NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.

Think of the chefs, butchers and housewives!?!

So, you often go to public places with your kitchen knives then?

So, you often go to public places with your kitchen knives then?

Whenever I go to the Izaac Walton League hall where we have our monthly dinners, I cook - and that means I bring my knives with me.

Same for the church dinners.

Both very public places.

It's called "intent" - something that a blanket ban can't take into account.

Erm, have you SEEN the knives they're taking in? Some of them are SWORDS. Others are these absurdly ornate blades with spiked gripes and huge curves in them that COULDN'T see domestic use. And you'll note it's an amnesty, not any new laws or anything....

Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.

Are you claiming that your set of steak and kitchen knives aren't a fearful arsenal?

So, you often go to public places with your kitchen knives then?

How is one to transport said kitchen knives then? If I were to buy some from a store I could not take them home?

Really, it's a knife. I'm pretty sure there are many other things out in the world that people can use to kill or maim others; such as 3500 pound car going 120kph.

Playing cards are deadly weapons in the hands of the right assassin.

The point is that you have to be the right assassin in order to learn to kill with playing cards.

The government wants to restrict death to those who take the time to learn it as a skill, and fair play to them, I reckon. Any stupid bastard can kill with a sword or cleaver; it takes real finesse to do it with a bottle opener.

How is one to transport said kitchen knives then? If I were to buy some from a store I could not take them home?

Really, it's a knife. I'm pretty sure there are many other things out in the world that people can use to kill or maim others; such as 3500 pound car going 120kph.

I am betting that more people are killed by cars in Britain (and wounded or maimed) than by knives.

Pretty soon, someone witty will glom on to that statistic, and that will be the end of driving in Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.
It's an amnesty, are you saying that having knives that are specifically designed to kill off the streets is a bad thing?

Two people with knives have fight = stab wounds, serious injury, possibly death

Two unarmed people fight = most probably bruises, broken nose/ribs perhaps, probably not death.

Kitchen knives =/= knives designed for fighting with.

Having a normal knife isn't illegal, carrying an offensive weapon, however, is. Knives themselves aren't illegal, it all depends on the type of knive, and intent.

And your slippery slope argument sucks, dude.

Put a common bick pen between your fingers with the butt against your palm and push it into an eye socket ...result a dead person .

The pen is mightier than the sword ! And legal too !!

It's an amnesty, are you saying that having knives that are specifically designed to kill off the streets is a bad thing?

Two people with knives have fight = stab wounds, serious injury, possibly death

Two unarmed people fight = most probably bruises, broken nose/ribs perhaps, probably not death.

Kitchen knives =/= knives designed for fighting with.

Most high quality kitchen knives in the 6 to 8 inch blade range are excellent combat weapons.

Pretty soon, someone witty will glom on to that statistic, and that will be the end of driving in Britain.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Sorry.

I am betting that more people are killed by cars in Britain (and wounded or maimed) than by knives.

Pretty soon, someone witty will glom on to that statistic, and that will be the end of driving in Britain.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.

Are you claiming that your set of steak and kitchen knives aren't a fearful arsenal?


Most high quality kitchen knives in the 6 to 8 inch blade range are excellent combat weapons.

So you're saying that your collection of steak and kitchen knives are a fearful arsenal now?

It's an amnesty, are you saying that having knives that are specifically designed to kill off the streets is a bad thing?

Two people with knives have fight = stab wounds, serious injury, possibly death

Two unarmed people fight = most probably bruises, broken nose/ribs perhaps, probably not death.

Kitchen knives =/= knives designed for fighting with.

Cruel irony in that. Here in Canada (not GB, so fluff off or something) my guess would be people are most likely stabbed with knives or other such instruments not designed for killing, such as recently in Edmonton, a broken beer bottle. Removing knives designed for the purpose of killing another human does not remove the threat knives hold because there are still knives about. What is the honest to god point then? Now one can feel better that they won't be killed by a buck knife but by a steak knife?

How is one to transport said kitchen knives then? If I were to buy some from a store I could not take them home?

Really, it's a knife. I'm pretty sure there are many other things out in the world that people can use to kill or maim others; such as 3500 pound car going 120kph.
I kinda doubt the law - which apparently has been in effect for more than 10 years mind you - is targeting the legitimate transportation of knives. I haven't read the text so I'm speculating a bit here, but I expect that the targets are people who carry knives to school, to the pub, and other public places without a valid reason (and "for protection" would not be such a valid reason).

So you're saying that your collection of steak and kitchen knives are a fearful arsenal now?

They are designed to cut flesh, cow or pig or people it's all the same stuff really.

Whenever I go to the Izaac Walton League hall where we have our monthly dinners, I cook - and that means I bring my knives with me.

Same for the church dinners.

Both very public places.

So you can't think of a reason why you should carry a knife around with you in public on a daily basis then?

Cruel irony in that. Here in Canada (not GB, so fluff off or something) my guess would be people are most likely stabbed with knives or other such instruments not designed for killing, such as recently in Edmonton, a broken beer bottle. Removing knives designed for the purpose of killing another human does not remove the threat knives hold because there are still knives about. What is the honest to god point then? Now one can feel better that they won't be killed by a buck knife but by a steak knife?
Simple, ban knives designed for killing, they have to buy kitchen knives boosting our kitchenware manufacturing sector and improving the economy, everyone wins:)

Seriously, less knives carried by people would IMHO be a good thing, you can't legislate away all dangers, since things like kitchen knives are dangerous, but removing things that sole purpose is to harm is laudable to me.

Removing knives designed for the purpose of killing another human does not remove the threat knives hold because there are still knives about. What is the honest to god point then? Now one can feel better that they won't be killed by a buck knife but by a steak knife?

The point is that it is an attempt to tackle knife crime amongst drunken teenagers on the streets: such people are given to carrying knives designed for combat rather than cuisine. Thus it is believed that removing knives designed for combat will decrease urban knife crime. Person X may think that they are cool and hard for carrying a flick knife or some kind of badass Bowie knife, but are believed likely to feel the same glamour attached to a cheese knife.

This is why I laugh at the UK government, Canada, etc.

They are designed to cut flesh, cow or pig or people it's all the same stuff really.

Yeah, but I tackling DK's earlier flourish of rhetoric in the first post which seemed to be intended to suggest that the idea of considering his cuisinary knives as a 'fearful arsenal' was a ludicrous one.

This is why I laugh at the UK government, Canada, etc.

Canada ain't banned shit. Hell we just tore apart the gun registry for rifles and shotguns.

So you can't think of a reason why you should carry a knife around with you in public on a daily basis then?

Personally speaking I carry a cheap Leatherman copy around with me most days. Primarily for the screwdrivers and pliers, rather than the knife blade. My line of work makes it handy having a multitool readily at my fingertips.

Yeah, but I tackling DK's earlier flourish of rhetoric in the first post which seemed to be intended to suggest that the idea of considering his cuisinary knives as a 'fearful arsenal' was a ludicrous one.

I'd consider it a 'fearful aresal' if it were pointed at me, but then I make it habit not to get in such situations (as should most people, then maybe knife crimes wouldn't be so bad?).

I am betting that more people are killed by cars in Britain (and wounded or maimed) than by knives.

Pretty soon, someone witty will glom on to that statistic, and that will be the end of driving in Britain.
Cars are beating murderers 3500 to 820 (236 to knives), or therabouts. (Cars stat from my memory, and may include "deaths and serious injury"; people enjoy grouping them together to make scarier numbers. Murder stat from the linked article in the OP.)

However, you've kinda missed what this amnesty's for; they're not making any more knives illegal, they're making a few more illegal to carry around in a public place. Yes, it's illegal to carry an 8" Chef's knife tucked into your belt. No, it's not illegal to buy them, carry them home, buy them from the internet...
Hell, nobody even looked twice when I was wandering around with a (proper, not decorative) sword in a scabbard attached to my belt in a very public area with hundreds of people, including children, wandering around. Why not? I'd just bought it from a stall, and was wandering around the remaining stalls before putting it in my car and taking it home. It posed no threat to anyone.
If I'd been wandering around Tesco or waving the thing at people the situation would've been different.

The amnesty just means that people can get rid of knives and other weapons they don't want, or have decided not to carry around any longer, without fear of prosecution.

Not that I agree with most ban-this-potentially-dangerous-thing nonsense, but there's no point getting worked up when there's nothing to get worked up about.

Question for Deep Kimchi: are you arguing that foreigners should be more heavily armed?

So you can't think of a reason why you should carry a knife around with you in public on a daily basis then?


Think of all the boyscouts. They have knives. I think (I may be wrong) there's a badge they can earn for knife safety. There's one for wood carving, for which you need a knife.

People are allowed to, and occasionally do, bring pocket knives or Swiss Army knives to my school. (The rule is that the blade must be shorter than four inches.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.
Yeah. Cause God knows we don't want this to happen in the US, do we?
Figures show in the year following a month-long amnesty in Scotland in 1993, murders fell by 26%, attempted murder 19% and offensive weapons possession by 23%.

Yeah. Cause God knows we don't want this to happen in the US, do we?


That would be becuase less people attempted to murder or commit violent crime. The implements they would choose from a long list cant act without a human to controll them .

When you can figure out how to accomplish controlling those that would commit a crime I would say you may be onto something .


its like the governments trying to child proof the world...lets just hide everything and lock all the stuff up so little Bobby dont drink poison or fall down the steps or grab a sreak knife and cut his sisters throat .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.
This is stupidity. Blair should abandon Thatcherism and make the UK a more equal society. A happy, equal society is a crimeless society.

The point is that it is an attempt to tackle knife crime amongst drunken teenagers on the streets: such people are given to carrying knives designed for combat rather than cuisine. Thus it is believed that removing knives designed for combat will decrease urban knife crime.
The road to hell is paved with good, but impractical intentions.

This is stupidity. Blair should abandon Thatcherism and make the UK a more equal society. A happy, equal society is a crimeless society.
Indeed. To be honest, Blair should abandon the House of Commons, and run in front of a bus, but it's also not very likely.

Spending peoples' tax money on weapons for a war that very, very few people actually want is a shitty use of money that could be spent on social welfare.

The road to hell is paved with good, but impractical intentions.

Yes, but at least it is paved, unlike the rocky road to Dublin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.
Cripes, government is so freaking lazy.

"Hey, I know! Let's just take away people's tools, and that will surely stop them from killing each other! It's such a brilliant solution that I'm sure nobody has ever thought of trying it before!"

Dumbasses.

Cripes, government is so freaking lazy.

"Hey, I know! Let's just take away people's tools, and that will surely stop them from killing each other! It's such a brilliant solution that I'm sure nobody has ever thought of trying it before!"

Dumbasses.

Where's the bit in the article about taking away people's tools? The closest it comes is noting that there will be icnreased punishments for possession of an 'offensive' weapon, and the definition of an offensive weapon is entirely context dependent - going to the disco with a 7" blade is viewed entirely differently from going camping or to a cookery class with one.

*Sniffs*

Mmmm, I love the smell of bullshit and slippery slope arguments in the morning! Smells like...desperation!

Yes, but at least it is paved, unlike the rocky road to Dublin.
Statement invalid since 1964. God bless the NRA*.

Indeed. To be honest, Blair should abandon the House of Commons, and run in front of a bus, but it's also not very likely.

Spending peoples' tax money on weapons for a war that very, very few people actually want is a shitty use of money that could be spent on social welfare.
Or better yet, education.



*National Roads Authority

Or better yet, education.

The problem with spending more money on education here is that the educators keep on getting stabbed to death.

Where's the bit in the article about taking away people's tools? The closest it comes is noting that there will be icnreased punishments for possession of an 'offensive' weapon, and the definition of an offensive weapon is entirely context dependent - going to the disco with a 7" blade is viewed entirely differently from going camping or to a cookery class with one.

Entirely agree with that. Kimchi is just an advocate for massive weapon ownership. You must understand

He should join a militia or something...Or actually joining the army

Entirely agree with that. Kimchi is just an advocate for massive weapon ownership. You must understand

The alarming bit is that he seems to be arguing for more heavily armed foreigners, which seems a tad uncharacteristic of him, perhaps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.
It's nothing to do with ordinary 'implements'. It's to do with the knives that some people have for fighting with.

I assure you that the Police are not walking up and down the streets demanding we hand in our kitchen knives.

Not really, I see him as a guy who would be happy with massive melee and gunfight encounters in the street everyday, with him having the upper hand, of course...I don't think he cares if the fighters are domestic or foreigners.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.


What I'm getting from this is that people "armed" with knives. I'm understanding it to be more like someone with a steak knife or ginsu.

I agree that the persons and the act need to be dealt with more effectively, not the weapons.

I could kill someone-or maim them severly- with a length of 2X4 or a paving stone. We dont need any special laws against those items.

Unless, maybe, you walk around with a cobble stone tucked in your belt, looking for trouble.

I dont know- its too stupid. The knofe I carry on a regualr basis may not be legal, but if the need arrises to use it, I think I'll be glad I had it and less concerned about the reprecussions.

It's nothing to do with ordinary 'implements'. It's to do with the knives that some people have for fighting with.

I assure you that the Police are not walking up and down the streets demanding we hand in our kitchen knives.

Sshhh! You'll spoil his perceptions of us as liberal, lilly-livered and defenceless British people, quaking in fear of Chavs.

