NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, perhaps you know that I'm a pretty firm opponent of gun control. Alright, yeah, that means I've got something of a bias. But, how absurd does this seem? A Knife Amnesty? What next? A blunt objects amnesty?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5032686.stm

What seems so daft about it? Let people hand in knives without being charged, and there will be fewer knives on the street. Yeah, some will keep them, but any weapon off the street is better than none.

All this means is that people can hand in their knivies with out fear of prosecution. It does not mean that there is a total ban on knivies.

Whats wrong with it? It's just like the gun amnesties that have gone before.

It is needed. Knife crime is going up quickly. Over 1 weekend 50 people stabbed resulting in 2 deaths

Well, perhaps you know that I'm a pretty firm opponent of gun control. Alright, yeah, that means I've got something of a bias. But, how absurd does this seem? A Knife Amnesty? What next? A blunt objects amnesty?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5032686.stm


eventually there will even be a rubber chicken amnesty...cause its a choking hazard and all.....

I think the concept of needing a Knife Amnesty is what seems absurd to me because I cannot imagine a law banning the ownership of knives. Maybe it's because I'm an American or something else, but a knife ban just seems absurd. It's like as if the state were to come along and say "alright kids, we'll take these sharp objects away from you so you don't hurt yourselves."

Hell, I'm just waiting to hear about a ban on blunt objects in the UK.

Andaluciae
...but a knife ban just seems absurd

It NOT a ban! :headbang:

the only law in the UK conserning any ban of knivies is that you aren't allowed to carry an offensive weapon and that has been around for years.

I think the concept of needing a Knife Amnesty is what seems absurd to me because I cannot imagine a law banning the ownership of knives. Maybe it's because I'm an American or something else, but a knife ban just seems absurd. It's like as if the state were to come along and say "alright kids, we'll take these sharp objects away from you so you don't hurt yourselves."

Hell, I'm just waiting to hear about a ban on blunt objects in the UK.


It is not a damn ban on knife ownership. It is so as people can hand in knives without fear of prosecution. Knives are illegal if their only use is offensive (which some are). Kitchen knives (and other knives not specifically designed for fighting with) arent banned or anything. True, you cannot carry them around the streets unless you have good reason (if they are over a certain length... is it 3.5 inches? Cant remember), but knives are not banned as a whole. No one is going to arrest you for having a penknife (well, maybe if you draw it to use on someone).

It NOT a ban! :headbang:

the only law in the UK conserning any ban of knivies is that you aren't allowed to carry an offensive weapon and that has been around for years.
But my kitchen knives could easily be construed as a offensive weapon. Espescially when I go over to my friends house to cook. I've got five knives that range in length from three inches to nine inches, and the nine-incher looks pretty damn wicked. Yet the only thing I'm planning on cutting is some sirloin.

Christ knows what I could do with the spaghetti strainer...

It NOT a ban! :headbang:

the only law in the UK conserning any ban of knivies is that you aren't allowed to carry an offensive weapon and that has been around for years.

It's annoying me that posters (Who seem to be mostly American) can't tell the difference between a Ban and an Amnesty.

It is needed. Knife crime is going up quickly. Over 1 weekend 50 people stabbed resulting in 2 deaths

Well... I have heard that is in fact just the average for 2 days anyway... so nothing special except the fact it is reported this weekend. Almost certainly by the Daily Mail.

Bloody Mail.

It is needed. Knife crime is going up quickly. Over 1 weekend 50 people stabbed resulting in 2 deaths

Over a similar weekend a few years ago (say 10), how many people would have been stabbed?

Though AFAIK, 1 person being killed a day with a knife isn't that unusual.

It is not a damn ban on knife ownership. It is so as people can hand in knives without fear of prosecution. Knives are illegal if their only use is offensive (which some are). Kitchen knives (and other knives not specifically designed for fighting with) arent banned or anything. True, you cannot carry them around the streets unless you have good reason (if they are over a certain length... is it 3.5 inches? Cant remember), but knives are not banned as a whole. No one is going to arrest you for having a penknife (well, maybe if you draw it to use on someone).
I served on a jury where some idiotic drunk stabbed another guy six times with a broken swiss army knife with a blade that was an inch and a half long.

It's annoying me that posters (Who seem to be mostly American) can't tell the difference between a Ban and an Amnesty.
It would seem that the amnesty is a result of a ban. Otherwise, why the hell would you need an amnesty?

But my kitchen knives could easily be construed as a offensive weapon. Espescially when I go over to my friends house to cook. I've got five knives that range in length from three inches to nine inches, and the nine-incher looks pretty damn wicked. Yet the only thing I'm planning on cutting is some sirloin.

Christ knows what I could do with the spaghetti strainer...

Well, if you were carrying them in your hand, you would be probably stopped, and if searched and they found them, and you didnt have a legitimate reason for carrying them, you would be arrested. BUt if you have a reason (as you do in that situation) you wouldnt. They may check up (such as maybe take you where your going to check you are going somewhere to cook). Now, if you were carry a knife solely designed for killing, you would be arrested as it doesnt have any other legitimate use. If you had a normal knife, but didnt have a legitimate reason, you would also be arrested.

I served on a jury where some idiotic drunk stabbed another guy six times with a broken swiss army knife with a blade that was an inch and a half long.

You point being?

You point being?
That I just don't understand this. Why ban everything? How do you determine intent before a crime occurs? Are Brits psychic? Does the Invisible Pink Unicorn smile upon cheap Vodka?

I'm just mystified.

I served on a jury where some idiotic drunk stabbed another guy six times with a broken swiss army knife with a blade that was an inch and a half long.

Yes, and the heart is only 2.5 inches below the surface, but they cant ban all knives, so they have to draw the line somewhere. Over 3.5 inches it starts to suggest that the knife is intended for something else (unless you do have another reason, such as going somewhere to cook, or you have just bought them and are taking them home etc.

It would seem that the amnesty is a result of a ban. Otherwise, why the hell would you need an amnesty?

Certain types of knives are banned. Those solely designed for killing. But there are many modified knives or simply normal knives being carried around by those that dont need to. The Amnesty just is an attempt to get as many of those as possible of the streets. Similar thing with the gun amnesty (though of course they are all illegal.).

And it isnt only "law abiding citizens" that hand things in during these amnestys. The police have had uzis and the such like handed in during amnestys, so they do work, to a degree.

That I just don't understand this. Why ban everything?

They dont.


How do you determine intent before a crime occurs?

Its hard.


Are Brits psychic?

No, but if someone is carrying a knive designed solely to stab others, then that suggests he intends to stab someone at some point. And if they draw a knive in a fight, that suggests intent. And if they conceal a knife on their person when they have no other reason for that knife that suggest intent.


Does the Invisible Pink Unicorn smile upon cheap Vodka?

Maybe.


I'm just mystified.

Just as we are by some of you laws.

It's funny how GB is beginning to become more restrictive on knives, since whenever they pass a more restrictive weapons law, the crime rate always hikes.

I may sound like a broken record, but all it's doing is depriving law-abiding citizens of arms, since the black market for weapons is easily accesable in most places of the world.

what dont you understand? it is a criminal offence to carry a conceled knife of more than 3.5 inches. the bacons are clamping down on this after a huge increase in knife play. part of this is that you can safely dump one at a police station with no fear of arrest until a certain point where it becomes open season. can you carry machetes around in your town?

how does that link to a banning of the concept of a knife or rubber chickens? :rolleyes:

It's funny how GB is beginning to become more restrictive on knives, since whenever they pass a more restrictive weapons law, the crime rate always hikes.

I may sound like a broken record, but all it's doing is depriving law-abiding citizens of arms, since the black market for weapons is easily accesable in most places of the world.

Most law abiding people in this country choose not to own arms (Weapons not limbs) so therefore it isnt a big deal here as it is in the US

Criminal Justice Act, 1988. Section 139(1).

Offence:

It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches.

Powers:

Arrestable offence.

(Source (http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexeng.html#K))

And the All-knowing Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife#In_the_UK):
Knife possession is only legislated in public places. In private almost any kind of knife may be owned (with the exception of automatic knives: flick knives, butterfly knives, and switchblades, which are illegal under many circumstances). In general, knives carried in public places are legally considered to be offensive weapons and the carrier can be charged with "possession of an offensive weapon". It is however legal to carry a knife if there is a bona fide reason to do so for example, if it is a tool required for ones trade (e.g. chefs) or if it is part of a national costume (e.g. sgian dubh), or if it is carried for religious reasons (e.g. Sikh Kirpan). A special exception exists for penknives (pocket knives) which are legal without reason for possession, but they must be non-locking and sub 3". A common misconception of UK law is that any knife with a locking blade is illegal to carry, this comes from prohibition of 'flick knives', which also requires the knife to have "a blade which is released from the handle by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force"

What seems so daft about it? Let people hand in knives without being charged, and there will be fewer knives on the street. Yeah, some will keep them, but any weapon off the street is better than none.
Only problem with that is the people willing to hand them in are exactly the people who, although a bit dumb, should be trusted with defensive weapons, and the people who will keep them consist of a blend of smart people and dangerous criminals. You effectively just disarm the stupid, harmless people and make them easier prey for the criminals.

Only problem with that is the people willing to hand them in are exactly the people who, although a bit dumb, should be trusted with defensive weapons, and the people who will keep them consist of a blend of smart people and dangerous criminals. You effectively just disarm the stupid, harmless people and make them easier prey for the criminals.

Its good to disarm the stupid as they might do something stupid with the offensive blade:rolleyes:

It's annoying me that posters (Who seem to be mostly American) can't tell the difference between a Ban and an Amnesty.
I think most American posters dont see the POINT of an amnesty without a ban.
"You can hand in your knives and we wont prosecute you, but if you keep your knives, we wont prosecute you either."
Y'see?

Technically they will be prosecuted if the police ever find them in possession of the offensive knives etc.
Which won't happen unless police start randomly searching people on the street, or they end up using the knife in self defense. Hopefully cops won't start doing random searches and will cut a guy some slack if he stabs a couple of thugs trying to mug him.

It's annoying me that posters (Who seem to be mostly American) can't tell the difference between a Ban and an Amnesty.
Are they saying that when the time is up you will get charged when caught with one? Then it is a Ban. When the Amnesty wears off the Ban will go into place. The whole thing is just idiotic.

