# any development in UK's knife ban?



## 270winchester (Jun 14, 2006)

hey all, I was just wondering if any British CPFers are also knife owners, and how they are coping with the recent knife "amnesty"(which apparently targeted kitchene knives, please correct me if I am misinformed, I read something in that nature on BBC). We watched years ago as you were disarmed systematically and now they have come after your tools. I may or may not travel there this fall if I can squeeze enough time between school and work, and wondering what I shouldn't bring to stay out of the British legal system....


----------



## leukos (Jun 14, 2006)

Shops sell swords and dirks just down the street.....:thinking:


----------



## simonsays (Jun 14, 2006)

Hi, you could do worse than have a look over on the 'Britishblades' forum, they have quite a large legal aspects discussion going on.

In basic terms you are ok carrying a simple folding penknife with a blade length of less than 3 1/2 ''. Anything longer/locking/fixed blade/gravity assisted/inertia assisted/spring loaded etc is liable to get you arrested if discoverd.
The only excepition to this is if you can provide reasonable cause for you to be carrying the item. For example a chef travelling to work probably has 'reasonable cause' to be carrying a set of sharp, fixed blade knives, tools of the trade and so on..... The same chef found carrying an 18'' Bowie knife to a rock concert may well find himself in prison.....

Note.... This is just the law as I understand it, there are better qualified folk than me who should be able to explain the finer points.
Cheers,
Simon


----------



## bonvivantmike (Jun 14, 2006)

When I recently traveled to the UK, I carried only my Leatherman Micra. The blade is non-locking, and short enough to be legal in the UK. 

If it's at all possible for you to get to the UK, I highly recommend the experience. London is incredible, with all the cultural amenities of a great world city. Edinburgh is also a fantastic city, although much smaller and with a more relaxed pace. If you're a history buff, either city is rich with monuments and historic sites. I can't recommend the UK enough!


----------



## dg (Jun 14, 2006)

The knife amnesty is really just a PR exercise to make us think that something is being done to tackle incresing knife use in crime/assaults.

It allows granny to take in the old sword from WW2 which has been in the attic for 50 years, and a few moms to clear out the kitchen drawer. In the meantime the average thug still has the fancy knife tucked away in his jacket.

A blade less than 3" and not locking will generally be OK, but unless you look like one of our 'chavs' (see google!), and as long as you don't wave a blade around, then you are unlikely to be bothered by a passing Police person.

I don't really see the need for carrying a large blade on a holiday to the UK, unless you are staying out in the woods! A multitool or SAK or small penknife should suffice.

Oh BTW, there are mobile metal detectors at some train stations specifically for knife detecting, but they are only targeting those that look like they may be no-good knife carrying chavs.


----------



## Jumpmaster (Jun 14, 2006)

dg said:


> ...but unless you look like one of our 'chavs' (see google!),



Funny website...(I took your advice!  )

http://www.chavscum.co.uk/

JM-99


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jun 14, 2006)

I'm in the UK, and also in the British Military (Royal Air Force), and I'm still a little confused about the legal status of carrying a knife in public.

Quite rightly, knife crime needs to be taken seriously, but this should be done by deterrent sentencing, not criminalising items.

If I were to carry a knife in public, it would probably be my Spyderco project 1 or 2, which I think has a blade about 1.75" long, but is a locking knife, so I'm not sure if it's legal. Spyderco do make a 'UK legal' non locking 'penknife', but I don't own one of those yet, and I'm still not 100% sure whether these would be looked upon unfavourably either.

You can buy a whole set of kitchen knives for a few pounds, where one of my pocket knives costs $100+.

When I'm on duty, I carry a Spyderco Military, plain edge all the time, and it has served me very well, but I will admit, it looks a little 'scary' to a paranoid public, so something shorter may be better for civvy carry.


----------



## justsomeguy (Jun 14, 2006)

Hi RAF groundcrew,

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

The point :huh: was made that most murders using knives are done using kitchen knives.

Steve


----------



## Double_A (Jun 15, 2006)

I had to "check" my micra at the door at one tourist venue in London a couple of years ago. They looked at it and me with an awful suspicious eye until I spoke up, ah a "yank" that explains it.

Claimed it when I exited. I believe it was the Queen's Exhibition.


----------



## leukos (Jun 15, 2006)

I edc a leatherman squirt on my keychain, and its teeny tiny non-locking blade will never be an issue. I also have a no.8 non-locking opinel knife for when I do want a more substantial, legal blade. That is all the more I would risk on my person, as to what I have at home, that is a different story.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 15, 2006)

This is positively the *dumbest* thing I've heard in a while.

WTF happened to England? Banning the carry of a locking pocket knife... idiots. Well at least they are getting what they deserve, let the .gov ban guns and of course they will ban something else next.


----------



## marcdilnutt (Jun 17, 2006)

There wasnt an awful lot we could do about the gun ban, as our media is so totally under the control of various aspects of those running our country (note i didnt say government) that the general public get fed hype and nonsense and believe that, for example, taking away legal guns from properly vetter people is going to stop some crack dealing idiot from shooting somenone with a mac 10 which has always been illegal. There is a group now that is trying to ban shotguns at the moment becasue some kid shot kis girlfriend. Where i live a lot of people get stabbed with glasses and bottles, so in the summer we are not allowed to drink from them in pub gardens! One off license even stopped selling bottles!! England is going to the dogs and the sooner the public realises it the better.
marc


----------



## leduk (Jun 17, 2006)

This topic irritates me.

There have been no major changes in the UK law for some time.
Only certain knives have been banned.
The law has made no difference to my carrying a Swiss Army Knife as I've done for the past 25 years. i.e. As a normal citizen it has had zero impact. I still go fishing with a razor sharp 6 inch fixed blade gutting knife. I just don't take it to the pub on a Friday night. That's called common sense.

Here is a link to the UK law on knives.

As for being disarmed.

Its tennis season here and Wimbledon is starting up soon. Andy Murray is our latest hope. Andy Murray was in a school in Dunblane in 1996 when Thomas Hamilton walked into the school. Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children and 1 teacher. I don't think we've had a similar incident since the laws on gun ownership were changed. Again a change in the law that has had zero impact on me apart from making me safer. I wonder how each of those 16 dead children might have grown.

Here's a link to murder rates across the world.

England and the UK are not going to the dogs. You just have to take part in society and not opt out and leave it to (blame) someone else. 

Cheers.

back to the topic.

Come to the UK if you have chance. In my experience if you travel with an open mind you're received with an open hand. You'll be fine with a good torch and leatherman or SAK. Buy the Rough Guide and have a good look about. 

(sorry folks, bump)


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jun 17, 2006)

Just a couple points on issues raised.



> ...In basic terms you are ok carrying a simple folding penknife with a blade length of less than 3 1/2 ''. Anything longer/locking/fixed blade/gravity assisted/inertia assisted/spring loaded etc is liable to get you arrested if discoverd.
> The only excepition to this is if you can provide *reasonable cause* for you to be carrying the item. For example a chef travelling to work probably has 'reasonable cause' to be carrying a set of sharp, fixed blade knives, tools of the trade and so on..... The same chef found carrying an 18'' Bowie knife to a rock concert may well find himself in prison.....


Emphasis mine.

It is incomprehensible to me that so many could feel that defending one's own life or that of one's family could _automatically_ be deemed *unreasonable.* The idea that this should be imposed on others, against their will, is tyrannical. The justice system should try to do better than just a simplistic reduction of self defense to the basics of _might makes right._ Even assuming that any kind of Gun/Knife Control reduces violent crime -- a huge assumption -- it will just mean that the bigger thug will *always* win when he attacks your wife or mother. That's not good enough for mine.

As far as the Andy Murray story goes:


> ...I wonder how each of those 16 dead children might have grown.


Since we're wondering about things, I wonder if *all* of those 16 kids would have had to die if they hadn't been legally prohibited from carrying the means of protecting themselves? I refuse to consider all humans as helpless wretches who are incapable of defending themselves and others. I carried a knife to my government school every day and never killed even one person, although, strangely there are no statistics that show that. Hmmmm...

When your rationale that all victims of mass shootings are helpless idiots is projected onto adult victims it becomes even more absurd and dissembling.

A good example would be the famous _Luby's Restaurant Massacre._ Here's a bit from Wikipedia:



> "On October 16, 1991 in Killeen, Texas a man named George Hennard drove his truck into a Luby's Restaurant, and then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff. He killed 23 people and wounded 20 before he killed himself. As a direct result of this massacre, in 1995 Texas lawmakers, led by Suzanna Gratia Hupp (whose parents were both killed in the massacre), passed a law that allowed Texas citizens to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit in part as a reaction against the massacre."



The interesting part (which Wikipedia carefully does not mention) is that Suzanna Gratia Hupp *had a handgun in her vehicle* and thought long and hard about whether she should *break the law* and carry her gun, concealed, into the cafe. She did not. She thought about it, but she *obeyed the law.*

*That* is the reason that she became _obsessed_ with changing the Texas concealed carry law. Do not automatically assume that everyone who has been disarmed by the state is incapable of defending themselves and others. 

If anyone thinks that they are too stupid or too helpless to defend themselves and others it is very unfortunate from a societal point of view, but it's OK, if they feel they are not worth protecting from violence, perhaps they are right. I won't argue about their value to society.

The real problem for me is that those who feel that their lives and those of their families aren't worth defending often think that the lives of me and my family aren't worth defending, either. That's not their call.


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 17, 2006)

"reasonable cause" is one of the worst government-abused word ever

California has a CCW policy where the Chief Law Enforcement Officer has discretion to judge by "good cause" to issue permits.

In reality in california, you cannot get a permit unless you are on good terms(read, rich people, poltical donors, influential, Diane Feinstein) with the Sheriff or Chief of Police, or you are one of the few living in a small rural community.

One quesion I always find very disturbing is "why would you need to carry a concelaed weapon?"

answer: to get a permit, you must go through a background check, pay a fee, and go through through training on safety and responsibility of owning nad carrying one.

IMHO those who go through all that trouble are the most responsbile citiznes around, since they are not afraid of a background check and usually have spotless records.

Back on topic, I do plan on visiting the UK, but am also wary of going to a place where Rebecca Peters is from...


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jun 17, 2006)

just slightly off topic.

I remember hearing about an old english law, requiring every englishman to have an longbow.

We won a lot of battles with the longbow in the middle ages.

Thats were the V for victory sign came from, If the enemy caught an long bowman they use to cut the two finger off that you pulled the bow string with.

So the english longbow men used to make an v sign at their enemy`s to show they still had their two bow fingers.

regards.


----------



## leduk (Jun 17, 2006)

Sub-umbra,

Did you suggest 8 year olds should carry knives or guns to protect themselves from a 43 year old nutter?

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

I'm just giving another view of the world from my sandals up.

Hey 270winchester you visit where Tinderbox lives as the fish and chips there are exceptional. I'm sure a list of suitable estaiblishments can be furnished.

Wiki says an umbra is the bit where the sun don't shine?:laughing:

Cheers


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 17, 2006)

leduk said:


> I'm just saying that since the ban we've not had another Dunblane (17 dead) or a Hungerford(16 dead) or ..... in the UK.


Knee-jerk, reactionary lawmaking is dang near always a bad idea -- yeilding bad results.

To eradicate a human right, under the guise of preventing the few crazy people from causing harm, is never a good trade off.

Yes, our Constitution is a bit different than what you red coats live under  But the fact is that we yanks believe that the Constitution is about inalienable and self-evident human rights.

Many of us are sick of watching once good countries fall victim to the domino effect (i.e. Canada, UK, Aus). Each country that has banned guns experinced a large uptick in violent crime. You exchanged the very rare mass shooting for indiviual shootings, muggings, rape, robbery, and home invasions... all on the average street.

Your UK stats have been skewed due to recent changes in *how* the police over there record crimes. An unsolved crime is no longer entered into the stats... an easy way to make crime rates go down.

Gun control directly relates to knife control. Both bans seek to simply ban a tool, rather than address the indiviuals who abuse the tool. 

A ban on locking blade pocket knives is actually unsafe. One is much less likely to be injured while using a locking blade knife.

Fact is that each country gets the government it deserves, and usually it is the majority suffering their illigetimate 'opinion' onto the minority -- and freedom always suffers.


----------



## leukos (Jun 18, 2006)

I've lived on both sides of the pond and both countries suffer from forms of illogical group psychosis in relation to societal problems.


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 18, 2006)

Well guys, my bad, I did not intend for this thread to be another one of those controversial topics that belong in underground.

I am still looking to secure the time to head ove the pond. I just won't bring any of my knives with locking mechanism and bring a can of pepper spray instead.

I do howver look forward to a good pitcher of ale and some good chips....


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jun 18, 2006)

270winchester said:


> I am still looking to secure the time to head ove the pond. I just won't bring any of my knives with locking mechanism and bring a can of pepper spray instead.


Don't know if you're aware, pepper spray (and CS, and any other irritant/incapacitant agent) is classed as a 'prohibited weapon', in the same category as automatic weapons (illegal without permission from the home secretary). You won't get it through the airport, assuming they do their job properly.

I'm all in favour of guns, knives, batons, sprays, tasers, etc, but currently, they are illegal for civilian posession in the UK. Sorry.


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 18, 2006)

RAF_Groundcrew said:


> Don't know if you're aware, pepper spray (and CS, and any other irritant/incapacitant agent) is classed as a 'prohibited weapon', in the same category as automatic weapons (illegal without permission from the home secretary). You won't get it through the airport, assuming they do their job properly.
> 
> I'm all in favour of guns, knives, batons, sprays, tasers, etc, but currently, they are illegal for civilian posession in the UK. Sorry.



Since when????? Was there a mass killing involving pepper spray that caused this law or just got passed because it sounded nice?

Wow, I guess my trusty tigerlight has to stay home then...oh wait, would the police count the tigerlight as a club anyway?

So to recap, any locking knife is out, no OC/spray...

edit: just ran across an article by a Scottish academic on this subject that sounds awsully like what the UK is adopting: 
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1377062004

a few years old but very chilling suggestions, such as coopeerate and give up your valueables upon request without direct contact. Sorry to offend y'all but how do you brits swallow this kind of commands? So if someone is attacking you, you are not supposed to do anything nad just cooperate? watch as your wife is raped and give the attacker a hearty congratulate for a job well done? then hand them your hard-earned money, your posessions, and hope that that illegally purchased autmatic weapon is only that "for show" and that they are more scared than you?

Am I reading this right? So what is a single female have to protect herself from attacker on the street? In the US the arguement is that women don't need guns because there is pepper spray. So what is an ENglish woman suppose to do? cooperate, avoid eye contact and report it afterwards?

Sorry RAF, your info just broke the straw on the camel's back. I am having second thoughts about going to a country with such disregard for women's safety. heck law-abiding person's personal safety period. I have learned from my dad to stand up for myself and not be a victim, I will not spend a dime in a country that is so against everything I have ever known.

