Thread: British Law?

The law is fine over here, the police are not interested in persecuting "normal" people who have a legitimate reason for possessing a blade as a tool. However, the legislation allows them to deal effectively with people they believe to have a blade as a weapon.

There need not be objections on the basis of leaving potential victims defenceless as the concept of carrying a knife for defence is in my view misguided and gives a false sense of security. I have done quite a bit of martial arts training, simulating a knife fight and trying to disarm an attacker with a knife and the fact is, that despite the numerous youtube videos of martial arts experts saying otherwise, if you get into a tussle with an knife wielding attacker you are going to get cut and probably quite badly unless you are extremely lucky.

If you really think you can hold your own in a knife fight, first try a magic marker fight with someone half competent and my guess is you both end up covered in ink.

The most effective form of defence (as in self preservation) is to run, or to give up your valuables whichever is appropriate.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

Forrest Gump was a film, not reality though perhaps reality is even dafter. I come from an age when Boy Scouts in the UK routinely carried sheath knives. The problem is that in most so-called 'civilised' countries drug dealing gangsters outnumber Boy Scouts by some distance. UK laws have been changed to reflect this.
In Britain over Christmas we have had some fatal knife attacks, now spreading onto busy main shopping streets in daytime, something that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. Perhaps we need even tougher sentencing to prevent the unlawful carrying of knives.
In in terms of saying: 'Though shalt not Kill' or even the lite-version ' Though shalt not Murder' , a large number of people don't have those values any more.
The law has been changed to attempt to lessen the chance of attack by discouraging the carrying of weapons in public because society has failed miserably to instil values that prevent people wanting to stab or shoot one another.
I wonder what sort of mindset one has, to want a fighting knife for 'Every Day Carry'.
I'm a practical guy, work as mechanic, shoot game, look after horses and so on, but I rarely need a penknife in day to day activity, let alone a knife that only has a practical application in a war-zone.

I essentially agree with all that you have stated, having had very similar life experiences. However I carry what 'for all intents and purposes' is a 'fighting knife'. All knives can be used to fight with of course, but this just 'looks' like it's made to fight with. It's satin silvered/dull grey and black and you can snap that blade out right quick with just one hand. I use that thing at least once a day. Why? Because it is the easiest knife to use besides carrying a sheath knife. Many times I have one hand to hold the object (inanimate of course ) and another to open a folding knife with. Many folding knives are two handed openers. Many military style knives are one handed openers. Which can I get away with without getting into trouble from an observant police officer?! The little three inch Rambo wannabe. Would another tool be just as handy for most of my everyday cutting needs?! Well yes, I suppose I could carry around a pair of scissors with me, but they would have to be reasonably heavy duty and would seem quite silly sticking out of my pocket.

Originally Posted by osdset

Ok, this is my opinion, I do not find the post offensive, confrontational, or condescending, so if anybody does, lets hear it.

Not I mate.

Originally Posted by gugi

Easy-peasy. I do, and I'm neither British nor U.S.ofA.ian. I think that settles it.

As per above, I don't find this thread to be offensive etc. I found that people were expressing their views quite civilly. Perhaps I was wrong and there is something happening behind the scenes though.

Originally Posted by Sailor

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

Now this is offensive! Where on that list is Australia?! We have to rank as having some of the dumbest laws of all surely?!

Originally Posted by osdset

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 wish to retract my previous comment Sailor, the UK obviously has a pretty dumb law right there.


Mick

Originally Posted by Jeltz

The law is fine over here, the police are not interested in persecuting "normal" people who have a legitimate reason for possessing a blade as a tool. However, the legislation allows them to deal effectively with people they believe to have a blade as a weapon.

There need not be objections on the basis of leaving potential victims defenceless as the concept of carrying a knife for defence is in my view misguided and gives a false sense of security. I have done quite a bit of martial arts training, simulating a knife fight and trying to disarm an attacker with a knife and the fact is, that despite the numerous youtube videos of martial arts experts saying otherwise, if you get into a tussle with an knife wielding attacker you are going to get cut and probably quite badly unless you are extremely lucky.

If you really think you can hold your own in a knife fight, first try a magic marker fight with someone half competent and my guess is you both end up covered in ink.

The most effective form of defence (as in self preservation) is to run, or to give up your valuables whichever is appropriate.

