NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

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.

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.


Aggresive and mean, as in brutally honest and willing to call people out about a lot of stuff.
Ever been in the supermarket and someone makes a comment about some other person being (whatever)? I'm the guy who (loudly) questions the commenter's ability to judge them. I'm the one who calls attention to it.
I'll tail someone for driving in a dangerous manner and inform the cops of their location. I call the cops when I'm on the highway and see someone drunk driving. I'll even tail them until the cops show up to pull them over. I have low BS tolerance.

My whole post was simply to point out, if a person really wants to hurt other people, they will find a way. I'm not sure how else I can say it. You can go into a sports store and buy 'hunting equipment' such as rifles, bows and camping knives. You can buy baseball bats, axes, machetes, pick axes, saws and all sorts of stuff that you have a legitamate need for. All of them would be out of place at a bar, school or anywhere there is alcohol. But then again, I think you shouldn't be able to go to a bar without a designated driver unless you walk. That's just my opinion. I'm always the designated driver (I only drink at home, and even then not much at all, and not at all unless I don't have to go back out).

There are violent people and there are dangerous people. There is a difference as well. I practice martial arts because I like to fight. The difference is that when I leave I go home and I don't beat my wife, my dog and stab anyone I happen to meet.

Hell, I don't even break the speed limit. The point is that the people who are dangerous will be dangerous no matter what. You have to deal with the people not the tools.

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

Nicely spoken!

~ Romandeos.

The point is that the people who are dangerous will be dangerous no matter what. You have to deal with the people not the tools.

Yes granted, but once agin the poitn is not banning knifes, nor taking them off of hardend crininals that would only pick up something else, the point is to make sure that our youth get out of the habit of carrying them.

Heheh sooo just who was it that come to take away your pointy things?
That ever-convincing saltpeter salesman.
:(

Odd thing is, the knife amnesty is working.
Over 1500 knives handed in. If that prevents so much as one murder, it will have been worth it.

A community where knife violence, rather than gun violence, is the primary danger, is preferable. Know why?

YOU CAN RUN AWAY FROM A KNIFE.

Holy freakin' revelation, Batman!

The statistics show, without tools designed expressly to hurt people (weapons, if you will) freely available, there is less crime.
Wonder why there hasn't been another UK school shooting since Dunblane? It may very well have something to do with the firearm ban in the UK.
Wonder why there's been Fort Gibson, Granite Hills, MLKJr., John McDonagh, Red Lake, Campbell County and more since Columbine? It may very well have something to do with the lack of a firearm ban in the US.

And yes, these are the sorts of people that are carrying around combat knives: angry, irrational or upset young men and women. Notice how a lot of these stabbings are at schools. Luckily for us law-abidin' folk, it's a great deal harder to go on a rampage with a knife than it is with a gun.

What I'm saying is, the combat knives that are being handed in of their owners' own free will during this amnesty serve no purpose other than to cause pain. Other, useful, knives, they're fine. Keeping the number of knives that say 'Hey, you know what's really sexy? Sticking me in someone's gut!' down keeps the number of all knives in someone's gut down. FACT.

The statistics show, without tools designed expressly to hurt people (weapons, if you will) freely available, there is less crime.
Wonder why there hasn't been another UK school shooting since Dunblane? It may very well have something to do with the firearm ban in the UK.
Wonder why there's been Fort Gibson, Granite Hills, MLKJr., John McDonagh, Red Lake, Campbell County and more since Columbine? It may very well have something to do with the lack of a firearm ban in the US.
Or maybe it's because those are firearm free zones and nobody was equipped to fight back. The US is too big and has wayyyy too large of a border/population ratio to be able to stem black market pretty much anything. Therefore the answer is to teach your citizens to defend themselves. Interestingly enough, there are several school shootings where other people ran and got guns. And somehow, although to you it defies all logic, the assholes shooting up the school stopped when confronted with force.

Aggresive and mean, as in brutally honest and willing to call people out about a lot of stuff.
Ever been in the supermarket and someone makes a comment about some other person being (whatever)? I'm the guy who (loudly) questions the commenter's ability to judge them. I'm the one who calls attention to it.
I'll tail someone for driving in a dangerous manner and inform the cops of their location. I call the cops when I'm on the highway and see someone drunk driving. I'll even tail them until the cops show up to pull them over. I have low BS tolerance.

My whole post was simply to point out, if a person really wants to hurt other people, they will find a way. I'm not sure how else I can say it. You can go into a sports store and buy 'hunting equipment' such as rifles, bows and camping knives. You can buy baseball bats, axes, machetes, pick axes, saws and all sorts of stuff that you have a legitamate need for. All of them would be out of place at a bar, school or anywhere there is alcohol. But then again, I think you shouldn't be able to go to a bar without a designated driver unless you walk. That's just my opinion. I'm always the designated driver (I only drink at home, and even then not much at all, and not at all unless I don't have to go back out).

There are violent people and there are dangerous people. There is a difference as well. I practice martial arts because I like to fight. The difference is that when I leave I go home and I don't beat my wife, my dog and stab anyone I happen to meet.

Hell, I don't even break the speed limit. The point is that the people who are dangerous will be dangerous no matter what. You have to deal with the people not the tools.

I think the particular knife problem this is meant to combat is people stabbing someone because they get a bit aggressive on a night out and have a knife with them. Obviously if I want to attack someone and it's pre-planned it doesn't matter if I shoot, stab or strangle but I don't think that's what this is about. This is getting the youth out of the habit of carrying blades so that when they feel the need to have a fight it's some punches and bruises rather than knives through the heart.

Or maybe it's because those are firearm free zones and nobody was equipped to fight back.

So, wait, run this by me again. The people without guns weren't killing each other. But the guy with the gun was killing people.

*shrug*

And why exactly can't the entire country be a firearm free zone? If you can stop terrorists getting in, why not guns?

Well, I guess I'd have to use a stick to go and kill someone with.
;)
Seriously though, if someone is going to kill someone, all they gotta do is punch and kick to the head and chest, until the skull cracks or their lung collapses or gets punctured from a broken rib.
We should foucus on banning limbs! Off with your arms and legs!!!

2 stabbings in 24 hours in M'Bro.
And another one in Birmingham.
But God forbid that knives should be banned!

Well, I guess I'd have to use a stick to go and kill someone with.
;)

Heavy and blunt, or thin and sharpened? Surely those are two categories of sticks that must be controlled in the name of public safety.

2 stabbings in 24 hours in M'Bro.
And another one in Birmingham.
But God forbid that knives should be banned!
Would'a been zero, if the predators thought their victims had guns.

An armed society is a polite society. ;)

Would'a been zero, if the predators thought their victims had guns.

Ah - 'notha argument in favour of MORE murderweapons in public.

So, wait, run this by me again. The people without guns weren't killing each other. But the guy with the gun was killing people.

*shrug*

And why exactly can't the entire country be a firearm free zone? If you can stop terrorists getting in, why not guns?

Just like the UK is a "firearm free zone" w/ firearm crime increasing, right?

Ah - 'notha argument in favour of MORE murderweapons in public.

And yet crime in the US has decreased even though tens of thousands of people carry firearms legally. They're also not the ones committing the majority of crimes.

Ah - 'notha argument in favour of MORE murderweapons in public.
Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

Would'a been zero, if the predators thought their victims had guns.
Yea, replace stabbing with shooting.

Regardless of weapon, if someone wants to physically harm someone, and perhaps even kill: they are going to find a way.

Just like the UK is a "firearm free zone" w/ firearm crime increasing, right?

Still light-years behind you guys, bucko.

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.

Oh, I think something different.

What I think is that any person who opposes the total BAN of personal weapons is responsible for any use of those weapons.

Which is to say: any argument against the BAN is a crime in itself.
Moral clarity, so to speak.

Just remember one thing.
Criminals dont pay attention to laws, bans, or anything
of the sort. Which is what makes them criminals!!
How many crimes are commited with legally owned
firearms?

Just remember one thing.
Criminals dont pay attention to laws, bans, or anything
of the sort. Which is what makes them criminals!!
How many crimes are commited with legally owned
firearms?


How many firearm-crimes would have been commited if not ONE SINGLE GUN ( or bullet ) were available at all, eh?

Oh, I think something different.

What I think is that any person who opposes the total BAN of personal weapons is responsible for any use of those weapons.