I am done with this topic, sorry admins that this got out of hand on my part, I just decided that England will not be my vacation destination. My step-father has already recomended Greece and it's looking better everyday.

Nick


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 18, 2006)

never mind.


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jun 18, 2006)

A quick kick in the family jewels, and then take to your heals.

UK courts are more concerned with a criminals rights, than the victims.

regards.


----------



## cdf (Jun 18, 2006)

There is currently a Home Office green paper (discussion document ) discussing lthe liscencing of lathes and milling machines . I at one time lived in the UK , but regretfully would not revisit the "Nanny State ".

Chris


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jun 18, 2006)

TinderBox (UK) said:


> ...I remember hearing about an old english law, requiring every englishman to have an longbow.


In the past there have been numorous churches where all men were required to bring their muskets with them to all religious services. 

http://chronicle.augusta.com/history/stpauls.html

Often those who owned no gun were required to bring a sword. This reflected their very fear of being wiped out _en masse_ by indians as they worshipped. People had so much more common sense back then. 

Today we have people bringing swords into churches and attacking worshipers and we have laws that forbid the carry of defensive weapons into a church. It doesn't make any sense to automatically class any group of law abiding citizens as being not worthy of self defense.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 18, 2006)

270winchester said:


> I am done with this topic, sorry admins that this got out of hand on my part, I just decided that England will not be my vacation destination.





270winchester said:


> Well guys, my bad, I did not intend for this thread to be another one of those controversial topics that belong in underground.



It's a good topic, and worth discussion (the banning of tools and loss of human rights). Everyone is being civil, it's intelligent discourse that is related to the thread topic.


I wonder if they banned the carry of concealed scissors? A pair of metal scissors with 6" or 8" blades is way more wicked than metal pen (see what you get reduced to?). To quote a lame folk singer, "Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right."

Licensing lathes lol, geesh, next they get banned. Can't have a private citizen have the capacity to manufacture a good.


----------



## Alloy Addict (Jun 19, 2006)

The current favored crime control method in the urban areas of England seems to be surveillance cameras. I've seen some maps, and there are few places in the big cities (London especially) where you won't be on camera. If you are attacked, at least they know where to find the body, and that the perp was wearing a hoodie and cap.

I don't mean this as a slight towards the British at all. We are quickly following suit. We will need these cameras everywhere in America to keep us safe from terrorists.

In my city of Cincinnati, there is a private company trying to have surveillance cameras put up around neighborhoods and businesses. If a sensor on the camera notices that you have staying in one place for 5-10 seconds it will broadcast a message saying that loitering is not permitted. Of course some of the local "street culture" have already learned how to disable the cameras without being seen.

Large stable governments all over the world are trying to control more and more of what their population is doing. Both major parties in this country are equally bad about wishing to control the populace, though we are far from an unstable society like some of the newer nations.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jun 21, 2006)

marcdilnutt said:


> Where i live a lot of people get stabbed with glasses and bottles, so in the summer we are not allowed to drink from them in pub gardens!





Are you serious!


Talk about NAZI UK!


The whole place is turning into a surveillance & police state nightmare though, so this doesn't surprise me, but it just struck me as funny.


----------



## Steve C (Jun 21, 2006)

My wife is a Scot. I have been to the UK three times to visit the in-laws.

The first time, I was very uncomfortable at first. I have been a cop for nearly 30 years, and felt naked with nothing more deadly than a SAK on me.

Here's the deal; if you don't venture into "shady" areas, your chances of being accosted over there are much lower than here at home. In those three visits, the only time I went to Condition Orange was in a train station in Glasgow, where several thuggy types were eyeing me and my brother-in-law as potential victims... I know the look. I stared back, and they lost interest. 

I never felt completely at ease, but learned to relax. I would never willingly disarm myself, but this was for the wife and there simply is no other choice.

Salient points regarding a "yank's" visit to the UK...

1. The weather is a roll of the dice; usually less than nice, but can be spectacular if you're lucky.

2. Lots of neat stuff to see, especially in the outlands. London (and Glasgow) is like any other big city; I avoid those when possible. 

3. The food SUCKS; period. However, I shall be forever grateful for my discovery of the shandy.

4. It is an expensive place to visit; bring lots of money. And you'll take a bath regardless of where you get currency exchanged, although securing UK currency through a US bank ahead of time is usually the cheapest way to go. Use your plastic for big stuff and save the cash for walking-around.

5. Most importantly, the people are wonderful. Reactions to your being a "yank" will range from hearty welcome to bemused tolerance; but almost everybody will go out of their way to be polite. These guys have great senses of humor; just be careful getting into a drinking contest in the pubs. You'll lose.

I'll probably never go back, but not because I fear going un-armed there. These days, I simply refuse to make myself totally helpless flying commercial air, especially with the caliber of the average TSA employee in mind. My last trip across, the journey back went directly into the toilet upon my arrival in Newark. Big surprise there... 

And the days of comfortable travel in tourist class are gone. My wife is going this Friday; Continental has notified her twice of "equipment changes"... i.e., a smaller airplane each time. We thought about mortgaging the grandkids for a first-class ticket, but...

Personally, there are plenty of places here I haven't seen yet, and I intend to see many of them upon retirement. But if Steve cannot drive there, Steve ain't going...

.


----------



## leukos (Jun 22, 2006)

Steve C said:


> Personally, there are plenty of places here I haven't seen yet, and I intend to see many of them upon retirement. But if Steve cannot drive there, Steve ain't going...
> 
> .


 
Don't forget about cruise ships....


----------



## Steve C (Jun 22, 2006)

Nope. Most of them make port calls in places as CCW-unfriendly as the UK.

Besides, my unwilling three-day excursion on the USS Paul Revere dampened any sea-going aspirations I once may have had...


----------



## SolarFlare (Jun 23, 2006)

Whats the point in having a concealed weapon. if everyone else has one? I don't get the title of this thread? there is no UK knife ban. Knife law is exactly the same as it was 2 weeks ago, 2 months ago, 2 years ago. You don't need a knife in a public place, so if you do have one you'll be arrested, sounds fair to me, and I live in the UK, I don't have a problem with the law as it is. If I carry a knife I have reason to carry it, I'm at work, on the way to work, or on the way back. I don't, never have or never will consider a knife as a defensive tool. Statistics show that if you carry a knife, and produce it as a defensive tool, chances are you'll get stabbed with your own knife, or maybe (if you're lucky) stab the attacker (an later wish you hadn't). 

If you think they're reasons not to visit the UK then you are small minded, believe me. You needn't worry unless you are in your early teens, wear a hoody or baseball cap and carry a relatively modern mobile phone and like to hang around council estates or impoverished areas, then you shouldn't visit the UK. 

So next time I go to book a holiday I'll base all my decisions on Californias laws an I'll imagine that its all just like Compton and Long Beach.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jun 23, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> Whats the point in having a concealed weapon. if everyone else has one? I don't get the title of this thread? there is no UK knife ban. Knife law is exactly the same as it was 2 weeks ago, 2 months ago, 2 years ago. You don't need a knife in a public place, so if you do have one you'll be arrested, sounds fair to me, and I live in the UK, I don't have a problem with the law as it is. If I carry a knife I have reason to carry it, I'm at work, on the way to work, or on the way back. I don't, never have or never will consider a knife as a defensive tool. Statistics show that if you carry a knife, and produce it as a defensive tool, chances are you'll get stabbed with your own knife, or maybe (if you're lucky) stab the attacker (an later wish you hadn't).
> 
> If you think they're reasons not to visit the UK then you are small minded, believe me. You needn't worry unless you are in your early teens, wear a hoody or baseball cap and carry a relatively modern mobile phone and like to hang around council estates or impoverished areas, then you shouldn't visit the UK.
> 
> So next time I go to book a holiday I'll base all my decisions on Californias laws an I'll imagine that its all just like Compton and Long Beach.





Hey, if you don't like to carry a knife or whatever, that's fine with me, it's your life.

But people need to learn to mind their own business and stop trying to run everyone else's lives. I'll carry whatever I want.


----------



## SolarFlare (Jun 23, 2006)

I do carry a knife everyday, I need it to cut ropes, and I also carry a stihl woodboss for the majority of my day at work, I know which is the most offensive.


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 23, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> You don't need a knife in a public place, so if you do have one you'll be arrested, sounds fair to me,


---wow, I'm speechless.




> never have or never will consider a knife as a defensive tool. Statistics show that if you carry a knife, and produce it as a defensive tool, chances are you'll get stabbed with your own knife, or maybe (if you're lucky) stab the attacker (an later wish you hadn't).



you know, people in England are probably just as afraid of the criminals as much as the judicial system that would paint them as villain if they manage to injure the criminals.

statistics also show that when people aren't famliar with their tools they are more likely to hurt themselves. 

the effort of the English people in an effort to rationalize government control over its citizens makes me cringe. After all, the most successful gun-control advocates include Hitler, Stalin, etc who successed in convincing their citizens that they dont "need" means of protection. it worked out reall well alright....

on a seperate note, I remember in my history class that during the brutal Mongul domination of China, the government was so afraid of the people that they requried the sharing of kitchen knives of the Chinese people. I.e., several family shared a kitchen knife that was chained to a table in a communal kitchen and if any one was caught with a knife, they were automatically assumed as criminals and beheaded.

Anyone else can see the parallel here or is it just me?


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jun 23, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> I do carry a knife everyday, I need it to cut ropes, and I also carry a stihl woodboss for the majority of my day at work, *I know which is the most offensive.*




Does it matter? You don't need to justify it to me or anyone else.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jun 23, 2006)

Winchester270, I see the same irrational thought process from Englanders whether in person or on the internet. I'm convinced there's something in the water over there.. or maybe it's just the years of nannystatism that they're subjected to everyday.


----------



## SolarFlare (Jun 23, 2006)

Why highlight my text then? I'd appreciate it, if you quote me to quote my text in its original form. Thank you


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jun 23, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> Why highlight my text then? I'd appreciate it, if you quote me to quote my text in its original form. Thank you




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

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


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


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 24, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


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


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

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


----------



## justsomeguy (Jun 24, 2006)

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

What happened to this...

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

Steve, a Vet and not ready to give in


----------



## Steve C (Jun 24, 2006)

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

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

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


----------



## mikehill (Jun 24, 2006)

Steve C said:


> They weren't all Churchills in 1940; they had their Chamberlains back then, too...
> 
> Just like we have our Clintons, Feinsteins, Schumers, etc. Guys, don't slam the Brits in general for their cultural differences. Most of them find the American fascination with weaponry just as bizarre as we find their fascination with royalty.
> 
> Yes, their government is trying hard to make sheep out of them. But don't forget that, to a lesser extent, our government is trying to do the same thing to us.


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


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jun 24, 2006)

InfidelCastro said:


> I highlighted because it doesn't matter. I don't see an issue as to which is "most offensive". I don't even know which you think is 'most offensive' and for what reason you would think so.
> 
> Also keep in mind we're talking about an inanimate object here.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 25, 2006)

mikehill said:


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



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


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 25, 2006)

Steve C said:


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



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


----------



## DownUnderLite (Jun 25, 2006)

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

*Disarm the public and reduce crime!!*
Thats the theory


----------



## leukos (Jun 25, 2006)

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


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 25, 2006)

leukos said:


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


ROFLMAO.

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## geforce guy (Jun 25, 2006)

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


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 25, 2006)

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

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

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


----------



## justsomeguy (Jun 26, 2006)

DownUnderLite said:


> Australia also has very similiar laws! (Part of the Commonwealth)
> 
> *Disarm the public and reduce crime!!*
> Thats the theory


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

Have householders been able to defend the homes better?

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


----------



## Brangdon (Jun 26, 2006)

justsomeguy said:


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


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


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Jun 27, 2006)

leduk said:


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


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





CFU


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jun 27, 2006)

justsomeguy said:


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





Brangdon said:


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


Emphasis mine.

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


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 27, 2006)

Casual Flaslight User said:


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



Yup, that's what I've heard. 

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

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


----------



## justsomeguy (Jun 28, 2006)

Well,

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

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

S


----------



## dg (Jun 28, 2006)

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

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

And executing people for traffic violations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 28, 2006)

dg said:


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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## twl (Jun 28, 2006)

The idea that the UK is even considering doing this, or actually doing it, is bad enough.

To think that any UK subject thinks that this is a good idea, is beyond words.


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 28, 2006)

twl said:


> The idea that the UK is even considering doing this, or actually doing it, is bad enough.
> 
> To think that any UK subject thinks that this is a good idea, is beyond words.



the ironic part is, all the CPFers from Uk who discuss lights here are probably considered anti-social gadget freaks by their fellow countrymen who make fun of them behind their backs for being "scared of the dark", they are most likely dismissed by their friends, family and coworkers as overly paranoid, after all what would a innocent person walk around with a Surefire for, considering they can inflict great bodily damage to others, plus there are street lights and all the buildings in the UK are lit so there should be no need for fhalshlights period. It is probably som inadquecy in the English CPFers' eye sight to compell them to pursue photon emitting devices, no?. Don't you know that only thieves and criminals would need flashlights to look in dark places where they are not supposed to look in.

And here they are looking down on people who own knives and firearms.

Do you know why I carry a knife? I have used my Emerson to cut my stuck seat belt when I was T-boned by an SUV, and my car was catching on fire, and it bursted into flames a few minutes after I got out and ten minutes before any police or fire trucks arrived on scene. if I did not have my knife on me I would be dead.

My earliest recollection of firearms was when I was 5, during the Loma Prieta earthquake, my dad and our neighbors worked to get the survivor out with their pistols holstered on their belt. The police were too busy with downtown to help us for a while. They had to draw their weapons to repel a roving gang of latino gang-bangers who were looking for a looting target. These men(my ad and neighbors) never harmed a human being in their life, and they saved lives with their tools. Ironically my dad was nearly killed a few years later in an accident where his car was struck by a Landrover on the passenger side.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jun 28, 2006)

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


San Franciscos' finest *what?*

The rest of the post is so riddled with misconceptions that there is no time for them all. The first thing to be noted is that there were weapons long before there were weapons bans. Self defense and the willingness to carry and use weapons to protect ourselves and our families are folded deeply into human nature -- and there is probably nothing that will ever convince the poster of that.