Better have an 'Amnesty' for Pencils and Pens.
Don't forget Needles, Buckets, Brooms, Mops, Lawnmowers, Spoons Forks, Computer Mice (Strangilation hazard), Computers (Heavy object) Anything made of moveable metal, anything made of heavy plastic, any large blunt object, all glass, All wood objects, your clothes, (Choking like before) Your hands, your feet, your teeth, and your Brain.
There, no weapons at all! Aren't you happy to be so safe now! Now all you can do is bleed on me, wait you might have a disease. Better take care of that also! :rolleyes:

It's funny how GB is beginning to become more restrictive on knives, since whenever they pass a more restrictive weapons law, the crime rate always hikes.

I may sound like a broken record, but all it's doing is depriving law-abiding citizens of arms, since the black market for weapons is easily accesable in most places of the world.

Damn right. The UK is strangling itself with retarded laws that only serve to make the populace incapable of legally defending themselves. Banning weapons because they're weapons is about as smart as giving attempted suicides the death penalty, and accomplishes about as much. Think about it. There was no functional reason to ban semi-automatic rifles, and the retards in your Parliament went ahead with it anyway. Pistols serve a far more important role to people, self-defense, and the UK banned them too. THAT was just ridiculous. Burglaries have spiked massively because those burglars know they'll never encounter any armed resistance. The Parliament has destroyed the ability of the people of the UK to defend themselves, unlike the American government, which makes me proud to be an American, though that freedom is being ground away too. The problem with making things illegal to keep them out of the hands of criminals is that CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW! Your parliament is too dumb to realize that.

It's annoying me that posters (Who seem to be mostly American) can't tell the difference between a Ban and an Amnesty.
Seconded, thirded and doubled times infinity plus one.

Just as we are by some of you laws.
Such as? America, even if idealists, hippies and thought police are grinding away at our freedoms, still has among the best legal systems in the world. There's almost nowhere I'd rather live.

Only problem with that is the people willing to hand them in are exactly the people who, although a bit dumb, should be trusted with defensive weapons, and the people who will keep them consist of a blend of smart people and dangerous criminals. You effectively just disarm the stupid, harmless people and make them easier prey for the criminals.

No, in fact criminals do take advantage of amnesties to hand in weapons. During gun amnesties (which are illegal anyway, and so only criminals have them) even fully automatic weapons have been handed in. In fact most "law abiding people" dont have anything to hand in. I dont think I should maybe go down to the police station and hand in any knives, as all the ones I do have are all for home use. MOst people will not use the knife amnesty, as they dont have anything they want (or need) to hand in.

Which won't happen unless police start randomly searching people on the street, or they end up using the knife in self defense. Hopefully cops won't start doing random searches and will cut a guy some slack if he stabs a couple of thugs trying to mug him.

Well... actually, in Britain the police do have the power to "Stop and Search" if they have reasonable suspicion you may be up to some trouble. Of course that power is abused, and the police do seem to be more willing to stop those of certain racial groups than others.

Are they saying that when the time is up you will get charged when caught with one? Then it is a Ban. When the Amnesty wears off the Ban will go into place. The whole thing is just idiotic.

Better have an 'Amnesty' for Pencils and Pens.
Don't forget Needles, Buckets, Brooms, Mops, Lawnmowers, Spoons Forks, Computer Mice (Strangilation hazard), Computers (Heavy object) Anything made of moveable metal, anything made of heavy plastic, any large blunt object, all glass, All wood objects, your clothes, (Choking like before) Your hands, your feet, your teeth, and your Brain.
There, no weapons at all! Aren't you happy to be so safe now! Now all you can do is bleed on me, wait you might have a disease. Better take care of that also! :rolleyes:

A bit zealous, but I agree with you completely. There's simply no way to get rid of weapons. Not the Brits know anything about effective legislation. Giving less than 20 years for treason? Life for raping a child? Both of those should get the death penalty, and any sensible country (USA! USA! USA!) would give it for both. I used to be proud of having an English family, but when I look at the pseudo-utopian, pacifist-ruled crime den it has become, that pride vanishes like French soldiers in a war zone.

Are they saying that when the time is up you will get charged when caught with one? Then it is a Ban.

No. The same law as before will apply. This is just an opportunity to get those illegal weapons, and those other knives held for illegal uses, off the streets. No new law will come into force.


When the Amnesty wears off the Ban will go into place. The whole thing is just idiotic.

No new law is being put into place. Not yet anyway. Politicians may succumb to the pressure of the Daily Mail and poorly informed public to make some kneejerk law, but there are currently no new laws on the book.


Better have an 'Amnesty' for Pencils and Pens.
Don't forget Needles, Buckets, Brooms, Mops, Lawnmowers, Spoons Forks, Computer Mice (Strangilation hazard), Computers (Heavy object) Anything made of moveable metal, anything made of heavy plastic, any large blunt object, all glass, All wood objects, your clothes, (Choking like before) Your hands, your feet, your teeth, and your Brain.
There, no weapons at all! Aren't you happy to be so safe now! Now all you can do is bleed on me, wait you might have a disease. Better take care of that also! :rolleyes:

Ach! Bloody hell. You dont have a clue do you? Stop saying stupid shite like this.

Seconded, thirded and doubled times infinity plus one.

Amnesties only have a purpose when there's a ban. Otherwise, there's no reason any sane person would take advantage of the amnesty.

Amnesties only have a purpose when there's a ban. Otherwise, there's no reason any sane person would take advantage of the amnesty.
There is a ban on offensive weapons, and always has been. There is not a ban on kitchen knives, spoons or frying pans, which is what these threads always turn into.

Perhaps we could have a 'thumbs up for getting illegal weapons off the street' thread rather than a 'next they'll be coming for my goldfish as an offensive weapon' thread?

Are they saying that when the time is up you will get charged when caught with one?

Yes, if you cannot give a valid reason.

Same as it has been for a while now. It isn't a new policy.

Then it is a Ban.

Nope, because you are still allowed to own them.

When the Amnesty wears off the Ban will go into place. The whole thing is just idiotic.

The "ban," as you like to call it, will not go into place. It will simply simply resume.

Better have an 'Amnesty' for Pencils and Pens.

sigh

Try and learn the context this is happening in before next hitting "send."

This follows much media attention on the apparent increase in stabbings, especially amoung school children. With the death of a 15 year a few weeks ago being the proverbial straw. The government are being encouraged by an alarmist press to appear to be doing to halt this trend. The trend being school children (usually boys) carrying knives de rigueur. Either to appear cool, or out of the understanding that they will now be able to defend themselves. The amnesty is being accompanied by an information campaign informing teenagers in particular, and everone else in general, that carrying a knife is a bad idea. Because (i) it is illegal to carry an offensive weapon, (ii) it increases the risk of the carrier getting stabbed because frequently (more often than not according to the police) knives have been turned against the carrier and (iii) a lot of children don't need to carry a knife anyway.

Are they saying that when the time is up you will get charged when caught with one? Then it is a Ban. When the Amnesty wears off the Ban will go into place. The whole thing is just idiotic.

Better have an 'Amnesty' for Pencils and Pens.
Don't forget Needles, Buckets, Brooms, Mops, Lawnmowers, Spoons Forks, Computer Mice (Strangilation hazard), Computers (Heavy object) Anything made of moveable metal, anything made of heavy plastic, any large blunt object, all glass, All wood objects, your clothes, (Choking like before) Your hands, your feet, your teeth, and your Brain.
There, no weapons at all! Aren't you happy to be so safe now! Now all you can do is bleed on me, wait you might have a disease. Better take care of that also!

Ach! Bloody hell. You dont have a clue do you? Stop saying stupid shite like this.

You brits might think differently, but what he's getting at is exactly the direction your country's taking.

Which won't happen unless police start randomly searching people on the street,

Start?

They are already allowed to do that

Damn right. The UK is strangling itself with retarded laws that only serve to make the populace incapable of legally defending themselves. Banning weapons because they're weapons is about as smart as giving attempted suicides the death penalty, and accomplishes about as much. Think about it. There was no functional reason to ban semi-automatic rifles, and the retards in your Parliament went ahead with it anyway. Pistols serve a far more important role to people, self-defense, and the UK banned them too. THAT was just ridiculous. Burglaries have spiked massively because those burglars know they'll never encounter any armed resistance.

Most burglaries still occur when people are out of the home, when it would make dick squat difference whether there was a gun or not.


The Parliament has destroyed the ability of the people of the UK to defend themselves,

Hardly anyone owned a gun before they were banned anyway. A few gun enthusiast, game keepers and professional hunters (the latter two still have their weapons). Most people were not disarmed in Britain, as they didnt have guns in the fucking first place. They never did have "the ability to defend themselves" as you put it in the first place. I personally call it "more likely the intruder/criminal will be armed and shoot you because he will think he is in more danger".


unlike the American government, which makes me proud to be an American, though that freedom is being ground away too. The problem with making things illegal to keep them out of the hands of criminals is that CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW! Your parliament is too dumb to realize that.

Well, many criminals actually handed in weapons in both the gun and knife amnesties. Those guns and knives are now off the streets. Obviously there are still others, and eventually the numbers will be restocked as the black market resupplies (or with knives even the normal market for some of the weapons).

It's funny how GB is beginning to become more restrictive on knives, since whenever they pass a more restrictive weapons law, the crime rate always hikes.

No new law regarding knives has been passed.

And to the best of my knowledge no new law is being considered.

Amnesties only have a purpose when there's a ban. Otherwise, there's no reason any sane person would take advantage of the amnesty.

And yes, astonishingly, it is working. People are handing in various knives, just as the previous gun amnesty had people handing in anything from pistols to Uzis. It may be a stopgap measure, but it is working. And for the last time no, there is no ban.

You brits might think differently, but what he's getting at is exactly the direction your country's taking.


NO its bloody not. The law on pssession of these items has not changed for years. Now, the penalty for doing so has, and will possibly change again, but what you can and cannot do has not.

NO its bloody not. The law on pssession of these items has not changed for years. Now, the penalty for doing so has, and will possibly change again, but what you can and cannot do has not.

look at UK gun policy. you'll find that I'm entirely correct. If i had to desribe the Parliament in three words at this moment those words would be Irrational, Reactionary and Shortsighted.

look at UK gun policy. you'll find that I'm entirely correct. If i had to desribe the Parliament in three words at this moment those words would be Irrational, Reactionary and Shortsighted.