Which is to say: any argument against the BAN is a crime in itself.
Moral clarity, so to speak.

So inversely, the people who oppose others ability for defending themselves w/ personal weapons make themselves responsible for the safety and well being of those they attempt to disarm.

So inversely, the people who oppose others ability for defending themselves w/ personal weapons make themselves responsible for the safety and well being of those they attempt to disarm.

BS.

That might be ( however improbable ) true IF such people opposed strict and vigilant police powers.

In that case, we would have to go way back in time, to first the guns that were ever produced, and ban them right away! Destroy them all, then we wouldnt have that problem now would we?
Now lets go back farther and stop the first troglodite who firgured how to sharpen a rock and kill him so he wouldnt be able to pass on the information on how to make pointy things!
Its so easy to say that we should have gotten rid of guns and never made them available in the first place. yeah, it would be nice if we didnt have em. But remember, a killer is a killer no matter what he uses to kill you with. So instead of villifing an inanimate object, villify the perp!

How many firearm-crimes would have been commited if not ONE SINGLE GUN ( or bullet ) were available at all, eh?

Now we're getting into the realm of make-believe.

I always love this. It's always cute when those who oppose the right of self-defense try and make up this fantasy world of "no firearms = no crime" but then only include "fire-arm crimes".

Since gun crime is increasing in the UK, I guess those laws and the agencies entrusted to enforce them are really effective, eh?

BS.

That might be ( however improbable ) true IF such people opposed strict and vigilant police powers.

Don't like the truth?

Yours then would only be true if such people supported the unfettered access to personal weapons.

Now we're getting into the realm of make-believe.

I always love this. It's always cute when those who oppose the right of self-defense try and make up this fantasy world of "no firearms = no crime" but then only include "fire-arm crimes".

Since gun crime is increasing in the UK, I guess those laws and the agencies entrusted to enforce them are really effective, eh?
All that ban did was to disarm the law abiding citizens and give hope to the criminals!
Hell, if I was to be a criminal, I would be jumping for joy hearing that my victims are now utterly defenseless and totally dependant on the police!

I would agree that tools that are used to kill people should be regulated. Eventually, in a perfect world they would be banned or better yet, not needed.

Knives are far worse than guns. They can easily be obtained, require no expertise or skill and are more difficult to trace. They are by and large the tool of the punk. Knives that are made to kill people should not be carried in public places, this is common sense. Just like guns, centainly weapons should never be concealed under any circumstances.

However, there should be provisions for law abiding citizens who are willing to take courses and obtain a license for a knife, sword or firearm to do so. These weapons should never be concealed, Why should they be? It would be like driving, if you misuse your privilege by waving it around or bullying people you loose the privilege or be subject to fines or even jail time, just as with cars.

If you don't let law abiding people carry weapons with a blanket ban then the only ones who are armed are the criminals. Because they don't give a damn about bans.

If citizens were armed criminals would think twice. So would a potential invader of a country.

I would agree that tools that are used to kill people should be regulated. Eventually, in a perfect world they would be banned or better yet, not needed.

Knives are far worse than guns. They can easily be obtained, require no expertise or skill and are more difficult to trace. They are by and large the tool of the punk. Knives that are made to kill people should not be carried in public places, this is common sense. Just like guns, centainly weapons should never be concealed under any circumstances.

However, there should be provisions for law abiding citizens who are willing to take courses and obtain a license for a knife, sword or firearm to do so. These weapons should never be concealed, Why should they be? It would be like driving, if you misuse your privilege by waving it around or bullying people you loose the privilege or be subject to fines or even jail time, just as with cars.

If you don't let law abiding people carry weapons with a blanket ban then the only ones who are armed are the criminals. Because they don't give a damn about bans.

If citizens were armed criminals would think twice. So would a potential invader of a country.

Finally someone gets it!!!! :) :)

Now we're getting into the realm of make-believe.

I always love this. It's always cute when those who oppose the right of self-defense try and make up this fantasy world of "no firearms = no crime" but then only include "fire-arm crimes".

Since gun crime is increasing in the UK, I guess those laws and the agencies entrusted to enforce them are really effective, eh?

What you guess is quite immaterial.

What is however, is brilliantly true, is that the stabbing in Birmingham would not have happened, if such fit and proper measures had been taken as:
-mandatory searches.
-CCTV on every corner.
-mandatory imprisonment on first offense.
-metal detectors at every school-entrance.
-registration of every weapon bought.

Oh, and it would really help if the ( former ) Home Secretary had not been given to allowing crooks back on the street - as opposed to simply sending them back to under wherever rock they had crawled out from...

What you guess is quite immaterial.

What is however, is brilliantly true, is that the stabbing in Birmingham would not have happened, if such fit and proper measures had been taken as:
-mandatory searches.
-CCTV on every corner.
-mandatory imprisonment on first offense.
-metal detectors at every school-entrance.
-registration of every weapon bought.

Oh, and it would really help if the ( former ) Home Secretary had not been given to allowing crooks back on the street - as opposed to simply sending them back to under wherever rock they had crawled out from...

How many criminals do you know of would register themselves when buying a weapon or obtaining one?

How many criminals do you know of would register themselves when buying a weapon or obtaining one?

How many weapons would be in the hands of criminals when there is this beep-beep-beep thingie going off whenever they cross a street, eh?

Meanwhile: 2 more students at Teesside Uni, and a schoolkid at Birmingam.

What you guess is quite immaterial.

And yet true.

What is however, is brilliantly true, is that the stabbing in Birmingham would not have happened, if such fit and proper measures had been taken as:
-mandatory searches.
-CCTV on every corner.
-mandatory imprisonment on first offense.
-metal detectors at every school-entrance.
-registration of every weapon bought.

Oh, and it would really help if the ( former ) Home Secretary had not been given to allowing crooks back on the street - as opposed to simply sending them back to under wherever rock they had crawled out from...

What you're basically talking about is a police state ala 1984. Enjoy your world Winston Smith.

And yet true.



What you're basically talking about is a police state ala 1984. Enjoy your world Winston Smith.

Do you have a reason to fear the Law?

Are you - perhaps - a criminal?

But enough of this banter.
While you oppose - more die.

And yet true.



What you're basically talking about is a police state ala 1984. Enjoy your world Winston Smith.

O'Brian, surely?

Not to mention the costs and the technological problems with that!
But if BogMarsh is willing to have a barcode tatooed on his neck and watched when he is going to the bathroom, al righty then Enjoy it! ;)

Not to mention the costs and the technological problems with that!
But if BogMarsh is willing to have a barcode tatooed on his neck and watched when he is going to the bathroom, al righty then Enjoy it! ;)


So we don't protect lives because the cost is too high.
Friend of butchers.

Do you have a reason to fear the Law?

Are you - perhaps - a criminal?

But enough of this banter.
While you oppose - more die.

And now comes the traditional "If you don't want the Gov't monitoring everything you do, you must be trying to hide something" meme to justify a police/nanny state.

And yet you've admitted the Gov't is incompetant and you want to give them MORE authority. Gov'ts have killed hundreds of millions of people over the last century. While you give them MORE power over the people, the slaughters continue.

So we don't protect lives because the cost is too high.
Friend of butchers.

The "butchers" are incompetant gov'ts. Who supports giving them more power? Oh right, you.

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

hehe, this is true :D not that i would know, of course...:rolleyes:

Let me put it this way.
YEs I would like to see crime stop!
But instead of just doing away with just weapons, how about
actually going after and locking up gangbangers, rapists, known murderers,
repeat offenders, etc, and show a much stronger police presence in high crime areas. Lets use the SWAT teams to take down drug dealers, and the gangs. I WOULD LOVE THAT! My neighbor is a cop. He says himself that he would love to have one day of open season on gangbangers! 24 hours, shoot to kill all known and active gangbangers. No trial, no jury, just executioner. That would put a big dent in crime afterwards!

So we don't protect lives because the cost is too high.
Friend of butchers.

I would rather have crime than become a fascist police state. Have you read 1984 by any chance?

Just like the UK is a "firearm free zone" w/ firearm crime increasing, right?

The UK isn't a firearm free zone.

I would rather have crime than become a fascist police state. Have you read 1984 by any chance?

Maybe he thought is was a good idea.

The UK isn't a firearm free zone.

In comparison to the US of A, I'd say it pretty much is.... : /

The UK isn't a firearm free zone.