The post would indicate that it is possible to just tell people to be good -- and they will. Of course no matter how many times UK citizens are told to be good, it doesn't work. They still have to have the Police, the Courts and yes, the Prisons, too. (Yes!! Even in the enlightened UK!! They dump all over their citizens right to defend themselves and they _*STILL have thugs*_ that have to be dealt with the same way as the rest of our barbaric countries do.) And there do seem to be people in the UK's prisons who are there because they violated *far more than just gun or knife laws.*

While on the subject of prisons, how safe is it to be a prisoner in the UK? It is interesting to note that prisons are extreme elements of control. The prisoner is supposedly under the control of the state all the time -- 24 hours a day. They keep people locked up, often in one tiny cell. They tell them who they may see and when. they tell them what they may eat and when. The prisoner makes very few decisions for himself and _has very few rights._ According to some posting here, prisons should be *the safest places in the UK.* After all, prisons are thought to be the epitome of gun control. Regulation of knives in the UK's prisons is _far more stringent_ than they are on the outside. *And yet the knife is still the most popular weapon in the UK's prisons.* Some posters may somehow not see this simple truth, although I can't see how. If their own government can imprison people, strip away very nearly all of their rights _and keep them under lock and key_ *AND ARE STILL UNABLE TO DISARM THEM ALL,* why on earth do they believe that all of their fellow citizens, with jobs, money, cars, cell phones and *total mobility* will be totally disarmed just because some twits tell them that they should? HINT: It won't work. It has never worked. It will never work. It can't work. _Even in the UK,_ people aren't built that way. Heck, y'all are on an *island* and you *still* can't make it work.

Come on, tell me how safe your prisons are! Tell me about how you've put a million restrictions on your prisoners that even *your* 'free' citizens would never put up with -- and TELL ME THAT THESE DRACONIAN MEASURES HAVE ELIMINATED KNIVES IN YOUR PRISONS. 

So lets take all of the citizens everywhere and tell them that they may not posess any useful weapon that they may protect themselves and their families with, even though it is well known that even when nearly all rights and mobility and communications have been stripped from citizens -- some will *still* have knives and guns and continue to be a danger to the rest of the population. And that's going to be OK with you guys at *Airstrip 1?*

If a person feels that they and their family aren't worth defending, I don't have a problem with that. I would just hope that they have a quick run in with reality that takes them out of the gene pool before they have put those _who feel that they are worth defending in any more danger than they already have._


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 29, 2006)

"Only the Shaun shall survive!"





"You can have my cricket bat when you pry it from my cold, dead, zombie fingers!"


----------



## leduk (Jun 29, 2006)

Excellent film

There's another US citizien coming to Europe looking to bring stuff. Maybe you two can come together and look after each other?

other thread.

Cheers


----------



## Kevin Tan (Jun 29, 2006)

Its not just happening in the UK, even Malaysia a former colony using the common law is in the same situation. Or taken to the extreme, Singapore, where they have a registry for knife owners.

Why would a pro banner who lives in a secure cctv guarded apartment worry about defending himself or his family? They are after all in a very secure place, right? Ever try to enter a secure goverment building thru the back door or the car multi level park entries? Pretty easy to do.

So what is a unarmed person to do if accosted in his supposedly secure home? Isnt breakins a regular occurange everywhere in the world?


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 29, 2006)

Kevin Tan said:


> So what is a unarmed person to do if accosted in his supposedly secure home? Isnt breakins a regular occurange everywhere in the world?


Suffer damage to person and/or property. Rather pathetic isn't it.

Of course if you're in a free country, or a free state, you have the Castle Doctrine on your side  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine 

It's not funny how far England had fallen away from that principle. I have heard of several cases recently where a homeowner was prosecuted severly for defending his life and property with force. Of course I'm sure they'd do the same thing in Commiefornia, Taxeschussets, NY, DC and Chigaco.


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jun 29, 2006)

I am not sure of this.

But, I heard if you catch a burglar climbing through your window in the US and shoot him.

if he falls inside of the house you are ok, but if he falls outside of the house you will get prosecuted.

So if this ever happens to you, make sure to drag his sorry *** inside before you ring the cops.:lolsign:


----------



## J_Oei (Jun 29, 2006)

> Originally Posted by SolarFlare
> You don't *need* a knife in a public place, so if you do have one you'll be arrested, sounds fair to me,



I think this is a funny statement, being posted on a flashlight board where we own Surefire M6s and USL-type lights that might "temporarily blind people!" :ironic:

I'm sure 99% of the people (and 100% of the government) would probably think that we don't "need" these types of lights.

I'm for the "just cause I don't need it doesn't mean you can't have it if you want it." (SUVs, alcohol, etc) :thinking:

As far as all the video survelliance, I think it makes it easier for the police to solve the crime, not prevent it. Which is great for the police, but not for the victim.

Read the following book which states that the police do not have an obligation to help you.
Dial 911 and Die

PS Amazingly, this thread has remained civil. :wow:


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Jun 29, 2006)

J_Oei said:


> As far as all the video survelliance, I think it makes it easier for the police to solve the crime, not prevent it. Which is great for the police, but not for the victim.


 

Yep, the UK's 'Sky News' channel actually showed some footage of a young lad being stabbed to death by sub-human thugs a few weeks ago. Fat lot of good CCTV did him.





CFU


----------



## SolarFlare (Jun 29, 2006)

Datasaurusrex said:


> Suffer damage to person and/or property. Rather pathetic isn't it.



Thats actually quite wrong, in the UK you're quite entitled to use reasonable force against an intruder, if that results in their death thats ok too. Running to the bottom of your garden and stabbing someone who is just nicking ya lawn mower isn't ok, seems reasonable.



J_Oei said:


> I think this is a funny statement, being posted on a flashlight board where we own Surefire M6s and USL-type lights that might "temporarily blind people!"



Rather different than being penetrated through a vital organ with German trench knife, don't you think?


----------



## Dirty Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

> Those that do carry are those that are either out to commit crime, those who look for trouble, or need some kind of ego boost to counteract other inadequacies or escape from a dreary life.


Sorry, but I can't agree, and it doesn't seem to be "the high road" to disparage those who disagree with you. On four times in my life, my being armed (and willing to defend myself) has saved me from what might have been serious bodily harm. Three of the events featured two attackers, but on one occasion I was about to be attacked by at least six people, when they saw I was armed (I was reaching for the chain around my neck that I used to lock my bike) and backed off.

Two of the incidents were probably aborted robbery/muggings, while the other two seemed to be people just looking to attack some random person for entertainment.

Just because you may not have ever faced violence, a lot of us have. I live in a very nice neighborhood and work at a job in a "secure" environment, but I'm still very careful in my daily life, and I am armed when it is legal.

All my best,
Dirty Bob


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 29, 2006)

Dirty Bob said:


> Sorry, but I can't agree, and it doesn't seem to be "the high road" to disparage those who disagree with you. On four times in my life, my being armed (and willing to defend myself) has saved me from what might have been serious bodily harm. Three of the events featured two attackers, but on one occasion I was about to be attacked by at least six people, when they saw I was armed (I was reaching for the chain around my neck that I used to lock my bike) and backed off.
> 
> Two of the incidents were probably aborted robbery/muggings, while the other two seemed to be people just looking to attack some random person for entertainment.
> 
> ...



Save your breath Bob, for the Continent of Europe they still think of horses and buggies when they see you are from Texas. It's the elitist way of thinking that says "but we here in Europe don't need weapons like the savages in Texas". The Euros hold so much stereotype of Texas it's really sad...


----------



## SolarFlare (Jun 29, 2006)

270winchester said:


> Save your breath Bob, for the Continent of Europe they still think of horses and buggies when they see you are from Texas. It's the elitist way of thinking that says "but we here in Europe don't need weapons like the savages in Texas". The Euros hold so much stereotype of Texas it's really sad...



What utter nonsense  that statement in itself is hypocritical and stereotypical. I decided to do a quick search to see why you are so paranoid about not being able to carry a knife on your possible visit to the UK, and here they are:-

These are from the UK Home Office and the FBI. Homicides per capita.

With a knife.
UK 1 in 256,107
US 1 in 164,107

With a gun.
UK 1 in 827, 965
US 1 in 31,566

Overall Homicides
UK 1 in 74,989
US 1 in 21,042

No wonder you are paranoid, but rest in the knowledge, that if you do come to the UK you'll be a lot safer than staying at home :naughty:


----------



## dg (Jun 29, 2006)

Dirty Bob said:


> Two of the incidents were probably aborted robbery/muggings, while the other two seemed to be people just looking to attack some random person for entertainment.
> 
> Just because you may not have ever faced violence, a lot of us have. I live in a very nice neighborhood and work at a job in a "secure" environment, but I'm still very careful in my daily life, and I am armed when it is legal.
> 
> ...


 
Yes that sums it up.

In the UK, it is much less likely to get mugged or have people look for random attacks for entertainment.

We don't have to be careful, and don't always have to be on the look out. Therefore we don't have the need to be armed against such chance events

We have a different society here, with different attitudes. And our laws work for us - and for those visiting



270winchester said:


> Save your breath Bob, for the Continent of Europe they still think of horses and buggies when they see you are from Texas. It's the elitist way of thinking that says "but we here in Europe don't need weapons like the savages in Texas". The Euros hold so much stereotype of Texas it's really sad...


 
LOL. Don't be so conceited. Its just one of your states to us, nothing special.

Now most of the US posters to this thread seem to be intent on having a bit of Brit or Euro bashing. I must advise that you would be on a hiding to nothing if we had to retaliate


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jun 29, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> What utter nonsense  that statement in itself is hypocritical and stereotypical. I decided to do a quick search to see why *you are so paranoid* about not being able to carry a knife on your possible visit to the UK, and here they are:-
> 
> These are from the UK Home Office and the FBI. Homicides per capita.
> 
> ...



*Emphasis mine*

First off, *Paranoia* is a very serious disorder and not just a political and/or cultural point of view. To label a poster that you dissagree with paranoid is simply calling him *sick* and such personal attacks do not further your cause. You also try to quote statistics from the FBI and the Home Office which, if taken at face value, would indicate that the target of your name calling actually *may* have something to fear on a rational level, if the figures you put up have any real meaning in context, which you conveniently did not provide. So, what did you actually mean when you impuned his arguments by insinuating that he was sick? If your contextless statistics are accurate, *he really does have something to fear* and your calling him sick is just a blatent personal attack and has nothing to do with his argument at all. In any event, no matter what your figures seem to show you insist on calling him sick *twice* in one post.

*Note that I am not attacking you -- only your post.*

As far as those statistics you quoted from the FBI and the Home Office, the ones with *no dates,* the ones that no one may correlate to anything meaningful because you didn't even give out a *URL* with them, I'm not impressed. I was able to find data that refutes your numbers and mine come from *the same sources* (and I see no necessity to withhold any of the details, as you did) and I won't have to resort to any personal attacks to make my point. If you want to contest the numbers I put up -- fine, at least I've put them up in such a way that you won't be left scratching your head and wondering *what century they are from.*

For the 'Cliff's Notes' version, with just the graphs, (yet still more contextual information than Solarflare provided with his numbers) click on the imagelink below:



For those who may want to view the data in more context, the PDF file is *here*



dg said:


> ...Don't be so *conceited*....Now most of the US posters to this thread seem to be intent on having a bit of *Brit or Euro bashing.* I must advise that *you would be on a hiding to nothing if we had to retaliate*



*Emphasis mine*

Ahhh... so we're conceited and sick *and we're the ones doing the bashing...* At least your side is consistant. And then, what's that, *a threat* at the end? And this is coming from the guys that think the people are a danger to the public? The same guys who think that they can't be trusted with any kind of useful weapon to defend their wives, mothers and children? Ohhhh....shivers run down my spine. 

Strong arguments, those.


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 29, 2006)

never mind


----------



## SolarFlare (Jun 29, 2006)

I thought you might of been capable of looking for yourself, but as you can't here's an early link to get you into http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t209


----------



## SolarFlare (Jun 29, 2006)

Paranoia is not an illness, its a state of mind, use your dictionary instead of *******ising our language. The posting of figures can go on add infinitum, the end result is per head of population that you live in a "more murderous society" regardless. Argue with me if you like, but you can't deny it.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jun 30, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> Paranoia is not an illness, its a state of mind, *use your dictionary* instead of *******ising our language.


*Emphasis mine*

*There you go again...*
I did use a dictionary but in your fury you must not have noticed. My use of the word *Paranoia* was directly linked to a page of definitions from dictionaries. The very first dictionary result in the page I linked to in my last post defines paranoia as:

_"A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without 
grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason."_​
When you call someone paranoid you are saying that they are sick. If you are unable to tell the difference between 'a state of mind' and 'a psychotic disorder' I must agree with *your* assertion that that you are not competent to carry a knife in public. At least we may agree on something. 



SolarFlare said:


> ...*The posting of figures* can go on add infinitum, the end result is per head of population that you live in a "more murderous society" regardless. Argue with me if you like, but you can't deny it.


*Emphasis mine*

That makes sense. Lets see, a few hours ago, *when it suited your purpose* you introduce your own figures, but let anyone try to respond in kind and you'll have none of it. Are statistics only valid when *you* post them? What new tactic will you embrace tomorrow -- only to declare it invalid when someone responds? Many would think that since *you* brought statistics up in the first place that you might have at least a little interest in statistics from the _exact same sources you used to try to make your point *just a few hours before.*_ 

I'm actually beginning to agree with you on a few points after reading your posts today. While you have made it known from the start that you don't think I'm competent to carry a knife, I've only come to that conclusion about *you* tonight. Unlike yourself, I don't blindly condemn all of humanity in this regard. I feel that _nearly everyone else_ is still up to the task.


----------



## 270winchester (Jun 30, 2006)

I trust in people's abilities. We built our world from jungles and plains, so i am confident that people can handle tools. I trust the average civilized human to be capable of correctly use their tools. I'm an optimist.


----------



## leduk (Jun 30, 2006)

Edit> the original graphs were posted by SubUmbra not SolarFlare. Pardon my mis-quote <end edit



SolarFlare said:


> I thought you might of been capable of looking for yourself, but as you can't here's an early link to get you into http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t209



Lies damn lies and statistics.

I like the way that you can only get the homicide rates for the UK and the US on the same graph is by using two seperate y axis scales differing a factor of 10! Lets talk when we get onto the same scale.

Violent crime rate graph seems to have an additional line pencilled in where the official graph does not and its missing the health warning. There is a discontinuity in the police recorded violent crime rate for 1998 as we started adding other stuff in and used new counting methods blah blah the two rates [before and after] should not be compared. Let alone have a nice straight line drawn between them.

Official government figures here.

Third graph? Well the trend is down.

Cheers


----------



## leduk (Jun 30, 2006)

Edit> the original graphs were posted by SubUmbra not SolarFlare. Pardon my mis-quote <end edit



SolarFlare said:


> I thought you might of been capable of looking for yourself, but as you can't here's an early link to get you into http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t209



Graph one isn't quite up to date.
Here's an up to date verision showing the "blip" dues to the addition of 58 cockle pickers who drowned and hightened rates as a result of a Shipman "doctor of death". The figure is low to start and the odd 50 here or there make quite a striking change.

UK murder stats (government) up to date.

I'm not at all worried about this, nothing to see here, move away please.

Cheers


----------



## leduk (Jun 30, 2006)

Since all this started as a result of a mis-understood BBC report about the "UK knife ban". Here's another BBC report which may shed a little light on where its safe to be.

Capital murder rates

I'm scared now cos the BBC desn't lie like governments or the NRA.

Should we all agree to disagree and concentrate on candle power?