I know what you're saying Jeltz, but I do also disagree...to a degree , I've done the martial arts scene, marker pen 'knife' fights and all that too. I have to say that if someone confronts you with a knife all you have to go on is luck and the hope that they don't want to stick that knife in you, which if they are tripping on some other illegal substance they just might do anyway. Running is not really an option in most cases, unless you are really damn quick or sneaky about how you do it, as a switched on crook with a knife and a willingness to use it will have you stabbed before you got more than a few steps.
After spending many years as a Security guard (unarmed) I found the best thing was not necessarily a knife, but an extendable baton. I used mine on some few occassions when confroted by greater numbers as well as knife carrying offenders. When being confronted with a knife you have to take into your mindset that you are more than likely going to be stabbed. The thing that you have most control over in the event that the worst does happen, is just where the intial stab wound will be. You have to set your mind to accepting that you will have to sacrifice a part of your body if you are to commit to your overall survival. A video to watch if you're not squeamish is called 'Surviving edged weapons'. It's an exercise in mental toughness just to watch that from start to finish, so be forewarned. It also gives you a greater insight into what is used in most stabbings...Usually kitchen knives, forks and spoons, as most stabbing victims are involved in domestic violence and not street gangs.


Mick

Originally Posted by MickR

As per above, I don't find this thread to be offensive etc. I found that people were expressing their views quite civilly. Perhaps I was wrong and there is something happening behind the scenes though.

I don't think so, I simply answered the yes/no question about how I perceived the original post. It asks for a subjective answer and I gave mine.

What was this about learning from history, or repeating it? I think it's educational to check how our societies fared back in the days when there were a lot more weapons and a lot less regulations on them from the governments. I mean the contribution of violence to the life-span of the average folk.

Thanks Gugi, but I believe that making laws against the object is next to useless. Making the laws against the misuse of the object would be far better. Many countries have laws against the manufacture and use of drugs, but drugs are still manufactured and used. The drug is outlawed and so is the misuse, but neither have much affect. Laws only control the honest. Criminal behaviour is criminal by dint of disobeying the laws of society. The person is the problem, not the tool they choose to use. All this is of course my take on the subject, and you may not agree with any of it. It's what makes the world such a wonderful place though. We each can discuss our views, withought getting the knives out...If you'll pardon the pun.


Mick

Originally Posted by MickR

I wish to retract my previous comment Sailor, the UK obviously has a pretty dumb law right there.


Mick

We have plenty of dumb laws mate, a good percentage are more about parting the average Fred Bloggs from his wages than anything else, if the government can't tax it they will licence it, if neither of the two options apply they will make it illegal.

I'm not a politician, just trying to be a somewhat impartial observer. Despite all the high words and aphorisms the vast majority of people when push comes to shove do prefer safety to liberty, in my view that's just a fact of life.

The thing is that making policies is not as simple as it may seem on the surface. Yes, I agree that the problem isn't the object but the behavior, but at the end of the day I'm much more of a pragmatist and definitely not an ideologue. May be I could save all my taxes and let all these poor/military/sick/government/unemployed/etc. people who depend on the bankrupt US government live (or more precisely die) due to foolishly depending on an entity that is unable to honor its commitments. I'm pretty sure I'd fare better if I don't have to support completely unnecessary defense (or more precisely offense) budget, or people who had bad genetics/made bad decisions/had bad luck. Being relatively young, healthy, well educated, etc. the odds are in my favor, but I'm not quite sure I want to live in a violent social darwinism, even if I'm near the top of the food chain.

One of my problems with being outraged at various foreign laws is the lack of thread on a recent US bill/law S.1867 Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) which generated some media coverage but no outrage whatsoever from the US population, or even a mention in this forum section by all those 'liberty loving colonialists'. Section 1031 explicitly states that under suspicion for terrorism the US military has full authority to do whatever they please to whoever they please. And the US president's problem with the bill was that it may limit his authority to do whatever he/she pleases.


BTW the second entry at Dumb Laws in New York. Crazy New York Laws. We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws! is not all that bad. Where I live it's exercised on a pretty regular basis

Originally Posted by MickR

I know what you're saying Jeltz, but I do also disagree...to a degree ,

Not much disagreement really I too would have a baton/stick in preference but then I've done some escrima training.

My opinion is basically that if you allow people to arm themselves they will think they are protected but probably are not. In reality they have at their disposal the means of making the situation much worse on those occasions when the attacker is using the knife as a threat rather rather than with express intention of using it.

Originally Posted by gugi

the vast majority of people when push comes to shove do prefer safety to liberty, in my view that's just a fact of life.

I think this here is where we find where the root cause of the disagreement is and where common ground is lost.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (edit, really Benjamin Franklin, see next post), those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. For many Americans, that's a truism. It's why so many Americans have a problem with the so-called Patriot Act. It's why so many Americans believe in the right of self-defense. This is why you see Americans afraid of big government telling the individual what he can and cannot do in the name of public safety.

I, for one, subscribe to this particular belief.

I think you're referring to Benjamin Franklin's:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin