Thread: British Law?

Originally Posted by Bruno

It's not guilt before the fact, it's common sense.
That is why normal people have no access to cruise missiles, hand grenades, or nuclear weapons.
Now, in the case of UK knife laws, I think they are silly because a lock on a knife is a safety feature. I could have understood a simple < 3 or 4" blade length regulation.

Here is a quote from one of your post's on page 4 of this thread.

"Btw, I have been contacted by UK members in the past over issues like this, when Americans made fun of UK knife laws in confrontational ways.
One of them was an ER doctor who treated stab wounds on a near daily basis.
I know from experience this is a sensitive topic."

A sensitive topic indeed.
So you believe that the laws laid down with regard to knives by Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom are silly, and it's OK for anyone other than an American to make fun of our laws.

Originally Posted by osdset

Here is a quote from one of your post's on page 4 of this thread.

"Btw, I have been contacted by UK members in the past over issues like this, when Americans made fun of UK knife laws in confrontational ways.
One of them was an ER doctor who treated stab wounds on a near daily basis.
I know from experience this is a sensitive topic."

A sensitive topic indeed.
So you believe that the laws laid down with regard to knives by Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom are silly, and it's OK for anyone other than an American to make fun of our laws.

It is one thing to say that specific details of a law are silly.
It is quite another to call people stupid, or to use sarcasm to imply they are stupid.

The point I was arguing was that while it is normal to have laws governing the use and transportation of things classified as weapons, 1 detail of that laws does not make sense, because a lock is a safety feature preventing the owner from cutting his fingers to the bone if the knife should snap shut. Especially since a criminal would not care about that law in the first place, only the people who would use it as a general purpose knife are impacted.

I did not imply that knife laws are stupid.
I did not imply that what we have is better.

The laws may appear Draconian, but it would be difficult to find anyone in the UK that has been prevented from carrying out a practical task in their daily life for want of an illegaly carried knife.
We all know that practically anything can be utilised as a lethal weapon, but when a weapon is used on the steet, 9 times out of 10 it's a knife.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It's not guilt before the fact, it's common sense.
That is why normal people have no access to cruise missiles, hand grenades, or nuclear weapons.
Now, in the case of UK knife laws, I think they are silly because a lock on a knife is a safety feature. I could have understood a simple < 3 or 4" blade length regulation.

To equate the use of personal firearms and personal defense to weapons of national defense would not appear to be a tool to highlight the principles of common sense. However, to some people, assuming someone is guilty because s/he might do something wrong seems to be the way to go. I'm not one of those people, and I'm not sure that everyone who has ideals which include this premise, whether explicit or implied, are aware their idea of a safe society ultimately puts them in jeopardy.

That is an interesting remark. The US 2nd amendment specifically says that there should be no difference. Or rather, that there are no restrictions. The way I understood the argument there, is that modern law allows the things that are equivalent to what were 'arms' at the time the 2nd amendment was drawn up.

My use of cruise missiles as an example was to indicate that there has to be a line somewhere. I think we all agree on that. Somewhere between 'a bent paperclip' and a hydrogen bomb, there is a line where we say that you can have what is on one side, but not what is on the other.

I don't know how the legislative process works in other countries, but over here, laws are pretty general, and then special cases are added as needed. For example, in Belgium, the weapons laws allow all bladed implements. The legality of an item is regarded based on the context in which it is encountered. A kitchen knife in a BBQ setup is not intended as a weapon. A kitchen knife underneath a coat in a football stadium probably is.

Then, the special cases were added. Shuriken for example are illegal at any and all times. Not because they are inherently dangerous, but because they were becoming a problem in the 80's ninja craze. The legislative branch adds specific prohibitions if there are problems.

Now in the UK, stabbings have reached epidemical proportions.
I have not kept informed about last year, but when I visited a friend in London 2 years ago, he mentioned that deadly stabbings had become almost a daily thing, in London alone. Based on that, it is understandable that the UK politicians know they have a big problem on their hands, and are trying to solve it via legislation. Thus the very strict knife laws.

