitably be abandoned. It happens the same way for most countries in the world, at least for those that move forward. Most countries tend not to remove their obsolete laws, rules, and solutions until they actually become a [url]significant enough burden[/url] or a liability
. I find that odd, personally.
Except that the law here is that people can take the law into their own hands to some extent, and a lot of people want that option to be available for ideological reasons.
A mafia boss also wants to be able to take the law into his own hands, and execute people who stand against him. But that does not mean it's wise to give that kind of power to everybody. I know that country's ideology, I just simply disagree with it.
The US government has never been perfect, and it has never worked for everyone exactly as intended. The design was a series of compromises from the start, and some of that has deteriorated over time (e.g. the executive branch is a lot more powerful than it used to be). But that's fine, because the system was made to be flexible and redundant, where deficiencies in one place could be accommodated elsewhere. And a lot of people think that that's the way it should be, whether or not such flexibility is needed at any particular time.
Flexibility is an essential quality to have, Stubborn adherence to 17th century laws and solutions is not. No government is ever perfect. But it should be designed in a way where the people can influence it significantly enough without having to resort to violence. Otherwise it's anarchy. If the only way to change something in your country is through violence then it seems to be poorly designed, and begging for a fix. Most governments claim to not be like that, but so far, most of them inevitably turn out that way. Egypt had it's first regime change through protests (though violent) and not a military coup or civil war. But Libya and Syria did not. De-centralised power helps in making the government more likely to be influenced by peaceful protests and pressure from the people.
Would the American people be able to change their government by protests and pressure alone? Or would it take a bunch of armed citizens breaking into the white house, shooting the president, and then tying his limp body to a horse and dragging it around the city, in order to change the government?
May I also add that one of these answers makes me think it's a more "modern" and "civilised" country?