Odd. That's how I'd describe Congress.


What exactly do you know about the British Parliamentary System, and the Knife Amnesty other than a single article posted in this thread?

A bit zealous, but I agree with you completely. There's simply no way to get rid of weapons.

Yet in the short term the amnesties do exactly that.


Not the Brits know anything about effective legislation.

PLease! Do not spout rubbish like that.


Giving less than 20 years for treason?

Yeah? So? The person has commited treason and been found out. They wont be able to again, as they have been revealed. whats the point in killing them? Whats that going to achieve except fufilling some primitive bloodlust?


Life for raping a child?

While they are in prison they will be prevented fromm doing anything, and again, what does killing them achieve?


Both of those should get the death penalty,

In your opinion. I personally believe no crime should get the death penalty. Those that are a danger to society should be locked up, but murder by the state achieves jack shit.


and any sensible country

Gets rid of the death penalty, like Britain and all the other European nations.


(USA! USA! USA!) would give it for both. I used to be proud of having an English family, but when I look at the pseudo-utopian, pacifist-ruled crime den it has become, that pride vanishes like French soldiers in a war zone.

And that reveals you to be a ignorant xenophobe, so meh.

look at UK gun policy. you'll find that I'm entirely correct.

Oh, yes I am sure you are. But Do I think you know that much about the circumstances here? What it was like before and after the ban on handguns? And then there is the fact that since then there hasnt really been aby extention of what has been banned as it is described as an offensive weapon.


If i had to desribe the Parliament in three words at this moment those words would be Irrational, Reactionary and Shortsighted.

Well, I might agree with you on some of its members, but almost certainly for different reasons.

And yes, astonishingly, it is working. People are handing in various knives, just as the previous gun amnesty had people handing in anything from pistols to Uzis. It may be a stopgap measure, but it is working. And for the last time no, there is no ban.

And there was no functional reason for the gun amnesty, as gun-related crime has only exponentially increased since then. Amnesties DO NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING MEANINGFUL! If they did, America would probably be using them. As for bans, they only serve to increase the crime they're meant to prevent, and reduce the ability of law-abiding people to protect themselves and their families. Or does the government over there think THAT should be banned too?

I used to be proud of having an English family, but when I look at the pseudo-utopian, pacifist-ruled crime den it has become, that pride vanishes like French soldiers in a war zone.
The ability of NRA propoganda to ignore the facts, and for its supporters to actually swallow such tripe, never fails to amaze me.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

* U.S.A. 14.24
* Brazil 12.95
* Mexico 12.69
* Estonia 12.26
* Argentina 8.93
* Northern Ireland 6.63
* Finland 6.46
* Switzerland 5.31
* France 5.15
* Canada 4.31
* Norway 3.82
* Austria 3.70
* Portugal 3.20
* Israel 2.91
* Belgium 2.90
* Australia 2.65
* Slovenia 2.60
* Italy 2.44
* New Zealand 2.38
* Denmark 2.09
* Sweden 1.92
* Kuwait 1.84
* Greece 1.29
* Germany 1.24
* Hungary 1.11
* Ireland 0.97
* Spain 0.78
* Netherlands 0.70
* Scotland 0.54
* England and Wales 0.41
* Taiwan 0.37
* Singapore 0.21
* Mauritius 0.19
* Hong Kong 0.14
* South Korea 0.12
* Japan 0.05
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

Ach! Bloody hell. You dont have a clue do you? Stop saying stupid shite like this.
No YOU don't have a clue. They pass these laws in the name of 'safety' guess what SAFETY IS AN ILLUSION!!! Anything is a weapon. Anything... Banning Knives passing laws to 'punish' those with Knives is a waste of Laws. If you ban knives you might as well ban hands, becuase they're JUST AS DANGEROUS.

A plane could fall on my house in 5 seconds for all I know. Safety is not real. Everything has a risk. Banning Knives will not stop crime, those who really want to commit a crime will still do so. Putting a metal detector at an Airport will not stop a terrorist from walking in with A gun, knife, Bomb, or even a Blunt object and killing as many people as possible.

*Snip.* Considering the US has a higher population, then of course there would be more criminals, and of course there will be more deaths, can you list the Non weapon murders in England now?

No YOU don't have a clue. They pass these laws in the name of 'safety' guess what SAFETY IS AN ILLUSION!!! Anything is a weapon. Anything... Banning Knives passing laws to 'punish' those with Knives is a waste of Laws. If you ban knives you might as well ban hands, becuase they're JUST AS DANGEROUS.

A plane could fall on my house in 5 seconds for all I know. Safety is not real. Everything has a risk. Banning Knives will not stop crime, those who really want to commit a crime will still do so, and guess what, you can't fight back now. Well don't expect me to be suprised when you get sliced up in your home during a robbery.

How many times? This is an Amnesty, not a Ban!

Banning Knives passing laws to 'punish' those with Knives is a waste of Laws.

KNIVES AREN'T BEING FUCKING BANNED!

I hope I won't need to make the text any bigger.

How many times? This is an Amnesty, not a Ban!
I wouldn't bother, if I were you. Some people demand a right to be frightened in their beds and convince themselves that the world is out to kill them, unless they kill it first.

It's annoying me that posters (Who seem to be mostly American) can't tell the difference between a Ban and an Amnesty.


Surely if there's an Amnesty, the implication is that there's a crime.

So most people don't immediately realize that the crime is not owning a knife, but carrying it.

Yes. Bans on carrying knives are retarded.

And there was no functional reason for the gun amnesty, as gun-related crime has only exponentially increased since then. Amnesties DO NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING MEANINGFUL! If they did, America would probably be using them. As for bans, they only serve to increase the crime they're meant to prevent, and reduce the ability of law-abiding people to protect themselves and their families. Or does the government over there think THAT should be banned too?

Take your culture of conflict and stuff it where it belongs. In the UK law abiding people do not spend most of their time worrying about protecting themselves or their families, because they don't need to worry about it. I know which climate I would rather live in, the one which is not so fear ridden that you allow people to shoot others on suspicion without penalty.

This is an amnesty. This means that you will not be prosecured for having broken the law, an old law at that. The worst that can happen is that no illegal weapopns are handed in. SO what is your problem.

I hope I won't need to make the text any bigger.

Because banning the carrying of knives is somehow smart.:p

And there was no functional reason for the gun amnesty,

Yes there is. It gets guns off the street. Thats enough reason.


as gun-related crime has only exponentially increased since then. Amnesties DO NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING MEANINGFUL! If they did, America would probably be using them. As for bans, they only serve to increase the crime they're meant to prevent,

Do you know any of the other factors around the increase in gun crime in Britain except the fact that guns were banned? What about the fact that most guns are used in gang releated crime against each other, something that not banning handguns would not have changed? This is illegal weapons being used on people that normally have illegal weapons as well. That would have been no different before the ban. The increase in gun crime cannot really be attributed to the handgun ban.

and reduce the ability of law-abiding people to protect themselves and their families. Or does the government over there think THAT should be banned too?

Hardly anyone owned a gun before the ban on handguns. I knew no one who had a gun before the ban. I didnt know anyone who knew someone who had a gun. The British people were never disarmed. They were never armd in the first place.

I wouldn't bother, if I were you. Some people demand a right to be frightened in their beds and convince themselves that the world is out to kill them, unless they kill it first.

I know. Jesus Christ, if it were a ban I'd be screaming my head off. But it isn't. The article says the cops will take a tougher stance on people armed with knives after it ends, but that could mean a multitude of options - from longer sentences to another amnesty.

THERE HAS BEEN NO MENTION OF A BAN

In the UK law abiding people do not spend most of their time worrying about protecting themselves or their families, because they don't need to worry about it.

More like, because they believe they don't need to worry about it just like people in America believe they do while living in a much less violent country.

Surely if there's an Amnesty, the implication is that there's a crime.

So most people don't immediately realize that the crime is not owning a knife, but carrying it.

Yes. Bans on carrying knives are retarded.

That might be your implication. It isn't neccessarily mine. The police often do Amnesty's for many things. It doesn't equal a ban.

KNIVES AREN'T BEING FUCKING BANNED!

I hope I won't need to make the text any bigger.
Perhaps you don't know what I meant by Ban.
So maybe I should make it clearer.

Having Knives in public is Illegal correct? Then that is a ban.
I'm not talking about Knives all together. I'm talking about having a knife on the street.

In your home\cooking= Legal
In your pocket on the street= Illegal

There is a smoking Ban in where I live.
Does that mean you're not allowed to smoke in your home?
No.

Is it still considered a ban because it's illegal in public places.
Yes.
(Seriously, If you looked it up in the law books the law is listed as a PUBLIC SMOKING BAN)

Hardly anyone owned a gun before the ban on handguns. I knew no one who had a gun before the ban. I didnt know anyone who knew someone who had a gun. The British people were never disarmed. They were never armd in the first place.

I knew someone who owned a gun.

But he still owns it now (legally btw)

Having Knives in public is Illegal correct?

Nope. Having certain types of knives without a legitimate purpose is illegal.

The ability of NRA propoganda to ignore the facts, and for its supporters to actually swallow such tripe, never fails to amaze me.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:



The ability of gun contol propaganda to ignore the facts, and for its supporters to actually swallow such tripe, never fails to amaze me.

1. These numbers are from 1994. By 2004, the US murder rate fell, is now at the lowest in 40 years, while gun laws were made more liberal, not less.

2.These are gun deaths, not total deaths. How many people are dead is a more important question then 'how many people are killed'.

3. The fact nation N has less murders then nation Y does not mean in and of itself gun control is the reason otherwise Washington, Dc. would be the safest location in the world.

Yet in the short term the amnesties do exactly that. Note the second, third, fourth and fifth words of your statement. From what I see, England has yet to implement an effective long-term
policy, or even consider one.

PLease! Do not spout rubbish like that.
Three words about the comment that led to that: Living Breathing Truth.


Yeah? So? The person has commited treason and been found out. They wont be able to again, as they have been revealed. whats the point in killing them? Whats that going to achieve except fufilling some primitive bloodlust?
It ensures that they won't do it again. Besides, reintegrating criminals is detrimental to society, as no sane person wants a treasonous, murdering spy in their company.