For legal ownership, it effectively is. Just ask the olympic team.

lol!
ouch! :)

So we don't protect lives because the cost is too high.
Friend of butchers.

You can't cotton wool real life.

The blunt methods you propose won't work, and if anything will cause more bad than good.

For legal ownership, it effectively is. Just ask the olympic team.

That was only for handguns. Where you recieve a mandatory 5 year sentance for owning one (I think, this is off the top of my head). Surprisingly ther is no minimum sentence for rifles though.

Shotguns you need a license for.

Some people cant seem to understand it the people who kill people, not inanimate objects.
Also, they fail to understand, criminals will always break the law no matter what, and the ban laws only tie up the hands of the law abiding citizen. If you were a criminal, which house would you hit? The one that says "This is a gun-free zone" or "Proud Memember of the NRA"? (National Rifle Association)

Let me put it this way.
YEs I would like to see crime stop!
But instead of just doing away with just weapons, how about
actually going after and locking up gangbangers, rapists, known murderers,
repeat offenders, etc, and show a much stronger police presence in high crime areas. Lets use the SWAT teams to take down drug dealers, and the gangs. I WOULD LOVE THAT! My neighbor is a cop. He says himself that he would love to have one day of open season on gangbangers! 24 hours, shoot to kill all known and active gangbangers. No trial, no jury, just executioner. That would put a big dent in crime afterwards!

Contrary to populat belief, the UK does have a constitution which guarantees a trial in front of peers, the right to know what you are charged with etc.

But the current labour government has done its best to undermine it though.

Some people cant seem to understand it the people who kill people, not inanimate objects.
Also, they fail to understand, criminals will always break the law no matter what, and the ban laws only tie up the hands of the law abiding citizen. If you were a criminal, which house would you hit? The one that says "This is a gun-free zone" or "Proud Memember of the NRA"? (National Rifle Association)

The one saying "Proud Memember of the NRA," only because I'm very suspicious and would suspect a trap.

Contrary to populat belief, the UK does have a constitution which guarantees a trial in front of peers, the right to know what you are charged with etc.

But the current labour government has done its best to undermine it though.
I know about the constitution and the rights for criminals, but every day it seems to me that the criminals have more rights than your average law abiding citizen.
Plus, What I said earlier doesnt happen here in Chicago, it was just a great idea my neighbor and I have to put a big dent in crime! lol! ;)
Just a few days ago a woman was involved with a State Trooper on the highway. It turns out she was drunk with a BA of 0.11 while the legal limit os 0.08. The judge decided to keep that information out of the case and granted the woman millions in damages and she won the case against the Trooper! WTF?!?!??!

Contrary to populat belief, the UK does have a constitution which guarantees a trial in front of peers, the right to know what you are charged with etc.

But the current labour government has done its best to undermine it though.
I know about the constitution and the rights for criminals, but every day it seems to me that the criminals have more rights than your average law abiding citizen.
Plus, What I said earlier doesnt happen here in Chicago, it was just a great idea my neighbor and I have to put a big dent in crime! lol! ;)
Just a few days ago a woman was involved with a State Trooper on the highway. It turns out she was drunk with a BA of 0.11 while the legal limit os 0.08. The judge decided to keep that information out of the case and granted the woman millions in damages and she won the case against the Trooper! WTF?!?!??!

Contrary to populat belief, the UK does have a constitution which guarantees a trial in front of peers...

Being given a guarantee is one thing, having it fulfilled is a different matter - the
Diplock courts in Northern Ireland for example, although they are apparently slated for being faded out of use.

there are different types of cuttlery-

stabbing, cutting, slicing, etc.

Knives with serrated edges aren't good offensive weapons, that's just the truth. I mean, you could hurt someone badly, kill even, but it will take a lot of time and effort.

Then there's things like a katana, which is a slicing weapon. But not commonly found on the street, not a good one at least.

Scalpels used by med-students, doctors.

But stabbing weapons, those things aren't used in the kitchen. I mean, not ordinarily.

Anyway, when you say knife, it really depends which kind.

Some people cant seem to understand it the people who kill people, not inanimate objects.
Also, they fail to understand, criminals will always break the law no matter what, and the ban laws only tie up the hands of the law abiding citizen. If you were a criminal, which house would you hit? The one that says "This is a gun-free zone" or "Proud Memember of the NRA"? (National Rifle Association)

I would hit the NRA house, because it means they have a weapon and I can steal it and use it against them.

I would hit the NRA house, because it means they have a weapon and I can steal it and use it against them.

I'm sure. :rolleyes: You'll make for a crappy criminal, anyways.

Yeah, but usually in the NRA house the guns are locked in a safe!
Plus If I were home, *click* Bang! Bye bye home invader!

I love how Kimchi takes the time to point and laugh at another country.

Perhaps he would be better served by looking around him first. After all, many bladed weapons are illegal in most parts of the US - specifically switchblades and gravity knives, plus many stated have limits to size that is legal to carry.

At best, he is quibling over the degree of a ban.

So, perhaps he will take the time and explain why he has to take time out of his busy day to point at another country and complain that they have no clue how to handle crime (despite them having far less violent crime than the US), and as his "evidence" use a news story that indicates nothing more than is done in his own country?

Kimchi? Your xenophic misplaced sense of superiority looks REALLY assinine at times like this.....

Oh, and please explain why you can't take ANY knife on an airline. You know - since how banning them is so darn pointless...

State Knife Law Summaries (http://www.rayjayknives.com/rjk/switchbladelaws.html)

Arizona · Summary: Generally clear. Illegal to carry "deadly weapon, (except a pocket knife) concealed." · Max length: None apparent. · Relevant laws: ARS book

California · Summary: Anything capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon is illegal. All concealed knives are a felony (except non locking folders). · Max length: chaotic · Specifically illegal: Switchblades, gravity knives, exotic conceal methods (pen, lipstick, whatever) · Relevant laws: PC 653K, PC 12020(24), California Laws, Commentary (apparently removed - someone know where?) o Note that interpretations by cops and judges are wildly varied. Police have actually told law-abiding citizens to break the concealment laws, and a judge has deemed a blunt-point knife (Spyderco Mariner) a stabbing weapon. · Quirks: Pens may be illegal (potential stabbing weapon). · Local restrictions: o Los Angeles § Three inch limit for open carry without a good explanation.

Conneticut · Summary: Sounds normal. · Max length: Cutting edge under 4 inches · Switchblades: Are legal to carry with a Dangerous Weapons Permit (DWP) only. Good luck trying to find a police station that has an application. · Gravity knives: Same · Relevant laws: · Local restrictions: Some police chiefs don't want to give out DWP's

Florida · Summary: A "common pocketknife" is OK. All "concealed weapons" (knives included) require a license. · Max length: None apparent. · Relevant laws: Chapter 790

Georgia · Local restrictions: o Atlanta: A blade over 3" that LOCKS is illegal. Indiana · Summary: Generally OK. · Max length: None apparent. · Specifically illegal: automatics & throwing stars. · Relevant laws: Statutes mentioning "knife"

Mississippi · Summary: OK for "normal" knives. Don't try to conceal any bowie, dirk, switchblade or butcher knife. · Max length: None apparent. · Specifically illegal: none apparent. · Relevant laws: 97-37-* · Quirks: Threatening actions with a knife in the presence of less than three people may be acceptable.

Missouri · Summary: any folder 4" or less is OK. · Max length: 4" · Relevant laws: State Laws (search for "knife")

Maryland · Summary: "Penknives" are OK. Anything else is borderline illegal and may require a concealed weapon permit. · Max length: None apparent. · Relevant laws: MD Statues Crimes and Punishments § 36, § 36A-O · Quirks: You may carry a "weapon as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger", but it's up to a tribunal to decide the reasonableness/appropriateness of posession. · Local restrictions: o Cecil, Anne Arundel, Talbot, Harford, Caroline, Prince George's, Montgomery, St. Mary's, Washington, Worcester, Kent, and Baltimore Counties have special prohibitions regarding children under 18 carrying knives. See § 36(a)(3).

Nebraska · Summary: Nothing over 3.5" · Max length: 3.5" o A longer blade may be legal, but it's subject post-fact to a judge's decision. · Relevant laws: Statutes mentioning "knife" o Statutes may refer only to concealed knives. · Quirks: o A "knife" is defined as having a blade over 3.5". A pocketknife under 3.5" is not a knife. · Local restrictions: o Linconln § Switchblades are illegal.

