This is a 1972 documentary about the life in the year 2000. It is in German, but English subtitles can be set up in the video settings. It turned out to be a bit different, but some predictions back then came to reality.

It’s not that this lifestyle isn’t socially acceptable, but it comes with some disadvantages. As pointed out by others, if you have a partner that is living an opposite lifestyle (“normal” day time work - night time sleep) you both wouldn’t have that much time together being awake and active. Also, another disadvantage is that everyone else is active during your resting time, which is during the day. Loud neighbors, traffic, socializing, etc. Errands, like appointments, are often possible only during daytime.

Attending a nocturnal lifestyle over an extended period of time is also less healthy from the biological point of view.

If your biological preference is set to be nocturnal however, and you can compensate for the aforementioned disadvantages, go for it. Nobody will be judging you.

Are you saying all laws are futile? Otherwise what is different with this law that makes it futile?

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.

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!

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.

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).

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.

That is an arrangement, which certainly is not up to the gentleman’s guide for public toilets, which states An open urinal should form a wall between us: During off-peak toilet moments, there are bound to be empty urinals. It is the norm to having an open urinal separate us or things will be awkward. Assuming than each brick on the wall has a length of 16" or 406 mm, that means the walls to the left and right are 90" or 2.03 m apart. This is a quite cozy arrangement. Also, how would the pee-area on the left wall be used when there will be two persons already using the front wall?