any development in UK's knife ban?

[Datasaurusrex]

Statistics show that if you carry a knife, and produce it as a defensive tool, chances are you'll get stabbed with your own knife, or maybe (if you're lucky) stab the attacker (an later wish you hadn't).

It's my gawd damn right to take the risk But I guess in England they want you to be defenseless, and to rely upon the charity of criminals for your safety, rather than your own initiative.

And as always, I'd rather regret doing the right thing, than regret not being able to.

 

[justsomeguy]

If the current crop of Englishmen and Englishwomen had existed in 1940. We would all be speaking Nazi.

What happened to this...

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Steve, a Vet and not ready to give in

 

[Steve C]

They weren't all Churchills in 1940; they had their Chamberlains back then, too...

Just like we have our Clintons, Feinsteins, Schumers, etc. Guys, don't slam the Brits in general for their cultural differences. Most of them find the American fascination with weaponry just as bizarre as we find their fascination with royalty.

Yes, their government is trying hard to make sheep out of them. But don't forget that, to a lesser extent, our government is trying to do the same thing to us.

 

[mikehill]

They weren't all Churchills in 1940; they had their Chamberlains back then, too...

Just like we have our Clintons, Feinsteins, Schumers, etc. Guys, don't slam the Brits in general for their cultural differences. Most of them find the American fascination with weaponry just as bizarre as we find their fascination with royalty.

Yes, their government is trying hard to make sheep out of them. But don't forget that, to a lesser extent, our government is trying to do the same thing to us.

To be honest, contrary to polls, most of us don't care about our royalty at all. Tourists who come here tend to be fascinated with it. We do love our knives though, a lot of people carry regardless of the laws. I also used to love my S&W's ... well until they were taken off me ! This is a great country, slowly being ruined by successive governments who seem to think we have no idea of how to look after ourselves ...
Mike.

 

[RAF_Groundcrew]

I highlighted because it doesn't matter. I don't see an issue as to which is "most offensive". I don't even know which you think is 'most offensive' and for what reason you would think so.

Also keep in mind we're talking about an inanimate object here.


To me and to most everyone else here, I would think, it doesn't matter what you use.

I'm sorry to jump in here, but I think the 'most offensive' notion has gone astray..... InfidelCastro, Sorry, but you know the Stihl Woodboss is a chainsaw, right??

 

[Datasaurusrex]

To be honest, contrary to polls, most of us don't care about our royalty at all. Tourists who come here tend to be fascinated with it. We do love our knives though, a lot of people carry regardless of the laws. I also used to love my S&W's ... well until they were taken off me ! This is a great country, slowly being ruined by successive governments who seem to think we have no idea of how to look after ourselves ...
Mike.

The same writing is on the wall for the U.S. too, so I feel your pain. Just look at California, Maryland, DC, Chicago, Boulder, New Orleans, etc.

 

[Datasaurusrex]

Yes, their government is trying hard to make sheep out of them. But don't forget that, to a lesser extent, our government is trying to do the same thing to us.

+1, England now is like having a magic window that looks into the future of the U.S. in regards to governmental controls. How are into the future? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?" Not much longer than that I fear.

 

[DownUnderLite]

Australia also has very similiar laws! (Part of the Commonwealth)

Disarm the public and reduce crime!!
Thats the theory

 

[leukos]

I have always wondered why gun advocates in the US do not push the Second Amendment to its logical conclusions. Lately, the Amendment is interpreted to mean the right to own a weapon for personal leisure or self-defense. But it seems to me that the right to bear arms was in some way originally meant to be a check and balance to the government. Logically then, citizens' groups should collectively have access to weapons capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government. In the case of the US government, that would mean militias or citizens' groups with access to much more sophisitcated arms, including nuclear weapons. Do I misread John Locke?

 

[Datasaurusrex]

I have always wondered why gun advocates in the US do not push the Second Amendment to its logical conclusions. Lately, the Amendment is interpreted to mean the right to own a weapon for personal leisure or self-defense. But it seems to me that the right to bear arms was in some way originally meant to be a check and balance to the government. Logically then, citizens' groups should collectively have access to weapons capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government. In the case of the US government, that would mean militias or citizens' groups with access to much more sophisitcated arms, including nuclear weapons. Do I misread John Locke?

ROFLMAO.

Historical context:
bear = to carry
arms = hand held weapons carried by an average infantry soldier
Militia = any male citizen between the ages od 17 and 45

No, a back-pack nuke would not qualify as 'arms.' A bazooka would also not qualify. A missile would not qualify.

An M-16 would qualify, as would various other SBRs, pistols, submachine guns, shotguns, large caliber rifles, etc.

In regards to Locke, as political philosophers go he's good, but he isn't the be all to end all in regards to defining the American experince with classical liberalism.

For some 'hands on' experince go try some Thomas Paine

"Nukes" lol, you do realize that there's well over 200 million privately owned firearms in America right? We only have around 290 million people, we have about 1 gun per person... Think about that for a minute, and then reflect upon "The Hunters of Kentucky."

 

[geforce guy]

I don't know why you should carry a knife with you, just wear shoes with steel toes
Here in the netherlands knives are prohibited if they are worn openly and have a total length of more than 10". I don't think you need a knife, but that's me.

 

[270winchester]

if you don't "need" something, do you automatically support banning other upstanding citizens from having one? it seems like most UK CPFers use the arguement that the average person does not "need" a knife to rationalize having a government criminalize its subjects, I mean citizens, from having them.