New Jersey · Summary: General folders OK. Single-edged fixed blades may be. · Max length: Under 18 may not possess knife with 5" or longer blade, or 10" or longer overall. No other apparent limitation. · Specifically illegal: gravity knife, switchblade knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, or ballistic knife "without any explainable lawful purpose" (i.e. an ill-defined exemption). Manufacturers and sellers are not exempt. · Relevant laws: 2C:39-3.e 2C:39-9.d 2C:39-9.1 (Statutes, search for "knife" or "knives")

New York · Summary: If it looks like a weapon, it's illegal. · Max length: 6" (?) · Specifically illegal: Switchblades and gravity knives unless hunting or fishing with permit · Relevant laws: Penal law · Local restrictions: o New York City § Must be under 4" Nevada · Summary: Generally OK. · Max length: None apparent. · Specifically illegal: switchblades, belt-buckle knives · Relevant laws: NRS 202 Ohio · Specifically illegal: switchblade, springblade knife, gravity (butterfly) knife, or similar weapon; · Relevant laws: Search Statutes for "knife"

Rhode Island · Summary: 3" or less OK. Don't posess anything "designed to cut and stab another". · Max length: 3" measured from where the handle ends, not where the sharpened edge begins. · Specifically illegal: o Posession of a dagger, dirk, stiletto, sword-in-cane, bowie knife, or other similar weapon designed to cut and stab another. o Concealed carry upon one's person of the above-mentioned instruments or weapons, or any razor, or knife of any description having a blade of more than 3". · Relevant laws: Title 11 Criminal Offenses § 11-47-42 · Quirks: Children under 18 may purchase the above weapons with written parental permission.

Tennessee · Summary: Folders under 4" are OK. · Max length: 4" · Specifically illegal: Switchblades, gravity knives (probably) · Quirks: Fixed blades are probably a no-no.

Texas · Summary: Folders under 5.5" OK. · Max length: 5.5" · Specifically illegal: Switchblade, throwing knives, daggers (in general), bowie knives, swords and spears. · Relevant laws: Penal Code 46 · Quirks: The one state people associate with Bowie knives explicitly forbids them.

Virginia · Summary: Don't conceal a dirk or bowie knife. Don't take a dangerous weapon (esp. bowie knife or dagger) to church. · Max length: None apparent. · Specifically illegal: Switchblades. · Relevant laws: 18.2-308, search statutes for knife or knives. · Quirks: 3.1-370: your knife must be cleaned daily.

Washington · Summary: Anything over 3" is in a gray area. · Max length: 3" · Specifically illegal: switchblade, springblade knife, gravity (butterfly) knife, concealed dagger/dirk · Relevant laws: Statutes mentioning "knife"

Wisconson · Relevant laws: 134.71 (1)(a)9, 134.71 (1)(g)1, 134.71 (1)(h)1 (relating to pawn brokers), 941.24 (switchblades)

All you have shown me is that knives with blades under 3 inches are ok!
Pocket knives ok.
I dont seem to remember ever there being a hand in your knife day in America!

All you have shown me is that knives with blades under 3 inches are ok!
Pocket knives ok.
I dont seem to remember ever there being a hand in your knife day in America!

The OP that started the thread was VERY specific in his objections to the story:

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.


So the OP complaint was to the fact that there are legal limits on carrying knives in the UK, not that there was an amnesty program where people could dispose of illegal weapons. Which makes the OP look rather moronic in the face of his own domestic legislation.

Now, would you care to explain why you object to a program that allows people to legally divest themselves of illegal weapons if you don't disagree with the fact that they ARE designated as illegal weapons?



Because that seems like a very odd position to take too.


After all, it's not like the US has never had gun amnesty programs in place in various locations for similar reasons to allow for the safe disposal of unwanted wepaons by citizens.

Oh, I think something different.

What I think is that any person who opposes the total BAN of personal weapons is responsible for any use of those weapons.

Which is to say: any argument against the BAN is a crime in itself.
Moral clarity, so to speak.

Yes, god forbid people should speak their minds.

As for your still useless argument that somehow a ban will solve the problems, I still want to know your reply to the argument that other items will be available that are perfectly legal that can do equal if not more damage.

But then again, you might just ban piping, bits of 2x4 wood, cricket bats and other objects wouldn't you?

There is no 'moral clarity' that you claims exist. We can argue against it as we have use for such tools that you still claim is irrelevant, despite the obvious arguements against your position.

Your militaristic police state view is the complete antithesis of what our country is based on, but you'll still want it won't you?

You say that those who have been attacked wouldn't have died with a knife ban? I call BS, as pointed out there are other objects available that are more deadly than knives. Or has that by passed your skewed view? I guess it has.

All I can say is, freedom will inveitably come with a price. You aren't willing to accept it, fine, but don't try to impose it on me, as you have no moral right to, despite what you claim your flawed logic says.

Yeah, but usually in the NRA house the guns are locked in a safe!
Plus If I were home, *click* Bang! Bye bye home invader!

If they're locked in a safe, then I can stab the owner...

yeah, I do suck as a criminal... :(

thats just ridiculos.

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.
Isn't the 'root causes' argument a bit liberal for you?

Yes, god forbid people should speak their minds.

As for your still useless argument that somehow a ban will solve the problems, I still want to know your reply to the argument that other items will be available that are perfectly legal that can do equal if not more damage.

But then again, you might just ban piping, bits of 2x4 wood, cricket bats and other objects wouldn't you?

There is no 'moral clarity' that you claims exist. We can argue against it as we have use for such tools that you still claim is irrelevant, despite the obvious arguements against your position.

Your militaristic police state view is the complete antithesis of what our country is based on, but you'll still want it won't you?

You say that those who have been attacked wouldn't have died with a knife ban? I call BS, as pointed out there are other objects available that are more deadly than knives. Or has that by passed your skewed view? I guess it has.

All I can say is, freedom will inveitably come with a price. You aren't willing to accept it, fine, but don't try to impose it on me, as you have no moral right to, despite what you claim your flawed logic says.

"Look at my new assault rifle"
"assault rifles are illegal to carry in the street..."
"no wait, you can still use a handgun to kill people."
"oh right, assault rifles are legal to carry around then"

:rolleyes:

If they're locked in a safe, then I can stab the owner...

yeah, I do suck as a criminal... :(

Guns are useless for self defense if left in a safe. I typically will leave the door to mine open (To protect myself legally) and keep the rifle loaded. And the dogs would get to you far before I would.

"Look at my new assault rifle"
"assault rifles are illegal to carry in the street..."
"no wait, you can still use a handgun to kill people."
"oh right, assault rifles are legal to carry around then"

:rolleyes:

Actually, rifles ARE legal to carry OPENLY in Texas. They must be unloaded, however.

Guns are useless for self defense if left in a safe. I typically will leave the door to mine open (To protect myself legally) and keep the rifle loaded. And the dogs would get to you far before I would.



Actually, rifles ARE legal to carry OPENLY in Texas. They must be unloaded, however.

I see... I guess I have to carry some sausages.

Hey, but I was just making a point, how she excused the knives by saying you could use other things. I was saying "so what? This is about knives!"

California · Summary: Anything capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon is illegal. All concealed knives are a felony (except non locking folders). · Max length: chaotic · Specifically illegal: Switchblades, gravity knives, exotic conceal methods (pen, lipstick, whatever) · Relevant laws: PC 653K, PC 12020(24), California Laws, Commentary (apparently removed - someone know where?) o Note that interpretations by cops and judges are wildly varied. Police have actually told law-abiding citizens to break the concealment laws, and a judge has deemed a blunt-point knife (Spyderco Mariner) a stabbing weapon. · Quirks: Pens may be illegal (potential stabbing weapon). · Local restrictions: o Los Angeles § Three inch limit for open carry without a good explanation.
Well, fuck, I guess I'll have to get rid of my mechanical pencils if I move to california

http://www.jetpens.com/product_info.php/products_id/831

Guns are useless for self defense if left in a safe. I typically will leave the door to mine open (To protect myself legally) and keep the rifle loaded.

This is in your dad's house, yes? What are the age restrictions on firearm possession in your neck of the woods?

NExt: Turn in all rope by July 1. Turn in all plastic bags by July 31

NExt: Turn in all rope by July 1. Turn in all plastic bags by July 31

It'll be a little longer than that. First they have to start a scare campaign calling them "Assault Ropes" and "Assault Bags".

I can see the ads now:

Nobody needs an Assault Rope to tie things. The only thing they're good for is hanging large groups of people.

Nobody needs an Assault Bag to carry sandwhiches. The only thing they're good for is suffocating large numbers of people.

God forbid it's a Ziplock.

NExt: Turn in all rope by July 1. Turn in all plastic bags by July 31

Did you actually read the article or other pieces on the story, or did you just leap to conclusions based on the OP's scaremongering?

Well, fuck, I guess I'll have to get rid of my mechanical pencils if I move to california

http://www.jetpens.com/product_info.php/products_id/831

Yeah, California has gotten really stupid about things. Not only is it pretty much the most expensive place to live in the U.S., but now only the cops and the gangs are allowed to carry weapons.

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.


Sorry for the hijack but MythBusters proved that a deck of cards was in no way deadly. Now carry on with your regularly scheduled debate.

First guns, now knives, what's next, they're going to be banning anything that could be used as a club? Honestly, everyone who's cheering about this think about it for a second, should you really be being punished because a couple of idiots have mis used the very same knives you've been cutting your vegetables with? That's basically what this law seems to be targetting, all rhetorhic from the supporters notwithstanding. This has been in the news for months, afterall, even here in the US.

Who the hell carries around a kitchen knife?

First guns, now knives, what's next, they're going to be banning anything that could be used as a club?

Go re-read the article: nothing new has been banned, and so your slippery slope argument is fundamentally flawed and spurious.

Sorry for the hijack but MythBusters proved that a deck of cards was in no way deadly. Now carry on with your regularly scheduled debate.
I could kill you with a card in one of two ways. Shove it down your throat suffocating you, or roll it lengthwise and shove it into your brain through your eye.

I see... I guess I have to carry some sausages.

Hey, but I was just making a point, how she excused the knives by saying you could use other things. I was saying "so what? This is about knives!"

She?

He, thank you very much.

My point was going back to what Bogmarsh had said previously in the thread. He or she (I'm still not sure) said that they would ban screw drivers, hammers etc because they were dangerous too, despite the fact, like certain types of knife, they are very valuable and useful tools.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484257&page=15

Besides, thats hardly an 'excuse'. Tell me, what are you going to cut things with (vegetables, rope etc etc etc) if the knife ban Bogmarsh is calling for comes into effect? The knives themselves aren't the problem, the problem is their status symbol amongst youths who want to carry them as 'protection'. As I have said before this amnesty is IMHO a good thing, but the ban Bogmarsh is crowing for isn't as knives have far too many practical uses to be banned (as have most other things Bogmarsh wants banned).

As for your comparison to guns, it was a useless one. Please tell me how a knife compares to a hand gun or assault rifle? Oh wait...thats right...it doesn't and as we're talking about the UK here, most talk of guns is pointless.

Knives are far worse than guns. They can easily be obtained, require no expertise or skill and are more difficult to trace.

To actually kill someone with a knife is not all that easy. If someone sees you have a knife and can grab anything (I mean ANYTHING, a book, a computer keyboard, a pillow, a chair, a blanket, the coat they are wearing) then they have a decent chance of defending themselves. Even walking up and stabbing someone in the back there is a chance you'll land on a bone and have only a shallow cut. Even if you do manage to stab someone enough that you do kill them, the wound itself can tell forensics exactly the kind of blade you have (size, shape and type), along with the potential for any sort of foreign objects on the blade.

Knives require a good bit of skill to use effectively, and unlike a gun or bat, you can use the wound profile to know ahead of time exactly what the knife you're looking for looks like.

Also how and where you cut/stab someone with a knife will give the police clues to how tall & strong you are. Somene who's 6'5" will not stab someone in the same way & at the same angle as someone who is 5'6".



stabbing, cutting, slicing, etc.

Knives with serrated edges aren't good offensive weapons, that's just the truth. I mean, you could hurt someone badly, kill even, but it will take a lot of time and effort.

Then there's things like a katana, which is a slicing weapon. But not commonly found on the street, not a good one at least.

Scalpels used by med-students, doctors.

But stabbing weapons, those things aren't used in the kitchen. I mean, not ordinarily.

Anyway, when you say knife, it really depends which kind.

Knives with serated edges are amazing as combat weapons. Far more so then a 'slicing' knife. Unless you're refering to a bread knife, which isn't actually sharp, then try this. Tap yourself on the arm with a smooth blade. Lightly. You probably won't even break the skin, if you do a small cut, maybe. Then tap your self with a saw. You'll be bleeding like crazy and the wound with take much longer to heal. Serated blades produce a much worse wound that is much harder to treat.

Katanas can be used to stab just as easily as slice, and you don't have to have a 'good' one to hurt someone with, you just have to spend a few minutes sharpening it.

Here is one of my knives I use in the kitchen all the time: http://www.tabletools.com/tabletools/showdetl.cfm/914/henckels-five-star-8-in-carver.html
If you don't think that you could stab someone with that, I don't know how to even begin to explain it to you.



Sorry for the hijack but MythBusters proved that a deck of cards was in no way deadly. Now carry on with your regularly scheduled debate.

I could kill you with a card in one of two ways. Shove it down your throat suffocating you, or roll it lengthwise and shove it into your brain through your eye.

Seriously? Do you really believe that you could roll a playing card lengthwise and "shove it into your brain"? I mean, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but roll a playing card lengthwise and see how effective you really think you could be with it.

I'm not even going to go in to detail on the myriad problems of shoving a playing card down someone's throat.

Go re-read the article: nothing new has been banned, and so your slippery slope argument is fundamentally flawed and spurious.

I have. You keep insisting nothing new has been banned, and yet, you've still got cops arresting people for carrying knives previously they could. A ban enforced is still a ban, whatever you may wish to think otherwise.

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.

Beware...next in line is the spork.

Who the hell carries around a kitchen knife?

People who cut lettuce when camping, number one. People who are loaning their neighbor a steak knife, number two. People who don't trust plasticware at KFC for cutting those biscuits of theirs, there's a couple of dozen reasons for a person to be carrying a kitchen knife I can think of, not all of which would be as obvious as the first three definitions, and all completely legal here in the US, and having no chance of harming someone.

The point is, when you bring up a weapons regulation law or re-classify every day tools as weapons, you've usually got problems, not the first of which is the government's decided to in most cases, punish the normal law abiding citizen, and reward the criminal even further.

I mean, there are laws in some towns and sometimes even countries making ownership of a weapon mandatory, does that not raise similiar issues, once you really think about it?

Katanas can be used to stab just as easily as slice, and you don't have to have a 'good' one to hurt someone with, you just have to spend a few minutes sharpening it.


They aren't great, given the curve of the blade and the way the blade geometry is done (or lack off in case of cheap repros from ebay), as knife is a better thrusting weapon than a Katana. Compared to other swords, Kats aren't brilliant for thrusting for the same reasons. Their design is for virtually pure cutting, not thrusting. If you want a thrusting sword you want a long, straight stiff blade, not a curved, flexible sword with a V cross section.


That said any straight, stiff, sharpened and solid instrument that can be given a point will be effective as a thrusting instrument, such as metal pole, wooden stake, pen etc etc etc. Cheap Kats also fall into this catagory, but given the way they are made, the stainless steel they are more than likely made from is often prone to shatter. The snapping Katana video on various websites show how bad this can be.

Who the hell carries around a kitchen knife?

School children...

I have. You keep insisting nothing new has been banned, and yet, you've still got cops arresting people for carrying knives previously they could. A ban enforced is still a ban, whatever you may wish to think otherwise.

I think you misunderstood the article then. Knives aren't being banned, children are being encouraged not to carry them, wether to look cool or to protect themselves.

The knife anmesty has been called to allow people to easily dispose of knives they may have got for "defense," and is running in tandem with an information campaign encouraging children not to carry.

Also, the police are arresting people for specifically carring knives, but offensive weapons. There was a case recently when a youth was cautioned for carrying a hammer (so he could defend himself). The hammer was confiscated. But I have yet to hear anyone screaming "OMG, teh English are banning hammers!!!!"

But I have yet to hear anyone screaming "OMG, teh English are banning hammers!!!!"


