# Bonkers proposed changes to UK knife law.



## Aphex (Jul 18, 2017)

The British government has proposed changes to UK knife law banning the shipping of knives bought online. Instead, online consumers would have to collect in person. 

http://news.sky.com/story/online-kn...new-restrictions-as-crime-rate-rises-10952288


----------



## Lars (Jul 18, 2017)

Well, at least you will still be able to shop for knives online. Although it will be annoying to have to pick them up.

In Denmark you are no longer allowed to carry a pocket knife unless the blade is shorter than 70mm and the knife can't be opened with one hand or locked in open position.

Silly bureaucrats..

Lars


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 18, 2017)

There were more bonkers proposals in the past, including banning or restricting sales of large and at the same time pointy chef knives.

Maybe they should tax cheap knives instead - make any knife the price of a beginner level professional tool at least, and people will suddenly be very interested in keeping ANY unwanted user off them, and not carelessly discard them (which seems to be one of the ways lots of knives end up used as convenient weapons) 

Again, I do wonder how this all is supposed to work for cook, butcher, builder, or barber apprentices, or very young householders, aged 16-18?


----------



## tsuriru (Jul 18, 2017)

How about kitchen towels? Is it still OK? because those could be potentially lethal via strangulation....oh dear oh dear. :rofl2:


----------



## WillC (Jul 18, 2017)

Its just a proposal for a consultation to discus possible changes to the law .....at the moment, as usual media has gone nuts with it rather than report the facts. Think it will be important for uk makers of chef knives and tools to make themselves heard during consultation phase. The main concern seems to be the flick, flippers, quick opening folding knives, hopefully classifications for possible bans will become clearer. I think I shall email my MP, to try and get some more facts and find out how I can put my case across should they decide that they can actually implement something here, these laws often fall down in implementation on classification like with samurai swords... the fear would be a blanket ban on anything sharp. I would say only 5-10% of my sales are uk based though.......its a world market.


----------



## DanHumphrey (Jul 18, 2017)

WillC said:


> Its just a proposal for a consultation to discus possible changes to the law .....at the moment, as usual media has gone nuts with it rather than report the facts. Think it will be important for uk makers of chef knives and tools to make themselves heard during consultation phase. The main concern seems to be the flick, flippers, quick opening folding knives, hopefully classifications for possible bans will become clearer. I think I shall email my MP, to try and get some more facts and find out how I can put my case across should they decide that they can actually implement something here, these laws often fall down in implementation on classification like with samurai swords... the fear would be a blanket ban on anything sharp. I would say only 5-10% of my sales are uk based though.......its a world market.



Just based on population, I'd assume you sell more to the US and Canada (and probably Australia) than domestically. Especially the US, since we have such an unquenchable thirst for consumer goods. And I'm assuming most of your sales are to English speakers in former colonies, though I'm certainly not expecting you to reveal customer demographics.


----------



## WillC (Jul 18, 2017)

I don't mind at all, the EU as a whole makes up the largest proportion of my sales in recent years, closely followed by the U.S..... Australia. But buyers can pop up all over, South America, Israel, Singapore, Iran, Dubai, Morocco, ....I have sold a few to Japanese Chefs in Japan, but Japan would have to be the hardest sell!!

But thats a bit off track, I took the time to email my MP, will let you know what reply if any I get, would encourage others in the uk to do the same


----------



## Dan P. (Jul 18, 2017)

Ugh, this old chestnut.
I'm sure the majority of knives used in youth crime must be procured from the family kitchen?
I'll be e-mailing my MP, too, even though he is a feckless moron. 

Will, whatever happened to the Knife Makers' Association?


----------



## fatboylim (Jul 18, 2017)

Once again, another ridiculous attempt to ban tools rather than educate users (or solve the underlying social issues)...

Next they will ban chisels, hand power drills, garden scissors and even cars and motorbikes as they too can cause personal injury and can be used by criminal youth...