While they are in prison they will be prevented fromm doing anything, and again, what does killing them achieve?
Also ensures that it won't happen again. Additionally, in any developed society pedophilia is frowned upon, and most countries don't reintegrate, so the death penalty is, apart from being effective and deterrent, rather merciful.

In your opinion. I personally believe no crime should get the death penalty. Those that are a danger to society should be locked up, but murder by the state achieves jack shit.
Imprisonment achieves less. It creates socially useless, dangerous, murderous people and places a great financial drain on the government.

Gets rid of the death penalty, like Britain and all the other European nations.
No, keeps and effectively excercises the death penalty like America and Singapore.

And that reveals you to be a ignorant xenophobe, so meh.

I lived in England for two years, and was not impressed with what I saw. Besides, I've spent my whole life living among foreigners, so I'd be dead if I were xenophobic. What I am is realistic. Hence the comment that lead to my last quote.

Hardly anyone owned a gun before the ban on handguns. I knew no one who had a gun before the ban. I didnt know anyone who knew someone who had a gun. The British people were never disarmed. They were never armd in the first place.

Actually, there was a very lively gun culture in Britain in the first half of the 20th century, and it was slowly eliminated by a variety of legislation. And yes, murder rates were lower.

Nope. Having certain types of knives without a legitimate purpose is illegal.
But it's still illegal correct?

No YOU don't have a clue. They pass these laws in the name of 'safety' guess what SAFETY IS AN ILLUSION!!! Anything is a weapon. Anything... Banning Knives passing laws to 'punish' those with Knives is a waste of Laws. If you ban knives you might as well ban hands, becuase they're JUST AS DANGEROUS.

Well, while I can agree that total safety is an illusion, hands are not as dangerous as knives or guns.

Lets see. Gun. I pull, a trigger, bullet comes out, hits and kills or injures you. Knife. I thrust it into you and I kill or injure you. Hands. Most people slap or punch each other. It hurts, and it can kill, but nowhere near as easily as a gun or knife.


Considering the US has a higher population, then of course there would be more criminals, and of course there will be more deaths,

Yes, but that figure takes account of population, It is per 100,000 population. And even with the increase in gun crime, it has not shot up to 30 times its previous levels.


can you list the Non weapon murders in England now?

I suspect they are also lower rates than in the US, but yes, I cannot be sure about that.

The ability of gun contol propaganda to ignore the facts, and for its supporters to actually swallow such tripe, never fails to amaze me.
You can correct my spelling all you like. We'll just go on correcting your frankly laughable assertion that America is a safer country in which to live because you're all armed to the teeth.

It's interesting you spent so long in school learning how to spell 'propaganda'. It's obviously a word you use a lot.

this might seem like a very naive question but are americans allowed bring knives to school? machetes to the store? hunting knives to hang around the mall?

it is a criminal offence to have certain types of knives in public in britain, always has. this thread is inane

That might be your implication. It isn't neccessarily mine. The police often do Amnesty's for many things. It doesn't equal a ban.

The word amnesty has a meaning.

The meaning, according to Merriam Webster, is:

the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals

This implies something wrong has been committed, and now we are granting an amnesty to the people who committed it.

But it's still illegal correct?

Yes. If you don't have a legitimate reason.

However you can legally walk the streets of Britain with a knife if you have a legitimate reason for carrying it.

You can correct my spelling all you like. We'll just go on correcting your frankly laughable assertion that America is a safer country in which to live because you're all armed to the teeth.

What is it with people who think I'm an American just because I happen to disagree?


It's interesting you spent so long in school learning how to spell 'propaganda'. It's obviously a word you use a lot

I'm waiting for your to address my actual points.

More like, because they believe they don't need to worry about it just like people in America believe they do while living in a much less violent country.

O sweet balm of ignorance.

Get your facts straight. The USA has a higher violent crime rate than the UK per capita, by a long way. But you wouldn't want to admit that would you. Because it might mean that a more lightly armed society is safer than a heavily armed one.

However, unless you are living, or have lived in the UK and then somewhere else where there is a gun culture, you don't have the basis on which to judge the worries that people have.

It hurts, and it can kill, but nowhere near as easily as a gun or knife.

Interesting that the FBI points out less people are killed in America each year by rifles and shotguns combined [we're talking 60% of all guns in the US] then by kitchen knives or by people's bare hands individually.

During gun amnesties (which are illegal anyway, and so only criminals have them)

Popular misconception, we are allowed guns you know, just not handguns and other easily concealed firearms, you need a license to have other firearms but that is only common sense.

And yes carrying them around gets you arrested for having an offensive weapon unless you are on your way to or from a shooting range. But when alls said and done people dont wander around city centres with shotguns or rifles.

this might seem like a very naive question but are americans allowed bring knives to school? machetes to the store? hunting knives to hang around the mall?

it is a criminal offence to have certain types of knives in public in britain, always has. this thread is inane
But you can't get charged for having a machete in your car in America.

In the store? Depends on what store it is. If they sell Machetes you might get some suspious looks but they might just think you're returning it.
Legally it's not in the books, but you might be stopped on suspision of commiting a crime.

The mall? I've seen someone with a hunting knife on their belt in the mall once.

There is a weapons Ban in school also. But that was in school.
Off topic but:
You know that the school weapons ban has a loophole, it says nothing about Flamethrowers or Nuclear weapons...

The ability of NRA propoganda to ignore the facts, and for its supporters to actually swallow such tripe, never fails to amaze me.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

* U.S.A. 14.24
* Brazil 12.95
* Mexico 12.69
* Estonia 12.26
* Argentina 8.93
* Northern Ireland 6.63
* Finland 6.46
* Switzerland 5.31
* France 5.15
* Canada 4.31
* Norway 3.82
* Austria 3.70
* Portugal 3.20
* Israel 2.91
* Belgium 2.90
* Australia 2.65
* Slovenia 2.60
* Italy 2.44
* New Zealand 2.38
* Denmark 2.09
* Sweden 1.92
* Kuwait 1.84
* Greece 1.29
* Germany 1.24
* Hungary 1.11
* Ireland 0.97
* Spain 0.78
* Netherlands 0.70
* Scotland 0.54
* England and Wales 0.41
* Taiwan 0.37
* Singapore 0.21
* Mauritius 0.19
* Hong Kong 0.14
* South Korea 0.12
* Japan 0.05
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

In case you didn't notice, the figures DO include suicides. Besides, the England and Wales rate only shows that there is no need for a gun ban in the UK.

I'm waiting for your to address my actual points.
What's to address? In every category of violent crime you care to pick, in any year you care to pick, the US has significantly higher rates than anywhere in Western Europe. Why should I waste my time again on one of these threads saying again that the idea that there is no correlation between these figures and gun ownership is absurd?

If you don't have a gun, you don't get shot. If I don't get shot, I have a significantly better chance of surviving any violent crime. You can say 'let's ban goldfish as well in case someone slaps me with one and I get hurt!' until you're blue in the face, but the facts are clear to see.

People don't kill people, they hurt them; guns will finish the job off.

O sweet balm of ignorance.

Get your facts straight. The USA has a higher violent crime rate than the UK per capita, by a long way. But you wouldn't want to admit that would you. Because it might mean that a more lightly armed society is safer than a heavily armed one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1785929,00.html

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp

However, unless you are living, or have lived in the UK and then somewhere else where there is a gun culture, you don't have the basis on which to judge the worries that people have.

Says... who?

And there was no functional reason for the gun amnesty, as gun-related crime has only exponentially increased since then. Amnesties DO NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING MEANINGFUL! If they did, America would probably be using them. As for bans, they only serve to increase the crime they're meant to prevent, and reduce the ability of law-abiding people to protect themselves and their families. Or does the government over there think THAT should be banned too?
There are cities in the United States that have weapons buy-back programs. The police department sets out a table at some location and it's like a gun show in reverse. The guns that are turned in aren't typically the type that would be used in a crime, however. Usually the old and rusty ones are the ones turned in.

What's to address? In every category of violent crime you care to pick, in any year you care to pick, the US has significantly higher rates than anywhere in Western Europe. Why should I waste my time again on one of these threads saying again that the idea that there is no correlation between these figures and gun ownership is absurd?





Comparing crime rates in any given year and then whinging that it's gun control that's the reason is absurd. How about, comparing crime rates on a historical level? How about the fact America had more gun laws in the early 1990's then it has now, and murders, homicides, etc. have dropped?

How about the fact Europe had practically no gun laws in the 1900's, and all was pretty much okay?

How about the fact Scotland and England do have insane rates of general violent crime?

How about the fact that studies published by the US CDC, UK Cambridge, and several other universities agree that so far a connection between gun control and total homicide rate is not proven?

If you ban knives you might as well ban hands, becuase they're JUST AS DANGEROUS.
Ahahahahahaha...

No, they're not. Really.

In case you didn't notice, the figures DO include suicides. Besides, the England and Wales rate only shows that there is no need for a gun ban in the UK.

in ireland possesion of an illegal gun (farmers and hunters are allowed shotguns or rifles,subject to an annual review and pscychiatric testing)gets you 6 years. no ifs no buts. straight to jail, do not pass go.

look where we are on the table. our police are unarmed and its extremly rare they get shot at, never mind shot.

maybe its themstrict gun ban that stops people using guns?

in ireland possesion of an illegal gun (farmers and hunters are allowed shotguns or rifles,subject to an annual review and pscychiatric testing)gets you 6 years. no ifs no buts. straight to jail, so not pass go.

look where we are on the table. our police are unarmed and its extremly rare they get shot at, never mind shot.

maybe its the gun ban that stops people using guns?

So how do you explain switzerland?

in ireland possesion of an illegal gun (farmers and hunters are allowed shotguns or rifles,subject to an annual review and pscychiatric testing)gets you 6 years. no ifs no buts. straight to jail, so not pass go.

look where we are on the table. our police are unarmed and its extremly rare they get shot at, never mind shot.

maybe its the gun ban that stops people using guns?

Really? Then why has gun crime increased in the UK?

[list]

Comparing crime rates in any given year and then whinging that it's gun control that's the reason is absurd. How about, comparing crime rates on a historical level? How about the fact America had more gun laws in the early 1990's then it has now, and murders, homicides, etc. have dropped?
Prove the causality to me, rather than just throw things up in the air and claim they are related. Give me some evidence, some hard facts, that says more guns equals less crime. All you ever see in favour of gun control is anecdotical stories about how tiny woman are getting raped by huge men every time they go out their front door.