Well Bogmarsh wanted that back on Page 15, post 215. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11028483&postcount=215)

I have. You keep insisting nothing new has been banned, and yet, you've still got cops arresting people for carrying knives previously they could. A ban enforced is still a ban, whatever you may wish to think otherwise.

They couldn't previously carry knives around without a good purpose. Self defence isn't classed as a good purpose here in the UK. There is no new law and the police are just doing what they did before, therefore nothing has changed. So either you haven't read the article, or your reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired.

I think you misunderstood the article then. Knives aren't being banned, children are being encouraged not to carry them, wether to look cool or to protect themselves.

The knife anmesty has been called to allow people to easily dispose of knives they may have got for "defense," and is running in tandem with an information campaign encouraging children not to carry.

Also, the police are arresting people for specifically carring knives, but offensive weapons. There was a case recently when a youth was cautioned for carrying a hammer (so he could defend himself). The hammer was confiscated. But I have yet to hear anyone screaming "OMG, teh English are banning hammers!!!!"

You admitted police are siezing them, however. A weapons ban doesn't have to be specifically aimed at a type of weapon, it just has to be enforced, which this is. This is exactly how things usually started up when several municipalities and even states in the US tried for a total gun ban, BTW. They promised amnesty to anyone who turned them in voluntarily, while the police were out seizing them. That's exactly what's happening again, so says the article.

So, tell me again, how is an enforced ban on knives not a ban again?

They couldn't previously carry knives around without a good purpose. Self defence isn't classed as a good purpose here in the UK. There is no new law and the police are just doing what they did before, therefore nothing has changed. So either you haven't read the article, or your reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired.

Self defense is a good purpose, and most of the knives if you've read the articles and others on this subject, aren't even being used for that purpose. Now, if one of your cops told me that the ultimate objective of this type of ban, which we've been hearing about how it's narrowly been defeated repeatedly for years in the States, BTW, is to outlaw self defense, all you've done is confirm the exact points you claim aren't there.

Like it or not, they just announced their seizing weapons, and offering an amnesty. The burden of proof here is to prove that they're not arresting people simply for carrying knives, which you cannot, because that is exactly what both the amnesty, and the laws being enforced are for.

Seriously? Do you really believe that you could roll a playing card lengthwise and "shove it into your brain"? I mean, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but roll a playing card lengthwise and see how effective you really think you could be with it.

I'm not even going to go in to detail on the myriad problems of shoving a playing card down someone's throat.
It's okay .... she's a playing card enthusiast. Got a stiff upper lip too. If there's anything untoward that can be done with a playing card, she's probably been thinking deeply about it for some time.

I think you misunderstood the article then. Knives aren't being banned, children are being encouraged not to carry them, wether to look cool or to protect themselves.So, tell me again, how is an enforced ban on knives not a ban again?

There is a difference between 'the carrying of knives classified as offensive weapons' has been banned for decades and is being banned.

Self defense is a good purpose, and most of the knives if you've read the articles and others on this subject, aren't even being used for that purpose. Now, if one of your cops told me that the ultimate objective of this type of ban, which we've been hearing about how it's narrowly been defeated repeatedly for years in the States, BTW, is to outlaw self defense, all you've done is confirm the exact points you claim aren't there.

Like it or not, they just announced their seizing weapons, and offering an amnesty. The burden of proof here is to prove that they're not arresting people simply for carrying knives, which you cannot, because that is exactly what both the amnesty, and the laws being enforced are for.

Self defence is no good purpose here in the UK. You are aware we are talking about the UK yes? Well legally, carrying a knife for self defence is not allowed under the law. I was simply pointng out fact.

You opinion of self defence being a good reason and it's legal basis in the states has no meaning in this arguement, so get used to it. The whole purpose of amnesty is for getting rid of knives used for self defence and fashion items in the UK. If you deny that then you seriously need to do some more reading on the carrying of knives by youths in the UK.

You still show little understanding of what the article has said. They (the police) have been taking weapons for years from those who were not carrying them with good reason, not just now. There is no new ban in the UK. FFS get an understanding of what is going on before commenting.

You did get the message that any comments to do with the US are null and void and that this is taking place in the UK right?

So, tell me again, how is an enforced ban on knives not a ban again?

Because here you are allowed to carry them with good reason. Hence as you are allowed to carry them, its not a ban. So, they are not seizing them without reason, just when they are carried without (although it is up to the officer to deceide on good reason). So no ban at all. Read the article FFS.

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

No, the mythbusters proved that myth is just a...myth. Using cards as throwing weapons didn't even draw blood IIRC. Now I'm hungry.

Well Bogmarsh wanted that back on Page 15, post 215. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11028483&postcount=215)

Well he was calling for hammers to be banned, rather then expressing disbelief that they were being banned

So, tell me again, how is an enforced ban on knives not a ban again?

I'm not sure why this is so hard to to understand. Knives aren't being banned.

If you want I could write it on the buses. Though considering how you refuse to put the issue in a UK context, that probably won't work.

Well he was calling for hammers to be banned, rather then expressing disbelief that they were being banned

True, I just thought it was too amusing not to mention.

It's okay .... she's a playing card enthusiast. Got a stiff upper lip too. If there's anything untoward that can be done with a playing card, she's probably been thinking deeply about it for some time.
Um he actually. And I never said it would be easy. I just said it could be done. Of course, anything of sufficient length could, when shoved through the the eye, kill someone. And blocking someones airpipe seems to me to be a self evident solution.

There is a difference between 'the carrying of knives classified as offensive weapons' has been banned for decades and is being banned.

Still trying to avoid the question, I see. They haven't been arresting people for simply carrying knives, most of which would be perfectly legal under said restrictions before now. So tell me again, how does the recently enacted ban not equal a ban?

Still trying to avoid the question, I see.

Nope.

They haven't been arresting people for simply carrying knives, most of which would be perfectly legal under said restrictions before now.

Yes, they have.

So tell me again, how does the recently enacted ban not equal a ban?

The ban has not been recently enacted: the restriction on carrying an offensive weapon has been on the books for decades. Whether a knife qualifies as an offensive weapon or not depends upon context and the characteristics of the knife.

Because here you are allowed to carry them with good reason. Hence as you are allowed to carry them, its not a ban. So, they are not seizing them without reason, just when they are carried without (although it is up to the officer to deceide on good reason). So no ban at all. Read the article FFS.

Are you aware you are talking about the UK, a sovereign nation that has had it's own laws violated by even enacting said laws? You want a UK specific context, for centuries, in the UK, self defense has been legal. Within my lifetime, lawmakers there have done everything they can to illegalize it. Crime is now up, and the best response they can come up with is to tell cops to go arrest people for carrying a knife, without an established reason beyond their own suspicion, which will be abused and already has been, as evidenced by the anmesty.

So, once again, prove to me the recently enacted ban is not a ban.

So, once again, prove to me the recently enacted ban is not a ban.

Yo, Aaron!

Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. <Archbold 24-106a>

Definition of an offensive weapon <Archbold 24-115B>:

'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html

So, tell me all about this 'new' ban then.

Nope.Yes, they have.The ban has not been recently enacted: the restriction on carrying an offensive weapon has been on the books for decades. Whether a knife qualifies as an offensive weapon or not depends upon context and the characteristics of the knife.

No, whether the knife qualifies as an offensive weapon or not is entirely up to the discretion of the officer in question. Previous to now, you have had law on the books stating knives had to meet a specific criteria to be seized, which have now been thrown out. There was not a ban on knives in general in place back then, and there now is, since cops are already being sent out to seize knives on the mere suspicion they might meet criteria, as evidenced by this story.

This is by definition, a vast broadening of the law, similiar to what happened in the US with the Brady Ban, only looking to be a lot more effective, since the specific criteria of a potentially offensive weapon can be put in terms of just about anything heavy enough or pointy enough to hurt a person, IE, probably 90% or more of the objects around the common household in either of our countries. What you have just basically stated to me, is that the specific qualification of actually being designed for use as a weapon, which contrary to some people's belief, the vast majority of knives are not, does not matter in the criteria for a knife to be seized where previously it had.

So once again, how is this ban not a ban?

Yo, Aaron!



http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html

So, tell me all about this 'new' ban then.

That one specifies one made for the purpose. The knives being targetted for seizure, and other implements, aren't. Thank you just hung yourself with your own argument.