Cheers.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 30, 2006)

When England instituted the weapons bans (guns and knives) they changed the way they reported crime statistics in order to create illigitemate results -- *making it appear the weapons bans had a positive effect when in reality they did not*

The no longer count an actual crime commited with a knife or a gun in the stats, unless the crime is *succesfully prosecuted to a conviction*. If there is no arrest and conviction in a case (for a incident) then it is no longer included in the crime stats.

Here in the states we include any criminal event in our stats. *Head to head I suspect the numbers are the same in both countries, if the 'reporting' was honest.*


furthermore, arguing statistics is irrelevant. Banning pocket knives and firearms is wrong. There is no legitimate argument for such acts.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jun 30, 2006)

270winchester said:


> I trust in people's abilities. We built our world from jungles and plains, so i am confident that people can handle tools. I trust the average civilized human to be capable of correctly use their tools. I'm an optimist.



I agree 100%. *Hobbes was wrong*, life would not be 'nasty brutish and short' in a state of nature. Humans, in general are cooperative creatures, ethical and moral, fair to eachother with the ability to empathize and act toward others as they would wish to be treated.

I trust the majority of my fellow citizens to act responsibily, regardless of governmental rules regulations interference, or the lack thereof  In part that's the cornerstone of the American political philosophy.

If you don't trust your fellow citizens with knives, guns, lathes, flashlights or other usefull tools, then perhaps you should move rather than infringe on their rights


----------



## Lightraven (Jun 30, 2006)

In theory, a knife ban could work. Intensive enforcement combined with draconian penalties would have people afraid to carry a knife out of fear of the consequences. 

This would give an advantage to large, strong, aggressive men in confrontations. Just the type who never commit crimes!

In the newspaper today, a woman was robbed of her cash deposit sack from her business. The robber never displayed a weapon, he just said gimme the money. Needless to say, most women are not prepared to physically fend off a man. Weapons actually create a safer society, if distributed widely among law abiding people. In the robbery, the woman could have pulled her gun and said, "You are under arrest."


----------



## SolarFlare (Jun 30, 2006)

Sub_Umbra said:


> *Emphasis mine*
> 
> *There you go again...*
> I did use a dictionary but in your fury you must not have noticed. My use of the word *Paranoia* was directly linked to a page of definitions from dictionaries. The very first dictionary result in the page I linked to in my last post defines paranoia as:
> ...



You may well have linked to "your" favoured definition of paranoia, however, it was I that used it, and I know which context I used it in. In a specialised use of the word, yes it is an illness, but its generally coupled with schizophrenia. Paranoia itself is a feeling anyone can have at any time.

Regarding your graphs, they back up everything I said, maybe you missed that its per million on the UK axis and per 100,000 on the US axis, infact they are worse than the stats I posted, thanks for that


----------



## leduk (Jun 30, 2006)

Edit> the original graphs were posted by SubUmbra not SolarFlare. Pardon my mis-quote <end edit



SolarFlare said:


> I thought you might of been capable of looking for yourself, but as you can't here's an early link to get you into http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t209



I think this graph is deliberately out of date to misrepresent the issue. (I'm shocked).

Here is a link to the official statistics showing trends through the use of graphs. 

Looking a bit deeper at graph number three.
The UK classes property crime differently from the US.

The FBI classifies property crime as "burglary, larceny-theft, vehicle theft and arson". Looking at 1996 the only way to get to the level of crime on graph three of about 9000 per 100,000 is to include criminal damage and all crimes involving a vehicle. (total vehicle theft and thefts from 2,500k, criminal damage 1,000k)  So we have apples and pears. The US would exclude theft from a vehicle but the UK would include it. The US would exclude grafitti but the UK would include it. 

Let see England and Wales (Scotland is a different country) 1996, Burglary 1200k, fraud (larceny) 150k, robbery 75k, theft of vehicles 500k gives a total number of 1,725,000 proprty crimes in the UK (FBI model). Guess the population in 1996 58 million. 

So we have 2,974 property crimes per 100,000 of population. 

This compares favourably with the US figure for 1996 of 4,451.

Apples and pears.

Those 3 graphs are junk.

By the way. 1996 was before the gun law changes, we had years of economic depression under Tory rule. The population was revolting.


----------



## leduk (Jun 30, 2006)

I got it now.

The graphs here.

Are in this report here from the right wing think tank the Fraser Institute.

The Fraser Institute is Wiki'd here.

The author Prof Mauser is pictured here on the gun range here.

Is he one of the Mauser Mausers ?

He says he is responsible for the way the data was interpreted.
He's a professor of Social Psychology. Shame he didn't do statistics at school.

Anyway. Got to get on, I can feel my life force ebbing away.

Cheers


----------



## leukos (Jun 30, 2006)

Actually, if you are an Amercian travelling here in the UK, the best tactic in a self-defense situation is to make the attacker aware that you are a Yank; most likely he will assume that you have a gun or a knife somewhere on your person (per the stereotype), and will politely excuse himself from his aborted business transaction.


----------



## justsomeguy (Jun 30, 2006)

Lightraven said:


> In theory, a knife ban could work. Intensive enforcement combined with draconian penalties would have people afraid to carry a knife out of fear of the consequences.
> 
> This would give an advantage to large, strong, aggressive men in confrontations. Just the type who never commit crimes!
> 
> In the newspaper today, a woman was robbed of her cash deposit sack from her business. The robber never displayed a weapon, he just said gimme the money. Needless to say, most women are not prepared to physically fend off a man. Weapons actually create a safer society, if distributed widely among law abiding people. In the robbery, the woman could have pulled her gun and said, "You are under arrest."


 
Ah yes......the Great Equalizer. The silly little persons who preach submission want us to forget about that. Even a woman or a small man can win ....if he or she has spirit and a trigger finger.


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jun 30, 2006)

*News in Britain today (from the BBC Internet news)....*

*"A man has been found guilty of the attempted rape of a 101-year-old woman.* 


Paul Blackwood broke down the door of the victim's home in the West Midlands before trying to have sex with her, Wolverhampton Crown Court heard. 

Blackwood, 34, of Parliament Street in West Bromwich, denied attempted rape of the woman, who is now 102, but was convicted by a jury. 

He was remanded in custody while reports are carried out into what danger he poses to the public. 

Det Sgt Graham Sanders, of West Midlands Police, said: "The victim's attention to detail directed us to forensic evidence which enabled us to identify the offender. "Her strength of character in giving evidence has been key to securing this conviction. We owe her a debt of gratitude." "

Link to story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/5133082.stm

*RAF_Groundcrew-* This is Britain today.... If the lawmakers think that a knife that is just over 3" long, or has a lock is the biggest threat to society, then this is not the kind of society that I'd like to be a part of. :thumbsdow


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jun 30, 2006)

P.S..

"He was remanded in custody while reports are carried out into what danger he poses to the public. "

Jeeez,

If it weren't already obvious !


----------



## leduk (Jul 1, 2006)

What does the attempted rape of a 101 year old woman have to do with knife laws in the UK? Was the man carrying? Did the 101 year old express a wish that she had had a knife? 

In your own home in the UK you can carry the biggest baddest knife/sword in the world. You can also sleep wth your shot gun. The police can not touch you. So if you are afraid of being attacked and wish to stab/shoot your attacker feel free to do so and take the consequences. 

I bet any 101 year old in similar situation would get off scott free if they stabbed and killed the assailant. We'd all cheer.

What's this got to do with UK knife law? Are you saying one sicko = arm the masses? 

Why pick this salacious story and not another rape story in another part of the world, say .. Iraq?

This isn't really on topic is it? 

Cheers


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jul 1, 2006)

leukos said:


> Actually, if you are an Amercian travelling here in the UK, the best tactic in a self-defense situation is to make the attacker aware that you are a Yank; most likely he will assume that you have a gun or a knife somewhere on your person (per the stereotype), and will politely excuse himself from his aborted business transaction.





More guns, less crime.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jul 1, 2006)

leduk said:


> What does the attempted rape of a 101 year old woman have to do with knife laws in the UK? Was the man carrying? Did the 101 year old express a wish that she had had a knife?
> 
> In your own home in the UK you can carry the biggest baddest knife/sword in the world. You can also sleep wth your shot gun. The police can not touch you. So if you are afraid of being attacked and wish to stab/shoot your attacker feel free to do so and take the consequences.
> 
> ...




I find the statement "arm the masses" in itself to be offense. It seems to imply that people are not capable of defending themselves responsibly or running their own lives. It seems to imply that people are basically bad, rather than basically good. Please correct me if I'm reading too much into your choice of terminology.


----------



## 270winchester (Jul 1, 2006)

leduk said:


> You can also sleep wth your shot gun. The police can not touch you.
> 
> Cheers



for how much longer? Doesn't the UK require a license to own a shotgun, and there has been talks of banning shotguns too following an accidental shooting?

Of course if any one really did in the UK and people found out about it he would no doubt be labeled a gunnut, paranoid, etc.

THe UK public has a endless thirst to see stricter gun-control laws. It's like the UK has a love afair with gun-control. of course the techniques was perfected from centuries of colonial rule and now the only place the government can impose on is its own citizens.

I have watched quite a bit of BBC made TV serieses from the UK, and the only time that guns are mentioned are with criminals, with insane people, organized crime and such. It seems that every time a gun is mentioned it must be a terrible and sinister situation, and of course the episode would end with the police and the genius detective come and save the day and the gun-crzed criminal is put away. It's a formula that never fails. The media in the UK has done an excellent job of imprinting the idea that guns=evil into peole's heads. Absolutely marvolous job it was.

here is a piece from last year following an accidental death of toddler, a total ban on airguns coudl even be possible in Scottland. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4319149.stm

the priceless quote:
"A gun is designed for one thing and one thing only and that is either to cause damage or to kill," he said.

"Anyone who is found with that sort of weapon in a public place should have no leniency under the law whatsoever. They should be banned." 

and he is talking about airguns, BTW. In the eyes of the British government airguns are as evil as real guns. The condescending tone of the authorities there is simply over-welming. 

So the days of shotguns are numbered in my book for Britain, of course before that there would be a licensing of them followed by confiscation. expect the same for airguns following there....


----------



## DonShock (Jul 1, 2006)

leduk said:


> ...... So if you are afraid of being attacked and wish to stab/shoot your attacker feel free to do so and take the consequences.


But a law abiding citizen shouldn't have to fear any consequences for defending themselves when attacked.



leduk said:


> I bet any 101 year old in similar situation would get off scott free if they stabbed and killed the assailant. We'd all cheer. .


The law should never be written with the assumption that it will be ignored. If you have to assume that "jury nullification" will have to be used to protect the innocent victim from going to jail, it's a bad law.



leduk said:


> What's this got to do with UK knife law? Are you saying one sicko = arm the masses?......


Two points: First, he's not the only sicko out there. And second, it's not about "arming the masses". It's about giving people the option to defend themselves when necessary. Nobody is forced to be armed and nobody should be forced to be disarmed.

The way I see it, on the issue of weapons for personal defense the logic is very simple:
There are criminals and there are law abiding citizens.
If a citizen doesn't have a weapon and never encounters a criminal attack, they are fine.
If a citizen does have a weapon and never encounters a criminal attack, they are still fine.
If a citizen doesn't have a weapon and is the victim of a criminal attack, they are helpless and can only hope the criminal doesn't harm them. (I'm sure the criminal will be very touched by his victim's pleas for mercy.)
If a citizen does have a weapon and is the victim of a criminal attack, they at least have a chance to protect themselves against whatever the criminal decides to do. It may or may not be successful, but the odds are better than without a weapon.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 1, 2006)

leduk said:


> In your own home in the UK you can carry the biggest baddest knife/sword in the world. You can also sleep wth your shot gun. The police can not touch you. So if you are afraid of being attacked and wish to stab/shoot your attacker feel free to do so and take the consequences.




http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

"In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal."

"In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin."


----------



## Kevin Tan (Jul 1, 2006)

"In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal."

*We in Malaysia have had this law passed a long time, and as a former colony, I'm surprised that the we had the first strike.*

"In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin."

*Shotgun? What shotgun? We cannot even own a crossbow or fishgun. Lets not mention airguns or even airsoft. Again still surprised that we got there first.*

*Oh! In case u wandered, all those items of mass destruction are outlawed. The possession of firearms or ammunitions by ordinary citizens carry the death penalty. *

*Seems the British still has a bit in catching up to us former colonies.*


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 1, 2006)

leduk said:


> What does the attempted rape of a 101 year old woman have to do with knife laws in the UK? Was the man carrying? Did the 101 year old express a wish that she had had a knife?


*It's as relevant as your quoting of statistics*

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

"Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England’s more restrictive policy was established in 1967. 

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. *The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.*

The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors."

*Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically.* In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times."


Good luck with all that


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 1, 2006)

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9712.htm

"A. Myth #1: Gun Control has reduced the murder rates in other countries
1. England and Canada -- Their murder rates were ALREADY LOW BEFORE their gun control laws were passed. (109) Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates. And the murder rates in England, Canada and Japan have risen tremendously since passing their gun control laws. (110) 

2. More hands and feet? -- United States' NON-GUN murder rate is higher than the TOTAL murder rates in England, Canada or Japan. (111) In other words, Americans kill each other more often with weapons other than guns -- such as with knives, fists and feet. 

* It is absurd to claim that the U.S. has more murders because it has more guns. If this were true, one would also have to argue that -- since Americans kill each other more often with their hands and feet -- Americans must have more hands and feet than the British. And since Americans kill each other more often with knives, does this also mean they own more knives than the British do?"


Who needs logic when we can just go on emotions? Guns bad ::grunt:: me scared of guns ::sniffle:: guns must go


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 1, 2006)

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf (all facts are cited on website)

"Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland that has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland."

"Fact: Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation and ranks #1 in robberies and #4 in both violent crime and murder."

"Fact: 20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. – and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns."

"Fact: Washington, D.C.'s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation's capital."

"Fact: New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation – and 20% of the armed robberies."

"Fact: After the implementation of Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate."

"Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries." (stats prepared by Denmark, there's a neat colored graph) 

"Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen. Fact: Street robberies [in the UK] soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%."

"Fact: Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one."

"Fact: Drunken drivers killed 15,935 people in 1998192 while homicides with guns were 12,102 for the same year. Drunken drivers continue to kill people randomly despite a decade of increased strictness and social pressure against drunk drivers."

"Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day.206 Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed."

"Fact: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired."

"Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed."

Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries”.211 By contrast, the U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%." (a hot burglary is a home invasion with a weapon while homeowners are home).

"Fact: Washington D.C., has banned gun ownership and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is not regulated, and the murder rate is a mere 1.6 per 100,000."

"Fact: The rate of gun accidents is so low the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission doesn't even mention them in their annual safety reports."

"Fact: In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related accidental deaths from ages 0-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500 times for ages 0-5."

"Fact: There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns and 207,754,000 automobiles). Yet you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council172 . . . despite cars having been registered and licensed for almost 100 years."

It goes on, and on, and on, and on, ad naseum


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 1, 2006)

This one I like just cause it's so morbidly ironic:

"Fact: In Japan, the murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. Japan’s murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also."