----------



## Dave Martell (Jul 18, 2017)

Yup just another feel good useless attempt by do-gooders to keep us safe.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 18, 2017)

fatboylim said:


> Once again, another ridiculous attempt to ban tools rather than educate users (or solve the underlying social issues)...
> 
> Next they will ban chisels, hand power drills, garden scissors and even cars and motorbikes as they too can cause personal injury and can be used by criminal youth...



Yup...it's the Liberal state of mind: treat no one like a responsible adult and treat everyone like a mouth breathing man-child, oh and tax everything!


----------



## Ruso (Jul 18, 2017)

I really hope Canada wont follow suite. I really like our laxed laws on knives. They are not perfect and have some wiered bans, but overall are quite reasonable. 

P.S. Taxes are good. Tax's loopholes for the rich are the problem.


----------



## Keith Sinclair (Jul 18, 2017)

Can a cook carry a knife bag to work or on public transport? Here no problem so far.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 18, 2017)

Ruso said:


> I really hope Canada wont follow suite. I really like our laxed laws on knives. They are not perfect and have some wiered bans, but overall are quite reasonable.
> 
> P.S. Taxes are good. Tax's loopholes for the rich are the problem.



Canadian weapons laws mostly make no practical sense. Most of the restrictions on items potentially used as weapons are conjured up by politicians and bureaucrats with zero empirical research done to back up any new limitations on freedoms. 

As for taxes being good while loopholes, when used by rich people, being bad really requires no response but here goes...fact remains that people in government steal more from taxpayers than any rich person using any loophole (loopholes are legal until they are closed while cronyism, money laundering, bribery and just plain theft is against the law). Wether good old fashion fraud, money laundering, cronyism, pay to play, or simply through a grossly bloated and inefficient bureaucratic government structure, the government remains a much larger crook than any multimillionaire or billionaire. I, for one, don't buy into the notion that a government entity (with zero incentive to act efficiently and 100% incentive to perpetuate its own existence) is a good place to allocate our tax dollars. Also, higher taxes don't equate to better social services or a more robust welfare state. It usually equates to PM Dumbass and his crew vacationing on private islands and using your taxes to pay for jet fuel and pools of Chateau Lafite.


----------



## TheCaptain (Jul 18, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Canadian weapons laws mostly make no practical sense. Most of the restrictions on items potentially used as weapons are conjured up by politicians and bureaucrats with zero empirical research done to back up any new limitations on freedoms.
> 
> As for taxes being good while loopholes, when used by rich people, being bad really requires no response but here goes...fact remains that people in government steal more from taxpayers than any rich person using any loophole (loopholes are legal until they are closed while cronyism, money laundering, bribery and just plain theft is against the law). Wether good old fashion fraud, money laundering, cronyism, pay to play, or simply through a grossly bloated and inefficient bureaucratic government structure, the government remains a much larger crook than any multimillionaire or billionaire. I, for one, don't buy into the notion that a government entity (with zero incentive to act efficiently and 100% incentive to perpetuate its own existence) is a good place to allocate our tax dollars. Also, higher taxes don't equate to better social services or a more robust welfare state. It usually equates to PM Dumbass and his crew vacationing on private islands and using your taxes to pay for jet fuel and pools of Chateau Lafite.



Slow clapping. I know we stay away from such things here, but as a pretty high level tax professional who's made a study of the US system(s) of taxation for over 30 years, I don't believe I've ever heard it stated better.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 18, 2017)

Thanks Captain, I really try to stay away from political mumbo jumbo but as a Poli Sci major and a law student there are some commonly held notions that really drive me up the wall. Sending away half your paycheck to a faceless entity whithout questioning where it ends up while blasting very successful people who a) pay more taxes than the average bear and b) employ more people than the average bear is one of those things. I apologize in advance if I've ruffled some feathers.


