British Law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickR

A knife, regardless of the name, has mostly two intended purposes of use. One is cutting and the other is piercing. Just because it is an 8" Chef knife doesn't change the fact that those are it's intended purposes. Polite society percieves the purpose as food prep or cooking...


Mick

---

When i got my first knife i must have been about 7 or 8 years old. We (me and my cousin) got them from my grandfather and my great uncle. If i remember it correctly, they gave us an axe, knives, saw and chisels and and order to do something out of piles of wood, maybe a panzer (they must have been very pissed off because we kept asking them this and that all of the time).
Howevers, both these dudes were very handy with tools and knives, and since both of them were vets (my grandfather from Finnish army and my great uncle from German Viking SS) they had probably used knives other than woodworking too, but that is the thing we never will find out as they are both dead, and they never told anything about war. Once when my great uncle was drunk i asked about how does it feel to be a war hero, and he said that all war heroes are dead. Nowadays i can understand his statement.
Anyways, back to topic. i was taught that the length of the blade should never exceed the width of your palm. Otherwise you can't control the blade. Lesson #2 was that stabbing is a misuse of a knife whatever the purpose. That's why the finger guard is for pussies. Lesson #3 was to never keep your free hand in front of the blade. I think all of these rules were correct.

post removed

So, all the Nanny State has to do to ensure the rest of us are safe is to legally regulate or outright ban anything a sociopath can use to kill someone. Let's see, bricks, 2X4's, tire irons, knives, guns, forks, spoons, rat poison, rope, chain, nylon stockings, any flame producing element. You know what, do it the easy way and make it illegal for anyone to leave the confines of their beds...ever. Sorry, couldn't resist a sarcastic response, don't want to stir the pot or anything just a bit of hyperbole to lighten the mood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

So, all the Nanny State has to do to ensure the rest of us are safe is to legally regulate or outright ban anything a sociopath can use to kill someone. Let's see, bricks, 2X4's, tire irons, knives, guns, forks, spoons, rat poison, rope, chain, nylon stockings, any flame producing element. You know what, do it the easy way and make it illegal for anyone to leave the confines of their beds...ever.

---

Obviously some rather extreme hyperbole, as even the most strident nanny state supporter would scoff at that. But starting with limiting access of guns and large knives to people with a history of mental illness (yes, even those without a criminal record) would be a start, and certainly a better solution than an outright ban. But since this was originally about British knife laws, we have since heard from UK members that there are obviously some exemptions that make it not as draconian as it was originally presented. This is usually the case.

BTW, I'm the last person to advocate the Nanny State solution, just presenting a viewpoint that differs from the "everybody should have a weapon" mentality.

Well, there was a harsh response to a post HNSB made where he was accused of something akin to letting lunatics run wild with weapons.

I can't speak for him but logically I assume that the idea that we're all innocent until proven guilty applies. If you are innocent of crimes, you should have the rights of anyone who is innocent of crimes. The tirade against him was patently unfair and false and full of hyperbole itself. So there is plenty to go around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markdfhr

Well, there was a harsh response to a post HNSB made where he was accused of something akin to letting lunatics run wild with weapons.

I can't speak for him but logically I assume that the idea that we're all innocent until proven guilty applies. If you are innocent of crimes, you should have the rights of anyone who is innocent of crimes. The tirade against him was patently unfair and false and full of hyperbole itself. So there is plenty to go around.

---

I assume you're referring to one of my posts? And what exactly did I say that was considered harsh and"patently unfair and false and full of hyperbole itself"? It's in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. I merely proposed a hypothetical, yet realistic situation. And since when is presenting a point of view considered a tirade?

Again, I will state that laws are reactionary, and not preventative. They punish AFTER the damage has been done. I'm not sure why the notion that some preventative measures can be considered controversial, or downright inflammatory....

PS - in case you haven't noticed, I do tend to play devil's advocate, and also tend to get a beating for it too :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

PS - in case you haven't noticed, I do tend to play devil's advocate, and also tend to get a beating for it too :)

---

I respect playing devil's advocate. I do that, too. Tirade was a bit harsh and I admit that. However, I don't think that what was being advocated in the post you responded to was meant to be interpreted in that way. I understand how taking an argument to its extreme can be enlightening. However, there are times when one has to take a stand based on one's values. No solution is perfect. However, the notion of preventative measures as I think you're describing them implies guilt before the fact.

Because of my values, that's where I have a problem with preemptive justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markdfhr

No solution is perfect. However, the notion of preventative measures as I think you're describing them implies guilt before the fact.

---

Fair enough. That wasn't the intended theme of my posts, but I digress....

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

My question is, if it isn't "normal" people that have access to these weapons, what sort of people are they? :)


Mick