Where's the bit in the article about taking away people's tools? The closest it comes is noting that there will be icnreased punishments for possession of an 'offensive' weapon, and the definition of an offensive weapon is entirely context dependent - going to the disco with a 7" blade is viewed entirely differently from going camping or to a cookery class with one.
All weapons are tools, even if I personally don't like the purpose they are designed for. Taking away weapons won't take care of violence any more than banning drugs solves the drug problem. I am sick of governments wasting time on bullshit band-aid posturing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.

Sorry to disagree, DK.

Any single incidence of violence = unmistakable proof that policing isn't STRICT enough.

All weapons are tools, even if I personally don't like the purpose they are designed for. Taking away weapons won't take care of violence any more than banning drugs solves the drug problem. I am sick of governments wasting time on bullshit band-aid posturing.
Why is the Government wasting time? "Don't arrest people who hand in knives" is hardly the most time consuming edict ever issued.

And, as has been repeated throughout this thread, this is meant for offensive weapons, not 'tools'. This is meant for knives that people have purely for violent reasons, be that gang crime, mugging or self defence. It does NOT apply in any way to 'tools'.

All weapons are tools, even if I personally don't like the purpose they are designed for. Taking away weapons won't take care of violence any more than banning drugs solves the drug problem. I am sick of governments wasting time on bullshit band-aid posturing.

I disagree, taking knifes out of the hands of our youth won't stop them fighting, but it will stop them dying of stab wounds. It is a good idea, I really can't see what you are up in arms about (pun not intended)?

And, as has been repeated throughout this thread, this is meant for offensive weapons, not 'tools'. This is meant for knives that people have purely for violent reasons, be that gang crime, mugging or self defence. It does NOT apply in any way to 'tools'.
ALL WEAPONS ARE TOOLS, even if you or I find their purpose "offensive."

Taking away weapons won't take care of violence any more than banning drugs solves the drug problem. I am sick of governments wasting time on bullshit band-aid posturing.


I'm not arguing the tool/weapon issue - I'm just stating that there is noattempt to remove knives from people wholescale, just to increase the penalties for carrying them in inappropriate circumstances.


Anyhoo, if there are less knives designed for combat in circulation, and there is a decrease in the teenage kudos of carrying knives designed for combat leading to less knives being carried, then there will be the same amount of knife violence?

I disagree, taking knifes out of the hands of our youth won't stop them fighting, but it will stop them dying of stab wounds. It is a good idea, I really can't see what you are up in arms about (pun not intended)?
I'm "up in arms" because this kind of crap is a distraction. I've been stabbed before (happily, it didn't end up being serious), so I'm totally on board with the idea that people getting stabbed is a bad thing. However, I got stabbed with a screwdriver, so I also am quite aware that if somebody wants to stab you then they are not going to suddenly change their mind because they don't have the right kind of knife.

ALL WEAPONS ARE TOOLS, even if you or I find their purpose "offensive."
Yes, tools for killing. That is not something we want in a civilised society.

Would you like me to put that in capitals for you so that you can better understand?

I am in complete support of the Knife amnesty here in Britain. It allows people to voluntarily hand in dangerous purpose-built weapons without fear of prosecution, which can only be a good thing.

What Kimchi and other Pro-Weapon people such as those in the NRA assume is that the ordinary human being is completely rational. The human race is a far cry from being rational. We are very much irrational. People get an overwhelming feeling of power when in possession of a weapon and, just like a child with a new toy, can't wait to play with it.

You say, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people." and other such nonsense. Sure people kill others without guns, or even knives for that matter, but it's much more likely for someone to even want to kill someone with a purpose-built weapon than with other methods.

Someone raised the point that a pen can be used to kill someone, by jamming it through the persons eye. But: Would you have the guts?

Personally, I would be much more likely to kill someone I was in a fight with if I happened to have a gun in my pocket, possibly if I had a sword or knife made for combat that was good at killing someone quickly i.e a rapier. But if I were in the same situation with a BIC pen, where I had to actually think about how to push it into someones eyeball, right up close, so I could see their fear clearly. I couldn't do it, no matter how much I hated the person.

In conclusion, guns and other weapons designed for combat allow people to kill without getting their hands dirty. The deadlier the weapon in the everyday person's armament, the possibility of that person commiting a murder increases.

I doubt this will change many views on the subject but...

So, if there are less knives designed for combat in circulation, and there is a decrease in the teenage kudos of carrying knives designed for combat leading to less knives being carried, then there will be the same amount of knife violence?
There might be less violence perpetuated with that particular kind of knife. I do not believe there will be any significant decrease in the amount of violence occuring. If a kid wants to stab another kid, they're probably not going to suddenly change their mind because they don't have the right kind of knife on hand.

I agree that the persons and the act need to be dealt with more effectively, not the weapons.

If people can suggest a wau of dealing with the act in a premtive fashion (IE preventing it from happening) then I'm sure the government would be all ears

The fact is while it is true that people kill people, if you take away the guns and knives it makes it harder for them to do so.

All weapons are tools, even if I personally don't like the purpose they are designed for. Taking away weapons won't take care of violence any more than banning drugs solves the drug problem. I am sick of governments wasting time on bullshit band-aid posturing.

When all the guns and knives are confiscated or criminalized whats next?

Lets say that the powers that be can and do collect ALL guns and knives in a specific society. There are no guns, no knives-not even criminals have them.
Will criminals stop perpetrating violent crimes? Of course not.

We will then have to look into legistlation to collect and criminalize hammers, desk staplers, baseball bats, scizzors and box cutters.
And when those are rounded up, criminals will have to resort to using sticks and rocks.

Or- do we simply make assaults/robberies/crimes with weapons carry a more serious punishment and actually enforce the punishments ?

People that use weapons for violence will always use something to gain physical advantage over their victim. I was taught to use any weapon of opporotunity to prevail (mine was for defensive purposes, not robbery)- a chair, a ballpoint pen, a coffee mug- any thing I can grab in an instant, I can use effectively against you.(or to defend myself from your weapon).

However, I got stabbed with a screwdriver, so I also am quite aware that if somebody wants to stab you then they are not going to suddenly change their mind because they don't have the right kind of knife.

If they are out drinking with a knife at their side and wish to stab you, then they probably will stab you. If they want to stab you and happen to have a screwdriver with them, then will also likely stab you. If they have neither, then they will likely punch you.

Punching people seems to be causing less fatalities these days than stabbing them.

Yes, tools for killing. That is not something we want in a civilised society.

Would you like me to put that in capitals for you so that you can better understand?
None of which has anything to do with my point that weapons are tools, but thanks anyhow. I don't know how to make it much clearer to you.

I don't like knives. I don't like guns. I don't like tools that are designed to hurt people. I don't desire to own any tools that are designed specifically to hurt people. But I also don't think removing such tools will actually decrease violence.

I'm "up in arms" because this kind of crap is a distraction. I've been stabbed before (happily, it didn't end up being serious), so I'm totally on board with the idea that people getting stabbed is a bad thing. However, I got stabbed with a screwdriver, so I also am quite aware that if somebody wants to stab you then they are not going to suddenly change their mind because they don't have the right kind of knife.

But then again, the risk of getting stabbed drops dramatically, when any teenager who carries any tool with dangerous applications for no satisfactory reasons ( satisfying to a very suspicious and bigotted Street Warden ) gets tossed into Bridewell at the first offense of possessing said dangerous application tool...

Eventually, the same policy could be applied to all inhabitants.
As the commercial has it: Better!

There might be less violence perpetuated with that particular kind of knife. I do not believe there will be any significant decrease in the amount of violence occuring. If a kid wants to stab another kid, they're probably not going to suddenly change their mind because they don't have the right kind of knife on hand.

Who you agree that there is likely to be less fatalities as a result if people opt for their fists or improvised weapons rather than combat knives?

I don't like knives. I don't like guns. I don't like tools that are designed to hurt people. I don't desire to own any tools that are designed specifically to hurt people. But I also don't think removing such tools will actually decrease violence.
Perhaps not violence, but they can certainly reduce injury. I saw a pub brawl the other day with two guys pounding the hell out of each other - but ultimately, they both walked away. Are you seriously suggesting that if they had both been allowed to carry knives around, or, heaven forbid, a gun, the outcome would have been the same?

*roots for Philosopy*
You go, dude!

I'm "up in arms" because this kind of crap is a distraction. I've been stabbed before (happily, it didn't end up being serious), so I'm totally on board with the idea that people getting stabbed is a bad thing. However, I got stabbed with a screwdriver, so I also am quite aware that if somebody wants to stab you then they are not going to suddenly change their mind because they don't have the right kind of knife.

Bingo!! You speak from experience and give a perfect example that the dullest simpleton should understand.

I've seen someone beaten severely with a work boot before-unconscious, eyes bashed shut- teeth out,lips cut through and through,eye orbit broken, nose broken and scalp bleeding moret han you could imagine.

I hope that doesnt spark a shoe ban. My wife will have a fit and likely keep a concealed pair..

*Also roots for Philosopy and other Anti-Weapon posters*

Well as it's only an amnesty and not a ban, i'm not handing mine in.

I don't carry it anywhere and I only use it for destroying plant roots for example. It's not a great blade anyways, but it does a job for cutting rope etc.

That said, I train twice a week with various forms of blades (German longsword, sword and buckler etc) and they ain't takin what I've got of them off me either. I don't do anyone any harm with em, in fact training with them gives you a lot more respect for the weapon than being a complete novice. Quite frankly if people are insulted by me having 2 blunt swords and one knife, they can go and find something else to get they're knickers in a twist over, because I've got every right to have them as long as I remain peaceful in their use.

Quite frankly this country is pissing me off so I'm emigrating, hopefully within the next two years.

Bingo!! You speak from experience and give a perfect example that the dullest simpleton should understand.

I've seen someone beaten severely with a work boot before-unconscious, eyes bashed shut- teeth out,lips cut through and through,eye orbit broken, nose broken and scalp bleeding moret han you could imagine.

I hope that doesnt spark a shoe ban. My wife will have a fit and likely keep a concealed pair..
And again, I ask you exactly the same question as above: would this case had been better if a knife or gun had been involved? Or would you be telling us about the murder you once witnessed?

I am in complete support of the Knife amnesty here in Britain. It allows people to voluntarily hand in dangerous purpose-built weapons without fear of prosecution, which can only be a good thing.

What Kimchi and other Pro-Weapon people such as those in the NRA assume is that the ordinary human being is completely rational. The human race is a far cry from being rational. We are very much irrational. People get an overwhelming feeling of power when in possession of a weapon and, just like a child with a new toy, can't wait to play with it.

You say, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people." and other such nonsense. Sure people kill others without guns, or even knives for that matter, but it's much more likely for someone to even want to kill someone with a purpose-built weapon than with other methods.

Someone raised the point that a pen can be used to kill someone, by jamming it through the persons eye. But: Would you have the guts?

Personally, I would be much more likely to kill someone I was in a fight with if I happened to have a gun in my pocket, possibly if I had a sword or knife made for combat that was good at killing someone quickly i.e a rapier. But if I were in the same situation with a BIC pen, where I had to actually think about how to push it into someones eyeball, right up close, so I could see their fear clearly. I couldn't do it, no matter how much I hated the person.

In conclusion, guns and other weapons designed for combat allow people to kill without getting their hands dirty. The deadlier the weapon in the everyday person's armament, the possibility of that person commiting a murder increases.

I doubt this will change many views on the subject but...

Like I said before, you're more likely to kill someone if your walking around with a combat knife than a pen.

*sigh*

<Insert weapon type here> control is an inherently bad idea.

Almost everything that is used as a weapon by criminals also has more peaceful uses by those who are -not- criminals. Knives, which people use to stab each other, are also used for cooking, creating works of art, modeling, and so on. Baseball bats are used mainly for hitting balls, not clubbing people over the head; the list goes on.

However, if $weapon is designed for the sole and express purpose of harming another human, it should not be manufactured in the first place.

Thus, guns, which have few uses beyond harming living creatures, should not be manufactured at all, with all existing guns scrapped and recycled into something more useful to society. And before anyone gets into the rapist or mugger argument, people who would ordinarily carry guns can instead use nonlethal weapons like tasers, pepper spray, smoke grenades, or karate to dissuade such persons. Chew on that, Kimchi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.
"Sir! Put down the butterknife and step away from the table!" :D

*sigh*

<Insert weapon type here> control is an inherently bad idea.

Almost everything that is used as a weapon by criminals also has more peaceful uses by those who are -not- criminals. Knives, which people use to stab each other, are also used for cooking, creating works of art, modeling, and so on. Baseball bats are used mainly for hitting balls, not clubbing people over the head; the list goes on.

However, if $weapon is designed for the sole and express purpose of harming another human, it should not be manufactured in the first place.

Thus, guns, which have few uses beyond harming living creatures, should not be manufactured at all, with all existing guns scrapped and recycled into something more useful to society. And before anyone gets into the rapist or mugger argument, people who would ordinarily carry guns can instead use nonlethal weapons like tasers, pepper spray, smoke grenades, or karate to dissuade such persons. Chew on that, Kimchi.

Go Czardas!

And again, I ask you exactly the same question as above: would this case had been better if a knife or gun had been involved? Or would you be telling us about the murder you once witnessed?