In your and mine context, those laws seem unfounded, because knife crime in our countries is very low. Knives in our countries do not raise the same red flags that they do in the UK.

@Mark

While I understand the issue regarding the posession of weapons and not being suppressed by a tyrannical government, tell me: With gun ownership in the US being very prevalent, do you really think you are freeer than me, who lives in a state where private ownership of guns is heavily regulated and fairly uncommon?

Besides, private gun ownership meant something in the days of the founding, where firepower scaled linearly with the number of people holding a gun. These days, any government has oodles more and better firepower than their citizens. To the army and the special forces and the tank squads, whether you have a semi automatic or a kitchen knife would not make a difference.

Originally Posted by Bruno

@Mark

While I understand the issue regarding the posession of weapons and not being suppressed by a tyrannical government, tell me: With gun ownership in the US being very prevalent, do you really think you are freeer than me, who lives in a state where private ownership of guns is heavily regulated and fairly uncommon?

Besides, private gun ownership meant something in the days of the founding, where firepower scaled linearly with the number of people holding a gun. These days, any government has oodles more and better firepower than their citizens. To the army and the special forces and the tank squads, whether you have a semi automatic or a kitchen knife would not make a difference.

Hi Bruno,

In the United States we have the bill of rights, the first right is the freedom of speech. The second right is the right to keep and bear arms. To many Americans, the second right guarantees the first.

Am I any freer than you? That's debatable, it depends on what your concept is of freedom and it could very well be different than mine or anyone else's, just like we probably don't see eye to eye on what a free society might be (it's possible). However, as long as there is a sizable portion of the populace here in the United States that is armed and is willing to fight for the right to remain armed, our long term prospects of remaining free are greater than yours. It is not, however, guaranteed. Nothing is but death and taxes.

-Mark

Originally Posted by markdfhr

Hi Bruno,

In the United States we have the bill of rights, the first right is the freedom of speech. The second right is the right to keep and bear arms. To many Americans, the second right guarantees the first.

Am I any freer than you? That's debatable, it depends on what your concept is of freedom and it could very well be different than mine or anyone else's, just like we probably don't see eye to eye on what a free society might be (it's possible). However, as long as there is a sizable portion of the populace here in the United States that is armed and is willing to fight for the right to remain armed, our long term prospects of remaining free are greater than yours. It is not, however, guaranteed. Nothing is but death and taxes.

-Mark

I think we can agree on that
And our prospect of beating death is probably better than beating taxes

Stabbings in the UK have not reached epidemic proportions, I would like to know where that information came from, however knife crime is a major problem in some areas, and with some sections of the community.

So here is my perspective, I have lived in London for all of my 56 years, most of it spent in the East End, this part of London has traditionally had a bad reputation for criminal activity.

A good percentage of the pubs I used to drink in had unsavory reputations, frequented by people you would not want to meet in a dark alley, the areas I lived in such as Stepney, Canning Town, and Custom House, had more than their fare share of career criminals, and downright nasty people as residents, in all that time I have witnessed one near fatal stabbing, in a pub, which was the result of an argument between two members of a pool team over one of them playing a foul shot.
I have never been threatened with a knife, nor do I walk the streets in fear of a knife attack, perhaps I have just been lucky, or perhaps it's not quite as bad as the press would have us believe

I believe most knife crime in the UK is inter gang rivalry or disputes, sections of our communities that resort to violence over perceived 'disrespect' issues, or domestic violence, muggings and random attacks make up the rest.

It was told by UK friends, and I read about the problem in the newspaper I was reading at one of my friends' home at breakfast, at the time. That is not traceable of course, so I turned to the internet.

A simpele query in google turns up this:
Revealed: 100 stabbings in London this year | News
100 stabbings by 14th of may, in 2008. That's about 1 per day, in 1 city (arguably a large one).
I don't know if you consider that many or not, but I'd call that quite a lot.