Thread: British Law?

And if we want more stupid laws to wonder, just pick up a country of your choice here.

There are stupid laws in every country, that's for sure! I didn't get a feeling of any hostile sentiment towards the UK knife laws in original posts, I thought it was asking what the laws actually were but perhaps I misread something?

The knife laws can appear to be daft in the UK but it's a massive population on a small piece of land where people practically live on top of one another. Add to that a fairly unarmed police force and the result is the need for some sweeping laws to try to avoid certain problems. In the countryside you wouldn't raise an eyebrow having a knife on your person, in London you'd probably get an armed response unit swooping in on you if you're in the wrong place.

It's a sad fact that in certain areas knife crime is a massive problem. Glasgow is a prime example of that. Guns are harder to get and costly in comparison so in parts of the UK knives are the order of the day and using one on somebody is almost like a badge of honour amongst certain youth. To me the real sad part is the fact that these crimes are usually committed with kitchen knives and machetes which are both easily aquired. The banning of knife sales on ebay will do nothing to stop this but that's just the way it is. What's needed are programs and education for the youth that fall into this lifestyle but that takes years and years and no end of money to throw at the problem. That's not going to happen anytime soon given the current state of the economy!

I grew up in Canada and laughed when I saw people's attitudes towards knives and guns in the UK. After 12 years of living here I can see why it's a touchy subject in built up areas and different in the countryside. I still carry a knife and like my original post said a bit of common sense goes a long way and when done properly we still have the right to carry here. No harm done in my opinion and again these are just my personal views on the subject...

IMO, if someone has no history of violent or erratic behavior, wanting to carry a knife (or gun) is sufficient reason to carry a knife (or gun).
On the other side of the coin, penalties for those that harm someone should be swift and severe. IMO, penalties for most crimes are not severe enough in the US. I don't know about other countries.

Originally Posted by HNSB

IMO, penalties for most crimes are not severe enough in the US. I don't know about other countries.

The problem in the US is that there is too much that is criminalized to punish people too harshly. The jails and prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders with no relief to the problem in sight.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

An armed society is a polite society.

Highly debatable. Manners in a civilized society are not derived from fear; if they are there's a serious problem.

Originally Posted by HNSB

IMO, if someone has no history of violent or erratic behavior, wanting to carry a knife (or gun) is sufficient reason to carry a knife (or gun).

The problem with this way of thinking is that a person's history tells you very little about their mentality. Sociopaths excel at convincing the world they are normal citizens but in truth they are very disturbed. Many deviants have no criminal record and according to the State they are considered law abiding citizens. Should they then be allowed to posses a weapon by virtue of a clean criminal record?

Originally Posted by RayCover

I like the way MO does its conceal carry. Anyone who has not proven themselves to be a violent murderous dirt bag can carry. If you have a clean criminal record and can pass the CCW class your good. I don't know if I would want EVERYONE to carry. Some folks just are not responsible enough or do not have the self control to handle themselves.

There are a huge number of people in my county who carry and the local police support it. I feel quite safe here. Violent crime is quite low. We do have petty thefts and the occasional burglary but it is rare that a store gets held up and robbed here. Way to many of us rednecks carry in Jefferson County. Makes for an unsafe work environment for the bad guys.

Ray

I'll be getting my CCW for Missouri via Maine in a few weeks.

Originally Posted by Ryan82

Should they then be allowed to posses a weapon by virtue of a clean criminal record?

Assuming it is not known that the individual is a sociopath by anyone other than the sociopath, yes.

Originally Posted by HNSB

Assuming it is not known that the individual is a sociopath by anyone other than the sociopath, yes.

I hope that's one of your trademark joke posts

Though I can't seem to grasp the logic behind giving a deadly weapon do a disturbed individual, who is by laws of probability more likely to commit a violent crime simply by reason that he OWNS one and has the possibility to use it. And simply creating laws to punish those who commit the crimes is not the answer either, since laws are reactionary instead of proactive and would do absolutely nothing to prevent said sociopath from, say, murdering a family in the first place.

There will, of course, be those that will use your stance as an extension of the "if everybody is armed nobody gets hurt" argument, which is as naive as it is shortsighted: If another armed bystander shoots the aforementioned armed sociopath whilst in the process of murdering the family, does that not also have the potential of harming other innocent people in the process?

The risk of harm to others is simply too great....

Originally Posted by Theseus

The problem in the US is that there is too much that is criminalized to punish people too harshly. The jails and prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders with no relief to the problem in sight.

We have the same problem in the UK, far too many people are incarcerated for 'petty' offences, for example, it's against the law here to watch TV without a licence, the penalty is a fine, non payment of means prison, the authorities have incarcerated old age pensioners for this heinous crime.

Filling prisons with people who would be better dealt with another way is not the way forward IMHO

The US has the death penalty, we abolished it years ago so our ultimate sanction is a life sentence, in reality this equates to about 10 years, if we had a referendum now to bring back capital punishment, I would not be surprised to see the hangman back in business.

I think it's hoglahoo that has the trademark on the joke posts.

Originally Posted by Ryan82

I can't seem to grasp the logic behind giving a deadly weapon do a disturbed individual, who is by laws of probability more likely to commit a violent crime simply by reason that he OWNS one and has the possibility to use it.

The only means to disarm an unknown sociopath is to disarm everyone on the assumption that someone is a sociopath.

Originally Posted by Ryan82

simply creating laws to punish those who commit the crimes is not the answer either, since laws are reactionary instead of proactive and would do absolutely nothing to prevent said sociopath from, say, murdering a family in the first place.

"Procative" laws in this context infringe on the rights of all non-sociopaths, and do not solve the real problem; I believe that if a person has a desire to harm another person, they will find a means to do so. The weapon is only a tool.
By logical extension, one could argue that the Internet should be banned, as it is used as a tool by pedophiles seeking children to prey on.
We currently make it so pedophiles are legally restricted from using the Internet, but they must first be identified as a pedophile.
Perhaps it would be better to proactively take away the Internet entirely, as I am certain there are pedophiles out there who have not been identified yet.

Originally Posted by Ryan82

There will, of course, be those that will use your stance as an extension of the "if everybody is armed nobody gets hurt" argument, which is as naive as it is shortsighted: If another armed bystander shoots the aforementioned armed sociopath whilst in the process of murdering the family, does that not also have the potential of harming other innocent people in the process?

The risk of harm to others is simply too great....

I don't buy into the idea that "no one gets hurt", but I do buy into the idea that an armed populace is a deterrent to violent crime.
That is getting away from the point I was trying to make though...
My point is that deterrent or not, danger or not - it is wrong to restrict the rights of people who have done nothing wrong and are not infringing on the rights of others.