How about the fact Europe had practically no gun laws in the 1900's, and all was pretty much okay?
You seriously want to compare 2006 and 1900? You really think the two eras are similar enough for a worthwhile study?

And, while we're talking about definitions and hard facts, you're going to have to do much better than 'pretty much ok'.

How about the fact Scotland and England do have insane rates of general violent crime?
Compared to the US, the UK is a crime free paradise. Again, define 'insane'.

How about the fact that studies published by the US CDC, UK Cambridge, and several other universities agree that so far a connection between gun control and total homicide rate is not proven?
How about studies by more people than you'd care to mention shows that it is? Do a quick Google search if you don't believe me. Add a healthy dose of common sense to the equation, where "More guns = more chance of getting shot", and you'll come up against an undeniable conclusion that guns are not something you want floating about freely.

Note the second, third, fourth and fifth words of your statement. From what I see, England has yet to implement an effective long-term policy, or even consider one.

An amnesty is only meant to be a short term policy. And the problem is that people have yet to discover an effective long term policy.


It ensures that they won't do it again.

How could they? Spys rely on remaining secret. As soon as their cover is blown they are useless. If they are discovered you have ensured they will no longer be a threat.


Besides, reintegrating criminals is detrimental to society,

Any proof of this? Surely turing a person who gave some secrets to someone into a more productive member of society is actually beneficial. And killing people sends the wrong message.


as no sane person wants a treasonous, murdering spy in their company.

Well, firstly whos to say they are "murdering". And if they no longer pose a threat, and are a skilled or hard worker who would give a toss. I wouldnt. And what about the situation of the treason itself? Just to give an example: Thpse that fought for American independance were traitors, yet even I will agree they probably did the right thing. Sometimes treason can in fact be the right thing. What about someone revealing something the government is doing which is damaging to people and democracy? Technically they could be call a traitor, but they have again dont the right thing.


Also ensures that it won't happen again.

You can do that by imprisoning them for life if needs be.


Additionally, in any developed society pedophilia is frowned upon,

Of course.


and most countries don't reintegrate, so the death penalty is, apart from being effective and deterrent,

No improved deterrant effect by the death penalty has ever been proven. In fact, in countries with death penalties many crimes (including those punishable by death) are actually higher. And most people are willing to avoid prison (even to the extent they will kill to avoid it, so that suggests that it is something serious in criminals minds), so any deterrance you could get is alreayd there. True deterrance would need very good detection rates, so someone knows they cannot (or are unlikely to) get away with a crime. With that Prison will certainly be sufficient deterrance.



rather merciful.

Oh, yes... killing people. Thats merciful.


Imprisonment achieves less. It creates socially useless, dangerous, murderous people

If carried out wrongly, and used to broadly.


and places a great financial drain on the government.

Oh... we should murder people because it would save money.


No, keeps and effectively excercises the death penalty like America and Singapore.

No. The death penalty is murder. Murder is wrong. And I am sorry to say this, but I personally regard Britain and most european countries more highly than the US.


I lived in England for two years, and was not impressed with what I saw.

What in particular?


Besides, I've spent my whole life living among foreigners, so I'd be dead if I were xenophobic.

Just because you live among foreigners doesnt prevent you from being a xenophobe. IN fact, many xenophobic people live near foreigners, as those who dont never have any reason to have a problem with them. You may just be able to hide it when you need to.

And French soldiers have proved themselves to be very brave many a time.

So how do you explain switzerland?

gun ownership is for fundamentally different reasons, the military provide the kit and everyone who gets one learns how to use it and store it safely. they are only taken out of their steel cases to clean every few months.

Prove the causality to me, rather than just throw things up in the air and claim they are related. Give me some evidence, some hard facts, that says more guns equals less crime. All you ever see in favour of gun control is anecdotical stories about how tiny woman are getting raped by huge men every time they go out their front door.


You seriously want to compare 2006 and 1900? You really think the two eras are similar enough for a worthwhile study?

And, while we're talking about definitions and hard facts, you're going to have to do much better than 'pretty much ok'.


Compared to the US, the UK is a crime free paradise. Again, define 'insane'.


How about studies by more people than you'd care to mention shows that it is? Do a quick Google search if you don't believe me. Add a healthy dose of common sense to the equation, where "More guns = more chance of getting shot", and you'll come up against an undeniable conclusion that guns are not something you want floating about freely.


Besides the fact that violent crime in the UK has surpassed that of the US.

Keep trying.

"So how do you explain switzerland?"

I can, in Switzerland its the law that each household must own a handgun for self-defence, you obviously get a few crazy people who use their guns for crimes.

Really? Then why has gun crime increased in the UK?

im talking about ireland but in britland it has increased from a very low rate to a low rate.

you are 34 times more likely to be fataly shot in the us. how can that not be down to the fact that there are less guns?

gun ownership is for fundamentally different reasons, the military provide the kit and everyone who gets one learns how to use it and store it safely. they are only taken out of their steel cases to clean every few months.

And there is widespread ownership of private weapons w/ gov't subsidized ammunition and target shooting competitions.

Besides the fact that violent crime in the UK has surpassed that of the US.

Keep trying.

but not gun crime. thats the point. if the saxon criminal had easy access to shooters god knows what the stats would be.

im talking about ireland but in britland it has increased from a very low rate to a low rate.

you are 34 times more likely to be fataly shot in the us. how can that not be down to the fact that there are less guns?

Yet it has increased even w/ less in legal hands while the US has shown a dramatic decrease even w/ less restrictive laws and more ownership. There are over 250million legally owned firearms in the US. and about 10,000 murders/ year. Thats less than .1%. There are also numerous countries that have more widespread ownership than the US and lower crime and countries w/ less legal ownership and higher crime.

The level of legal firearm ownership =/= the level of crime.

Besides the fact that violent crime in the UK has surpassed that of the US.

Keep trying.
I don't need to.

As I actually said above, I had no intention to get involved in another 'guns will save us all, bang bang bang' thread.

You can continue to content yourself with your fear and the belief that you're going to be mugged if you so much as step outside. I shall continue to content myself with the fact that my country has sensible gun control laws.

Fortunately for me, all those extra special patented USA brand big bad muggers/rapists/murderers haven't yet made it over here. We have crime, yes, but not total fear of every dark corner.

Prove the causality to me, rather than just throw things up in the air and claim they are related. Give me some evidence, some hard facts, that says more guns equals less crime.

I really don't have to. You are the one pushing for bans. As far as I am concerned, as long as there's no hard an fast proof for gun control, it should not be done.


You seriously want to compare 2006 and 1900? You really think the two eras are similar enough for a worthwhile study?

...oh, so now you mean other factors then guns should also be considered?


Compared to the US, the UK is a crime free paradise. Again, define 'insane'.

By insane, I mean, 'highest in the West in all violent crime categories except murder and rape.'

Add a healthy dose of common sense to the equation, where "More guns = more chance of getting shot", and you'll come up against an undeniable conclusion that guns are not something you want floating about freely.

It's not all that common sense if there's plenty of intelligent people who disagree with it, is it?

What you are trying to prove is that everybody who disagrees with you is dumb. That's plain wrong.

The CDC, I note, has done a study on the host of pro- and anti-gun studies out there and came up stating no study has been done in the US to ever conclusively prove this either way. Oh, and google Colin Greenwood, and his book 'Firearms Control.' He's a British researcher if you trust these more.

Interesting that the FBI points out less people are killed in America each year by rifles and shotguns combined [we're talking 60% of all guns in the US] then by kitchen knives or by people's bare hands individually.

Yes, but those killed with knives and guns are killed far moe easily than those with bare hands.

Tell me that a normal schome can kill someone with their hands as quickly as that same person with a gun or a knife can. And then let me laugh.

And there is widespread ownership of private weapons w/ gov't subsidized ammunition and target shooting competitions.

but its not a right like you yanks have, its a military tactic to have large percentages of your population able to handle a gun in case of invasion, as they have no treaties with others to defend them.

not everyone is entitled to gun and they are very strict on illegal firearms.

but not gun crime. thats the point. if the saxon criminal had easy access to shooters god knows what the stats would be.

No, that's not the point. The majority of violent crime in the US does not involve a firearm either.

but its not a right like you yanks have, its a military tactic to have large percentages of your population able to handle a gun in case of invasion, as they have no treaties with others to defend them.

not everyone is entitled to gun and they are very strict on illegal firearms.

Citizens can own them. Non-citizens can't. There is also concealed carry. Yet their crime is very low w/ over half committed by non-citizens.

Ownership levels =/= crime levels

Besides the fact that violent crime in the UK has surpassed that of the US.

Yes... you are more likely to be hit in a drunken brawl. Get smacked one on the face. Kicked. Yes. Killed? No. And even with this, it is probably largely drunk people hitting each other, and yes, the occasional passer-by. And thats a problem of our drinking culture, not the lack of guns.

And what really matters? How likely you are to maybe lose a tooth, get some bruises and concussion and hurt pride, or how likely you are to be killed.

I don't need to.

As I actually said above, I had no intention to get involved in another 'guns will save us all, bang bang bang' thread.

You can continue to content yourself with your fear and the belief that you're going to be mugged if you so much as step outside. I shall continue to content myself with the fact that my country has sensible gun control laws.

Fortunately for me, all those extra special patented USA brand big bad muggers/rapists/murderers haven't yet made it over here. We have crime, yes, but not total fear of every dark corner.

Once again, completely ignoring the fact that the UK has higher violent crime than the US.

Yet it has increased even w/ less in legal hands while the US has shown a dramatic decrease even w/ less restrictive laws and more ownership. There are over 250million legally owned firearms in the US. and about 10,000 murders/ year. Thats less than .1%. There are also numerous countries that have more widespread ownership than the US and lower crime and countries w/ less legal ownership and higher crime.

The level of legal firearm ownership =/= the level of crime.

their level of gun crime rose from neglibile to very little.

yours fell from chronic to high.

guns simply arent a part of day to day life for all except serious gangsters in the british isles. and the statistics show that.

Yes... you are more likely to be hit in a drunken brawl. Get smacked one on the face. Kicked. Yes. Killed? No. And even with this, it is probably largely drunk people hitting each other, and yes, the occasional passer-by. And thats a problem of our drinking culture, not the lack of guns.