I love the smell of critical thinking in the morning  Sure Japan has a low gun homicide rate... but in the end their homicide+suicide rate (non-gun suicides) makes their overall death rate = that of the U.S. homicide+suicide rate.

[sarcasm] So what is it about banning guns that makes the Japanese want to kill themselves at such an alarmingly high rate? Perhaps they felt too safe and got bored?[/sarcasm]


----------



## Kevin Tan (Jul 1, 2006)

Data

Fact: People will never change their mind except when they, themself are involved in a similar situation.

Fact: You are talking to a wall.

Fact: Sorry to say this but those are the facts.

Fact: Firing a gun at the range tenses but at the same time relaxes you and have the tendency to release your pent up aggression, which unreleased goes to road rage, or licensed mass killing weapon that we have in our driveway.


----------



## nethiker (Jul 1, 2006)

I would be interested in some more of our U.K. friends opinions. 

I must admit to an American from Montana the knife ban seems rather rediculous. Almost as rediculous as America trying to force our culture and values on the rest of the world.


----------



## 270winchester (Jul 1, 2006)

Datasaurusrex said:


> http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
> 
> "In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal."
> 
> "In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin."



aha, see, the original poster never said no one was arrested for USING a shotgun. You can have them, provided that you go through the process of applying for a license and registering your gun, but god forbid you have to use it, you go to prison for life.


----------



## leukos (Jul 1, 2006)

nethiker said:


> Almost as rediculous as America trying to force our culture and values on the rest of the world.


 
I guess you could call it 'neo-colonialism' or 'globalisation'


----------



## idimmu (Jul 1, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

This Beeb article about gun crime from 3 years ago hits the spot, in short our gun crime is rising 35% a year and was at it's lowest when guns weren't illigal.

Our knife and weapons laws have affected me due to the martial arts I love. The majority of weapons used in Japanese martial arts have been outlawed due to the 70s/80s press sensationalising wannabe ninjas, although it is permitted to still own them if bought before that time, you just can't buy or sell them on. Even something as simple as the kusari fundo which is simply a chain with a weight on it is illigal to buy. Fortunatly a chain and a padlock are not illigal to buy which makes me wonder what the point is. Also someone dressed in black carrying a 6ft staff with a chain attached is highly noticable and would need to be pretty competant to be a threat.

Fortunatly you capitalists just love my money, and small things can still be snuck through customs 

Our weapon laws are ****ed, especially incidents of self defence in the home against intruders, but I am unsure what allowing us to carry guns and knives on the street would bring to the country. More armed and police would be a good thing though definatly. Sure crime is rising but is that due to a lack of guns, or is that due to seperate social issues which should be addressed first?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari-fundo


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jul 1, 2006)

leduk said:


> What does the attempted rape of a 101 year old woman have to do with knife laws in the UK? Was the man carrying? Did the 101 year old express a wish that she had had a knife?
> 
> In your own home in the UK you can carry the biggest baddest knife/sword in the world. You can also sleep wth your shot gun. The police can not touch you. So if you are afraid of being attacked and wish to stab/shoot your attacker feel free to do so and take the consequences.
> 
> ...


I tried to reply on this earlier today, but the quote function, as usual froze my computer.
OK, where were we?.... we`re discussing the general lawlessness, and lack of respect for the rule of law that has generated the `knife culture` which is why the knife `ban` is such a hot topic at the moment.

I did think of adding the remark that any sensible 101 year old in the USA would have a gun to even up the balance against a potential attacker.

I was one of the legal handgun owners before 1997, and we were prevented from continuing with our legal sport, so that the government could say it had taken action against the growing `gun culture` Just take a look at the armed crime statistics now. Handgun owners (firearms certificate holders are law abiding citizens with no criminal record, remember) were threatened with 10 years in jail if they did not surrender their legally held property on time, but these days, a criminal who uses an illegal gun in the course of a crime will only expect 4 years or so, and be out in 2 on parole or suchlike.

Of course real terrorists walk free from prison years early to a hero`s welcome, and media interest, but that`s another story.

What I`m really getting at, is the kind of society where anyone would even think of assaulting an elderly lady, regardless of her actual age, has already lost many moral inhibitions, and I fear these will never be recovered. The criminalisation of carrying Swiss Army Knives will do little to stem the number of `Samurai sword` attacks, or machete murders we are seeing now.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 1, 2006)

QUOTE
*nethiker said: "Almost as rediculous as America trying to force our culture and values on the rest of the world."*

I agree 100%, we should not be 'forcing' our culture or ourselves upon the world.

-- We should de-fund the United nations.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm
"The United States is the *largest financial contributor to the UN* and has been every year since its creation in 1945. We provided more than $3 billion in contributions, both cash and in-kind, to the UN system in 2002. (In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program). The United States funded *22 percent* of the UN regular budget, as well as more than *27 percent* of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs."

*If they don't want our culture, then they don't get our money.*

-- We should de-fund hunger relief programs around the world.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm
The U.S. funds "51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries.*"

*If they don't want our culture, then they don't get our food.*

-- We should also cut off all medical aid to other countries… no more funding WHO or subsidizing others medicine with our cutting edge biomedical R&D.

*If they do not want our culture, then we will not cure their sicknesses.*

-- We should also cut off all military aid to foreign countries. I.e. Japan, Israel, Korea, etc.

*If they don't want our culture, then we shall not give them the means by which they can defend themselves.*

-- We should curtail all immigration to the Unites States.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back101.html
"More than 1.2 million legal and illegal immigrants combined now settle in the United States each year."
"The number of immigrants living in the United States has more than tripled since 1970, from 9.6 million to 28.4 million. As a percentage of the U.S. population, immigrants have more than doubled, from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 10.4 percent in 2000."
No other country in the world allows for as much legal (or illegal) immigration as does the United States.

*If they don't want our culture, then stop moving here.* 


The above all sounds rather harsh, but gee… once we quit interfering in world affairs then everyone should love us again, right?!

The fact is that cultural relevativism is a joke, some cultures are indeed better than others. If you don't believe that go ahead and send your daughter to live in an African nation where they have the cultural practice of female circumcision. So yes, some cultures are better than others, and the 'foundation' of the American culture is superior to just about all others.



Please be aware that most of the above is tongue in cheek


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Jul 1, 2006)

270winchester said:


> aha, see, the original poster never said no one was arrested for USING a shotgun. You can have them, provided that you go through the process of applying for a license and registering your gun, but god forbid you have to use it, you go to prison for life.


 

Actually, Tony Martin shot his intruders in the back with an illegal shotgun...we had an old guy a few months ago who shot an intruder with a legally held shotgun and no charges were pressed against him...I still think Tony Martin was wronged by our Justice system and I would not hesitate to take out any threat to myself or my familly via any means necercery...just pointing out that you can get away with shooting intruders if you have a valid reason and a legal gun.

That said, banning licensed handguns is one of the most foolish, knee-jerk things we've ever done in this country...criminals tend to buy their firearms from other criminals...and not registered dealers...they also tend not to bother with licences and proper vetting procedures IME.



CFU


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 1, 2006)

RAF_Groundcrew said:


> I tried to reply on this earlier today, but the quote function, as usual froze my computer.


You're right, it's busted. No joke, I tried several times to use a quote in my above post, didn't work, froze each time.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 1, 2006)

Casual Flashlight User said:


> Actually, Tony Martin shot his intruders in the back with an illegal shotgun...we had an old guy a few months ago who shot an intruder with a legally held shotgun and no charges were pressed against him...I still think Tony Martin was wronged by our Justice system and I would not hesitate to take out any threat to myself or my familly via any means necercery...just pointing out that you can get away with shooting intruders if you have a valid reason and a legal gun.
> 
> That said, banning licensed handguns is one of the most foolish, knee-jerk things we've ever done in this country...criminals tend to buy their firearms from other criminals...and not registered dealers...they also tend not to bother with licences and proper vetting procedures IME.
> 
> CFU



His life sentence was NOT for the use of an unlicensed firearm. 

His life sentence WAS for the act of defending his life and property.

And besides, why are your firearms 'required' to be licensed? Do you license your Televisions? (maybe you do with that ludicrious BBC tax). Do you license your lathes? (oh, not yet but they are working on that) Do you license your bicycles? Do you license your kitchen knifes? Hunting axes? Screw drivers? Short lenghts of heavy metal pipe? (do you KNOW how easy it is to make a zip gun?) Et cetera.

Creating a requirement for a license is a means to manufacture 1) revenue and 2) criminals -- where before there were neither. 

The only people impacted by such a requirement are normally law abiding citizens, the real bad guys ignore the law anyways. The freedome lovers who ignore the registration out of protest become manufactured criminals, and they are in reality upstanding citizens.


----------



## cobra-ak (Jul 2, 2006)

After the knife ban, there will be a ban on cricket and baseball bats, have you ever gone to Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, NYC and see all the guys with the Louisville Sluggers walking around?


----------



## Rob M (Jul 4, 2006)

For what it's worth guys, there are many many British people who are deeply ashamed of our government's record on disarming the populace and removing our liberties. One of our problems is that our media are almost entirely run by gun-hating urban 'lefties' who are happy to spout any government propaganda about the evils of guns, knives and even airguns and toys. They never, ever show guns in a positive light, even when our shooters bring home medals from the Olympics and the commonwealth games, they are ignored.

The people that run the country (not necessarily the government as someone rightly pointed out a while back) want a population of cowed, frightened people, afraid to fight back, lacking the will to fight back, what better way to achieve it than banning anything that might be used to defend oneself, and treating the criminals better than the victims? Bans work in various ways too, when you enact a ban you begin instilling in the people the notion that they are not fit to own a weapon, or a tool that can be used as one, eventually the people will be meek and mild, accepting of whatever fate the rulers see fit to give them.

The government and their 'justice' departments treat law-abiding people pushed over the edge by circumstances far far differently to the thugs and criminals. In my home town, just the other week, a retired woman was sent to jail for refusing to pay her local taxes (the local government had failed to keep their side of the deal by allowing rampant prostitution, drug abuse and other crime to flourish in the street where she lives), while elsewhere in the country, a bunch of thugs walked free from court after being found guilty of viciously beating an old jewish couple in a racist attack. There have been many many occasions where fathers have ended up in jail after defending their families, homes and property from violent thugs and burglars.

There are various other government policies that attack the mainly law-abiding people while leaving the criminals to go about their 'work'. Here, it is very easy to be prosecuted for speeding, there are cameras everywhere and camera evidence is seen as incontrovertible. Signing is often not very good, it can be difficult to know exactly how fast one should be driving. You can be photographed by a speed camera, then the fine is automatically sent to you in the post. The criminal, however, who might be driving an unroadworthy vehicle, with no insurance, can drive as he pleases because he has not fulfilled the legal requirement of registering the vehicle as his property. He knows that he can speed and drive as he wishes, the fines will be landing on the previous owner's doormat!

Recently a man was prosecuted by the police and given a hefty fine for selling shirts with a slogan printed on, the slogan was a mild insult to Tony Blair (it said "Bollocks to Blair"). The charge was "Displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation which is insulting, within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress". This was in stark contrast to the treatment that a crowd of muslims got from the police when they were protesting about the 'Mohammed Cartoons' printed in a european newspaper, they were clutching placards with slogans saying things like they were going to commit genocide on europeans, behead anyone that insults Allah, telling us westerners to 'Remember 9/11' (as if we'd forget). But the police arrested no one.

All these incidents seem to be designed to turn the non-criminal indigenous population into sheep, easily governed, meekly accepting of whatever the government and the criminals deign to dish out. I seriously worry for the future... What will life in the UK be like when my kids are my age? Will we all be in concentration camps for our own safety? 

There are many British people that envy some of the rights that you folk in the States have... Hold us up as an example of what will happen if you let your government trample roughshod over your rights! Don't let it happen! There are many British people who admire the US's stance on the right to defend oneself, and the right to the means to do it!


----------



## Lightraven (Jul 4, 2006)

Historically, and I mean going way back, the English have a reputation as both skilled and tough fighters on battlefields. The Vikings marauded through northern Europe and England until mail wearing troops put a decisive stop to that nonsense.

They wiped out the French knights at Crecy and Agincourt using longbows.

During WWI and II, they fought side by side with Americans to defeat imperialist powers and produced Fairbairn and Sykes who developed the famous dagger for the OSS.

One British commando dispatched an Argentine soldier with a Gerber BMF during the Falklands campaign. Operation Nimrod is studied as an example of how to successfully rescue hostages.

Today, the British are fully engaged against Al Qaeda and Taliban with enthusiasm. The Gurkhas, with their large kukri blades are known to be heavily involved in Iraq as contractors.

So, I don't entirely understand where the society (or its government) is so disconnected from its military. The United States pendulum for citizen control has reached its limit years ago and is now swinging back towards more freedom--the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban, more and more concealed weapons issue, the police concealed weapons carry in all 50 states. Violent crime in the U.S. is now at the lowest point since records have been kept. The ability of citizens to police themselves against thugs is a tremendous check to street crime, allowing police to focus on hidden crimes.

A student from a San Francisco university asked me if a group of citizen anticrime volunteers was armed. I said, "You know, I've never asked. I assume they are." I can't tell you how it fascinates people to know that people around them are armed. Foreign students hosted by my parents are particularly curious.


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Jul 4, 2006)

Excellent post Rob M. Well articulated...I am in 100% agreement with it...especially the last bit...



<There are many British people who admire the US's stance on the right to defend oneself, and the right to the means to do it!>



Count me as one of those people.



And for any other non-British folks who read the BBC...please understand that they are a "right-on" organisation with a leftist, PC agenda...they do not represent the majority of the British peoples veiws or our interests...far from it IMO.





CFU


----------



## markbUK (Jul 5, 2006)

Rob M - spot on mate

My handguns went in the ban, 20yrs of competative shooting out the window, a ban which was put in place for public safety, and look what's happened to gun crime .

making lock knives effectivly illegal, is just the thin end of the wedge, the knife amnesty great idea! but my sebenza stayed out of the bin, we have plenty of legislation to deal with knife crime, but its not being used effectivly so the easy answer is to ban somthing else. 

I now find my current shooting sport, air rifle field target shooting could be at risk because a yob or two miss uses air rifles .. here we go agian. the fact that I'm not likely to shoot out my neighbers windows with a £2000 air rifle won't stop daft laws being made.

At least my HDS EDC or my SF L4 will be safe from political maddness or will it, 

Rant over - my sebenza stays on me most of the time (but not down the pub) and yes it locks, but that's for health and safety reasons and I know the risks I take in carrying it. 

Mark


----------



## fordwillman (Jul 5, 2006)

Wow!
I had some time today and found this post and I read the "whole thing"! As an American who lives in Mesa, Arizona (oh, oh, the wild west) and who appreciates and is thankful for my freedom to own a knife or a gun, I honestly could not believe the attitudes of some of the British posters! I guess "brain washed" is about the best word I could come up with. 
I would never want to come to England, and Kevin--sorry mate, but I positively would NEVER come to Malaysia, with your laws!!!
I am still kind of stunned. The British turned back the Nazi hordes, but now 60 years later, you're happy not to have kitchen knives for fear of the crime that someone "could" commit with them???