If the victim in this case had a gun or a knife, its mere presence may have stopped all agression.

It all goes to the antagonists intent.

While we're on it, dont try to antagonize me with your pompous doubt.

*sigh*

<Insert weapon type here> control is an inherently bad idea.

Almost everything that is used as a weapon by criminals also has more peaceful uses by those who are -not- criminals. Knives, which people use to stab each other, are also used for cooking, creating works of art, modeling, and so on. Baseball bats are used mainly for hitting balls, not clubbing people over the head; the list goes on.

However, if $weapon is designed for the sole and express purpose of harming another human, it should not be manufactured in the first place.

Thus, guns, which have few uses beyond harming living creatures, should not be manufactured at all, with all existing guns scrapped and recycled into something more useful to society. And before anyone gets into the rapist or mugger argument, people who would ordinarily carry guns can instead use nonlethal weapons like tasers, pepper spray, smoke grenades, or karate to dissuade such persons. Chew on that, Kimchi.

Once again, easily solved with a 'purpose check' by a bigotted Streetwarden.
If you have a butterknife on ya, without having butter, and not being employed and on your way to or from a butter-using business, the Street Warden can nominate you for Bridewell.

If the victim in this case had a gun or a knife, its mere presence may have stopped all agression.

It all goes to the antagonists intent.

While we're on it, dont try to antagonize me with your pompous doubt.
Yes, because while beating the crap out of each other, the appearance of a gun would make the straighten their ties, shake hands and go their merry way.

Or, more likely, there would be a blind and desperate fumble for the weapon followed by a dying person on the floor.

I shall doubt that easy access to weapons stops violence right up until the point that someone proves otherwise, rather than makes up anecdotical stories about how we all get along better when everyone has a gun.

Once again, easily solved with a 'purpose check' by a bigotted Streetwarden.
If you have a butterknife on ya, without having butter, and not being employed and on your way to or from a butter-using business, the Street Warden can nominate you for Bridewell.
Or you can just not carry the butterknife around if you have no reason to. :rolleyes:

Well as it's only an amnesty and not a ban, i'm not handing mine in.

I don't carry it anywhere and I only use it for destroying plant roots for example. It's not a great blade anyways, but it does a job for cutting rope etc.

That said, I train twice a week with various forms of blades (German longsword, sword and buckler etc) and they ain't takin what I've got of them off me either. I don't do anyone any harm with em, in fact training with them gives you a lot more respect for the weapon than being a complete novice. Quite frankly if people are insulted by me having 2 blunt swords and one knife, they can go and find something else to get they're knickers in a twist over, because I've got every right to have them as long as I remain peaceful in their use.

Quite frankly this country is pissing me off so I'm emigrating, hopefully within the next two years.

Register those weapons as weapon of training. I did it with my bow and Iaito when I got them. If you have them for training purposes you can do it.

And I believe you didn't read the part about intent, location, etc...

If you go out to a party with your sword and buckler in hand, is a bad thing. If you keep those at home, it's ok.

Or you can just not carry the butterknife around if you have no reason to. :rolleyes:

Quite so.
If you don't have a VERY good reason to do what you want to do,
you'd better not be doing it...

Register those weapons as weapon of training. I did it with my bow and Iaito when I got them. If you have them for training purposes you can do it.

And I believe you didn't read the part about intent, location, etc...

If you go out to a party with your sword and buckler in hand, is a bad thing. If you keep those at home, it's ok.

Register them?

With whom?

I asked my organisation and they have said I do not need to register them. Police also said the same. As long as I carry my memeber ship card, as its a nationally recognised organisation then its cool.

As for the knife, I've taken it on my person when going to my grans to do her gardening and stuff. Wonder how likely it is that the police will believe that one eh?

I read the part about intent and location. My point is, sheer belief and public over reaction sometimes puts everyone in the same absket without askig questions.

Register them?

With whom?
SNIP

The Authorities.
If you by mischance try to register with the wrong one,
I'm sure they'll be happy to order you to go to the correct Authority.

Then why are you worried if you carry that membership ID? If you do not need to register, then no problem.

If you carry a shovel with your knife and two envelopes full of seeds, and tell the cops you're a gardener, I think it is highly accurate to say they will believe you. If you go around playing with the knife in your hand in an dark alley during friday's midnight, it's not.

It's fairly simple

Yes, because while beating the crap out of each other, the appearance of a gun would make the straighten their ties, shake hands and go their merry way.

Or, more likely, there would be a blind and desperate fumble for the weapon followed by a dying person on the floor.

I shall doubt that easy access to weapons stops violence right up until the point that someone proves otherwise, rather than makes up anecdotical stories about how we all get along better when everyone has a gun.


Its ok for you to believe that. Its likely only experience will change your mind and I hope you never have that experience.

And you were the only one making up anecdotal stories and hypothetical situations.

Then why are you worried if you carry that membership ID? If you do not need to register, then no problem.

If you carry a shovel with your knife and two envelopes full of seeds, and tell the cops you're a gardener, I think it is highly accurate to say they will believe you. If you go around playing with the knife in your hand in an dark alley during friday's midnight, it's not.

It's fairly simple

By that it sounds like to prove i'm a gardener I have to carry seeds.

We have to slip into stereotypes now?

By that it sounds like to prove i'm a gardener I have to carry seeds.

We have to slip into stereotypes now?

We have to slip into Total Security Mode.

By that it sounds like to prove i'm a gardener I have to carry seeds.

We have to slip into stereotypes now?
Just remember that when the Policeman comes up and says "'ello 'ello 'ello, wot's going on 'ere then?" the correct reply will be "Oo ah, Constable, oo ah".

The Authorities.
If you by mischance try to register with the wrong one,
I'm sure they'll be happy to order you to go to the correct Authority.


You don't need to register weapons. Unless you happen to own a very ancient Japanese sword (we're talking beginning of the 20th Century backwards for when the blade was made, not the fittings), which I believe is the only type of sword that has to be formally registered.

Modern repro's don't and shouldn't have to be.

By that it sounds like to prove i'm a gardener I have to carry seeds.

We have to slip into stereotypes now?

I was talking in a figurative way. You understood that (I hope), stop looking for further discussions where there are any.

Just remember that when the Policeman comes up and says "'ello 'ello 'ello, wot's going on 'ere then?" the correct reply will be "Oo ah, Constable, oo ah".

No, I can tell him the truth. But as it happens I doubt I will be believed.

Believe me I can understand why its being done. I'm just dreading the day when tabloid frenzy will triumph over people who actually use knives for a non-lethal purpose because they are the best thing to use.

You don't need to register weapons. Unless you happen to own a very ancient Japanese sword (we're talking beginning of the 20th Century backwards), which I believe is the only type of sword that has to be formally registered.

Modern repro's don't and shouldn't have to be.

You do realise we're dealing here with the UK?

Meanwhile, I fail to see your 'shouldn't have to be'.
Do you intend to pay in person the debt accrued by your pro-weapon position to Kiyan's mother?

I was talking in a figurative way. You understood that (I hope), stop looking for further discussions where there are any.

Indeed, but I was merely pointing out that in order for me to claim to be a gardner I have to carry a shovel and seeds in order to be believed, when both those things I have at the location of my work therefore it is pointless me carrying them.

All I wish to point out is that it is getting very close to being impossible to carry things for legitimate purposes when sometimes the situations begs to let people form another opinion.

For example, my grand father had his knife (made for him by his grandfather) confiscated from him, despite the fact he was a Boys Brigade leader coming back from a talk on knife safety, which he gave.

The reason? He had no proof that he needed the knife on him at the time of him going home. He even had his Boys Brigade card and stated the reason for him carrying it. He was his way straight home.

Quite frankly, thats moronic and one of the reasons i have misgivings about authority and the popular politics that they play to when they do stuff like this.

Needless to say I think the amnesty is correct, but I loathe it when I am told because I have a knife I am up to mischief as some on this thread have stated.

That would be because less people attempted to murder or commit violent crime. The implements they would choose, from a long list, can't act without a human to control them.
And where exactly do you get that 'fact' from? Pull it out your butt, did you?
Look at the stats carefully this time:
Figures show in the year following a month-long amnesty in Scotland in 1993, murders fell by 26%, attempted murder 19% and offensive weapons possession by 23%.
Murders AND possesion for offensive weapons fell by pretty much the same percentage. Doesn't that tell you something?
Like maybe, when people don't wander around carrying offensive and dangerous weapons, they're less likely to murder someone?
NOTE - not less likely to engage in violence, but the violence is more survivable.

its like the governments trying to child proof the world...lets just hide everything and lock all the stuff up so little Bobby dont drink poison or fall down the steps or grab a sreak knife and cut his sisters throat.
And that's wrong, how exactly?

As a former Bouncer I have to say that I am glad there are laws forbidding fighing knives. You will not believe what people drags into a nightclub, so they can "protect" themselves. I have seen it all from various knives, including kitchen knives to flares. My experience also is that it is the people carrying the weapons that starts the fights...

What's the Boys Brigade?

Why he was carrying the knife?

Sorry, I fail to understand that part

I am in complete support of the Knife amnesty here in Britain. It allows people to voluntarily hand in dangerous purpose-built weapons without fear of prosecution, which can only be a good thing.

What Kimchi and other Pro-Weapon people such as those in the NRA assume is that the ordinary human being is completely rational. The human race is a far cry from being rational. We are very much irrational. People get an overwhelming feeling of power when in possession of a weapon and, just like a child with a new toy, can't wait to play with it.

Not exactly, most of us are rational. The people who cause our problems are a very small minority.

You say, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people." and other such nonsense. Sure people kill others without guns, or even knives for that matter, but it's much more likely for someone to even want to kill someone with a purpose-built weapon than with other methods.

It is less about the method of killing someone, it's about the punishment one receives for doing so. The other day I was at my parents and they were watching a show on crime scene investigation. People were killing other people with knives and screwdrivers. What was the worst thing they got for it? 10 years in prison, maybe they will be out in 5 on perole. This is the problem, this is the solution that needs to be fixed. There is no real punishment for the scum who keep commiting this stuff.

Someone raised the point that a pen can be used to kill someone, by jamming it through the persons eye. But: Would you have the guts?

Personally, I would be much more likely to kill someone I truly hated if I happened to have a gun in my pocket, possibly if I had a sword or knife made for combat that was good at killing someone quickly i.e a rapier. But if I were in the same situation with a BIC pen, where I had to actually think about how to push it into someones eyeball, right up close, so I could see their fear clearly. I couldn't do it, no matter how much I hated the person.

In conclusion, guns and other weapons designed for combat allow people to kill without getting their hands dirty. The deadlier the weapon in the everyday person's armament, the possibility of that person commiting a murder increases.

I doubt this will change many views on the subject but...

I appreciate that you recognize that you would not have the self control to carry a gun/knife. However, just because you do not does not mean no one does. As I had said before, there are many, many of us who own "dangerous" items who have never used them in hot or cold blood.

You do realise we're dealing here with the UK?

Meanwhile, I fail to see your 'shouldn't have to be'.
Do you intend to pay in person the debt accrued by your pro-weapon position to Kiyan's mother?

No, the person who commited the crime should be held responsible for the crime.

It would be kinda like sueing Boeing and AOPA because airliners make effective cruise missles.

I'm "up in arms" because this kind of crap is a distraction. I've been stabbed before (happily, it didn't end up being serious), so I'm totally on board with the idea that people getting stabbed is a bad thing. However, I got stabbed with a screwdriver, so I also am quite aware that if somebody wants to stab you then they are not going to suddenly change their mind because they don't have the right kind of knife.

Its a distraction? What from? The real issue I'd guess which is what? And even if it is a distraction, it is still a good idea, rather than a bad one.

Put it this way, if we makes laws saying that all blades over a certian lenght should not be carried on the street(special circumstances permiting) then the chances of people getting stabed by these knifes becomes less, and that is a bad idea?

As a former Bouncer I have to say that I am glad there are laws forbidding fighing knives. You will not believe what people drags into a nightclub, so they can "protect" themselves. I have seen it all from various knives, including kitchen knives to flares.

Not the trouser kind, I assume.

What's the Boys Brigade?

Why he was carrying the knife?

The BB are a youth organization pretty much like the scouts.

As I read it the man was carrying the knife because he had just been giving a talk on knife safety, and had been using it as a prop in his talk.

The BB are a youth organization pretty much like the scouts.

As I read it the man was carrying the knife because he had just been giving a talk on knife safety, and had been using it as a prop in his talk.

Thanks for that.

That is indeed true. Despite the fact he was carrying it, not openly either. The knife was in an inner jacket pocket. It transpired that the only reason that he was stopped was because a 'worried member of the public' had seen him placing said knife in his pocket as he left the Boys Brigade meeting, which was being held in a church hall. As he was not on the way to the meeting but on the way back, the police had no reason to believe that the meeting had taken place, but only that this man was carrying the knife.

It took a while resolve and he got his knife back after it was all cleared up, but still... over reaction?

Not the trouser kind, I assume.

Rats you beat me to it.

Ok, simple question, who believes that it is wrong to hold an AMNESTY that allows people to get rid of knives that may be illegal that they don't want with no questions asked or risk of them being found by other people etc.