And what really matters? How likely you are to maybe lose a tooth, get some bruises and concussion and hurt pride, or how likely you are to be killed.

So maybe you should ban drinking if it causes all those problems. Maybe an amnesty. I'm sure it will reduce crime levels.

By insane, I mean, 'highest in the West in all violent crime categories except murder and rape.'

So "Highest except in the most important areas"?

http://www.a-human-right.com/AK47-2_s.jpg

Nothing like a good Oleg Volk poster in the morning.

I really don't have to. You are the one pushing for bans. As far as I am concerned, as long as there's no hard an fast proof for gun control, it should not be done.
Where have I pushed for a ban? I believe I have pointed out that an amnesty is not a ban, and 'pushed for' gun control, while pointing out that a 'guns for all' mentality is foolish.

By insane, I mean, 'highest in the West in all violent crime categories except murder and rape.'
How intriguing. Britain has a high violent crime rate but a lower murder rate. America has a higher murder rate but a lower violent crime rate.

But of course, guns are stopping crimes, not converting a violent crime into a murder. :rolleyes:

It's not all that common sense if there's plenty of intelligent people who disagree with it, is it?
Even the most intellegent can fall for propaganda. More often than not, it's a case of deciding the truth and then trying to fit 'facts' around this.

What you are trying to prove is that everybody who disagrees with you is dumb. That's plain wrong.
On this point, the idea that they are not dumb is arguable.

Once again, completely ignoring the fact that the UK has higher violent crime than the US.

we arent, we are saying that introducing guns into that mix would be mental.

their level of gun crime rose from neglibile to very little.

yours fell from chronic to high.

guns simply arent a part of day to day life for all except serious gangsters in the british isles. and the statistics show that.

Firearms are a part of regular life to a large percentage of Americans who do not commit crimes w/ them.

The point is, the further restrictions on them did not lower crime as had been promised by the banners. The less restrictions on them in the US did not cause an increase as had been promised by the banners.

Tell me that a normal schome can kill someone with their hands as quickly as that same person with a gun or a knife can. And then let me laugh.


A young adult male, acting alone or with a group of friends against a deliberately chosen victim (someone who's normally weaker then him, or them), can inflict serious injury on another human being using his arms, or an empty beer bottle, or a stick. Very often people die as result of that violence, not necessarily being intentionally killed.

So maybe you should ban drinking if it causes all those problems. Maybe an amnesty. I'm sure it will reduce crime levels.

They'll have to take my vodka from my cold dead hands.

Where have I pushed for a ban? I believe I have pointed out that an amnesty is not a ban, and 'pushed for' gun control, while pointing out that a 'guns for all' mentality is foolish.

And you have so far failed to prove it.

"Britain has gun control and low murder rate" does not mean that it has the low murder rate because of the gun control.

Where have I pushed for a ban? I believe I have pointed out that an amnesty is not a ban, and 'pushed for' gun control, while pointing out that a 'guns for all' mentality is foolish.

Now who's pushing "guns for all"? Oh, wait, nobody. As much of a red herring as you're complaining about.


How intriguing. Britain has a high violent crime rate but a lower murder rate. America has a higher murder rate but a lower violent crime rate.

But of course, guns are stopping crimes, not converting a violent crime into a murder. :rolleyes:

And yet the murder rates have dropped as well so nothing is "converted" whereas the UK's has risen.


Even the most intellegent can fall for propaganda. More often than not, it's a case of deciding the truth and then trying to fit 'facts' around this.

So you think the CDC which has pushed for numerous "gun control" schemes is falling for "propaganda"? Any evidence of this or just wishful thinking?


On this point, the idea that they are not dumb is arguable.

So making ad hominems is a valid arguement in your world?

"Britain has gun control and low murder rate" does not mean that it has the low murder rate because of the gun control.
America is welcome to its guns and its high murder rate. If you don't like the link, that's up to you.

I'm really not going to spend all night saying the same things over and over.

They'll have to take my vodka from my cold dead hands.

At least it would be chilled. :)

And you have so far failed to prove it.

"Britain has gun control and low murder rate" does not mean that it has the low murder rate because of the gun control.

go back to the original point.

british kids are carrying/using knives with alarming regularity because they are the most effective weapons that they can get their hands on. if these kids could get guns, they would presumably carry/usethem instead.

no brit is arguing to liberalise gun laws because the specific type of violence they see in urban areas would see slaughter if guns became available and part of the culture.

we are not americans, we see no need to arm ourselves to defend ourselves against our governments.

America is welcome to its guns and its high murder rate. If you don't like the link, that's up to you.

How can I not like something that isn't there?

I'm really not going to spend all nights saying the same things over and over.

You should. Most robberies in the UK are during the night when people are home.

You should. Most robberies in the UK are during the night when people are home.
I shall spend the night quivering in fear. :)

go back to the original point.

british kids are carrying/using knives with alarming regularity because they are the most effective weapons that they can get their hands on. if these kids could get guns, they would presumably carry/usethem instead.

no brit is arguing to liberalise gun laws because the specific type of violence they see in urban areas would see slaughter if guns became available and part of the culture.

we are not americans, we see no need to arm ourselves to defend ourselves against our governments.

And they have started carrying firearms more even w/ the restrictions. They also carry knives (yes, more available) even though it's against the law.

There's a pattern here.

Nothing like a good Oleg Volk poster in the morning.

I find the history of gun control particuarly amusing.

Such as the part for 1518, where it is first pointed out that wheel lock muskets were expensive. Then it is claimed that those accused of witchcraft could have used them for self defense. Obviously dear Oleg fails to realise that "witches" were typically poor, and it is unlikely that they could have defended themselves effectively even if armed with said musket.

And they have started carrying firearms more even w/ the restrictions. They also carry knives (yes, more available) even though it's against the law.

There's a pattern here.

i dont believe thats true. its exceptionally rare for a youth to have access to a gun in britain as reflected in the fatal shooting table.

conversley american scallywags dont tend to carry knives becasue they have easier access to guns.

You should. Most robberies in the UK are during the night when people are home.

Meh, I'm still not going to worry.

I have actually been burgaled [sp]. At night, as it happens, whilst I was in.

Unfortunately, for the people wishing to deprieve me of property, they were after a car that belonged to the house opposite.

i dont believe thats true. its exceptionally rare for a youth to have access to a gun in britain as reflected in the fatal shooting table.

conversley american scallywags dont tend to carry knives becasue they have easier access to guns.

Rare yes but increasing. From the UK home office:
"Also of concern is a rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms in an attempt to boost their image."

Compared to the US, the UK is a crime free paradise. Again, define 'insane'.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCKKKKK!!!!!! TOO... MUCH... IGNORANCE!!!!!!! TOO... MUCH... DENIAL!!!!!!

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCKKKKK!!!!!! TOO... MUCH... IGNORANCE!!!!!!! TOO... MUCH... DENIAL!!!!!!


How about you just post a source. (Preferably a relatively unbiased one)

For those of you moaning about having your kitchen knives taken off you, that aint gonna happen.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006240126,00.html

That however, will be.

People don't kill people, they hurt them; guns will finish the job off.

You don't seem to realize that guns are MORALLY NEUTRAL. Any weapon is only as safe and only as moral as the person using it. That said, safe and weapon-free societies and democracy are mutually exclusive.

How about you just post a source. (Preferably a relatively unbiased one)


The UN:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm

The UN:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm

Ooh, interesting. Thank you.

Though I'm a bit surprised to see that the UN considers Scotland a country now.

Ooh, interesting. Thank you.

Though I'm a bit surprised to see that the UN considers Scotland a country now.

That one got me as well.

safe and weapon-free societies and democracy are mutually exclusive.

explain that one to me? ireland isnt a democracy because im not allowed own a gun?

Reason 1 for having a knife amnesty: In the UK people stab people over 40 pence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1786921,00.html

The law makes sense as it is, as it would be almost impossible to prosecute people for brandishing knives in public. Hence, the law is in regards to possession. If the police get a call, then if they apprehend the suspect they can arrest them for simply possessing the knive. Otherwise all they have is one witness claiming that this person was displaying a knive in public. That would not stand up in court.

If you don't display the knive openly then no one will know you have it, therefore it's not a problem. Hence, taking knives along to help a friend with an evening meal is not a problem.

The law isn't there to specifically to prevent people from having weapons in public, but to provide an additional prosecution if it's hard to pin anything else on the suspect.

On a side note there seems to be some comparison between crime rates in the US and UK. A problem with comparing crime rates is that you are comparing reported rates of crimes, not actual rates of crime. The rate at which crime is reported varies hugely by type and country. For instance a robbery is far more likely to be reported than a rape. Hence, a higher crime rate might mean quite the opposite than simply a higher crime rate. It could also mean that police force is far more effective and far more trusted by the population it serves.

Ooh, interesting. Thank you.

Though I'm a bit surprised to see that the UN considers Scotland a country now.

Oi! Scotland has always been a country. It isnt a seperate nation state though.

For those of you moaning about having your kitchen knives taken off you, that aint gonna happen.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006240126,00.html

That however, will be.

Damn... I thought allowing those Klingons in was a bad idea.

And they have started carrying firearms more even w/ the restrictions. They also carry knives (yes, more available) even though it's against the law.

There's a pattern here.

But if guns were completely legal, and so more readily available, more of them would have guns.

You should. Most robberies in the UK are during the night when people are home.

Well, then we should all be fine. Robberies happening in the street when we are all safe at home.

I presume you mean burglaries?

A young adult male, acting alone or with a group of friends against a deliberately chosen victim (someone who's normally weaker then him, or them), can inflict serious injury on another human being using his arms, or an empty beer bottle, or a stick. Very often people die as result of that violence, not necessarily being intentionally killed.

Of course, but that person can still be more easily killed with a gun or knive than with someone's bare hands, but Guns and knives are more dangerous than hands. They are easier to kill with. On the other hand, you can kill with your hands, I will not deny that.

And yet the murder rates have dropped as well so nothing is "converted" whereas the UK's has risen.

No, what he is saying is that is there were not guns the US's murder rate would be lower, but its violent crime rate would be higher, as what guns are doing are making crimes that would probably just be violent crime in Britain be more likely to result in a death in the States. That hypothesis works no matter whether crime is falling or rising in one nation or the next, but instead if one has higher violent crime than the other, but lower murder and gun crime.