----------



## SolarFlare (Jul 5, 2006)

did you really read the whole thread?, there is no knife ban in the UK, kitchen knives are not illegal . No the points are not going to be removed from kitchen knives in the future. The law is exactly the same as it was. Somebody somewhere, got a snippit of a BBC report about a "knife amnesty", where people gave up swords, klingon type implements and an asortment of rusty old bayonets, which obviously have no use at all except if you're a klingon or attending a WW1 re-enactment. The fact is you can carry a knife in the UK, it can be any sort, as long as you have a good reason to carry it, carrying a machete to the shopping centre isn't necessary, if you want to carry your SAK fair enough. You will not be stopped and searched by the police in the UK unless you are.

1. A teen wearing a hoody.
2. Wearing anything with a Burberry pattern (see chav) 
3. Hanging round outside an off-license asking strangers to buy you booze.
4. Hanging around a park in the middle of the night with either a) hooded teens, or b) chavs.

Even if you do get stopped by the police, if you are polite, you won't get searched. If you do get searched, and you happen to be carrying a knife which is illegal (ie over 3 inches and a fixed blade) then all you need to do is provide a legitimate reason to carry it doesn't matter what the reason is if you are convincing you are OK. The law isn't there to persecute the good citizens of the UK its a tool to use against the scum that carry them to threaten an scare, and they'll get 2 years in prison for not having a good reason.


----------



## Rob M (Jul 5, 2006)

That's fine until you cross paths with a grumpy copper who got out of bed the wrong side that morning... Or (given the 'target-based policing' we 'enjoy' in the UK nowadays) has a number of arrests target he has to reach:

========================================================
Published in the London Evening Standard, dated October 31, 1996: 

A man who uses a knife as a tool of his trade was jailed today after police found him carrying three of them in his car. Dean Payne, 26, is the first person to be jailed under a new law making the carrying of a knife punishable by imprisonment. Payne told ... magistrates that he had to provide his own knife for his job cutting straps around newspaper bundles at the distribution plant where he works .... Police found the three knives--a lock knife, a small printer's knife, and a Stanley knife--in a routine search of his car.... The court agreed he had no intention of using the knives for "offensive" purposes but jailed him for two weeks anyway....

[The magistrate said] "I have to view your conduct in light of the great public fear of people going around with knives...I consider the only proper punishment is one depriving you of your liberty." 
But Britain has a long tradition of having friendly, hard-working police officers who police by consent. Most people used to be happy to cooperate with the police but sadly, the police are slowly being seen as arms of the state, rather than protectors of good people. Not surprising, as the country lurches closer and closer to a police state. 
=======================================================


This isn't the only time this has happened either... I'm all for arresting violent thugs, but laws like this can be, and are, used against generally law-abiding people!


----------



## 270winchester (Jul 5, 2006)

Didn't the UK government say the registration of all handguns and centerfire rifles are not for confiscation purposes but just to eliminate illegal ones?

here in America we know something called racial profiling. If you look a different color at the right place and the wrong time, that's all it takes to have you searched and the DAs routinely prosecute anyone to the extent of the law to make them look tough on "crime". So the whole "if you act good they won't search you" is like telling a woman that "if you dress conservatively you won't get raped".


----------



## SolarFlare (Jul 5, 2006)

270winchester said:


> So the whole "if you act good they won't search you" is like telling a woman that "if you dress conservatively you won't get raped".





Err no, not quite like that 270winchester, how ridiculous.


----------



## 270winchester (Jul 5, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> Err no, not quite like that 270winchester, how ridiculous.



think about for a minute then tell me if you don't see the parallel. laws are there to be enforced. Talking about an existing law that would heavily punish anyone regardless of the circumstance and then apologize for it by saying "you will never have to worry about it as long as you act normal" is ridiculous in itself. bad things happen to good people all the time. if it is up to the enforcers to have restraint, you can count on the enforcer to abuse their power. History has shown us that fact over and over again and I'm suprised as well-read and most English people are you don't understand the relationship between the rulers and the subjects. if you allow those with the power (legal or physical in the case of a rapist) to determine what is "normal" or "reasonable", your civil liberty has just been trampled.

just to draw the parallel, in countries where women aren't allow to fight back, being raped is often harder on the victim than the offender. They are looked at as being dirty and untouchable.

If you get arrested for a knife carrying offense, your neighbors and friends would alienate would look at you as anti-social, dangerous, and a fanatico f the "knife culture". 

it's always easy to say "it wouldn' happen to me" than having it happening to you. Just because some are denial doesn't mean everyone should be restricted. 

Oh wait it's happening around us all the time...

You sir are the definition of a "product of the system".


----------



## 270winchester (Jul 5, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> did you really read the whole thread?, there is no knife ban in the UK, kitchen knives are not illegal . No the points are not going to be removed from kitchen knives in the future. The law is exactly the same as it was. Somebody somewhere, got a snippit of a BBC report about a "knife amnesty", where people gave up swords, klingon type implements and an asortment of rusty old bayonets, which obviously have no use at all except if you're a klingon or attending a WW1 re-enactment. The fact is you can carry a knife in the UK, it can be any sort, as long as you have a good reason to carry it, carrying a machete to the shopping centre isn't necessary, if you want to carry your SAK fair enough. You will not be stopped and searched by the police in the UK unless you are.
> 
> 1. A teen wearing a hoody.
> 2. Wearing anything with a Burberry pattern (see chav)
> ...



just want to quote that for the record. 2 years in prison is a long time. I hope no one never has to go through that for having a knife....


----------



## SolarFlare (Jul 5, 2006)

270winchester said:


> think about for a minute then tell me if you don't see the parallel. laws are there to be enforced. Talking about an existing law that would heavily punish anyone regardless of the circumstance and then apologize for it by saying "you will never have to worry about it as long as you act normal" is ridiculous in itself. bad things happen to good people all the time. if it is up to the enforcers to have restraint, you can count on the enforcer to abuse their power. History has shown us that fact over and over again and I'm suprised as well-read and most English people are you don't understand the relationship between the rulers and the subjects. if you allow those with the power (legal or physical in the case of a rapist) to determine what is "normal" or "reasonable", your civil liberty has just been trampled.
> 
> just to draw the parallel, in countries where women aren't allow to fight back, being raped is often harder on the victim than the offender. They are looked at as being dirty and untouchable.
> 
> ...




Quote it, I said it, I don't need for you to reinforce my posts 270 winchester. I stand by them . I typed them. I'll quote you , and the rest of the community can attempt to decipher your rubbish .


----------



## 270winchester (Jul 5, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> Quote it, I said it, I don't need for you to reinforce my posts 270 winchester. I stand by them . I typed them. I'll quote you , and the rest of the community can attempt to decipher your rubbish .



if advocating for civil liberty is considered rubbish, call me the garbageman. A few generations ago England started the modern liberalism. The rest of the world was inspired and followed suit. I guess good things don't last forever even at its origin...


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jul 6, 2006)

SolarFlare said:


> Err no, not quite like that 270winchester, how ridiculous.




Ridiculous? His analogy made perfect logical sense to me. You can't see the parallels? I'll bet you can, but most likely refuse to do so.


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Jul 6, 2006)

markbUK said:


> Rant over - my sebenza stays on me most of the time (but not down the pub) and yes it locks, but that's for health and safety reasons and I know the risks I take in carrying it.
> 
> Mark


 

Brave man...I lost me bottle and stopped carrying my Gerber "Spectre" a while ago...just my S.A.K. "Soldier" now...may treat myself to a Spyderco UK though...smart little knife.

This country is ****ing soul destroying sometimes...law abiding folks forcerd to behave like criminals or give up perfectly legitimate tools.

Bring on the revolution.  



CFU


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jul 6, 2006)

Casual Flashlight User said:


> Brave man...I lost me bottle and stopped carrying my Gerber "Spectre" a while ago...just my S.A.K. "Soldier" now...may treat myself to a Spyderco UK though...smart little knife.
> 
> This country is ****ing soul destroying sometimes...law abiding folks forcerd to behave like criminals or give up perfectly legitimate tools.
> 
> ...





Good luck, too many sheep, too many CCTV cameras.

Basically like here, except more cameras...


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 6, 2006)

Great thread, and hopefully thought provoking for those who read it 

Americans, please take this thread to heart. You're seeing our future in black and white: banned guns, banned knives, banned lathes, banned ?

While we can, I'd suggest you donate to the NRA-ILA (and NOT to the regular NRA). If you donate to the ILA than all your funds go directly to lobbying efforts.

www.nraila.org

Since we all know that the NRA kinda sucks, and will actually support gun bans at times you should also donate to such organizations as the GOA (Gun Owners of America) and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership). Both are no compromise organizations that fight for 2A rights.

www.gunowners.org
www.jpfo.org

If you're female and interested in 2nd amendment issues check out the Second Amendment Sisters www.2asisters.org

Heck, if your gay check out the Pink Pistols: www.pinkpistols.org


-- Donate, write letters, issue vote for the 2A, etc.

This is outside the U.N. building in NY. 






Gun bans are a global agenda of the left, and one by one countries that were once safe and sane are falling to the fallacious leftist logic.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jul 6, 2006)

Datasaurusrex said:


> Great thread, and hopefully thought provoking for those who read it
> 
> Americans, please take this thread to heart. You're seeing our future in black and white: banned guns, banned knives, banned lathes, banned ?
> 
> ...




Excellent post. The U.N. statue has always bothered me. I've been thinking about joining GOA for awhile now. The NRA has always been a bit too complacent for my tastes.

There was a CNN poll a few days ago asking if people believed the U.N. was intent on banning gun ownership in the U.S. as the NRA said. I believe most of the respondents said no. I wish they all could have seen the statue before voting.

The global socialist controllers have pretty much succeeding in outlawing self defense worldwide, we're the only ones left.


----------



## SimplyJ (Jul 6, 2006)

That is an interesting choice of a sculpture for the U.N. Considering that U.N. peacekeepers in foreign countries are typically armed themselves. I think the irony is lost on alot of people in this country.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 6, 2006)

Regarding that statue:

The U.N. does want to ban all private ownership of firearms, and they have since the 1960s (they actually worked with Kennedy on the issue).

Right now they are *claiming* they just want to ban international firearm transactions and importation... and of course they claim they *just want to ban the types weapons that terrorists, dictators and and guerillas use*

But look at that statue (which is representational of their goal). *I've never heard of terrorists, dictators or guerillas using revolvers* That is not an AK47, or a FAL, or an Uzi... that is a plain old revolver, 6 shots, the perfect example of an everymans self defense weapon. *So they claim they want to ban AK47s, but the statue which represents their goals depicts the eradication of self defense weapons.* 

Art speaks volume 

This isn't "Art Bell' type stuff, the U.N. is indeed after private ownership of all weapons.


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jul 6, 2006)

another thing to consider, is that in the US.

you have a lot of dangerous animals that do come into contact with people especialy in winter, when you go camping you most likely take a gun for protection.

in the UK, we do not have any dangerous animals at all not even snakes or spiders , therefore no need for guns.

regards.


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jul 6, 2006)

I see from the BBC internet news today, that a cat has been killed with a crossbow in Kent, England.

That will be crossbows in the debate soon then. They tried to ban them a few years ago, when a few people were using them to shoot swans and other water birds.

(For those that don't know) In Britain it is illegal to hunt ANYTHING with a bow and arrow or crossbow. Target competitions exist for crossbows, but the ones on general sale in gun magazines are definitely not competition items. 

I am not against the informal recreational use of crossbows, in safe surroundings (I used to do target archery myself), but I fear cat killings will bring about calls for more bans.

Sorry to have distracted you all from arguing about knives...........


----------



## cbxer55 (Jul 6, 2006)

That is so lame! I carry a handgun(45) for protection from predators of the two-legged variety, not animals. I carry a couple of locking knives, one big and one small for utility use. Glad I dont have the NANNY STATE telling me what I can and cannot carry! 




TinderBox (UK) said:


> another thing to consider, is that in the US.
> 
> you have a lot of dangerous animals that do come into contact with people especialy in winter, when you go camping you most likely take a gun for protection.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dirty Bob (Jul 6, 2006)

*There isn't a new ban: just a call for one from the BMJ*

My understanding is that there is no new knife ban in the UK. About a year ago, though, an editorial in the *British Medical Journal* called for a ban on pointed kitchen knives over 5cm in length.

The article appears below. Note that this is not the Home Office sponsoring legislation; it's a few doctors with their own ideas about what's good for everyone else.

Regards,
Dirty Bob

--------------------
*Reducing knife crime *

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]_We need to ban the sale of long pointed kitchen knives_ [/font] 

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=-1]*"Britain in the grip of knives terror—third of murder victims are now stabbed to death." Daily Express, 31 January 2005 *[/size][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=-1]*

"Stabbing rampage kills one, injures five—a large kitchen knife was found." Independent, 24 December 2004 *[/size][/font]

Violent crime in the United Kingdom is increasing; figures from London show a 17.9% increase from 2003 to 2004,1 and one easily accessible weapon used in many incidents is the kitchen knife. Unfortunately, no data seem to have been collected to indicate how often kitchen knives are used in stabbings, but our own experience and that of police officers and pathologists we have spoken to indicates that they are used in at least half of all cases. UK government statistics show that 24% of 16 year old boys report carrying knives or other weapons and 19% admitting attacking someone with the intent to harm.2 Although other weapons—such as baseball bats, screwdrivers, and chains—are also carried, by far the most common weapons are knives.3 In the United Kingdom in the first two weeks of 2005 alone, 15 murders were attributed to stabbings and 16 other non-fatal attacks.4 

To tackle this increasing problem, various measures are being considered by the government, particularly targeting the adolescent age group. These include raising the minimum age for purchasing a knife from 16 to 18 years and allowing head teachers the power to search pupils for knives.5 However, not all crimes are committed with newly purchased knives, and every household and home economics department in schools contains a plethora of readily available weapons. The modern stainless steel kitchen knife has a high quality blade that makes it unnecessary to look further for another lethal weapon. 