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

Mythbusters says NAY

No, whether the knife qualifies as an offensive weapon or not is entirely up to the discretion of the officer in question.

Yes, but the actual decision as to whether the officer's appraisal is a sound one or not is carried out by the judge should the case come to court, just as it always has been.

Previous to now, you have had law on the books stating knives had to meet a specific criteria to be seized, which have now been thrown out. There was not a ban on knives in general in place back then, and there now is, since cops are already being sent out to seize knives on the mere suspicion they might meet criteria, as evidenced by this story.

Which bit? Not the bit that says "anyone found carrying an offensive weapon in a public place after the amnesty could be imprisoned for up to six months and receive a £5,000 fine" nor the bit that says "but police have warned that once the amnesty is over, tough action will be taken on those found armed with knives" (key words emboldened), so which bit of the article?



This is by definition, a vast broadening of the law, similiar to what happened in the US with the Brady Ban, only looking to be a lot more effective, since the specific criteria of a potentially offensive weapon can be put in terms of just about anything heavy enough or pointy enough to hurt a person, IE, probably 90% or more of the objects around the common household in either of our countries. What you have just basically stated to me, is that the specific qualification of actually being designed for use as a weapon, which contrary to some people's belief, the vast majority of knives are not, does not matter in the criteria for a knife to be seized where previously it had.

Where you unable to comprehend the words or intended by the person having it with him for such use in the 1953 act?

So once again, how is this ban not a ban?

Challenge for you: seeing as how you are certain that this is a new law it should be childs play to find it on the net. It is neither the 1953 (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html) act, nor the 1996 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996026.htm) act, so exactly what new law are you talking about?

That one specifies one made for the purpose. The knives being targetted for seizure, and other implements, aren't. Thank you just hung yourself with your own argument.

Wrong, knives are not being targeted for seizure. They have an amnesty, thats it. You can own a knife, you can use a knife for non violent purposes, you can carry a knife for the same reason. Please tell me how that is a ban?

Are you aware you are talking about the UK, a sovereign nation that has had it's own laws violated by even enacting said laws? You want a UK specific context, for centuries, in the UK, self defense has been legal. Within my lifetime, lawmakers there have done everything they can to illegalize it. Crime is now up, and the best response they can come up with is to tell cops to go arrest people for carrying a knife, without an established reason beyond their own suspicion, which will be abused and already has been, as evidenced by the anmesty.

So, once again, prove to me the recently enacted ban is not a ban.

Once again prove to me that they are doing nothing that they haven't done before. They've been arresting people for carrying dangerous weapons for years. It's nothing new. This is an amnesty has targeted knives, thats it.

Once again prove to me that they are doing nothing that they haven't done before. They've been arresting people for carrying dangerous weapons for years. It's nothing new. This is an amnesty has targeted knives, thats it.

The amnesty's part of a massive crackdown however, as shown in the article, and the definition has been recently broadened to include knives not even useable as weapons. Once again, prove to me the recently enacted ban is not a ban.

The amnesty's part of a massive crackdown however, as shown in the article, and the definition has been recently broadened to include knives not even useable as weapons. Once again, prove to me the recently enacted ban is not a ban.

I see you're not providing any written proof that this ban is such, until that time that you have, then it is you who have to prove that a ban on carrying knives for legitimate reasons is in force.

Is there any legislation that stops you owning a knife? No. Therefore no ban.

Prove to me that legislation exists an your arguement will be a valid one.

I'll bet within 24hrs of Saint Peter coming down and magically making every firearm dissapear that in Los Angeles and New york we'd hear about the first drive by spear chucking.

Same thing in Britian.

I'll bet within 24hrs of Saint Peter coming down and magically making every firearm dissapear that in Los Angeles and New york we'd hear about the first drive by spear chucking.

Same thing in Britian.

Yup, if they did end up banning knives, then it'd be screw drivers, hammers, wood cutting axes and a whole load of other stuff. As the guy from the Victims of Crime organisation says in the article, this amnesty is a PR exercise that won't solve anything long term.

However a drive by spear chucking would be a very interesting thing to see, in non lethal practice obviously...you might get auto jousting when it comes to road rage...

Crime is now up, and the best response they can come up with is to tell cops to go arrest people for carrying a knife, without an established reason beyond their own suspicion, which will be abused and already has been, as evidenced by the anmesty.

But by using their suspicion they can choose whether or not the person carrying the knife should be arrested or not. Therefore there is a choice and no absolutism, ergo, no ban.

What's next baseball....err cricket bats?

British people are all masocasts because they love being dominated by their own government.

end of story.

Yup, if they did end up banning knives, then it'd be screw drivers, hammers, wood cutting axes and a whole load of other stuff. As the guy from the Victims of Crime organisation says in the article, this amnesty is a PR exercise that won't solve anything long term.

However a drive by spear chucking would be a very interesting thing to see, in non lethal practice obviously...you might get auto jousting when it comes to road rage...

I might give that a try and take a video for you.

I might give that a try and take a video for you.

Now THATS a promise you have to keep! :D I suggest two pick ups and guys with blasa wood lances standing on the flat bed at the back (no need to kill anyone)...

Once again, prove to me the recently enacted ban is not a ban.

What 'recently enacted' ban? Cite the fricken legislation if you want to prove your point. Else we can all rest safely assured that the '96 act is the one still in force.

I'll bet within 24hrs of Saint Peter coming down and magically making every firearm dissapear that in Los Angeles and New york we'd hear about the first drive by spear chucking.

Same thing in Britian.

Unlikely, given that driveby shootings happen only maybe a handful of times a year in the UK. Are you suggesting that the restrictions on technological methods of violence are themselves catalysts of increased violence?

Yup, if they did end up banning knives, then it'd be screw drivers, hammers, wood cutting axes and a whole load of other stuff.

All of which, obviously, context dependent can be classified as offensive weapons, and as such are already covered by the current legislation on the books.

Bumparama in the hope of a cite for this 'recently enacted' legislation.

Bumparama in the hope of a cite for this 'recently enacted' legislation.

He is probably waiting for legislation to pass.

Now THATS a promise you have to keep! :D I suggest two pick ups and guys with blasa wood lances standing on the flat bed at the back (no need to kill anyone)...

Made a lance, making another. Working on a target. I've got some rifle range human silhouettes that should work fine.

Gotta go buy off the neighbor's kid to chuck the spear for me.

All of which, obviously, context dependent can be classified as offensive weapons, and as such are already covered by the current legislation on the books.

Dude that's pre-emptive banning. Banning things before they are even considered weapons. Holy cow you brits are creative.

Let them ban kitchen knives it wont hurt me a bit. I can go out to Home Depot and get a 16"penny nail gun and keep you out of my yard for about 2hours. No background check. No urine sample.

British people are all masocasts because they love being dominated by their own government.

end of story.

Actually, rather than being dominated what we prefer is a knife in the gut on a Saturday night, spilling bile on the pavement at 11:30 after I've had a few really gets me off. Usually the guy committing the offence is just on the way to make a cheese sandwhich with his 12 inch machette, cheese doesn't cut itself you know.

In fact since the criminal rather than the knife itself is responsible I think every adult should be entitled to carry around with them a stock of biological and chemical weaponry, you know the phrase "chemical weapons don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people".

But if my rectum will stop its instaitable babble for the moment...

British people are not masochistic, we simply do not wish our society to degenerate into the tragic state where there are parts of our country that we cannot visit without carrying a weapon for protection. Gun proliferation may be out of control in the USA but it is not in Britain and I will not surrender the freedom not to be stabbed or shot so that some fuckwit can have the freedom to walk around the streets carrying a knife.

Dude that's pre-emptive banning. Banning things before they are even considered weapons. Holy cow you brits are creative.

It is not the carrying of, for example, a baseball bat which is illegal, but the intent whilst carrying it to use it to cause harm.

As far as whether we are more creative than our former colonies, that I don't know. We do appear to be considerably less violent though. The exact cause of this less violent society is left as an exercise for the reader to work out.

I Dont know if this has been brought up but, it strikes me that a these laws do little but reorganize. ultimately a club is just as deadly, takes half the skill, and is far more difficult to define.

If the people of the UK stand behind this law however, it should be enacted. Governments are meant to reflect the will of their people.