How is it wrong to say, if you want to get rid of some knives you have, nip down to the local police station, chuck them down this chute and carry on your way?

What I'm hoping is that the police use some common sense when sorting through them.

Last time in Leeds, one old person was so scared about the amnesty they brought in a Horse Guards 1885 pattern sabre and a few other near priceless antiques. The police were about to melt em down before they were saved to be put in a museum.

Other than that, i'm not against the amnesty, but I am against the increasing view portrayed by the authorities that those who have knives are dangerous and shouldn't have them, even if we have legitimate reasons for such.

Ok, simple question, who believes that it is wrong to hold an AMNESTY that allows people to get rid of knives that may be illegal that they don't want with no questions asked or risk of them being found by other people etc.

This isn't strictly a 'no questions asked' amnesty. I believe the knives can be held for six months by the police and can be used as forensic evidence if needs be.

what'll they do next. outlaw rocks. I hear they're gearing up for a big head bashing massacre. then what'll they do just lock everybody in there homes. afterall, it's pretty hard to rid your yard of rocks.

what'll they do next. outlaw rocks. I hear they're gearing up for a big head bashing massacre. then what'll they do just lock everybody in there homes. afterall, it's pretty hard to rid your yard of rocks.
Yes, yes, just like when they banned caffeine soon after they banned heroine, cocaine etc:rolleyes:

what'll they do next. outlaw rocks. I hear they're gearing up for a big head bashing massacre. then what'll they do just lock everybody in there homes. afterall, it's pretty hard to rid your yard of rocks.

Read the damn article linked in the first post. The only person who even suggested a ban on knives was Deep Kimchi. The only change in the law is one of increased penalties for carrying an offensive weapon, and what is, or is not, considered to be an offensive weapon is context dependent.

Yes, yes, just like when they banned caffeine soon after they banned heroine, cocaine etc:rolleyes:

Or possibly 'heroin'.

I appreciate that you recognize that you would not have the self control to carry a gun/knife. However, just because you do not does not mean no one does. As I had said before, there are many, many of us who own "dangerous" items who have never used them in hot or cold blood.

Damn. My argument there came out just bit wrong apparently. I'm not saying that if I had a gun in my pocket right now I'd be blowing the head off my brother behind me right now. I'm talking about in a situation where I'm in a fight or other potentially dangerous situation. Out of fear.

What I'm hoping is that the police use some common sense when sorting through them.

Last time in Leeds, one old person was so scared about the amnesty they brought in a Horse Guards 1885 pattern sabre and a few other near priceless antiques. The police were about to melt em down before they were saved to be put in a museum.

Other than that, i'm not against the amnesty, but I am against the increasing view portrayed by the authorities that those who have knives are dangerous and shouldn't have them, even if we have legitimate reasons for such.


I agree but other than say Butchers, Chefs, and people that may carry a small pen knife to open packages etc there realy is no need to carry a knife.

What need would a 15-16 year old school leaver without a job, have to carry a knife on the street for?

Or possibly 'heroin'.
:headbang: damn spelling

I agree but other than say Butchers, Chefs, and people that may carry a small pen knife to open packages etc there realy is no need to carry a knife.

What need would a 15-16 year old school leaver without a job, have to carry a knife on the street for?

maybe to defend himself against those who would mug him in violation of the laws they disregard.

maybe to defend himself against those who would mug him in violation of the laws they disregard.
or maybe to mug other people. But this is our new athletics strategy, take away people's knvies and so ensure they become better runners and win more olympic medals.

I agree but other than say Butchers, Chefs, and people that may carry a small pen knife to open packages etc there realy is no need to carry a knife.

What need would a 15-16 year old school leaver without a job, have to carry a knife on the street for?

Fair point, however being a 22 year old myself, my grandfather was 70+ at the time, we would both have very good reasons for carrying a knife (gardening and boys brigade instruction respecitvely), yet one of us was stopped and had it confiscated, despite trying to use them fairly and even educate others of the potential dangers of such tools. Both of us have (sadly had in the case of my grandfather) legitimate reasons for carrying them because they are tools of the job we were doing at the time.

Your last example may be a good one, but what if that example was doing what I was doing. Carrying a simple small multi purpose knife to do a legal job that legitimised him carrying it? Would the police believe him? I would say that was doubtful.

Although I support the amnesty as I said, it still tars many legitimate users with the same brush as those who carry them for non legal purposes.

or maybe to mug other people. But this is our new athletics strategy, take away people's knvies and so ensure they become better runners and win more olympic medals.

They should have put it under the banner of the 2012 London Olympics ;) :D

Damn. My argument there came out just bit wrong apparently. I'm not saying that if I had a gun in my pocket right now I'd be blowing the head off my brother behind me right now. I'm talking about in a situation where I'm in a fight or other potentially dangerous situation. Out of fear.

Oh, ok. Well, if I was in fear of my life I would pull what I carry. But, it is a last resort thing and I would be rather screwed if I misused it. The thing is I try to avoid getting myself into these sort of situations like the plague.

Fair point, however being a 22 year old myself, my grandfather was 70+ at the time, we would both have very good reasons for carrying a knife (gardening and boys brigade instruction respecitvely), yet one of us was stopped and had it confiscated, despite trying to use them fairly and even educate others of the potential dangers of such tools. Both of us have (sadly had in the case of my grandfather) legitimate reasons for carrying them because they are tools of the job we were doing at the time.

Your last example may be a good one, but what if that example was doing what I was doing. Carrying a simple small multi purpose knife to do a legal job that legitimised him carrying it? Would the police believe him? I would say that was doubtful.

Although I support the amnesty as I said, it still tars many legitimate users with the same brush as those who carry them for non legal purposes.

Kellarly brings up the very reason why I am against banning stuff like this. (I know, its a amnesty thing) You punish the people more than you punish the criminals.

maybe to defend himself against those who would mug him in violation of the laws they disregard.

Protect your self with a knife, get stabbed. That is to say if you get attacked in the street and you pull a knife out to defend yourself chances are that you'll end up stabbed, or in nick for stabbing somebody else. On the other hand if you carry a walking stick as self defense then nobody gets stabbed, and if you end up looking up at a copper then at least giving somebody a broken arm will stand up in court as 'reasonable force' than punctured lung, for example.

Are you really advocating that we should all be tooled up to defend ourself?

Protect your self with a knife, get stabbed. That is to say if you get attacked in the street and you pull a knife out to defend yourself chances are that you'll end up stabbed, or in nick for stabbing somebody else. On the other hand if you carry a walking stick as self defense then nobody gets stabbed, and if you end up looking up at a copper then at least giving somebody a broken arm will stand up in court as 'reasonable force' than punctured lung, for example.

Are you really advocating that we should all be tooled up to defend ourself?

The whole "You'll get your weapon taken from you" is a myth.

People should have the right to defend themselves from harm.

Kellarly brings up the very reason why I am against banning stuff like this. (I know, its a amnesty thing) You punish the people more than you punish the criminals.

You are correct Kellary does bring up a very good point, but Like I said other than butchers and chefs, who else needs to carry a blade upward of 5 inches long? I used to be a butcher and a gardner, so I know that as a gardner you don't really need anything larger than a small penknife.

Who needs to carry a flick knife, or a bullet knife, or a butterfly knife, or a ballisong, or large sheaf knife out on the street for any type of job except violence?

The whole "You'll get your weapon taken from you" is a myth.

People should have the right to defend themselves from harm.

That quite frankly is bollocks. Hands up who here has any sort of knife training?
Granted a few will, but everyday folx are not trained to use a knife nor protect them selfs from one. Get into a fight in the street where no nife is pulled, and the chances are you'll be okay if brusied up some, get a knife involved and there is whole heap of shit waiting for you. This is plain common sense, knifes kill people.

And people do have the right to defend themselfs, but we also have something called 'reasonable force' If you pull a knife to defend yorself, and kill your attacker, there is a very big chance that you will end up in jail.

It's an amnesty, are you saying that having knives that are specifically designed to kill off the streets is a bad thing?

Two people with knives have fight = stab wounds, serious injury, possibly death

Two unarmed people fight = most probably bruises, broken nose/ribs perhaps, probably not death.

Kitchen knives =/= knives designed for fighting with.two unarmed people in a fight will grab anything to use as a weapon. lumber, bricks, pipes, even trashcans. banning knives only moves the weapons to more common items.

Waiting for Baseball (cricket?) bats to be added to list.

While Kitchen Knives =/= fighting knives, they are more abundant and can still be used in a fight.

Are you really advocating that we should all be tooled up to defend ourself?

A paranoid society is a safe society

That quite frankly is bollocks. Hands up who here has any sort of knife training?
Granted a few will, but everyday folx are not trained to use a knife nor protect them selfs from one. Get into a fight in the street where no nife is pulled, and the chances are you'll be okay if brusied up some, get a knife involved and there is whole heap of shit waiting for you. This is plain common sense, knifes kill people.

So you have any evidence for this? Why should the criminals be the only ones that are armed?

I have never seen a knife kill anyone. It's an inanimate object. Perhaps the authorities should focus on the people who are using them to kill people.

Granted a few will, but everyday folx are not trained to use a knife nor protect them selfs from one.

Least of all someone in their mid-teens, who I think are the targets of this current campaign to disarm school children.

Least of all someone in their mid-teens, who I think are the targets of this current campaign to disarm school children.

Sure, but how many of the ones who are using them (not just carrying) illegally will actually turn them in?

Sure, but how many of the ones who are using them (not just carrying) illegally will actually turn them in?

No idea. How about we wait 'til the end of the amnesty.

So you have any evidence for this? Why should the criminals be the only ones that are armed?

I have never seen a knife kill anyone. It's an inanimate object. Perhaps the authorities should focus on the people who are using them to kill people.


So what is an amesty then, all knifes come and hand your selfs in?

The point is not one of taking knifes away will not stop violence, yes I know that. The point is taking knifes away will limit the number of deaths, now do you say that is a bad thing?

Might as well ask why should criminals be the only ones to rob banks? The answer to both questions is, they are criminals they brake the law.

So you have any evidence for this? Why should the criminals be the only ones that are armed?

I have never seen a knife kill anyone. It's an inanimate object. Perhaps the authorities should focus on the people who are using them to kill people.


Sorry I should have asked evidance for which of my statements?

So what is an amesty then, all knifes come and hand your selfs in?

The point is not one of taking knifes away will not stop violence, yes I know that. The point is taking knifes away will limit the number of deaths, now do you say that is a bad thing?

Might as well ask why should criminals be the only ones to rob banks? The answer to both questions is, they are criminals they brake the law.

OK, Amnesty's have historically been ineffective for effecting crime. They are more of a feel good measure than anything else. Yes, you might get some knives turned in. They won't be by the ones who spent $200 for some fantasy knife to look cool to his mates or the ones who rob people. ie. the ones who are actually committing crimes.

You are correct Kellary does bring up a very good point, but Like I said other than butchers and chefs, who else needs to carry a blade upward of 5 inches long? I used to be a butcher and a gardner, so I know that as a gardner you don't really need anything larger than a small penknife.

Who needs to carry a flick knife, or a bullet knife, or a butterfly knife, or a ballisong, or large sheaf knife out on the street for any type of job except violence?

I can think of a few times I have carried a large blade. I have carried my sword before, but that was going to a halloween party. The other times was when I was camping/hiking, I carry a machette for all the times I end up off the trail.

Aside from that, I have a CCW permit here so I can carry a gun here. So, I have no need to carry a sword/big knife with me.

OK, Amnesty's have historically been ineffective for effecting crime. They are more of a feel good measure than anything else. Yes, you might get some knives turned in. They won't be by the ones who spent $200 for some fantasy knife to look cool to his mates or the ones who rob people. ie. the ones who are actually committing crimes.

No one is pretending that criminals will hand there knives in. The hope is that young people who carry, either to look cool or because they feel it will help them defend themselves, will. The amnesty comes in the wake of a spate of school stabbings. It is hoped that by removing knives from schools the amounts of stabbings will decrease.

So what is an amesty then, all knifes come and hand your selfs in?

The point is not one of taking knifes away will not stop violence, yes I know that. The point is taking knifes away will limit the number of deaths, now do you say that is a bad thing?

Might as well ask why should criminals be the only ones to rob banks? The answer to both questions is, they are criminals they brake the law.

So, let me get this straight. You want people to hand over thier property because of some people use them for mis-deads? I say it's a noble cause, but I strongly disagree with the method you are using. If you really want to put a dent in crime, quit blaming everything but the criminal.

A paranoid society is a safe society

Hahah nooooo a paranoid society is a paranoid society.

So, let me get this straight. You want people to hand over thier property because of some people use them for mis-deads? I say it's a noble cause, but I strongly disagree with the method you are using. If you really want to put a dent in crime, quit blaming everything but the criminal.


What? Where did you get that from then? No I just don't disagree with the goverments plan, I realise what damage a knife can do to a human body, and I applued any efferts to stop our youth carrying them.

I didn't speak up when they came for the semiautomatic rifles, because I didn't own one.

I didn't speak up when they came for my dad's deer rifle, because I didn't own one.

I didn't speak up when they came for the single-shot rifles, because I didn't own one

I didn't speak up when they came for my brother's marine service knife, because I didn't own one.

When they came to take away anything pointey, sharp, or serrated I was alone, because there was noone left.