----------



## foody518 (Jul 18, 2017)

Thanks StonedEdge. Appreciate you bringing up one aspect which can't be denied which is the utterly backwards incentive structure relative to a private individual


----------



## Ruso (Jul 18, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Canadian weapons laws mostly make no practical sense. Most of the restrictions on items potentially used as weapons are conjured up by politicians and bureaucrats with zero empirical research done to back up any new limitations on freedoms.
> 
> As for taxes being good while loopholes, when used by rich people, being bad really requires no response but here goes...fact remains that people in government steal more from taxpayers than any rich person using any loophole (loopholes are legal until they are closed while cronyism, money laundering, bribery and just plain theft is against the law). Wether good old fashion fraud, money laundering, cronyism, pay to play, or simply through a grossly bloated and inefficient bureaucratic government structure, the government remains a much larger crook than any multimillionaire or billionaire. I, for one, don't buy into the notion that a government entity (with zero incentive to act efficiently and 100% incentive to perpetuate its own existence) is a good place to allocate our tax dollars. Also, higher taxes don't equate to better social services or a more robust welfare state. It usually equates to PM Dumbass and his crew vacationing on private islands and using your taxes to pay for jet fuel and pools of Chateau Lafite.



Bans are rarely done based on any real study. They are mostly "emotion" responses to a particular issue that active layer of society is vocal about. But if you look at Canadian knife laws as a whole, they are pretty laxed. You are a law student, so you might know more details (also fwik Quebec has stricter knife laws), as long as I have a reason I can openly or concealed carry any non banned knife. There is no restriction on guard type or length or anything else (please correct me if Im wrong). 
Banned knives include gravity knives, auto knives, balisongs, knives that dont look like knives and may be some other obscure things. 
Overall I would say Canada laws are pretty good. Especially in comparing....

As for your Tax comments, its a rabbit whole I wont go; but sire you are wrong. You must be lucky to be born in to a quite privilege environment.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 18, 2017)

"educate users (or solve the underlying social issues)..."

Is it cynical to say that it is probably contrary to some intentions to solve these or educate anyone?

The "samurai sword ban", if I am not misinformed, is "hand crafted/high quality stuff is fine, cheap but sharp replicas are not", similar to japanese law? Not totally unreasonable, if a bit paranoid..

"Zombie" knives, now do come on ... that is a real world replica, usable in the real world as not much but a weapon, of something from a fantasy world, usable in that fantasy world as not much but a weapon. I'd readily agree that nothing positive could result from making such stuff conveniently accessible to minors.

If there is a reality of "users nobody will or would educate, and that might be pissed off from everyone treating them as stupid", yeah, I'd call anyone marketing dangerous things to them that have no tool purpose irresponsible.

Would you have wanted to give the London or Hamburg rioters zombie knives and knockoff katanas because hey, it would be a nice change from molotovs and bricks?

...

I do wonder where the middle ground that has been struck in the past a lot - offer registration and licensing for stuff that ends up MOSTLY misused otherwise (balisongs*, inexpensive tameshigiri swords would probably be good examples of things that have a legit sports purpose but that you don't want everyone running around with) - as is done with other weapons, as is done with ham radio operation - has gone?

*I guess the primary reasons they are so hated is how people used to play around with them in public as a means of plausible deniable intimidation?


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 18, 2017)

I agree Canada has some very chill laws regarding knives and bladed weapons, no gripe there with me (for the time being).

*Edited to leave out further politically related stuff. A slippery slope I don't want to go down as politics can quickly turns friends into foes, which I don't want to do with anyone on this great forum.


----------



## nepastovus (Jul 19, 2017)

Can't even buy a knife on ebay or Gumtree in uk. Thats plenty..


----------



## malexthekid (Jul 19, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Thanks Captain, I really try to stay away from political mumbo jumbo but as a Poli Sci major and a law student there are some commonly held notions that really drive me up the wall. Sending away half your paycheck to a faceless entity whithout questioning where it ends up while blasting very successful people who a) pay more taxes than the average bear and b) employ more people than the average bear is one of those things. I apologize in advance if I've ruffled some feathers.



I didn't want to comment but did you have any evidence to back up your claims bar your opinion?

Admittedly I am in a different country but I have worked in both private and government and see no practical difference in efficiency. In reality all I have seen is the mark up private companies charge for government work.

As for the tax stuff I'll just say i predominantly disagree, with caveats that are just too difficult to bother with given the differences between countries tax systems.