Bump

I Dont know if this has been brought up but, it strikes me that a these laws do little but reorganize. ultimately a club is just as deadly, takes half the skill, and is far more difficult to define.

If the people of the UK stand behind this law however, it should be enacted. Governments are meant to reflect the will of their people.
A cutting / slashing / stabbing weapon like a knife is generally more dangerous then a blunt bashing weapon like a club.

While a blunt attack to the head certainly is dangerous, a single blow to the body is usually not fatal. A single stabbing in the area of the neck / torso / thigh however can easily be fatal.

Also, a knife is easier to conceal on your body, and easier to use since you don't need to gain much momentum to cause serious damage, as you do with a club.

Screw knives.

Why don't we pelt people with jello instead?

:D

Screw knives.

Why don't we pelt people with jello instead?

:D
I was saving this for the party - Making vodka/jello shots, I was. But what the Michigan...

*Dumps a vat of jell-O on Tweet Tweet*
:D

And it'll cool your skin better than aloe vera :p

A cutting / slashing / stabbing weapon like a knife is generally more dangerous then a blunt bashing weapon like a club.

While a blunt attack to the head certainly is dangerous, a single blow to the body is usually not fatal. A single stabbing in the area of the neck / torso / thigh however can easily be fatal.

Also, a knife is easier to conceal on your body, and easier to use since you don't need to gain much momentum to cause serious damage, as you do with a club.

A small bottle of nicotine is extremely lethal, and available for sale in the UK.

Just throw a hundred cc's of liquid nicotine on someone, and they won't live long enough to call for help.

A small bottle of nicotine is extremely lethal, and available for sale in the UK.

Just throw a hundred cc's of liquid nicotine on someone, and they won't live long enough to call for help.

A person carries a bottle around with them because they plan on drinking it.

What reason do you think a person might carry a knife around the streets with them?

A small bottle of nicotine is extremely lethal, and available for sale in the UK.

Just throw a hundred cc's of liquid nicotine on someone, and they won't live long enough to call for help.
Happens a lot, does it?

I was saving this for the party - Making vodka/jello shots, I was. But what the Michigan...

*Dumps a vat of jell-O on Tweet Tweet*
:D

And it'll cool your skin better than aloe vera :p

Meep!

Wait...mmm...*licks self*

Meep!

Wait...mmm...*licks self*
:eek:

*faints*

:eek:

*faints*

*pats face with jello-ed hands*

Wake up, now!

*pats face with jello-ed hands*

Wake up, now!
*wakes up*
What... Where...
:eek: What's that behind you?!?

*Pelts Tweet Tweet with strawberry jello when she is distracted*

*wakes up*
What... Where...
:eek: What's that behind you?!?

*Pelts Tweet Tweet with strawberry jello when she is distracted*

Curses! The calories!

On second thought...

JELLO!

*hugs Gravlen*

See, now YOU can lick yourself too! :D

Curses! The calories!

On second thought...

JELLO!

*hugs Gravlen*

See, now YOU can lick yourself too! :D
Woot! Yell-O!

*licks*

Mmm... Yello :fluffle:


Hmm... Hope there wasn't too much alcohol in this stuff...

I Dont know if this has been brought up but, it strikes me that a these laws do little but reorganize. ultimately a club is just as deadly, takes half the skill, and is far more difficult to define.

If the people of the UK stand behind this law however, it should be enacted. Governments are meant to reflect the will of their people.

The laws have been on the books since 1953 (with modifications in '96) - there are no new laws. How many times must I say this?

Meep!

Wait...mmm...*licks self*
"I wish i could do that ..."
"Well, you could at least ask first." ;)
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/132.gif

What 'recently enacted' ban? Cite the fricken legislation if you want to prove your point. Else we can all rest safely assured that the '96 act is the one still in force.

The ban mentioned in the article your working so hard to ignore. Seriously, you aren't gullible enough to think they'd declare an amnesty when they weren't randomly seizing things otherwise, do you? Also, perhaps you noted that the terms were quite recently broadened to include objects that aren't even knives?

You don't need legislation for a ban, you just need it happening.

The ban mentioned in the article your working so hard to ignore.

The legislation which was introduced in 1953 and modified in 1996? - in other words not a new ban.

Seriously, you aren't gullible enough to think they'd declare an amnesty when they weren't randomly seizing things otherwise, do you?

Yes, they have called the amnesty because they believe it will have a positive effect on knife attacks in the UK, and also it is a media-friendly event that they hope will further their anti-offensive weapon message.

Also, perhaps you noted that the terms were quite recently broadened to include objects that aren't even knives?

The term 'offensive weapon' was never limited only to knives. Check the wording of the 1953 legislation - I posted it a few pages back in reponse to one of your other posts.

You don't need legislation for a ban, you just need it happening.

So you are now admitting that there was no new legislation?

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.



Obviously the US has worse unattended social and mental ills than the UK, since, despite incarcerating 4 times the number of people per capita, it still has 4 times the per capita murder rate of the UK.

Unless of course Deep Kimchi is wrong, and access to firearms means that those with unattended social and mental ills are 4 times more likely to murder. But with Deep Kimchi's solid background in Science, why would Deep Kimchi be wrong.

Oh, wow. I haven't been by in quite a while, forgot just how you guys are...this is FUNNY!
People honestly think that banning weapons of ANY kind is going to stop assaults? I dearly love that comment somewhere in the beginning, stating ONE assault means more strict policing is necessary. What a HOOT! When you climb out from under your quivering covers, step into the light, will ya?
Picture this - a society where everyone is confined separately, not allowed to own so much as a paper clip, strip searched any time they leave thier house, restrained at all times when out of thier house, sometime with both upper and lower restraints. Must be the safest place in all the world, right? Betcha money an assault happened in there in the last 2 hours. So what would like us to do, require all to crawl on thier bellies when moving?
You guys have credentialed people who walk around and do nothing but harrass folks who are walking around with a LEGAL item, (ie, the butter knife mentioned before), NOT committing a crime, and arrest them? What kind of insanity is that?
Why doncha just build a big wall around ol' Airstrip One there, lock the gate, and call it what it is - a prison for the law abiding.
Oh, I had forgotton what a twisted view you have of life - better to crawl on your stomachs, than live like human beings.
King Richard, your sword is unregistered, it's the Tower for you!

Who the hell carries around a kitchen knife?
chefs

The legislation which was introduced in 1953 and modified in 1996? - in other words not a new ban.



Yes, they have called the amnesty because they believe it will have a positive effect on knife attacks in the UK, and also it is a media-friendly event that they hope will further their anti-offensive weapon message.



The term 'offensive weapon' was never limited only to knives. Check the wording of the 1953 legislation - I posted it a few pages back in reponse to one of your other posts.



So you are now admitting that there was no new legislation?

I did. Nowhere on there does it say the police are allowed to seize objects at will simply because they "might" be used. They're now sending officers out to collect said objects, and your new ban implementation includes pens as well as other objects that they even allow prisoners out here. Whether you refuse to see it or not, you are defending a massive broadening of the criteria, with legislative approval, hence a new ban.

Oh, wow. I haven't been by in quite a while, forgot just how you guys are...this is FUNNY!
People honestly think that banning weapons of ANY kind is going to stop assaults? I dearly love that comment somewhere in the beginning, stating ONE assault means more strict policing is necessary. What a HOOT! When you climb out from under your quivering covers, step into the light, will ya?
Picture this - a society where everyone is confined separately, not allowed to own so much as a paper clip, strip searched any time they leave thier house, restrained at all times when out of thier house, sometime with both upper and lower restraints. Must be the safest place in all the world, right? Betcha money an assault happened in there in the last 2 hours. So what would like us to do, require all to crawl on thier bellies when moving?
You guys have credentialed people who walk around and do nothing but harrass folks who are walking around with a LEGAL item, (ie, the butter knife mentioned before), NOT committing a crime, and arrest them? What kind of insanity is that?
Why doncha just build a big wall around ol' Airstrip One there, lock the gate, and call it what it is - a prison for the law abiding.
Oh, I had forgotton what a twisted view you have of life - better to crawl on your stomachs, than live like human beings.
King Richard, your sword is unregistered, it's the Tower for you!

Thats quite a nice slippery slope you've got yourself there.

First, all the guns. Now, the knives. Pretty soon...
Pocket nuclear bombs, yes.

Pocket nuclear bombs, yes.

Pokenukes? Sounds video game-ish.