It's a slippery slope folks.

I didn't speak up when they came for the semiautomatic rifles, because I didn't own one.

I didn't speak up when they came for my dad's deer rifle, because I didn't own one.

I didn't speak up when they came for the single-shot rifles, because I didn't own one

I didn't speak up when they came for my brother's marine service knife, because I didn't own one.

When they came to take away anything pointey, sharp, or serrated I was alone, because there was noone left.

It's a slippery slope folks.


Heheh sooo just who was it that come to take away your pointy things?

Hahah nooooo a paranoid society is a paranoid society.

No no no no no no.

Have you not listened to our fantastic government. We should all be scared and vigilant against terrorists, criminals, asylum seekers, TV licence dodgers or anyone else who threatens our way of life.

What? Where did you get that from then? No I just don't disagree with the goverments plan, I realise what damage a knife can do to a human body, and I applued any efferts to stop our youth carrying them.

Even if it involves people giving up private property when they had nothing in connection with these crimes?

Even if it involves people giving up private property when they had nothing in connection with these crimes?

What are you talking about? In this country it is against the law to carry a blade in the street over a certian length, that is not to say the police want all the carving knifes in your house. But if you own a 9 inch sheaf knife, that you really don't use, instead of letting you 15 year old wonder around the streets with it(which would be illeagal) the give it in, or keep it hidden for when you go camping, or do whatever you like with it.

The point is youth, and knifes. Not adults and knifes, not nesicerliy criminals and knifes, the whole point, as somebody has already said, is to stop our youth carrying and useing knifes against each other. Now you answer me this, do you really, say this is a bad thing to do, really?

Even if it involves people giving up private property when they had nothing in connection with these crimes?

But a key thing in this amnesty is that it is volutary. Are people not allowed to voluntarily give up their property?

Heheh sooo just who was it that come to take away your pointy things?

The british pointy and possibly dangerous object police?

I didn't speak up when they came for the semiautomatic rifles, because I didn't own one.

I didn't speak up when they came for my dad's deer rifle, because I didn't own one.

I didn't speak up when they came for the single-shot rifles, because I didn't own one

I didn't speak up when they came for my brother's marine service knife, because I didn't own one.

When they came to take away anything pointey, sharp, or serrated I was alone, because there was noone left.

It's a slippery slope folks.
Sure...

I miss the good old days, when angry and agressive people
could go down to the pub with their semiautomatic rifles and get stinking drunk, because no drunk person has ever overreacted to anything in the history of mankind. :rolleyes:

The point is that they aren't taking away your knives, you can own as many knives as you like and pretend to be Angelina Jolie in the privacy of your own home. They are redusing the risks of fatalities by not letting you walk around armed with offensive weaponry in public places - bars, schools, stadiums etc.

Knives are offensive weapons. If you're afraid of getting attacked, get a defensive one instead. (Pepper spray, for eksample...)

What are you talking about? In this country it is against the law to carry a blade in the street over a certian length, that is not to say the police want all the carving knifes in your house. But if you own a 9 inch sheaf knife, that you really don't use, instead of letting you 15 year old wonder around the streets with it(which would be illeagal) the give it in, or keep it hidden for when you go camping, or do whatever you like with it.

The point is youth, and knifes. Not adults and knifes, not nesicerliy criminals and knifes, the whole point, as somebody has already said, is to stop our youth carrying and useing knifes against each other. Now you answer me this, do you really, say this is a bad thing to do, really?

No, I don't think keeping kids from hurting each other is a bad thing. I'm just saying that this is taking the most assanine way about it. Encouraging people to give up thier personal property in the name of safety instead of holding those doing said acts responsible is a pretty bad way of going about it.

But a key thing in this amnesty is that it is volutary. Are people not allowed to voluntarily give up their property?

See above.

No, I don't think keeping kids from hurting each other is a bad thing. I'm just saying that this is taking the most assanine way about it. Encouraging people to give up thier personal property in the name of safety instead of holding those doing said acts responsible is a pretty bad way of going about it.

Who says that those responsible aren't being dealt with?

The knife anmesty is running in tandem with other measures. It is not the only thing being done.

Who says that those responsible aren't being dealt with?

The knife anmesty is running in tandem with other measures. It is not the only thing being done.

So, what are those involved getting?

*headdesk*

Knife amnesty, eh? Maybe I should hand in my tongue.

I read last year that some doctors organization in the UK was trying to get all large kitchen knives banned as well. Anyone happen to know what happened with that?

I read last year that some doctors organization in the UK was trying to get all large kitchen knives banned as well. Anyone happen to know what happened with that?


It was derided then. This, however, looks to be the edge of the wedge.

It was derided then. This, however, looks to be the edge of the wedge.

No pun intended? :D

I am betting that more people are killed by cars in Britain (and wounded or maimed) than by knives.

Pretty soon, someone witty will glom on to that statistic, and that will be the end of driving in Britain.

good, maybe that'll help reduce global warming.
I live in britain, but I still think a knife amnesty is stupid, gun amnsety fine, as guns are banned and mostly not used for innocent things,but knives are in everyones houses used for perfecty innocent things like cooking.Why hand in your kitchen knives today when you'll just need to by a new set tommorow?
its just another public relations exercise after the release of dangerous criminals a few weeks ago to make people think the police are doing a goos job.f-in pigs.

This is why I laugh at the UK government, Canada, etc.
I laugh more often at your government , as does most of the world,your president cant speak properly, doged the draught for the vietnam war,,put more people to death as governor of texas than any other governer in history and your vice president nearly killed someone by shooting them.I would laugh more if it wasnt so serious.anyway enough of the rant-I dont like my govt much either.

This is stupidity. Blair should abandon Thatcherism and make the UK a more equal society. A happy, equal society is a crimeless society.
hear hear, son of thatcher should go, and son of blair(cameron) should go too.

All weapons are tools, even if I personally don't like the purpose they are designed for. Taking away weapons won't take care of violence any more than banning drugs solves the drug problem. I am sick of governments wasting time on bullshit band-aid posturing.
Sigged

I think beer bottles should be banned. When broken, they can slice you up almost as badly as a knife!

I think beer bottles should be banned. When broken, they can slice you up almost as badly as a knife!

IIRC, aren't the majority of injuries/deaths in the UK alcohol related?

I read last year that some doctors organization in the UK was trying to get all large kitchen knives banned as well. Anyone happen to know what happened with that?

Nobody cared about it then. Everyone bar the "OMFG LIBRUL BRITS ARE WOOSIES!" brigade has forgotten it ever tried to raise it's head.

let me break this down.

1) Youths are using large knives as status symbols and weapons. neither is a legitemate use (do I hear anyone arguing?)

2) The police are allowing them to hand in these weapons without fear of arrest if they do.

3) Joe Schmoe who has a knife to do gardening with has nothing to do with the case. I have a penknife and a larger blade, both of which I use on camp or if I need to use them. I occasionally carry them about my person for this purpose. The police do not give a shit.

4) What the fuck is the problem with that?

IIRC, aren't the majority of injuries/deaths in the UK alcohol related?
It's certainly a large proportion of them. Which is one of the reasons for this stiffening attitude on the casual carrying of knives. It isn't so much an issue with broken bottles, because much of it takes place after closing time on the streets outside, with drunken belligerents kicking seven hells out of each other, which is why people casually carrying around knives for some misguided sense of protection is a very, very bad idea. In fact the only serious crime I've personally witnessed in Britain is an alcohol fuelled knife fight.

It's certainly a large proportion of them. Which is one of the reasons for this stiffening attitude on the casual carrying of knives. It isn't so much an issue with broken bottles, because much of it takes place after closing time on the streets outside, with drunken belligerents kicking seven hells out of each other, which is why people casually carrying around knives for some misguided sense of protection is a very, very bad idea. In fact the only serious crime I've personally witnessed in Britain is an alcohol fuelled knife fight.

So which goes back to my point. Do you honestly think the people who are carrying around knives (already illegally) while they go on their drinking binges, to show off to their friends, or to commit other crimes w/ them will bother turning them in?

Amnesties are a feel good measure only that have never had a real effect on crime.

So which goes back to my point. Do you honestly think the people who are carrying around knives (already illegally) while they go on their drinking binges, to show off to their friends, or to commit other crimes w/ them will bother turning them in?

Amnesties are a feel good measure only that have never had a real effect on crime.
What they do do is give a very firm statement of intent that the government takes the issue seriously, and that from that point on it will be treated severely. So when you do stop people outside pubs and find they're carrying knives then they can't make an excuse that they didn't think it was too illegal. While the more law abiding people who do take advantage of the amnesty, who perhaps hadn't considered the criminality of their actions, are less likely to wind up penalised.

Why do all threads made by Americans insult us Brits in one form or another?
I mean, are America's internal affairs so great that they have to laugh at other countrys decisions just to see if it makes them feel better? (Oh wait, they are, oh, and thats exactly what they try to do.)

I'm sure the police have said something like, "If you are carrying cookin knives, and have a place to be, you can carry on." rule.

But how many 12-16 year old carry cooking knives? Not many. Young people see things on TV and think it looks cool. Sure, this isn't gonna stop crime, but at least we're trying, unlike you yanks, who believe that the only way you can defend yourself is with some kind of weapon. Give it a chance...

Actually dont be speaking for all Yanks or even some Yanks..

I see the big difference between the Gun culture of the US and ..well most of the world..and I admire the fact a policeman can do his job UNARMED .

It ceates a different mindset . And i think it reflects well on that society as a whole .

But I live in the US and consider owning and using firearms my right as an adult .

" The US was founded on the basic principle that the people need to be protected by from GOVERNMENT as well as from CRIMINALS" .

I guess you would have to go back and consider our short history as a nation to understand why we feel we have the right to our firearms .
It also doesnt take very much study to find out that we are a very violent country..cops and criminals ..and have been all throughout our history .

Those that think by disarming the honest non criminals , before they find a way to deal with those that see the rest of society as prey , are doomed to failure. MY reality is in Philadelphia ...I refuse to go unarmed as well as I refuse to be considered " prey " by anyone . and that includes my government .
Its a common mindset among my peers..we cant afford to be " liberal " about it...we could actually die for it . Or be crippled or otherwise harmed...when you can change that reality get back to me .
Dont try to disarm me untill you can protect me and my family . Not that much to ask for is it ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.
Yes ... pretty soon ...
they'll have us all working in industrial settings around large machinery that will shear off our testicles and penis and the transformation of empowered to subservient will be complete.
Corporate agenda-ho!

You do realise we're dealing here with the UK?

Meanwhile, I fail to see your 'shouldn't have to be'.
Do you intend to pay in person the debt accrued by your pro-weapon position to Kiyan's mother?

Indeed I do realise that we're talking about the UK. Any antique Nihonto and older swords are required to be registered with a UK based organisation, although for the life of me I can't remember the name.

As for Kiyan's mother and the debt the young man who diabolically took her sons life, it's his responsibility. But still IMHO a knife or sword shouldn't have to be registered, and even if they were, would everyone do so? Doubtful.

A person who has such a tool/weapon has to accept the responsibility for their actions and I doubt a registered tool/weapon would be any less likely to kill than an unregistered one.

3) Joe Schmoe who has a knife to do gardening with has nothing to do with the case. I have a penknife and a larger blade, both of which I use on camp or if I need to use them. I occasionally carry them about my person for this purpose. The police do not give a shit.

Right. The example I gave proves that this isn't true. The police do give a shit as you so eloquently put it.

Actually dont be speaking for all Yanks or even some Yanks..

I see the big difference between the Gun culture of the US and ..well most of the world..and I admire the fact a policeman can do his job UNARMED .

It ceates a different mindset . And i think it reflects well on that society as a whole .

But I live in the US and consider owning and using firearms my right as an adult .

" The US was founded on the basic principle that the people need to be protected by from GOVERNMENT as well as from CRIMINALS" .

I guess you would have to go back and consider our short history as a nation to understand why we feel we have the right to our firearms .
It also doesnt take very much study to find out that we are a very violent country..cops and criminals ..and have been all throughout our history .

Those that think by disarming the honest non criminals , before they find a way to deal with those that see the rest of society as prey , are doomed to failure. MY reality is in Philadelphia ...I refuse to go unarmed as well as I refuse to be considered " prey " by anyone . and that includes my government .
Its a common mindset among my peers..we cant afford to be " liberal " about it...we could actually die for it . Or be crippled or otherwise harmed...when you can change that reality get back to me .
Dont try to disarm me untill you can protect me and my family . Not that much to ask for is it ?

I am tired to hear about the US and its "violent past" crap as an excuse to own firearms in an massive way. every nation has a violent past. Look at the UK, for example, they have waged more wars than you will likely wage in two centuries.

Your reality is Philadelphia? Wow. I am scared. Go and spend three months in Cidade de Deus in Sâo Paulo. Maybe Philly is a tough place, but it's first world in any case. Watch the per capite stats of the metropolis in the third world. Most people face THAT reality unarmed and survive, including me.

You die because giving to all of you the right to own a gun, you give every wacko and criminal in your country the right to own a lot of them, and so able to mug you, steal you, rape you and abuse you. No guns, no lethal and absolute advantage of a human being against another.