----------



## malexthekid (Jul 19, 2017)

fatboylim said:


> Once again, another ridiculous attempt to ban tools rather than educate users (or solve the underlying social issues)...
> 
> Next they will ban chisels, hand power drills, garden scissors and even cars and motorbikes as they too can cause personal injury and can be used by criminal youth...



Quite often it is easier and more effective to ban the tools rather than attempt to educate or change the bad seeds.


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 19, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Canadian weapons laws mostly make no practical sense. Most of the restrictions on items potentially used as weapons are conjured up by politicians and bureaucrats with zero empirical research done to back up any new limitations on freedoms.
> 
> As for taxes being good while loopholes, when used by rich people, being bad really requires no response but here goes...fact remains that people in government steal more from taxpayers than any rich person using any loophole (loopholes are legal until they are closed while cronyism, money laundering, bribery and just plain theft is against the law). Wether good old fashion fraud, money laundering, cronyism, pay to play, or simply through a grossly bloated and inefficient bureaucratic government structure, the government remains a much larger crook than any multimillionaire or billionaire. I, for one, don't buy into the notion that a government entity (with zero incentive to act efficiently and 100% incentive to perpetuate its own existence) is a good place to allocate our tax dollars. Also, higher taxes don't equate to better social services or a more robust welfare state. It usually equates to PM Dumbass and his crew vacationing on private islands and using your taxes to pay for jet fuel and pools of Chateau Lafite.


Totally agree with you. Why anyone ever thinks taxing the rich is going to result in their personal lives being better is beyond me. All it does is give the government more loot to hand themselves.


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 19, 2017)

nepastovus said:


> Can't even buy a knife on ebay or Gumtree in uk.


I think you can buy them on ebay, maybe you can't sell them? (ie, on ebay uk you can buy them from international sellers)


----------



## tsuriru (Jul 19, 2017)

And yet, you can order and receive The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell with no problem at all


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 19, 2017)

Yes, but if I mass produced the stuff that book describes, and sold it to everyone, would you think I had good and ethical intentions in mind?

...

Not talking about tools (pocket knives big and small, machetes...) here. Not about collector (eg historic or art swords) or sports weapons (eg tameshigiri swords). Just mass produced cold weapons without any of these values. Isn't saying "make and sell them to the general public as you wish" sending a statement of "it is, even if illegal, socially acceptable for you to carry and use them"?

...

A german politician I otherwise don't agree much with put it well once (paraphrased): "Someone suspicious looking cleaning his fingernails conspiciously with a one hand opening knife, in a crowded passenger train, claiming he is of course not threatening anyone". 

That's why we can't have nice things...


----------



## tsuriru (Jul 19, 2017)

LifeByA1000Cuts said:


> Yes, but if I mass produced the stuff that book describes, and sold it to everyone, would you think I had good and ethical intentions in mind?



That would really depend. Seems to me that most modern governments are doing exactly that: mass producing stuff that book has (no submarine plans Im afraid....but some governments do make and sell those too), selling it to everyone, and claiming ethical intentions. So....lets see what we have, we got "bad guys" with all that crap - they are above the law anyhow, and we got the law - the "good guys", ready to protect us from those bad guys - of course, they NEED to have that stuff to fight the bad guys yes (except they never seem to be there on time)? And then there is your average Joe who's only crime in life is he has a "thing" for cooking and wants to update his kitchen gear from time to time. Forget cooking. Most places on earth don't allow citizens to arm themselves against enemies (foreign and domestic) let alone the aggression of government. So in my mind the question is really - "How much over criminalization can a culture absorb before it completely looses respect for the law"?


----------



## nepastovus (Jul 19, 2017)

Triggaaar said:


> I think you can buy them on ebay, maybe you can't sell them? (ie, on ebay uk you can buy them from international sellers)



Last I tried to buy a knife from ebay seller contact me that he couldn't ship to uk from Finland because of ebay law's so we had to through other routes and Gumtree removed my kitchen knife advert for same reason


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 19, 2017)

nepastovus said:


> Last I tried to buy a knife from ebay seller contact me that he couldn't ship to uk from Finland because of ebay law's so we had to through other routes and Gumtree removed my kitchen knife advert for same reason



Isn't it great to be a responsible adult in a free country......