Most domestic kitchen knives are based on two designs, the dagger variety with a pointed tip—for example, vegetable knife or carving knife—and the blunt round nose variety—for example, bread knife. When using a knife to harm, a blunt nosed knife is unlikely to cause serious injury, as penetrating clothing and skin is difficult with it. Similarly an assault with a knife with a short blade such as a craft knife may cause a dramatic superficial wound but is unlikely to reach deep structures and cause death. A dagger type knife, however, can penetrate deeply. Once resistance from clothing and skin is overcome, little extra force is required to injure vital organs, increasing the chance of a fatality (likened to cutting into a ripe melon).6 

As knives are so readily available, does a culinary reason exist for so many domestic knives to be of the dagger variety, or are we just sticking to tradition? Knives as we recognise them were made first from copper and bronze between 3000 and 700 bc, and some are very similar in design to those used today. Personal eating knives were first used in Britain in the 14th century and became commonplace during the 1800s when manufacturing processes improved.7 

Knives were used to spear meat, lifting it from plate to mouth, so pointed tips were vital for this function. Also, with repeated sharpening of a flat blade, a pointed tip inevitably develops. However, now domestic knives do not need sharpening, and numerous other kitchen utensils can be used to spear food. The current practice of eating with forks and blunt ended table knives was introduced in the 18th century to reduce the injuries resulting from arguments in public eating houses. In 1669, King Louis XIV of France noted the association between pointed domestic knives and violence and passed a law demanding that the tips of all table and street knives be ground smooth.8 Today many households have a block of kitchen knives of which several will be of the long pointed variety. 

Perhaps the pointed kitchen knife has a culinary purpose that we have failed to appreciate? We contacted 10 chefs in the UK who are well known from their media activities and chefs working in the kitchens of five leading London restaurants. Some commented that a point is useful in the fine preparation of some meat and vegetables, but that this could be done with a short pointed knife (less than 5 cm in length). None gave a reason why the long pointed knife was essential. Domestic knife manufacturers (Harrison-Fisher Knife Company, England, personal communication, 2005) admit that their designs are based on traditional shapes and could give no functional reason why long pointed knives are needed. The average life of a kitchen knife is estimated to be about 10 years. 

Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long pointed kitchen knife is an easily available potentially lethal weapon particularly in the domestic setting. Government action to ban the sale of such knives would drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years. In addition, such legislation would make it harder to justify carrying such knives and prosecution easier. 

The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime. We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect. 

*Emma Hern*, _specialist registrar in emergency medicine_, *Will Glazebrook*, _specialist registrar in emergency medicine_ *Mike Beckett*, _consultant in emergency medicine
_

[size=-1]West Middlesex University Hospital, London TW7 6AF ([email protected] )[/size]

*References* 



Metropolitan Police Service. Latest crime figures for London. www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/(accessed 20 Jan 2005).
Beinart S, Anderson B, Lee S, Utting D: Youth at risk? A national survey of risk factors, protective factors and problem behaviour among young people in England, Scotland and Wales. London, Communities that Care, 2002, JRF Findings 432.
Townsend M, Barnett A. Children of five who carry knives in class. _Observer_ 2003, November 23. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1091441,00.html (accessed 21 Apr 2005)
BBC News Online (manual search). http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsukfs&tab=news&q=stabbings (accessed 20 Jan 2005).
Home Office. Off the streets and out of schools: Home Secretary's fight against knives. Press Release 389/2004. 15 December 2004. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1188 (accessed 30 Mar 2005).
Sadler D. Injuries of medico-legal importance. Lecture notes for LLB in Forensic Medicine, University of Dundee. www.Dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/llb/woundsdws.htm#stabs (accessed 20 Jan 05).
The Sheffield cutlery industry. http://freespace.virgin.net/a.data/The%20History%20of%20Cutlery.htm (accessed 20 Jan 2005).
Knives. http://www.eat-online.net/english/education/utensils/knives.htm (accessed 20 Jan 2005).


----------



## leukos (Jul 6, 2006)

*Re: There isn't a new ban: just a call for one from the BMJ*



Dirty Bob said:


> Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long pointed kitchen knife is an easily available potentially lethal weapon particularly in the domestic setting. Government action to ban the sale of such knives would drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years. In addition, such legislation would make it harder to justify carrying such knives and prosecution easier.
> 
> The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime. We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect.


 

Seems like the British Medical Journal correctly diagnosed the usual cause (alcohol/drugs), but prescribes a rather ignorantly blunt solution....


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 6, 2006)

*Re: There isn't a new ban: just a call for one from the BMJ*



Dirty Bob said:


> My understanding is that there is no new knife ban in the UK.


The 'old' one is bad enough. 

To ban locking pocket knives is unconscionable, because a non-locking pocket knife is far more dangerous to use than one with a locking blade -- more dangerous to use for anything! There's a much greater risk that the blade will unintentionally fold and cut your fingers to the bone.

As other have said,,, ban the right people (criminals), not useful tools that humans have a inherent right to own (within a free society anyways).


----------



## Kevin Tan (Jul 6, 2006)

RAF_Groundcrew said:


> That will be crossbows in the debate soon then. They tried to ban them a few years ago, when a few people were using them to shoot swans and other water birds...


 
Its been banned along time ago here in Malaysia, a former colony. Along with fishing spearguns.....


----------



## 270winchester (Jul 7, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5037322.stm

I guess my Heiniken lust would have to be contained in a paper cup....


----------



## kakster (Jul 7, 2006)

*Re: There isn't a new ban: just a call for one from the BMJ*



Datasaurusrex said:


> The 'old' one is bad enough.
> 
> To ban locking pocket knives is unconscionable, because a non-locking pocket knife is far more dangerous to use than one with a locking blade -- more dangerous to use for anything! There's a much greater risk that the blade will unintentionally fold and cut your fingers to the bone.....




There is no ban on locking knives. As long as you have a reasonable excuse, you are free to carry a lock knife.

Only autos, balisongs and push daggers are banned outright.


----------



## MoonRise (Jul 7, 2006)

*Re: There isn't a new ban: just a call for one from the BMJ*

Sigh. "reasonable excuse", "we only will use the law against hoodlums, terrorists, and criminals", "well, we'll only use the law if you are wearing a hoodie", etc, etc

Hmmm, Dean Payne in 1996 was arrested and JAILED, see Post #123 above. Hmmmm, Dean wasn't apparently doing anything wrong or malicious except he had three small utility/tool-type knives that he used mostly as part of his JOB (his reasonable excuse), and yet the court jailed him anyway. "... because of public fear of knives ..."

If there is a law, it WILL be applied. Maybe to you, maybe not. And 'reasonable' laws are usually not.

Look at the progression of the UK's 'reasonable' gun laws. Look and see how the Statists try to control and regulate and restrict and ban. Look and see how the UK's 'reasonable' knife restrictions are progressing.

Look up the famous quote/poem: First they came for ... 

Try here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Divide and conquer ...


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 7, 2006)

*Re: There isn't a new ban: just a call for one from the BMJ*



kakster said:


> There is no ban on locking knives. As long as you have a reasonable excuse, you are free to carry a lock knife.
> 
> Only autos, balisongs and push daggers are banned outright.



I would not want my freedom contingnent upon that level of officer's discretion. The risk is just to high.


----------



## Lightraven (Jul 7, 2006)

Strictly speaking, it is the jury or judge who must decide what is reasonable. While getting arrested is not fun, the police officer's role is to present a possible crime (probable cause) to a state's attorney, who decides to file charges, which is decided by judge or jury. 

In the U.S., a police officer can seize an unlawful item without any due process, that would include an unlawful weapon. This doesn't necessarily (and often doesn't) result in arrest or conviction. 

Ultimately, it isn't the police you need to worry about, it is twelve jurors (at least in the U.S).

To add, in California there are quite a few knife bans on the books. So we don't have total freedom here, either.


----------



## Brangdon (Jul 15, 2006)

(Mis-post... can't see how to delete it.)


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jul 15, 2006)

Regarding in particular the Spyderco "UK Penknife", is it UK legal??

I'm sorry to have to ask this here... I'm in the British Royal Air Force, part of the government, after all, and I don't know exactly what the UK knife carry law is..

At work, I carry a Spyderco Military plain edge, but I would like to have a knife for 'off duty' and I prefer Spyderco. Can anybody (and I'm hoping for an answer from a Brit Police officer if possible), clarify whether the Spyderco "UK Penknife" with it's sub 3", non locking blade, is totally LEGAL and carryable in public in Britain??

I have small Spydie (was called the CX01 experimental, I think. Has a G10 handle, 2" total blade length, but it locks, shame.


----------



## Size15's (Jul 15, 2006)

RAF_Groundcrew said:


> Regarding in particular the Spyderco "UK Penknife", is it UK legal??
> 
> I'm sorry to have to ask this here... I'm in the British Royal Air Force, part of the government, after all, and I don't know exactly what the UK knife carry law is..
> 
> ...



It's not that black and white. It's all to do with context.
A folding knife (non locking etc) with a blade length of 72 mm or less is not prohibited automatically but can still be considered a weapon if the Police Officer considers that it is being carried as a weapon.


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jul 15, 2006)

Size15's said:


> It's not that black and white. It's all to do with context.
> A folding knife (non locking etc) with a blade length of 72 mm or less is not prohibited automatically but can still be considered a weapon if the Police Officer considers that it is being carried as a weapon.


Like the 30 round, 5.56mm self loading rifle I would be carrying , also `could be` considered an offenive weapon, depending on context..but is usually allowed `in public` due to conventions on the armed forces being armed at times. 

What with Christmas only a few months away, let's assume you`re in the queue for the escalator during the pre Christmas sale period, and suddenly, there is a scream, as a young girl is caught by her woolen scarf, and dragged toward the mechanism of the escalator.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/05/escalator060105.html

Just saying... A knife in responsible hands is a tool. Just like an EDC flashlight, a talisman carried, "JUST IN CASE ".


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jul 16, 2006)

So, at best all a good citizen can really do is hope that any LEO he runs into happened to get up on the right side of bed? 

Wow. :-(


----------



## Size15's (Jul 16, 2006)

For the vast majority of the time we go about our lives not having any interaction with the Police (except perhaps speeding tickets)
In the event a knife you are carrying can be used to save a life then that is more important then any personal consequences to yourself for having it on you in the first place. For example: If you were to use it to save a young girl's life by cutting her free then by the time the Police arrive you can put it back in your pocket if it is one which you'd prefer they didn't get interested in.

If you use a knife to defend yourself (or anybody else) against an attacker then being alive and in prison (or fined etc) is better than being dead. Getting involved in a fight and using anything as a weapon is going to have the Police looking very carefully at the situation - especially if it looks like you used excessive force. If I ever get attacked and have the ability to fight back the last thing I'm going consider is whether my counter-attack is reasonable - I am going to take no chances in prevailing accepting that I could/will have to justify my actions later and the cards fall as they may.

We have built our society around attitudes and action deemed acceptable and appropriate - tested through the courts - judged by our peers. We have been moving away from considering it necessary to carry weapons - bows and arrows, swords, knifes, guns etc but that is not to say we as a society will never reach a situation whether it is considered necessary to change that.
We decide as a society what is acceptable - we vote for our representatives in Government and influence the decisions they make for us.

On balance, my life experience so far leads me to consider I would rather live in a society where I do not need to carry a weapon to go about my business.
Of course there are a few people in certain specific areas of the UK (for example: deprived urban areas) who are living very different lives under very difference circumstances and they are carrying knives and sometimes firearms to go about their lives. Where possible I avoid visiting these areas and actively promote communities where such a life has no place.

Al


----------



## cdf (Jul 16, 2006)

The whole thing seems a bit silly to me , If I carry my Loveless City Knife I'm OK , If I carry my CRK Mnandi , and some LEO or Judge doesn't agree with my concept of reasonable excuse- I get two years . I copuld also get two years for carrying my Leatherman Charge , this is absurd even by pinko commie Canadian standards . I fail to see any moral difference .

Chris


----------



## Size15's (Jul 16, 2006)

You have to ask yourself why the Police Officer has stopped and searched you in the first place. This is the most important thing - there are far more people than there are Police Officers and therefore the Police don't have time to stop and search everybody just in case. Don't make yourself a target and you won't attract their attention.

Al


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jul 16, 2006)

Size15's said:


> You have to ask yourself why the Police Officer has stopped and searched you in the first place. This is the most important thing - there are far more people than there are Police Officers and therefore the Police don't have time to stop and search everybody just in case. Don't make yourself a target and you won't attract their attention.
> 
> Al



Rose colored glasses


----------



## Size15's (Jul 16, 2006)

I don't see why... I don't know anybody who has been stopped and searched by a Police Officer. Not one. 

If my situation changes - perhaps my neighbourhood goes down hill or something I'll take another look at my situation.

I can not see any reason why I shouldn't carry a lock knife if I want. Perhaps I do?


----------



## Lightraven (Jul 16, 2006)

I note for the second time that Size 15s has some of the most logical straightforward comments about self-defense that I have read on CPF. I pretty much agree with everything he has written in today's posts, and I know from experience what goes on when somebody carries a knife, gets arrested, deploys a knife or other weapon against another, or shoots and kills another in the United States. I don't know anything about Britain.

The laws say one thing, and something quite different happens in real life. And people must balance the risks of getting in trouble for a weapon or use of force violation versus getting robbed, raped or seriously hurt. It's an uncomfortable tension and there is no resolution. Take your chances one way or another.


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Jul 16, 2006)

We live in an age where Surefire puts sharp spiky things on flashlights, just in case. I would feel totally at ease in Britain, carrying a licenced concealed handgun, or for that matter, a sword. A knife, if I were to routinely carry in public, would not be thought of by me as a weapon, but as a tool (with a last resort fallback option of self defence). I have been involved with weaponry for many years (I had legal handguns, until the British government bannd them, and I used the compensation to buy a sniper rifle), I fence, I take part in Kendo.


A knife fight is not a noble 'duel', it is messy, close quarter fighting, and usually, if both participants are armed, then 'everybody gets some'. 

I fully support severe sentencing for criminals who use knives or other weapons to instill fear into others, or use them to inflict unjust injury on the innocent, but I also fully believe in the right to self defence, the ability to preserve one's own life and well being, and that of one's family, until the arrival of the police (could be several hours in Britain these days). 

I'm getting off topic here a little, but I think what I am trying to say, is that the criminalisation of an everyday object will not in itself prevent crime. (think about all the pistols that were 'banned' in 1997. is armed crime now higher than then, of course it is), The public's attitude needs to change, and we need to get back some of the respect for others that has gone missing.


----------



## justsomeguy (Jul 20, 2006)

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_objectid=17351426%26method=full%26siteid=50081-name_page.html#story_continue

Words fail me.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jul 20, 2006)

justsomeguy said:


> http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_objectid=17351426%26method=full%26siteid=50081-name_page.html#story_continue
> 
> Words fail me.


Wow, IMO that LEO's got a lotta nerve sittin' on his butt making up new crimes _out of his head_ instead of trying to solve the cases where people have broken laws already _on the books._

Will screwdrivers only be sold to electricians? It's like a bad parody of Monty Python, "What if he has a pointed stick?"


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Jul 20, 2006)

​mabe they should just make knives out of plastic and get it over an done with.

because that looks like were it`s heading. :toilet:

regards.


----------



## leduk (Jul 20, 2006)

Craik-pot.

"Durham Police chief John Stoddart and North Yorkshire top cop Della Cannings have so far refused to get behind it."

So Craik is one out of three in the North East.
If two out of three ain't bad what's one Craik-pot view?