No, what he is saying is that is there were not guns the US's murder rate would be lower, but its violent crime rate would be higher, as what guns are doing are making crimes that would probably just be violent crime in Britain be more likely to result in a death in the States. That hypothesis works no matter whether crime is falling or rising in one nation or the next, but instead if one has higher violent crime than the other, but lower murder and gun crime.

And yet there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Violent crime rates have dropped in the US to below UK levels where it used to be higher as well as murder rates proving your hypothesis to be incorrect.

Is it me or do the US posters seem to be complaining about this more than the UK people who it acualy affects.

Americans, why worry over something that has absoluty no affect on you? If we Brits think that there is no problem with it then there is no problem.

The pan is for everyone to stick their knives into John Prescott (preferably in the back)

Is it me or do the US posters seem to be complaining about this more than the UK people who it acualy affects.

Americans, why worry over something that has absoluty no affect on you? If we Brits think that there is no problem with it then there is no problem.

Because we Bbrits need to be liberated from an opressive regime that doesn't let everyone carry an assault rifle around (That was a joke, before you jump down my throat)

Forget Prescott, you wouldn't penetrate his blubber. Stab BLIAR!

but your blade will slide off his non-stick coating

You don't seem to realize that guns are MORALLY NEUTRAL. Any weapon is only as safe and only as moral as the person using it.

Bloody hell... this is tiresome. Who is going to want a weapon that can kill people?

People who want to kill others. Who are the people who want to kill others?

Violent thugs.

Very, very few people who I would call "good" would ever carry a lethal weapon. In fact, probably none. Becuase people who are alright people generally don't have such a level of fear that they'd buy a weapon to protect themselves, because they'd already be safe due to them being nice people.

And you cannot use lethal weapon on an intruder in the UK. Especially a gun. A frying pan, maybe, and that'd be pushing it.

That said, safe and weapon-free societies and democracy are mutually exclusive.
You truly are a cretin of the highest order.

Bloody hell... this is tiresome. Who is going to want a weapon that can kill people?

People who want to kill others. Who are the people who want to kill others?

Violent thugs.

Very, very few people who I would call "good" would ever carry a lethal weapon. In fact, probably none. Becuase people who are alright people generally don't have such a level of fear that they'd buy a weapon to protect themselves, because they'd already be safe due to them being nice people.

And you cannot use lethal weapon on an intruder in the UK. Especially a gun. A frying pan, maybe, and that'd be pushing it.


You truly are a cretin of the highest order.


Well at least you admit that defending yourself in the UK is effectively illegal.

Of course the rest of the nonsense making personal attacks against firearm owners has no basis in reality whatsoever.

There are 80 million + legal firearm owners in the US. Hundreds of thousands of those have CCW licenses. They are not the ones committing the crimes.

Well... I have heard that is in fact just the average for 2 days anyway... so nothing special except the fact it is reported this weekend. Almost certainly by the Daily Mail.

Bloody Mail.

I agree lol. The Mail is bad. However, it is a bit ironic that as soon as the government launches a knife amnesty, there's suddenly loads of reports on the news about knife attacks. Surely those criminals won't get away with carrying a knife? I mean, I know they'll get done for stabbing people, but it's a bit pants that they get let off (in theory) for carrying a knife because of the amnesty.

Plus, I think the amnesty is a good thing. Lots of people may have knives that they don't want but are worried about handing in so it's a good chance for a spring clean hehe.

People don't get off if they are found with the knife on them, its only when they turn in the knife that they don't get prosecuted.

Very, very few people who I would call "good" would ever carry a lethal weapon. In fact, probably none. Becuase people who are alright people generally don't have such a level of fear that they'd buy a weapon to protect themselves, because they'd already be safe due to them being nice people.


Nice generalization there.

Reason 1 for having a knife amnesty: In the UK people stab people over 40 pence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1786921,00.html

The law makes sense as it is, as it would be almost impossible to prosecute people for brandishing knives in public. Hence, the law is in regards to possession. If the police get a call, then if they apprehend the suspect they can arrest them for simply possessing the knive. Otherwise all they have is one witness claiming that this person was displaying a knive in public. That would not stand up in court.

If you don't display the knive openly then no one will know you have it, therefore it's not a problem. Hence, taking knives along to help a friend with an evening meal is not a problem.

The law isn't there to specifically to prevent people from having weapons in public, but to provide an additional prosecution if it's hard to pin anything else on the suspect.

On a side note there seems to be some comparison between crime rates in the US and UK. A problem with comparing crime rates is that you are comparing reported rates of crimes, not actual rates of crime. The rate at which crime is reported varies hugely by type and country. For instance a robbery is far more likely to be reported than a rape. Hence, a higher crime rate might mean quite the opposite than simply a higher crime rate. It could also mean that police force is far more effective and far more trusted by the population it serves.

I could do with a sandwich, I'll go get my Bat'Leth.

Seriously, better the knife than the gun. Hey why not put everyone on a curfew and shoot anyone that is out after the curfew. Then if anyone tries to raid your house, you're all in to fight the mugger and be a witness too.

Scotland always been a country? naaa you've been covertly conquered by London. Didn't you get the memo.........lol. Instead of sending an army in to fight you, the englishmen will simply talk your ears off till your bored. Then when you fight for devolution, you wont get it because those englishmen and women wont tolerate financing you. It's bad enough having to finance the aussies, new zealanders and anyone else with a union flag in the top left hand corner of their own.

As for openly having guns, I don't think so at all, it makes it easier for someone to pull a gun out to shoot someone and not have the hardship of going to hit them. Anyone with a gun are probably cowards, throw them in the ring and they'll fight like girls. Bunch of pansies those americans, get in there and use your fists if you have a disagreement. If you can't then shut the hell up and go home or even learn to fight.

Don't you see that these people haven't been brought up correctly, inventors make the knife so people can cut their food, what does Joe Average do, takes the knife and stabs someone with it; Mr Smith & Western make a gun for shooting at livestock to bring home for dinner, what does Joe Average do with it, he uses it to shoot someone that looked at him the wrong way or couldn't take no for an answer. Now really, we have these laws to stop people using guns because you want to use them other than directed, we have laws for people weilding knives because you want to use them other than directed. So if you want to whine about it, don't whine at the government, the police or politics. You are totally to blame whether you do carry a gun, a knife or not. The next fact is, you will know at least one person who carries a gun or a knife but wont tell the police about it. So selfish are you, that you'd plainly go about your own miserable pathetic lives ignoring the fact that someone goes around with such an armoury and wont even pick up the phone and tell someone. Why? because it isn't your concern but if they pointed it at you, the shoe is then on the other foot and you'd want them arrested jailed yadeyadeya and then the hypocracy comes in because then you'd want to know as to why this person wasn't arrested. Lucky enough unlike the US, the UK are still able to throw the law at someone without them saying, "I'm going to sue you, this american right to bare arms, freedom of speech' blah blah blah blah.

Here's another thing, as much as the US all have guns and have a lower murder rate. Look at Germany, they too have a lower murder and violent crime rate also and they too aren't allowed to carry guns either. So is it statistics, have guns and low murder rate? because Germany and the netherlands don't walk around with guns and knives at all. I do believe and have always believed that because the US has a murder rate regardless of whether it is high or low that coupled with the UK being the centre of commerce between europe and the US. Wouldn't you think that the UK has suffered a bit too much american influence over the past god knows how many years and to that end the crime has followed right along with it. If the UK was placed near australia and Tokyo; we'd probably have crocs in our backyard and eating a bowl of rice as well as learning the art of martial arts and own a fast clicking camera rather than a fast shooting smith & western. If UK was placed near Iraq, those smith & westerns would be AK47s and we'll have suicide bomber training centres.

So I recommend that the escalation to a gun culture should stop here and now and not follow the US footsteps and stay towards the european way of life. The UK carries on and moves to the gun culture then the rest of europe will be affected by this and it all been started by the US.

i think it is a good idea.
its isnt a ban on knives at all
and the knives being handed in are not the sort of knife many of you are imagining

the police images show that the knives being handed in are more like machetes and katanas. which tbh theres no point in having unless youre gonna kill someone. the amnesty is a gd idea


random thing here
glasgow is the stab capital of europe. ne thing that might help with knife crime here is a blessing

So I recommend that the escalation to a gun culture should stop here and now and not follow the US footsteps and stay towards the european way of life. The UK carries on and moves to the gun culture then the rest of europe will be affected by this and it all been started by the US.

"Gun Culture"? You mean the one practiced by over 80million people in the US? The one practiced by hundreds of thousands who carry firearms who are exponentially less likely to commit any crime than the average citizen?

Or are you talking about "criminal culture"? WHich has nothing to do w/ the level of firearm ownership.

You mean the one practiced by over 80million people in the US? The one practiced by hundreds of thousands who carry firearms who are exponentially less likely to commit any crime than the average citizen?

Or are you talking about "criminal culture"? WHich has nothing to do w/ the level of firearm ownership


yes i believe he does. but tbh the point of a gun is to kill someone. if you take them away from everyone then obviously there will be far less deaths.
sure a lot of people who have the guns are responsible adults, but some of them arent. and if everyone is goin around carrying something which only has one use ( to kill ) then eventually something will go wrong.

the thing about knives is that their main purpose is as a kitchen utensil.

Gun culture as the British press calls it and maybe 80 million people in the US have it but it doesn't mean that all of the 52 states allow the ownership of guns. It's outlawed in the state of Texas and quite rightly so; I've only ever heard about one shooting in Texas whereas you go t california, the common chatter is you'd get shot if you were wearing the wrong clothes, looked at someone differently.

The British press and government sees gun culture as an image of several people holding guns, walking around openly and not being afraid to use them. Not keeping them in your gun cabinet and go on the hunt for animals, clay pidgeon shooting etc.

The US Version of gun culture is probably the latter and then when those homies here in the Bronx want to go shooting someone, that is highlighted, seen in the UK and is labelled, 'Gun Culture'

yes i believe he does. but tbh the point of a gun is to kill someone. if you take them away from everyone then obviously there will be far less deaths.
sure a lot of people who have the guns are responsible adults, but some of them arent. and if everyone is goin around carrying something which only has one use ( to kill ) then eventually something will go wrong.

the thing about knives is that their main purpose is as a kitchen utensil.