And Kellarly is just mad at the fact that a pair of cops left his dad without his toy...Nothing more

And Kellarly is just mad at the fact that a pair of cops left his dad without his toy...Nothing more

Her. Her Dad.

I am tired to hear about the US and its "violent past" crap as an excuse to own firearms in an massive way. every nation has a violent past. Look at the UK, for example, they have waged more wars than you will likely wage in two centuries.

Haven't we been around about two centuries and some?

You die because giving to all of you the right to own a gun, you give every wacko and criminal in your country the right to own a lot of them, and so able to mug you, steal you, rape you and abuse you. No guns, no lethal and absolute advantage of a human being against another.

Actually, I think it's a bit troublesome, getting a gun with a criminal record. oh, and by the way, as soon as you develop so way of removing all the guns and stopping someone from making another, maybe we can talk. Also, sometimes just being stronger is all someone needs to mug, rape or abuse you, so if you could also make everyone exactly the same in terms of physical condition, that'd be cool.

Her dad, then. Sorry.

I fix my statement...In your entire history plus the next two centuries

Relating Criminal records...And how people get his first criminal record? People do not born criminal, they TURN into criminals, and usually already have a gun when the turn occurs. That argument is flawed to the core. Even you could someday turn into a criminal.

Argument relating people creating guns...We would have police for that, after all, they would be few of them. No need for every one of us to have a gun

If you face someone stronger...Run, or talk...It works, it really does, as often as guns, and brings lesser consequences.

So you have any evidence for this? Why should the criminals be the only ones that are armed?

I have never seen a knife kill anyone. It's an inanimate object. Perhaps the authorities should focus on the people who are using them to kill people.

Exactly, people need to remember the old adage "knives don't kill people, people kill people".

Which is exactly why I believe people should be allowed to possess stocks of chemical and biological weapons in addition to a reliable means of distributing them amongst the population precisely because it's not the WEAPON but rather the PEOPLE that are the problem.

Or is that logical continuation of your point of view utterly retarded?

Relating Criminal records...And how people get his first criminal record? People do not born criminal, they TURN into criminals, and usually already have a gun when the turn occurs. That argument is flawed to the core. Even you could someday turn into a criminal.

Oooh, pre-crime. Hooray! Restrict the rights of innocents because they might abuse them.

Argument relating people creating guns...We would have police for that, after all, they would be few of them. No need for every one of us to have a gun

Wha? What do the police have to do with it? Someone could make a gun with some very simply materials in their own house.

If you face someone stronger...Run, or talk...It works, it really does, as often as guns, and brings lesser consequences.

Errmm...Source?

Wha? What do the police have to do with it? Someone could make a gun with some very simply materials in their own house.

Errmm...Source?

It's true, yesterday on Blue Peter they made a modified version of the AK-47 with a small colouring crayon, an old shoestring, an empty cereal packet and a small packet of lube.

Make a gun in their own home? Don't make me laugh.

The right of innocents to carry a gun?, hell yeah it should be restricted...The problem of you americans is that you actually think it's a right!, true innocent people do not need a gun at all...

Police to restrict those few able to fabricate guns...

Source?...Me

The right of innocents to carry a gun?, hell yeah it should be restricted...The problem of you americans is that you actually think it's a right!, true innocent people do not need a gun at all...

*shrug* There's recreational gun activities, and there's always self/home-defense uses.

Police to restrict those few able to fabricate guns...

It's not "a few". I just googled it.

Source?...Me

What? You? Maybe you can link me to your studies.


Yeah, that running or talking to someone planning on, let's say...raping you "works...as often as guns, and brings lesser consequences."

I am tired to hear about the US and its "violent past" crap as an excuse to own firearms in an massive way. every nation has a violent past. Look at the UK, for example, they have waged more wars than you will likely wage in two centuries.

Your reality is Philadelphia? Wow. I am scared. Go and spend three months in Cidade de Deus in Sâo Paulo. Maybe Philly is a tough place, but it's first world in any case. Watch the per capite stats of the metropolis in the third world. Most people face THAT reality unarmed and survive, including me.

You die because giving to all of you the right to own a gun, you give every wacko and criminal in your country the right to own a lot of them, and so able to mug you, steal you, rape you and abuse you. No guns, no lethal and absolute advantage of a human being against another.

Sorry but you die when you put yourself in a position to be killed and someone wants to kill you . A person has to make the decision that your life must end and you have to be there for it to happen . if you want to be stupid and walk around a know high crime area without the proper precautions then you are taking a chance with your life . You have decided to roll the dice and have put yourself in a position to be raped ,mugged , beaten or killed ...or all of the above . So dont give me the third world first world bullshit..we all die the same way . Most people survive in the US unarmed..but some of us choose to work in area's that are " HIGH CRIME " I work in the inner city with homeless and mentaly disabled people ...I choose to do this and put my life at risk willingly...but if you want it you must take it ..I wont just give it to you . This isnt a dick waving contest as to who has the worst criminal enviroment...Criminals have no right to have a gun its against the law for them to murder, rob, rape, and steal, so what makes you think they will follow a gun law ?
Again you try with a simple idealistic argument to change reality .
You still have not shown me how you can protect me after I have been disarmed . Of course I could just find a different job and take my chances in another part of the city without as much violent crime ...but then who does my job ?
I live in the US I need no excuse to own a gun . Its my right and my obligation as an American and an able adult to be responsibile with that right . I do not need the government to hold my hand like a child .
Maybe thats why the US is such a successfull and prosperous nation .
Most people want to think and act for themselves with as little government interferance as possible...and they believe in personal responsibility .
you come from a different culture ..it seems to be not quite as independent and competitive as ours . Thats why I asked you to look back at how this country was founded and the principles it was founded on ...thats the only way I can see you even comming near an understanding of what an " American " is ...and why we seem to like our right to bear arms .

Yes, me, my opinion, as valid as yours, that is the only thing you have presented in this thread.

How many times have a man twice your weight and size have tried to rape you?. I bet none. Me, it had happened twice. And running and talking was the best option, worked two times and I didn't get damaged. That makes me as experienced as any of you

Yes, me, my opinion, as valid as yours, that is the only thing you have presented in this thread.

How many times have a man twice your weight and size have tried to rape you?. I bet none. Me, it had happened twice. And running and talking was the best option, worked two times and I didn't get damaged. That makes me as experienced as any of you


I have had someone shoot at me at close range with a shotgun during a robbery attempt ...he missed I did not and have had a few attempts at muggings..because I carry a firearm I am alive and unhurt those that wished me harm are in jail ..one with a few extra holes he didnt have when he was born .

And BTW the minute they attempted to rob me using a weapon ...I had every right to use deadly force..I did not except for the idiot with the shotgun..he didnt die..but thats his luck .

So whats your point ?

I have had someone shoot at me at close range with a shotgun during a robbery attempt ...he missed I did not and have had a few attempts at muggings..because I carry a firearm I am alive and unhurt those that wished me harm are in jail ..one with a few extra holes he didnt have when he was born .

And BTW the minute they attempted to rob me using a weapon ...I had every right to use deadly force..I did not except for the idiot with the shotgun..he didnt die..but thats his luck .

So whats your point ?

You were certainly justified in shooting him, yet do you not think that were guns not so readily available in the US he might not have had a firearm in the first place?

Just make a stop at Home Depot?

I think it's highly unlikely that any more than 0.1% of the population with have either the skills or the knowledge to make even the crudest of firearms at home.

You were certainly justified in shooting him, yet do you not think that were guns not so readily available in the US he might not have had a firearm in the first place?


BUT they are . all the idealism in the world will not change that fact...you cant just press abutton and have them all disapear !....Cripes even if you do what then ? A criminal will just use a knife to rob you kill you or rape you.
Maybe just a baseball bat ...he might just beat the living shit out of you with his or her bare hands .
What makes you think the total eradication of GUNS of all types will change anything even if you could pull that miracle off ?

So we all go back to wearing swords ? Thats why friggin GUNS were invented !

Fix the criminals and the problem of violent crime...fix the mind set that says " I can kill that guy and take his stuff " ...the tools can do nothing on their own ..

Next, the pointy sticks! Then, the bananas!

I think it's highly unlikely that any more than 0.1% of the population with have either the skills or the knowledge to make even the crudest of firearms at home.

Tons of people build their own AKs in the USA. Perfectly legal and easy.

Google zip gun .

In fact give me 3/4 " iron pipe an end cap a drill and some black powder a piece of clothe and some roofing nails and about a half an hour and I'll make you a nice little shot gun ...all you need is a lighter or a match to touch it off .

lots of people build black powder weapons as a hobby using " old " methods or kits...and some even go as far as making their own powder..all you need for bullets is a mold and some lead ...you can easily make your own bullet mold.

If a 13 year old kid can make a potato cannon he can make a gunpowder weapon.

I'd stick with the potato gun. The one I use can put half a potato through a 3/4 inch thick sheet of plywood at about 100-150 feet. And that for those of you who aren't familiar with the device, uses a 3-foot long piece of 3-inch plastic tubing, a sealed endcap with a screwlid and a spark generator from a gas barbeque. A can of crappy hairspray for propellant is all that is needed to fire several ounces of tuber at some rather nasty velocities. Damn thing is a blast!

The road to hell is paved with good, but impractical intentions.
Good quote. *bows*

"Sir! Put down the butterknife and step away from the table!" :D
"Sir! I only use that cheesegrater for ... relief of sexual tension! Never as a weapon!"

You use a cheesegrater for......:eek:

PLEASE GET THE IMAGE OUT OF MY BRAIN!!!!!!!

You use a cheesegrater for......:eek:

PLEASE GET THE IMAGE OUT OF MY BRAIN!!!!!!!
*puts hand to back of ear, cups*

Yes, the sounds of another satisfied customer. *nods*

*hands Duntscruwithus a small jar of wasabe*
You know what to do. You know when to do it.

BUT they are . all the idealism in the world will not change that fact...you cant just press abutton and have them all disapear !....Cripes even if you do what then ? A criminal will just use a knife to rob you kill you or rape you.
Maybe just a baseball bat ...he might just beat the living shit out of you with his or her bare hands .
What makes you think the total eradication of GUNS of all types will change anything even if you could pull that miracle off ?

So we all go back to wearing swords ? Thats why friggin GUNS were invented !

Fix the criminals and the problem of violent crime...fix the mind set that says " I can kill that guy and take his stuff " ...the tools can do nothing on their own ..

Guns are a far more effective and dangerous weapon than a knife, it's far easy to commit a crime using a firearm than with a knife or a baseball bat. It's also far easy to kill someone using a gun than it is a more primitive weapon (whether that is the person's intent or not). I also think that weapons tend to favour the aggressor since most of the time the victim of the crime will not be carrying a weapon since they merely want to go about their lives without hassle.

The tools can do nothing on their own as you say - does that mean you would support an individuals right to possess stocks of chemical and biological weapons because "the tools can do nothing on their own".

I am anti-guns, but I sympathise with the dangers of living in a violent neighbourhood and how that would motivate someone such as yourself to carry one. I also realise that simply because guns are outlawed will not stop many people from carrying them. Logistically and legally I think the prospect of guns being banned in the US and the state being able to enforce the ban in the foreseeable future is minimal. The pragmatist in me states that whilst a blanket ban on guns would make for a better society, more feasible policies aimed at curbing gun crime should be persued in the short term.

Playing cards are deadly weapons in the hands of the right assassin.

The point is that you have to be the right assassin in order to learn to kill with playing cards.

The government wants to restrict death to those who take the time to learn it as a skill, and fair play to them, I reckon. Any stupid bastard can kill with a sword or cleaver; it takes real finesse to do it with a bottle opener.

Right. I don't even need a weapon to kill. Hands, an elbow, a pen, whatever...

If I actually wanted to kill someone (which I don't), a ban on knives isn't going to stop me. But it might just stop the average Joe from killing easily.

That said, I don't like this anymore than DK does.

No, I don't think keeping kids from hurting each other is a bad thing. I'm just saying that this is taking the most assanine way about it. Encouraging people to give up thier personal property in the name of safety instead of holding those doing said acts responsible is a pretty bad way of going about it.


Perhaps but then think of it this way, would you rarher say to a 15 year old come hand in the knife and no trouble will come of it, or arrest them for having it? What is going to work better do you think, a knife amnesty, or go around nicking all them teenagers?

good, maybe that'll help reduce global warming.
I live in britain, but I still think a knife amnesty is stupid, gun amnsety fine, as guns are banned and mostly not used for innocent things,but knives are in everyones houses used for perfecty innocent things like cooking.Why hand in your kitchen knives today when you'll just need to by a new set tommorow?
its just another public relations exercise after the release of dangerous criminals a few weeks ago to make people think the police are doing a goos job.f-in pigs.


Shit are you people really that thick? No one is asking you to hand in you kitchen knifes, no one is asking you to hand in any thing. The police have called a knife amnesty, this means that if you are a teenager and you are in the habit of carrying a knife for 'protection' then you can get rid of it no questions asked. It is designed to get our youth away from knifes and thus save their lives. At the moment where I live in London there are police going around the schools at this time as well talking to the kids about the dangers of not only knife wounds, but carrying knifes aswell.

It is not a bad idea, their is nothing wrong with wanting to stop our youth carrying nifes and this has been effective in the past, it is not the first such amnety I have seen and I doubt it will be the last. For all those that think it is a bad idea, then there really is no hope for you.