I consider myself a liberal person in the classical sense, where I will not tell you how to live your life, in return I ask others to not tell me how to live mine. simple as that. As long as I don't harm others, I see no reason why I need to be told what I can or can not have. I have never been arrested, the biggest crime I ever commited in my life was an illegal U-turn in my car, I pay my taxes, I work and go to school at the same time, and I follow all laws and regulations already in place. But I suppose even then I cannot be trusted in England.

Or is that too radically right wing for most people in the world to understnad?

 

[justsomeguy]

Australia also has very similiar laws! (Part of the Commonwealth)

Disarm the public and reduce crime!!
Thats the theory

And yet? Has the number of scumbags been reduced? Under any objective counting?

Have householders been able to defend the homes better?

How many decent citizens have been killed, maimed, raped or injured under the new system?

 

[Brangdon]

I think that what the earlier poster might have been referring too was a story I saw on CNN a while back. Some xspurts were saying that a move is on in UK to require that all kitchen knives have the sharp point cut off.

Right. The reason that got so much publicity is that it was so obviously stupid. The media like controversial stories that wind people up.

 

[Casual Flashlight User]

Sub-umbra,

I'm just saying that since the ban we've not had another Dunblane (17 dead) or a Hungerford(16 dead) or ..... in the UK. What you in the US do with your constitution is up to you.

No mate, we've just had a tenfold explosion in gun crime..several shootings a day...none from legally held firearms.





CFU

 

[Sub_Umbra]

I think that what the earlier poster might have been referring too was a story I saw on CNN a while back. Some xspurts were saying that a move is on in UK to require that all kitchen knives have the sharp point cut off.

Right. The reason that got so much publicity is that it was so obviously stupid. The media like controversial stories that wind people up.

Emphasis mine.

Yes, but when violent crime and defensive weapons are the issue, what is obviously stupid today often becomes the law of tomorrow.

 

[Datasaurusrex]

No mate, we've just had a tenfold explosion in gun crime..several shootings a day...none from legally held firearms.
CFU

Yup, that's what I've heard.

Since the ban there's been a drastic increase in gun crimes (even with the goofy way stats are reported it's an increase).

Black market guns have flooded the market, in part thank's to them being contraband (prohibition a always causes the back marketeers to step in to make a buck, it creates a demand, and the ciminal element simply smuggle what's profitable).

 

[justsomeguy]

Well,

I have been waiting with bated breath to hear that the new laws that require citizens to submit to felonies have succeded. I am fainting from lack of breath.

I can only conclude that Mr Churchill was correct and that Mr Chamberlin was wrong. As a former citizen of Texas, my foremothers were correct. They said that I should fight until I can't anymore. I will continue to do that.

S

 

[dg]

It may be useful to remember this quote from one of San Franciscos' finest ...

"Pretty soon, you'll start executing people
for jaywalking.

And executing people for traffic violations.

Then you end up executing your neighbour
'cause his dog pisses on your lawn."

There is absolutely no reason for anyone in the UK to need to carry any knife (or other weapon) for self defence. Those that do carry are those that are either out to commit crime, those who look for trouble, or need some kind of ego boost to counteract other inadequacies or escape from a dreary life.

It may well be that those countries with more liberal access to weapons and less strict carry laws, are less safe due to the availability of weapons. A mini arms race where someone carrys a weapon, then someone else carries a weapon for defence, then someone else carries a better weapon for attack, then someone else needs a better weapon for defence ....... then pretty soon its like Block Wars in Mega City One

Our laws are spot on. If you need to carry a knife you can, if you don't need to you can't. Thats the way it is and should be.

The fact is, that any society needs rules, and those rules are for the benefit of the society as a whole. What works for each country is 'right' for that country, but not necessarily right for another. Cultural and other pyschological differences determine what the rules are acceptable.

If we are talking about fundamental rights as the excuse to 'want' to carry a knife then compare that with my fundamental right to walk accross a road wherever I want to. It is my right to do so in the UK, but I understand it would be an offence in the US. Whats that all about?

 

[270winchester]

There is absolutely no reason for anyone in the UK to need to carry any knife (or other weapon) for self defence. Those that do carry are those that are either out to commit crime, those who look for trouble, or need some kind of ego boost to counteract other inadequacies or escape from a dreary life.

I just want to quote that admire it from afar...

I must say the British system has its citizens well trained.

It may well be that those countries with more liberal access to weapons and less strict carry laws, are less safe due to the availability of weapons. A mini arms race where someone carrys a weapon, then someone else carries a weapon for defence, then someone else carries a better weapon for attack, then someone else needs a better weapon for defence ....... then pretty soon its like Block Wars in Mega City One

In the state of vermont, there is no need for a permit to carry concealed firearms.

vermont is a very nice place. Nice people, nice sceneries, and people are friendly. Only recently did the democrats in that state attempt to change that despite the fact that it remains one of the safest place in America.

Washington DC remains a dangerous place crawling with drug dealers and criminal gangs. DC is one of the 3 cities in the USA that bans all ownership of handguns.

the theories of escalation of violence is a possible one. Mainly from Hollywood made movies that vilifies gun ownership.

After the Assault Weapons Ban expired, experts in the UK, USA and other major developed countried predicted a surge of shootouts and armed robberies. that hasn't happened.

if you want to see the UK turn into a police state with state of the art survalence and monitoring, go for it. Just do us a favor and keep Rebecca Peters in England where she belongs....