Now who said anything about "everyone"? The overwhelming majority of firearm owners are law abiding. Less than .1% commit crimes w/ them. Hundreds of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by people w/ personal firearms.

Should the innocent be punished?

Gun culture as the British press calls it and maybe 80 million people in the US have it but it doesn't mean that all of the 52 states allow the ownership of guns. It's outlawed in the state of Texas and quite rightly so; I've only ever heard about one shooting in Texas whereas you go t california, the common chatter is you'd get shot if you were wearing the wrong clothes, looked at someone differently.

I don't know where you're getting your information from. It isn't illegal to own firearms in Texas. They have fairly liberal laws there. California's laws are much stricter.

There are also only 50 states.

The British press and government sees gun culture as an image of several people holding guns, walking around openly and not being afraid to use them. Not keeping them in your gun cabinet and go on the hunt for animals, clay pidgeon shooting etc.

The US Version of gun culture is probably the latter and then when those homies here in the Bronx want to go shooting someone, that is highlighted, seen in the UK and is labelled, 'Gun Culture'

So you're taking your definitions from the "press". Of course they don't want to sell papers, right?

Now who said anything about "everyone"? The overwhelming majority of firearm owners are law abiding. Less than .1% commit crimes w/ them. Hundreds of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by people w/ personal firearms.

Should the innocent be punished?

Fine but if neither party had a firearm then we'd all be happy and the other thing is, which causes debate is whether either party has the ability to use the firearm from when someone buys out the shop to when he's firing it at someone and then whether they intended to shoot you, cause a scare. In short determined whether you're supposed to dead. Anyway the subject isn't guns, it's knives an we haven't gotten to guns yet and I hope it stays that way.

There is one other point people entirely miss when doing these debates. What about collectors who did not buy thier guns for self defence? I only own one gun in the name of defence, the rest are either historical peices or a type of pistol/rifle that has historical signifigance. Are you saying it's ok for people to loose 1000's of dollars in personal property because of criminal activities?

Fine but if neither party had a firearm then we'd all be happy and the other thing is, which causes debate is whether either party has the ability to use the firearm from when someone buys out the shop to when he's firing it at someone and then whether they intended to shoot you, cause a scare. In short determined whether you're supposed to dead. Anyway the subject isn't guns, it's knives an we haven't gotten to guns yet and I hope it stays that way.

The criminals are more happy when the public is disarmed.

Right, the "amnesty" on knives will do little to effect crime. The same as all the other silly measures taken. Only going after the criminals will do that.

Gun culture as the British press calls it and maybe 80 million people in the US have it but it doesn't mean that all of the 52 states allow the ownership of guns. It's outlawed in the state of Texas and quite rightly so; I've only ever heard about one shooting in Texas whereas you go t california, the common chatter is you'd get shot if you were wearing the wrong clothes, looked at someone differently.

The British press and government sees gun culture as an image of several people holding guns, walking around openly and not being afraid to use them. Not keeping them in your gun cabinet and go on the hunt for animals, clay pidgeon shooting etc.

The US Version of gun culture is probably the latter and then when those homies here in the Bronx want to go shooting someone, that is highlighted, seen in the UK and is labelled, 'Gun Culture'

All I can say is go and re-do your homework on all this. As it stands now, it is horribly inaccurate. If you want, telegraph me or contact me on AIM for corrections.

There is one other point people entirely miss when doing these debates. What about collectors who did not buy thier guns for self defence? I only own one gun in the name of defence, the rest are either historical peices or a type of pistol/rifle that has historical signifigance. Are you saying it's ok for people to loose 1000's of dollars in personal property because of criminal activities?

These people that do hold guns for historic value and do things for those as directed are the innocents. I think you've lost out and you can blame the fellow citizens for that and you wont have it both ways.

As for correctness of information. Aye it is true, the state of texas are allowed to have weapons for self defence purposes in the home (I've seen the law update) The original info was taken from a debate elsewhere and was submitted by someone else.

These people that do hold guns for historic value and do things for those as directed are the innocents. I think you've lost out and you can blame the fellow citizens for that and you wont have it both ways.

As for correctness of information. Aye it is true, the state of texas are allowed to have weapons for self defence purposes in the home (I've seen the law update) The original info was taken from a debate elsewhere and was submitted by someone else.

They also have Concealed carry since '94. As do 48 other states to varying degrees.

They also have Concealed carry since '94. As do 48 other states to varying degrees.

However uninterested, the law updates are dated 03 with additional laws. Mind you the debates I had where the user said that Texas forbid the use of guns posted the comment sometime last year so that forum is contradicting the update.

However uninterested, the law updates are dated 03 with additional laws. Mind you the debates I had where the user said that Texas forbid the use of guns posted the comment sometime last year so that forum is contradicting the update.

Here, do some reading:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm

NORTH SEA OIL
financed everyone in the UK

We have been subtly governing the whole UK since 1707. Who runs the UK? Who created the bank of England? The Scots

NORTH SEA OIL
financed everyone in the UK

We have been subtly governing the whole UK since 1707. Who runs the UK? Who created the bank of England? The Scots

Xandabia? Are you Scottish perchance?

How did copper wire get invented?




Two Scots arguing over a penny!

Who invented television? John Logie Baird, a Scot.

Who invented the Industrial Steam Engine? James Watt, a Scot.

Who invented the Telephone? Alexander Graham Bell, a Scot.

Y'know who else is a Scot? Tony Blair!


Us Scots aren't the Haggis-hunting, Kilt-wearing, English-dominated savages people seem to believe we are.


But I digress from the subject of knives....

The emergence of a National Bank in England and a funded National Debt
In England the argument for a form of bank gathered support after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when William of Orange and Queen Mary ascended to the throne of England. However, it took a London-based Scottish entrepreneur, named William Paterson to propose an idea that eventually found support. Patterson's proposal for a 'Bank of England' and a 'fund for perpetual Interest' (without mention of bills) was eventually passed through Parliament. Patterson was supported by two powerful personalities - Charles Montagu, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Michael Godfrey a leading merchant from the City. The public were invited to invest in the new project and it was these subscriptions totalling £1.2 million that were to form the initial capital stock of the Bank of England and were to on-lend to the Government in return for a Royal Charter.

Aye some scotsman suggested it, he was a loyal British subject. Of course it was still formed in London.

As for the knives thing yup people who are nice, have a family etc shouldn't need to carry a weapon or for that matter be causing trouble.

Aye some scotsman suggested it, he was a loyal British subject. Of course it was still formed in London.

As for the knives thing yup people who are nice, have a family etc shouldn't need to carry a weapon or for that matter be causing trouble.

Agreed! *Dishes out Post-victory snacks and drinks to the Pro-Amnesty posters*

Agreed! *Dishes out Post-victory snacks and drinks to the Pro-Amnesty posters*

It is perfectly possible to a Scot and a loyal British subject of the Queen. I am.

I could do with a sandwich, I'll go get my Bat'Leth.

Seriously, better the knife than the gun. Hey why not put everyone on a curfew and shoot anyone that is out after the curfew. Then if anyone tries to raid your house, you're all in to fight the mugger and be a witness too.

Scotland always been a country? naaa you've been covertly conquered by London. Didn't you get the memo.........lol. Instead of sending an army in to fight you, the englishmen will simply talk your ears off till your bored. Then when you fight for devolution, you wont get it because those englishmen and women wont tolerate financing you. It's bad enough having to finance the aussies, new zealanders and anyone else with a union flag in the top left hand corner of their own.

As for openly having guns, I don't think so at all, it makes it easier for someone to pull a gun out to shoot someone and not have the hardship of going to hit them. Anyone with a gun are probably cowards, throw them in the ring and they'll fight like girls. Bunch of pansies those americans, get in there and use your fists if you have a disagreement. If you can't then shut the hell up and go home or even learn to fight.

Don't you see that these people haven't been brought up correctly, inventors make the knife so people can cut their food, what does Joe Average do, takes the knife and stabs someone with it; Mr Smith & Western make a gun for shooting at livestock to bring home for dinner, what does Joe Average do with it, he uses it to shoot someone that looked at him the wrong way or couldn't take no for an answer. Now really, we have these laws to stop people using guns because you want to use them other than directed, we have laws for people weilding knives because you want to use them other than directed. So if you want to whine about it, don't whine at the government, the police or politics. You are totally to blame whether you do carry a gun, a knife or not. The next fact is, you will know at least one person who carries a gun or a knife but wont tell the police about it. So selfish are you, that you'd plainly go about your own miserable pathetic lives ignoring the fact that someone goes around with such an armoury and wont even pick up the phone and tell someone. Why? because it isn't your concern but if they pointed it at you, the shoe is then on the other foot and you'd want them arrested jailed yadeyadeya and then the hypocracy comes in because then you'd want to know as to why this person wasn't arrested. Lucky enough unlike the US, the UK are still able to throw the law at someone without them saying, "I'm going to sue you, this american right to bare arms, freedom of speech' blah blah blah blah.

Here's another thing, as much as the US all have guns and have a lower murder rate. Look at Germany, they too have a lower murder and violent crime rate also and they too aren't allowed to carry guns either. So is it statistics, have guns and low murder rate? because Germany and the netherlands don't walk around with guns and knives at all. I do believe and have always believed that because the US has a murder rate regardless of whether it is high or low that coupled with the UK being the centre of commerce between europe and the US. Wouldn't you think that the UK has suffered a bit too much american influence over the past god knows how many years and to that end the crime has followed right along with it. If the UK was placed near australia and Tokyo; we'd probably have crocs in our backyard and eating a bowl of rice as well as learning the art of martial arts and own a fast clicking camera rather than a fast shooting smith & western. If UK was placed near Iraq, those smith & westerns would be AK47s and we'll have suicide bomber training centres.

So I recommend that the escalation to a gun culture should stop here and now and not follow the US footsteps and stay towards the european way of life. The UK carries on and moves to the gun culture then the rest of europe will be affected by this and it all been started by the US.Uh... um... I'm not Scotish. Uh... your post is about as cohesive as water. I really can't make sense of it. But yeah, I'm not Scotish.

It is perfectly possible to a Scot and a loyal British subject of the Queen. I am.

So am I my Scottish friend. I'm just happy we Pro-Amnesty folk seem to have driven off the ignorant.