Actually dont be speaking for all Yanks or even some Yanks..

I see the big difference between the Gun culture of the US and ..well most of the world..and I admire the fact a policeman can do his job UNARMED .

It ceates a different mindset . And i think it reflects well on that society as a whole .

But I live in the US and consider owning and using firearms my right as an adult .

" The US was founded on the basic principle that the people need to be protected by from GOVERNMENT as well as from CRIMINALS" .

I guess you would have to go back and consider our short history as a nation to understand why we feel we have the right to our firearms .
It also doesnt take very much study to find out that we are a very violent country..cops and criminals ..and have been all throughout our history .

Those that think by disarming the honest non criminals , before they find a way to deal with those that see the rest of society as prey , are doomed to failure. MY reality is in Philadelphia ...I refuse to go unarmed as well as I refuse to be considered " prey " by anyone . and that includes my government .
Its a common mindset among my peers..we cant afford to be " liberal " about it...we could actually die for it . Or be crippled or otherwise harmed...when you can change that reality get back to me .
Dont try to disarm me untill you can protect me and my family . Not that much to ask for is it ?


You make a good point and I for one do applaued the American fathers foresight in alowing arms to be bared, especialy as history teaches us that bad goverments are generaly over thrown by the populace when they get bad enough. But consider the differances in attitude and culture that you talk about between our nations, I can't help but wonder how much differant(if any)you would have been if it wasn't for your gun culture?

Sorry if I'm slow today but I'm wondering why anybody has a problem with this. Nothing is getting banned, there are no new laws being inacted and the legal status of knives in the UK is exactly the same as it was before. Its just an amnesty for people to drop off knives so they will no longer be on the streets and its not mandatory.

Last time this happened knife crime went down a significant amount so I ask again, how is this a bad thing?

I think it's highly unlikely that any more than 0.1% of the population with have either the skills or the knowledge to make even the crudest of firearms at home.


Anybody can make a gun, instructions are all over the net, and the most important thing is the barrel be true, which you just go and buy so no skilled maching to do.

I think it's highly unlikely that any more than 0.1% of the population with have either the skills or the knowledge to make even the crudest of firearms at home.

Umm...did you even read the instructions posted directly under that? I could do it now, as could most anyone else with the internet.

...more feasible policies aimed at curbing gun crime should be persued in the short term.

Why not, I dunno...Policies against crime in general? Maybe you can figure out what actually causes the crimes, rather than banning the tools used.

Why not, I dunno...Policies against crime in general? Maybe you can figure out what actually causes the crimes, rather than banning the tools used.

That is so stupid, I know chaps until we can figure out a way for people to stop shooting each other, you can carry on, no mate keep the gun! I can't stop you using it, and some prat on the net said it would be a good idea to just let you have it.

Why not do both?

No, the person who commited the crime should be held responsible for the crime.

It would be kinda like sueing Boeing and AOPA because airliners make effective cruise missles.


BS.

If you oppose strict legislation to stop crime, you become an accomplice of the criminal.
If even ONE crime occurs, that means that we as a Society are not serious enough about zero-tolerance.
If you don't support a total eradication of knife-play, you are indeed co-responsible for the death of Kiyan.

Her. Her Dad.
Kellarly isn't a girl. :eek:

Is he (she)?

Kellarly isn't a girl. :eek:

Is he (she)?

Nope, not a girl. Most definietly male.

http://www.thehighroad.org/library/blades/knifelaws.html
Brief summary of [Practical] Blade Length limits for Knife Carry in the U.S.

Might be of use. Seems like some States are also quite rigid.

And Kellarly is just mad at the fact that a pair of cops left his dad without his toy...Nothing more

Ahem, taking away property that was legally his (my grandfather by the way) and that he was legally entitled to carry.

You fail to see a problem with this?


My point as I have been trying to say all along is that people will need knives in certain jobs and also many people needs knives to perform every day tasks as they are the most useful tool for the job.

I support the amnesty, but what I don't support is the portrayal of everyone who has a knife as a potential murderer etc. I think a ban is moronic and it will doubtless be as effective as banning guns, i.e. not. Those who want the weapons will get them either way.

But yet the amnesty is a good thing as it allows those who wish to get away from knife crime do so in a peaceful manner. Of that I have no objection.

But as bog marsh says;


BS.

If you oppose strict legislation to stop crime, you become an accomplice of the criminal.
If even ONE crime occurs, that means that we as a Society are not serious enough about zero-tolerance.
If you don't support a total eradication of knife-play, you are indeed co-responsible for the death of Kiyan.

No, you are speaking BS.

I am not responsible for how another acts. The criminal committed his own crime and I am not even close to that being my responsibility.

I wish for knives to be legal as they are the best tools for many jobs. Do I wish them to be legal for fighting? No, not a chance. Does that make me an accomplice in Kiyan's death. No.

How you came to that conclusion I have no idea, but it seems you wish to blame everyone but the single teenager who took Kiyan's life. Each is responsible for his/her own actions and it's utter BS that you should say that because we need a knife for a job occasionally that we're responsible in some way for Kiyan's death.

But as bog marsh says;



No, you are speaking BS.

I am not responsible for how another acts. The criminal committed his own crime and I am not even close to that being my responsibility.

I wish for knives to be legal as they are the best tools for many jobs. Do I wish them to be legal for fighting? No, not a chance. Does that make me an accomplice in Kiyan's death. No.

How you came to that conclusion I have no idea, but it seems you wish to blame everyone but the single teenager who took Kiyan's life. Each is responsible for his/her own actions and it's utter BS that you should say that because we need a knife for a job occasionally that we're responsible in some way for Kiyan's death.


No. In any civilised country, you are your brother's keeper.

The guy who challenged that assumption was the murderer Kain.

I think examples where people legitimately carrying knives have them confiscated are going to be rare exceptions. The police don't have the manpower to randomly stop and search people just in the street on a large scale. I would be very surprised if they didn't concentrate on school children and drunk people outside pubs. And in those circumstances you shouldn't really have a knife.

No. In any civilised country, you are your brother's keeper.

The guy who challenged that assumption was the murderer Kain.

BS. It varies from every country, even you should know that. Throwing slogans as a point of proof is nothing. Any proof of that in law?

BS. It varies from every country, even you should know that. Throwing slogans as a point of proof is nothing.

Ah so? Ask Obama Barak then.
He used the My Brothers Keeper thing at the DNC Convention - and I agree 100%.

EDIT: Make that 110%.

Ah so? Ask Obama Barak then.
He used the My Brothers Keeper thing at the DNC Convention - and I agree 100%.

Wait, so a Democratic Senator in the states who quoted one of said statement suddenly wholly validates your arguement?

Nope, didn't think so.

You may agree with him. I for one only partially do.

You can advise your brother, you can give him rules to abide by and you can tell him that he will be punished if he does break thouse rules. But can you stop him having his own mind and the free will to do that?

No.

Wait, so a Democratic Senator in the states who quoted one of said statement suddenly wholly validates your arguement?

Nope, didn't think so.

You may agree with him. I for one only partially do.

You can advise your brother, you can give him rules to abide by and you can tell him that he will be punished if he does break thouse rules. But can you stop him having his own mind and the free will to do that?

No.


BS.
Totally take the knives away, and there ain't no stabbings.
Logic - pure and simple.

You CAN order your brother, and you can stuff anyone into Bridewell if they don't simply OBEY laws.

BS.
Totally take the knives away, and there ain't no stabbings.
Logic - pure and simple.

You CAN order your brother, and you can stuff anyone into Bridewell if they don't simply OBEY laws.

Fail to see that logic.

You think that by taking away the knives there will be no stabbings? Wrong, your logic is flawed. By taking away the knives you have one less instrument through which a murder can be committed. To take away all stabbings you have to remove all screwdrivers, nails, broken bottles, axes, hammers, forks, garden tools etc etc.

So I'll call BS on you.

You can order your brother, maybe yes. But can you stop him having the will to not obey? No. That was my point, and unless you wish to brain wash every single person who thinks differently to you, your going to have to accept the fact that your opposition to knives and your ludicrous logic that makes you believe that by simply having barring one form of pointed steel object that another one in a different guise will not take its place.

Fail to see that logic.

You think that by taking away the knives there will be no stabbings? Wrong, your logic is flawed. By taking away the knives you have one less instrument through which a murder can be committed. To take away all stabbings you have to remove all screwdrivers, nails, broken bottles, axes, hammers, forks, garden tools etc etc.

So I'll call BS on you.

You can order your brother, maybe yes. But can you stop him having the will to not obey? No. That was my point, and unless you wish to brain wash every single person who thinks differently to you, your going to have to accept the fact that your opposition to knives and your ludicrous logic that makes you believe that by simply having barring one form of pointed steel object that another one in a different guise will not take its place.


See, that's why we got Government.
So it can enacts Laws.
And anyone who doesn't simply OBEY those laws can then become one of Her Majesty's prisoners.

So, if the UK simply passes a Law banning knives ( as seems increasingly likely ) we can simply stuff knifecarriers into Brideswell.

Simple, innit?

And we can make the same law about sharpened screwdrivers, hammers, and the like.

Simple, innit?

See, that's why we got Government.
So it can enacts Laws.
And anyone who doesn't simply OBEY those laws can then become one of Her Majesty's prisoners.

So, if the UK simply passes a Law banning knives ( as seems increasingly likely ) we can simply stuff knifecarriers into Brideswell.

Simple, innit?

And we can make the same law about sharpened screwdrivers, hammers, and the like.

Simple, innit?

No, it's not that simple.

You start banning screwdrivers (you don't need to make it sharp for it to stab someone), hammers etc. you'll stop being able to maintain your car, put up furniture and even make any of this stuff as you will have got rid of the tools to do it, because they were 'dangerous'. Yeah right, another less than lucidly thought out point.

So thats a BS argument.

As for your 'point' about government, you've missed the point of my arguement entirely. You may have the laws enacted to stop such things, but you will never stop a person having the free will to do such a thing. Your simplistic view that just because there is a law it will stop the crime doesn't incorporate the thought that those who wish to commit such crime will just use another tool for their endeavours.

An example that covers both your arguements.

A boy outside my school was beaten with a piece of water piping and then hit with a brick. By your logic we should ban all bricks and piping, therefore not allowing us to build houses or pipe water to aforementioned houses. This took place in a country with access to knives and it would happen in country with no access to knives.

So, if the UK simply passes a Law banning knives ( as seems increasingly likely ) we can simply stuff knifecarriers into Brideswell.

Simple, innit?

Not really. Knives are far too useful to be completely banned.

No, it's not that simple.

You start banning screwdrivers (you don't need to make it sharp for it to stab someone), hammers etc. you'll stop being able to maintain your car, put up furniture and even make any of this stuff as you will have got rid of the tools to do it, because they were 'dangerous'. Yeah right, another less than lucidly thought out point.

So thats a BS argument.

As for your 'point' about government, you've missed the point of my arguement entirely. You may have the laws enacted to stop such things, but you will never stop a person having the free will to do such a thing. Your simplistic view that just because there is a law it will stop the crime doesn't incorporate the thought that those who wish to commit such crime will just use another tool for their endeavours.

An example that covers both your arguements.

A boy outside my school was beaten with a piece of water piping and then hit with a brick. By your logic we should ban all bricks and piping, therefore not allowing us to build houses or pipe water to aforementioned houses. This took place in a country with access to knives and it would happen in country with no access to knives.

*snarls*
Who cares about your strawman logic?

Which part of simply OBEYING laws is too difficult for you?

Obeying as in :
Yessir, yessir, 2 buckets full sir?

*snarls*
Who cares about your strawman logic?

Which part of simply OBEYING laws is too difficult for you?

Obeying as in :
Yessir, yessir, 2 buckets full sir?

Ow, my head :(

*snarls*
Who cares about your strawman logic?

Which part of simply OBEYING laws is too difficult for you?

Obeying as in :
Yessir, yessir, 2 buckets full sir?

Getting slightly frustrated?

None of it is too difficult to understand, you just seem to avoid the point about the free will of someone who will no hold those laws any respect, which is integeral to the point you are trying to make about obeying laws.

Still wanting to ban screw drivers are we?

Not really. Knives are far too useful to be completely banned.

I've been trying to make this point, but it's not getting through... :(

Getting slightly frustrated?

None of it is too difficult to understand, you just seem to avoid the point about the free will of someone who will no hold those laws any respect, which is integeral to the point you are trying to make about obeying laws.

Still wanting to ban screw drivers are we?


As you may know, it is kind of easy to pick out the chums who won't be good little citizens, you can usually do so already in Kindergarten.
They don't like standing in lines when ordered, they don't shut up when ordered...

When a Ban is enacted, anyone who disobeys that ban is to be dealt with in the most severe legal fashion.

Meanwhile, EITHER one does ones utmost to see to it that there are no stabbings, OR one does not - and is an accesssory to the crime.

As you may know, it is kind of easy to pick out the chums who won't be good little citizens, you can usually do so already in Kindergarten.
They don't like standing in lines when ordered, they don't shut up when ordered...

So, you're going to start picking up kids in playschool as the 'might' sometime in the future 'possibly' have something to do with crime.

You do know that 'Minority Report' isn't real don't you?