We're into what we call silly-season here for the red top tabloid tosh touting hacks.

It was a slow news month (until the middle East kicked off again . Its like being back in the Eighties trying to get peace there and stop nuclear power stations here. At least we've still got the good old Tories in government! Bring back hanging.)

Anyway, the hot weather seems to have melted the man's brain.

There are thousands of swords hung up on the walls of the inbred upper classes. Before Craik starts on kitchen knives and skewers, he'll have to get rid of the swords from the toffs.

The last mass demos in the UK were not about tightening knife laws but about banning fox hunting with dogs. Apparently 1 million demonstrated. Anyway the law changed and the toffs just keep on hunting with dogs.

Do not worry about loosing sharp pointy things as the upper classes and the establishment will stop the rot and psychopaths will still be able to wander the streets killing innocent people with samurai swords. You can't have a country house or castle without a suit of armour and a few swords.

Is it true, each year, more US women are killed in the domestic violence murders than people are murdered in the UK as a whole? Now is that because they've got big mouths or because their men pack big weapons? Why are you so concerned with the views of a UK copper when there are bigger fish to fry.
Look, get over it. 

"Police don't like pointy things". 
No sh*t Sherlock.

(I told myself to ignore this thread, I'd better go and get some more medication, Nurse! Nurse!).


----------



## Size15's (Jul 20, 2006)

leduk said:


> (I told myself to ignore this thread, I'd better go and get some more medication, Nurse! Nurse!).



It's too easy to post ain't it!!


----------



## kakster (Jul 20, 2006)

TinderBox (UK) said:


> ​mabe they should just make knives out of plastic and get it over an done with.
> 
> because that looks like were it`s heading. :toilet:
> 
> regards.



Non-metallic "Stealth" knives are illegal.


----------



## tradderran (Jul 20, 2006)

fordwillman said:


> Wow!
> I had some time today and found this post and I read the "whole thing"! As an American who lives in Mesa, Arizona (oh, oh, the wild west) and who appreciates and is thankful for my freedom to own a knife or a gun, I honestly could not believe the attitudes of some of the British posters! I guess "brain washed" is about the best word I could come up with.
> I would never want to come to England, and Kevin--sorry mate, but I positively would NEVER come to Malaysia, with your laws!!!
> I am still kind of stunned. The British turned back the Nazi hordes, but now 60 years later, you're happy not to have kitchen knives for fear of the crime that someone "could" commit with them???


 
I have to agree with you on this. I have been to the UK on several occasions.
and each time they have less freedom.
As it has been said before THEY WILL GET MY GUN'S OR KNIVES WHEN THEY
PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS. AND THEY WILL BE SMOKING.:touche:  :thumbsdow


----------



## tvodrd (Jul 20, 2006)

TinderBox (UK) said:


> ​ mabe they should just make knives out of plastic and get it over an done with.
> 
> because that looks like were it`s heading. :toilet:
> 
> regards.



Yeah, "glass-filled" polycarbonate or cyclic olifin copololymer or PEEK, or.... 

I always carry my Bic (ballpoint) when I fly! 

Larry


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jul 20, 2006)

Mr 'sit on his *** and make up new crimes while he should be upholding the law' would croak if he saw my plastic knives. He's clueless. He's also a boon to thugs and anyone else who has already decided that they won't stop breaking laws until someone stops them. 

He should get into law enforcement.


----------



## Lightraven (Jul 20, 2006)

Let's not beat up on our Brit friends. Most countries have far more restrictive weapon laws than the United States.

I was told by a German attending a firearms course in Los Angeles that he would be arrested if the German authorities found out that he had received weapons training.

There are countries with far worse crime than the U.S. and more restrictive weapon laws. What a great combination. "Hell is the impossibility of reason."--quoted from Platoon.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jul 21, 2006)

I did not mean to sound like I was picking on the Brits. In fact in order to carry one of my plastic knives *legally* in my town I must alter it so it's a _single edged weapon._ So the genius in the article is only afraid of "pointy" things while my own local genius is only afraid of knives that may cut in more ways than one. They are equally wrong headed and they are each a menace to their own society.

It is also true that behind my criticisms of any form of gun/knife control, I know that these futile measures *never* reflect the sentiments of 100% of the good, law abiding citizens that are negatively impacted by them. My heart goes out to all law abiding Brits who are constantly being told that *they are the real cause of their crime problem* and I feel the same way for those who must endure the same hogwash, _in the name of Law Enforcement,_ right here in the States.

We're not that far behind Airstrip One.


----------



## leduk (Jul 21, 2006)




----------



## Rob M (Aug 10, 2006)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2304912,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5256612.stm

What a huge surprise! The UK Government's attempt to make knife owners feel guilty and hand in their tools in their 'amnesty' has had no effect, or next to no effect on knife crime!

Who would have guessed it?


----------



## leduk (Aug 12, 2006)

From the BBC article quoted above, you can see that the number of robberies a decade ago was 104,750 (no knife ban).

Last year 42,020(knife ban).

That's a little more than no effect.


----------



## DonShock (Aug 12, 2006)

The fact that there were changes made in 1998, 2002, and most recently April 2006, to how crimes are reported might be a more likely explanation for such a drastic change in the last 10 years. I find it difficult to believe that with such drastic rises in crime over the last couple years that it is still lower than in 1996. I was unable to find the link, but I recall reading an article a few weeks ago that mentioned that one of the changes in the crime reporting methods was to only include crimes which resulted in a conviction instead of all reported attacks.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Aug 12, 2006)

leduk said:


> From the BBC article quoted above, you can see that the number of robberies a decade ago was 104,750 (no knife ban).
> 
> Last year 42,020(knife ban).
> 
> That's a little more than no effect.



Incorrect.

They just altered the manner in which they complie statistics, to artificially lower the numbers. Crime has risen in the UK, robberies are up, regardless of what the hardly impartial, state operated, BBC "reports."


----------



## 270winchester (Aug 12, 2006)

at the end of the day, no matter what we say, we will be viewed as Brit-bashing, so if the people feel safer then let them be. All I ask is for them to keep the control-hungry government on their side of the pond and don't export any ideas. We have enough of that here as it is. I learned my lesson, what do I know, I'm just a Brit-bashing idiot who just wants to see Brithish people to have more rights.


----------



## DonShock (Aug 12, 2006)

I'm not Brit-Bashing, I'm bashing dumb laws that do nothing to deter crime while making easier targets out of good law abiding citizens. I don't care if they're Brits, Americans, or members of any other country - everybody should have the ability to protect themselves and other members of the public. That requires both personal defense arms and the legal right to possess and use them when threatened.


----------



## 270winchester (Aug 12, 2006)

DonShock said:


> I'm not Brit-Bashing, I'm bashing dumb laws that do nothing to deter crime while making easier targets out of good law abiding citizens. I don't care if they're Brits, Americans, or members of any other country - everybody should have the ability to protect themselves and other members of the public. That requires both personal defense arms and the legal right to possess and use them when threatened.



I know, none of us intend to bash the british people, but some UK CPFers take offense in what I say and view that as Brit-bashing. That I cannot control. What defines us as liberal(in the classical sense)-democratic societies is our ability to choose our way of living, but the social liberals are quick closing the gap between us and the authoritarian governements around the world. 

I'm not a practicing Christian(my grandparents and parents are, sort of), but I believe firmly in the commandment "thou shall not murder", and the bible clears tells us that self-defense is a necessary part of life. Punishing the innocent for the crime of the wicked is no way to treat any people if you hold all people to be equal.


----------



## leduk (Aug 13, 2006)

The thread is dead but still manages to kick a little.

Datasurus: I find it amusing to quote statistics, claiming both that they are valid and back up your argument but they are invalid and still back up your argument.

207: What was it Jefferson said about religion? And how does that sit with his views on rights to bear arms? Is he right on one and wrong on the other? 

We live in different countries with different societal values that kind of work for us.

If you want to say "knife amnesties don't work" please do. If you want to say "statistics are bunk" please do. Start a new thread.

There are NO changes in the UK knife laws. A couple of folks are unhappy but the majority of us rub along just fine.

Cheers


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Aug 13, 2006)

Leduk:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" -- sometimes though, like in the case of Gov complied UK crime statistics, it's just easier to spot the deception 

What you call 'societal values,' most Americans refer to as "unalienable natural rights." Regardless of whether or not your particular 'culture' acknowledges them or not. Thank you very much, but I'll support my brothers who value freedom, not those who supress it, no matter where they live.

A majority of you guys would 'rub along' just fine without your right hand... so every citizen over there have an amputation? Sure a few might complain, but wth?  

Ok, maybe the right hand thing is a bit extreme.... we'll make it the left


----------



## kakster (Aug 13, 2006)

Why not go the whole hog and just execute 'em?


----------



## Size15's (Aug 13, 2006)

That is the whole point about cultures being different!
One culture considers one thing, another considers it differently.
The 'issue' comes when one culture applies its values on another.

With all due respect I do not attempt to apply my cultural values on knives to Americans and I would prefer Americans respected us likewise.

It's all about balance and proportion.

Al


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Aug 13, 2006)

Al, it seems you're basing an argument on "cultural relevatism." If that's the case you must not object to the practice of female 'circumcision' in Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

After all, it's just a 'cultural difference,' just a 'societial norm.' Us here in the first world have no right to interject our cultural value into a debate about female genitalia mutilation that takes place in Africa, right? 

And if cultural relativism is correct, then cannabilism and infanticide can also be ok -- so long as it's an accepted cultural practice.

And how does one define a culture, what makes it legitimate? I mean must it be a 'national culture,' or can it be a city culture? Or the culture of a city block? Or a 'gang' culture? Can 2 people get together and form a culture? Oh, let us say those two people want to be serial killers, well if it's their culture it must be ok, right?

No, of course not. 

It is pefectly ok for me to have an opinion about UK laws, to judge them. It is also ok for me to support my brothers over there who are fighting for their rights.

I support my freedom loving brothers in the Philippines too http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060810/lf_afp/philippinesgunsrights_060810051145

Doesn't matter if you live in the UK or PHL or anywhere else, a human right is a human right. http://www.a-human-right.com 

Knifes and guns, they are just tools. Banning the tool doesn't solve the root problems.

Hey, don't worry... you'll be safer when the ban metal lathes in the UK. Can't have blokes like you making tool parts at home now can we.


----------



## 270winchester (Aug 13, 2006)

Size15's said:


> It's all about balance and proportion.
> 
> Al



Al I admire you as a knowledgable Surefire expert, but that statement is a seriously generalizing label that is impossible to argue no matter how bad the situation is.

Who sets the balance? you? nope. your government does. your government is also responsible in allowing criminal elements disguised as immigrants to enter you country. So do they know what balance and proportion is?

An African students gets killed in Russia by racist thugs. The police calls it hooliganism and calls in internal afairs and rejects other country's outrage. Do you accpet it as cultural differences or do you consider it not okay?

Al, you obviously feel pretty safe and secure in your area. but one day your neighborhood might change into something you didn;t like, due to your government's policies without your consent. It could happen to you too. But they know that peaceful citizens like you will live with it no matter what they say, because it all comes down to balance.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Aug 13, 2006)

kakster said:


> Why not go the whole hog and just execute 'em?



I'm sorry if my amputation comment came across as being serious, it was 100% a joke.

I was trying to show how LedUK's comment of "There are NO changes in the UK knife laws. A couple of folks are unhappy but the majority of us rub along just fine." Isn't a very strong argument.

A lot of things could be justified if the yardstick was "a majority of citizens can rub along just fine." I'm guessing 'rub' means "get by."

No, don't cut off left hands, don't excecute people, and don't ban useful tools just because most people can 'get by' without access to them.


----------



## BB (Aug 13, 2006)

Here is a nice (towards Americans) opinion piece from the Telegraph (UK). It attempts to offer an explanation why folks in the USA see things so differently with respect to Europe:

Americans...Liberty 

It is almost as interesting to read some of the comments on the article too (both the good and the bad).

By the way, I shortened the title to not inflame a discussion here as this thread is about knife laws and is not intended to be a US vs UK discussion.

-Bill


----------



## BUZ (Aug 13, 2006)

LMAO man what a joke, they are slowly but surely losing all their right's! (what a shame)!!!!


----------



## Size15's (Aug 13, 2006)

I'm not saying that every issue where cultures disagree should be respected.
I'm saying that the UK's cultural views on knives and how society should treat them should be.

One of the difficulties applying the USA's cultural views on self-defence is that they have their Constitution and it's 2nd Amendment. I'm no expert but I eat pork and technically as a Christian I understand my rule book states I really shouldn't. The rule was made when things were different. I'm no expert but which rules should I obey and which should I choose to ignore or fight to change?

I personally believe that successive UK Governments have systematically removed our right to self-defense and that this is extremely bad. But it's our problem and we'll deal with it in our own way. There will surely come a point at which the people feel the need to start arming themselves for self-defence and after a bit of mess we'll vote for our representatives to be those who change the law(s) so we can once again lawfully defend ourselves and carry weapons in order to do so.

I guess that "people" in the UK have been hoping that the problem will sort itself out and it's becoming clear that it isn't. 

How about I phrase it like this:
Please respect that we want to make our own mistakes and deal with them in our own way, and we'll respect you as your make your own mistakes and deal with them in your own way.

Al


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Aug 13, 2006)

Al,

I promise that I won't fly over to England and join a political party, start petition drives, cold call residents in an attempt to inform them of the issue, etc. Since I am not a British citizen those actions would not be appropriate. 

I do think it is well within 'normal expected behavior' to voice an opinion over the internet, to advocate for a position. I would also consider donating funds to a decent UK based gun rights organization, and I think that would be an appropriate action too 

Personally I think that the issue of human rights is so important that any conscientious person has a duty to speak up. 

There's also an ancillary reason to speak up on this topic, and that is to prevent the snowball effect of rights being erroded elsewhere. We're in a position where countries are falling like dominos, Australia, UK, and Canada. It's just prudent to try and help stop the downward spiral before it's at my front door. 

So first and foremost, voicing an opinion about the misguided and illegitimate UK tool bans is the right thing to do (inherently right). And secondly it is right because it helps stop the general tide of freedom-haters.


----------



## Size15's (Aug 13, 2006)

Along with re-establishing our right to self-defence I feel it is just as important that we support efforts to improve society so that our need to carry weapons for self-defence reduces.

One can show that by allowing the population to carry weapons to defend themselves reduces crime but I would prefer the focus of education to be on developing our society and the people in it to the extent that weapons are not needed.

I gather that in the 1910's crime in the UK was pretty low and that our mistake as a nation could well have been to allow our Governments to remove our ability to defend ourselves since it was not needed any longer (I guess perhaps Governments thought that since we didn't have to defend ourselves from eacy other we may start using weapons to defend ourselves against the Government?)

Anyway, this experiment since the 1920's is getting the stage where it is increasely becoming evident that it isn't working as planned.

If I start to become a victim of crime and find myself being at a disadvantage because I can not defend myself I will certainly consider my options!

Al


----------