When a Ban is enacted, anyone who disobeys that ban is to be dealt with in the most severe legal fashion.

Meanwhile, EITHER one does ones utmost to see to it that there are no stabbings, OR one does not - and is an accesssory to the crime.

A ban will never happen, to many legal, safe and necessary uses for knives.

'Combat' knives may very well be banned, but not all. You want to be able to cook food etc? Which means that the legislation will be flawed from its very conception.

As for your constant idea that those who don't want knives banned means that we're all responsible for Kiyans death, i'll leave you to your 'Daily Mail' logic, caus from where I'm standing, it's BS.

*snarls*
Who cares about your strawman logic?

Which part of simply OBEYING laws is too difficult for you?

Obeying as in :
Yessir, yessir, 2 buckets full sir?


its already illegal to commit murder or assault so why do you need another law to ban knves ?

Wouldnt" logic " dictate that adding a law to ban knives was superfluous ?

and to take it further if you are already guilty of conspiracy to commit murder why would breaking another law bother you ?

its already illegal to commit murder or assault so why do you need another law to ban knves ?

Wouldnt" logic " dictate that adding a law to ban knives was superfluous ?

and to take it further if you are already guilty of conspiracy to commit murder why would breaking another law bother you ?


Oh, let me re-explain.
Our current law isn't doing enough.
So we need to tighten up.

its already illegal to commit murder or assault so why do you need another law to ban knves ?

Wouldnt" logic " dictate that adding a law to ban knives was superfluous ?

and to take it further if you are already guilty of conspiracy to commit murder why would breaking another law bother you ?

its already illegal to commit mass murder or assault so why do you need another law to ban tactical nuclear weapons ?

Wouldnt" logic " dictate that adding a law to ban tactical nukes was superfluous ?

and to take it further if you are already guilty of conspiracy to commit murder why would breaking another law bother you


For the record i dont think we should ban knives, not that the British government is proposing that (but no-one cares about that anyway). I just think the above argument is stupid.

Oh, let me re-explain.
Our current law isn't doing enough.
So we need to tighten up.


laws do nothing ..a covenant without a sword is just words..the laws need to be enforced to be effective . The other methods are just a smokescreen to make people feel like the " government " is doing something about a " problem " . All they are really doing is pissing on you and telling you its raining .

enforce the existing laws and the criminals will be put in jail..in the US carrying a concealed deadly weapon is against the law..a "knife " if found on a person durring while he is commiting a crime is considered a deadly weapon .
a knife found on a person while he is butchering a chicken is not a crime .
But walking around with a knife for protection is ALREADY against the law in most states in the US .

Are you saying that carrying a knife in Britain is legal ? If so then change the law about carrying knives . If its illegal ..enforce the friggin law you already have ..instead of adding another one you wont enforce or be able to .

I dont understand your logic ..if your government is so inept as to not be able to enforce the law it already has why would you expect them to do better by adding more ?

Oh, let me re-explain.
Our current law isn't doing enough.
So we need to tighten up.

I hope you never move into social engineering.

laws do nothing ..a covenant without a sword is just words..the laws need to be enforced to be effective . The other methods are just a smokescreen to make people feel like the " government " is doing something about a " problem " .

enforce the existing laws and the criminals will be put in jail..in the US carrying a concealed deadly weapon is against the law..a "knife " if found on a person durring while he is commiting a crime is considered a deadly weapon .
a knife found on a person while he is butchering a chicken is not a crime .
But walking around with a knife for protection is ALREADY against the law in most states in the US .

Are you saying that carrying a knife in Britain is legal ? If so then change the law about carrying knives . If its illegal ..enforce the friggin law you already have ..instead of adding another one you wont enforce or be able to .

I dont understand your logic ..if your government is so inept as to not be able to enforce the law it already has why would you expect them to do better by adding more ?

Tis plain as a pikestaff, really.
More laws, more checks, more CCTV, more Peelers on the street, more and tougher jails.
And - of course - we can start right off at the bat making it totally and completely illegal ( mandatory jailtime included ) for anyone under 18 to own a knife ( of any kind ) in the first place.
And Bob's your Uncle.

I hope you never move into social engineering.

As opposed to having Chavs doing the engineering?

Tis plain as a pikestaff, really.
More laws, more checks, more CCTV, more Peelers on the street, more and tougher jails.
And - of course - we can start right off at the bat making it totally and completely illegal ( mandatory jailtime included ) for anyone under 18 to own a knife ( of any kind ) in the first place.
And Bob's your Uncle.

Yay! Big Brother and lack of freedom!!!

*cheers*

Oh, and it'll never be as plain as I pike staff as because under these rules a pikestaff will be illegal...

As opposed to having Chavs doing the engineering?

Yes, because Anarchic Conceptions and me are both chavs...

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010954.stm

I wonder when they'll figure out that it's not the implements that cause crime, but various unattended social and mental ills.

I laughed so hard reading this. Now, in addition to my collection of guns here in the US, my set of steak and kitchen knives are now viewed by the UK as a fearful arsenal.

This has propably been said many times alraedy, but the fact remains that less there are guns around, more people will get beaten instead of shot when some of those socially&/mentally ills decide to go violent. That's a simply and proven fact, and I fail to see what in it is so hard to understand.

About the knives I dunno then... seems like a bit of over reacting. But better this way than the other way around, I'd say.

Hey, do you think if I killed someone with a rock, they'd ban them, too?

Ah so? Ask Obama Barak then.
He used the My Brothers Keeper thing at the DNC Convention - and I agree 100%.

EDIT: Make that 110%.

How can you agree 110%? 100% is the biggest you can get, 110 out of 100 means nothing.

This has propably been said many times alraedy, but the fact remains that less there are guns around, more people will get beaten instead of shot when some of those socially&/mentally ills decide to go violent. That's a simply and proven fact, and I fail to see what in it is so hard to understand.

Thats wrong.

Gun crime has soared since guns were banned back in 1997.

This report from the home office (as reported by the BBC) in 2003 shows this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

That said in recent years the level has begun to fall. I believe there was a reduction of over 10% last year.

And gun crime overall only makes up 0.5% of overall crime according to the home office.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=59&category=factsheets

Thats wrong.

Gun crime has soared since guns were banned back in 1997.

This report from the home office (as reported by the BBC) in 2003 shows this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Of course it almost certainly would have gone up even more without gun control, unless you think that what guns we had before were having a deterrent effect.

As opposed to having Chavs doing the engineering?

Err, no.

The last time I looked scallies didn't control the levers to public policy.

This whole discussion is pointless. Some people feel that they are entitled to carry weapons; others believe that if everyone gives up their weapons then no one will ever get hurt.

It’s a nice idea (and I won’t go into the whole “If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns”), even if I don’t agree with it. The simple fact is that we don’t live in a utopian society, so it just doesn’t help. If we lived in such a society then we could all walk around armed to the teeth, but if everyone was happy and got along then we wouldn’t stab/shoot/beat with a pipe each other and it wouldn’t matter.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm shows that while guns (specifically handguns) rank far and away the top method for killing each other, if you look closely you’ll see that ‘other methods’ is tied with knives for number of people killed. People are killing each other with whatever is handy just as much as with knives.

If you want to curb violence then something has to be done. Letting people turn in their knives is fine. I’ll keep mine thanks. Just to let you know, I’m an aggressive, big, strong and mean person. I collect swords and exotic martial weapons. In my home you’d be hard pressed to find a spot that is more than two steps from some sort of weapon, and that doesn’t even count picking up a chair and smacking someone with it. All that to say this: I don’t hurt people unless I have to. If I’m attacked you can bet that I defend myself quickly and efficiently, to the point at which my attacker is immobilized. Why do I walk down the street without fear? Because I know that I can defend myself. That knowledge gives me an advantage, because most people don’t attack those who don’t look like victims. If you want to reduce violence, then make martial arts training mandatory. If everyone knows how to fight, you can at least hold someone off long enough for you’re yelling to bring some help. The other option is to make violent crimes punishable by death, and reduce the time that someone can sit on death row to six months max.

From The Bureau of Justice Statistics
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers. That's about 17.9 per person. To me, that's a obivous reason to endorse capital punishement. People who are crimials tend to stay criminals. Two strikes and you've got 6 months to live.

But, since we were talking about knives, I'll mention that in a knife fight my two top choices for weapons are a bar stool and a couch pillow, in that order. If you have one of those two things you can keep a knife wielder at bay for an extremely long time. I would use either of those above a knife if my opponent had a knife.

And I do carry a knife with me, all the time. It’s a one-hand knife, which is to say it can be opened with one hand. I carry it to work (I’m a printer) and use it all day. I used to use it for cutting plastic straps at a previous job. At a minimum I use it twice a day for something. Two-three times a week, someone comes to me and asks to borrow it (I don’t try to hide that I have it).

What can I say; my knife makes my life easier. The ‘stabby’ part of it is dulled from constant use, the tip is a bit damaged and honestly, it’s just not the right knife for fighting/killing. It’s a work/utility knife, but I do bring it with me everywhere I go. That’s to the movies, out to eat, meetings when I have to dress up in slacks & tie, my niece’s 2nd birthday party, the bbq on Monday and I even have it with me at this very moment, in my pocket.

I've been trying to make this point, but it's not getting through... :(

But the call is not for a knife, ban. It is a knife amnesty.

But the call is not for a knife, ban. It is a knife amnesty.

BogMarsh is calling for a knife ban though.

To me, that's a obivous reason to endorse capital punishement. People who are crimials tend to stay criminals. Two strikes and you've got 6 months to live.
You sound like a scary, scary person.

No offence.

<snip>

You do realise this is about the UK right?

Of course it almost certainly would have gone up even more without gun control, unless you think that what guns we had before were having a deterrent effect.

I'm not sure how it would have gone to be honest. I think the legislation was rushed after Dunblaine as the government had to do something. The firearms database still isn't up and running.

As for how guncrime would have gone i think, like you, it would have gotten worse any way, although I doubt whether the introduction of legislation would have made any difference.

This whole discussion is pointless. Some people feel that they are entitled to carry weapons; others believe that if everyone gives up their weapons then no one will ever get hurt.

Personally, I'd just like to see them confiscated in and around schools and pubs. A knife in those circumstances is almost universally a bad idea. No need to stop people just walking in the street, the chance of them using them is very low, but in the two places I mentioned fights are always likely to break out and a knife is almost always going to make them worse.

You sound like a scary, scary person.

No offence.

None taken. I'm comfortable with myself, I'm comfortable with you, and I don't expect you to be happy with me.


Originally Posted by Ice Forest

You do realise this is about the UK right?

Yes, but I knew where to find the stats for the BJS, and I didn't want to spend 1/2 the day looking up stats for the UK. Crime is crime and criminals are criminals. The simple fact is that people who commit crimes are much more likely to be the ones commiting them again.

None taken. I'm comfortable with myself, I'm comfortable with you, and I don't expect you to be happy with me.



Yes, but I knew where to find the stats for the BJS, and I didn't want to spend 1/2 the day looking up stats for the UK. Crime is crime and criminals are criminals. The simple fact is that people who commit crimes are much more likely to be the ones commiting them again.

Well I only mention it because we have plenty of other threads about the US and firearms.

Well I only mention it because we have plenty of other threads about the US and firearms.

I thought we were discussing knife violence. I was refering to the chart because it breaks down violent crimes by weapon used. The point I was trying to draw attention to was that 'other weapons' are used in violent crimes as much as knives.

Another kid has just been stabbed at school.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/5020504.stm

Yet's get these knives off the street. :(

First I want to clarify something. I'm not up for the ban of knives, of any knives. I am for the ban of the carry of combat knives. If you have a collection of knives at home, just fine. If you carry a swiss army thing, or another reasonable utilitary tool to carry on with your work, it's fine.

If you are a guy that walks down the street with a half machete at your waist, or even worst, concealed beneath a trenchcoat...Hell no.


I’m an aggressive, big, strong and mean person. I collect swords and exotic martial weapons. In my home you’d be hard pressed to find a spot that is more than two steps from some sort of weapon, and that doesn’t even count picking up a chair and smacking someone with it. All that to say this: I don’t hurt people unless I have to.

My home looks the same, I'm a collector and a martial artist, although I'm more in it for the grace and art than for the capabilities of self defending myself in true violent situations. I do not usually take the weapons outside the house, or carry them on me. When I had to move them, like going to my practice spot, I put them in the trunk of my car and that's it.

Are you or aren't you an aggressive and mean person? Your statements look disyuntive about that affirmation.

If you want to reduce violence, then make martial arts training mandatory. If everyone knows how to fight, you can at least hold someone off long enough for you’re yelling to bring some help.

It cannot be done...The obese, the handicapped, the elderly, the lazy (:P), etc. You're absolutely right about the bar and the pillow, it works against any kind of non-gunned assailant. I did used a broom and a blanket once for that purpose and worked perfectly. Well, and the yelling, of course, continous and loud.

I hope my point is well explained now.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm shows that while guns (specifically handguns) rank far and away the top method for killing each other, if you look closely you’ll see that ‘other methods’ is tied with knives for number of people killed. People are killing each other with whatever is handy just as much as with knives.

Whereas in the UK, murders by knife or other similar sharp implement come out top of the league with 29% of all homicides, whereas guns are only used in 9%.