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 19, 2017)

nepastovus said:


> Last I tried to buy a knife from ebay seller contact me that he couldn't ship to uk from Finland because of ebay law's


Oh ok, didn't know that.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 19, 2017)

@tsuriru I'm arguing a bit of both standpoints here  Is your c(r)ook going to use an unsafely-cheap (you'd risk sending the blade flying if you used it on bamboo mats) replica ninja sword, or a zombie knife with god knows what paint on it, in his kitchen?


----------



## malexthekid (Jul 19, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Isn't it great to be a responsible adult in a free country......



Cause living in a "free" country is about being able to do whatever we want...

Maybe you are confusing free democratic with free of the wild west :sly:


----------



## foody518 (Jul 19, 2017)

Is the concept of negative liberties actually a niche one?


----------



## tsuriru (Jul 20, 2017)

LifeByA1000Cuts said:


> @tsuriru I'm arguing a bit of both standpoints here  Is your c(r)ook going to use an unsafely-cheap (you'd risk sending the blade flying if you used it on bamboo mats) replica ninja sword, or a zombie knife with god knows what paint on it, in his kitchen?



my c(r)ook should not have to. And he should not have to bring a knife to a gunfight either.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 20, 2017)

foody518 I hope it isn't  But isn't "having a right to buy whatever weapon you want" just as much a negative liberty as "being free of undue lethal hazards by everyone being armed to the teeth *in public*"?

(I'm european, mind that, we live in a rude and unarmed, not in an armed and polite society  )


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 20, 2017)

"And he should not have to bring a knife to a gunfight either."

Lol... "gunfight at 12:00, knives will be provided, no need to bring your own"?


----------



## Dan P. (Jul 20, 2017)

As exciting as it may be to tie restrictions on knife purchases with the ever creeping tentacles of a New World Order run by Satan worshipping vampire lizard beasts from the planet Zorg, I think what is more likely is that the very sad event of somebody's child being killed with a knife bought online has prompted petitions, either to MPs or via direct petition to Parliament, which politicians are then compelled to act upon, or at least appear to have acted upon.
It's an unfortunate fact that "knife crime" is a real problem in some parts of the country, but with the usual combination of moral dishonesty and pathological lack of imagination, Whitehall drones may decide, as so often, that the appearance of action is much easier to effect than real action, and serves their ends just as well, if not better.


----------



## tsuriru (Jul 20, 2017)

LifeByA1000Cuts said:


> "And he should not have to bring a knife to a gunfight either."
> 
> Lol... "gunfight at 12:00, knives will be provided, no need to bring your own"?



Yeah, except without the knives and the decent folks who respect the laws of the land are the only ones there who are actually NOT ALLOWED to defend themselves.


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

Dan P. said:


> ... prompted petitions, either to MPs or via direct petition to Parliament, which politicians are then compelled to act upon, or at least appear to have acted upon.


They (not all of them, just a couple will do) have to discuss it for a few seconds, that's about it.


----------



## foody518 (Jul 20, 2017)

LifeByA1000Cuts said:


> foody518 I hope it isn't  But isn't "having a right to buy whatever weapon you want" just as much a negative liberty as "being free of undue lethal hazards by everyone being armed to the teeth *in public*"?
> 
> (I'm european, mind that, we live in a rude and unarmed, not in an armed and polite society  )



I fear that we're getting further towards the trend of presumptive guilt, so where do you draw the line? Do you have agents of the state cut off all fists so that there is no risk of fistfight? Do you toss car owners in jail because they could cause damage on accident or even on purpose, before anything has been done?
Not to mention echoing Tsuriru about that whatever private citizens can get, in most places, your police or military already has it


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Isn't it great to be a responsible adult in a free country......


Er, yes, yes it is :eyebrow:


----------



## tsuriru (Jul 20, 2017)

foody518 said:


> that whatever private citizens can get, in most places, your police or military already has it



I think you mean CAN'T get.


----------



## malexthekid (Jul 20, 2017)

foody518 said:


> I fear that we're getting further towards the trend of presumptive guilt, so where do you draw the line? Do you have agents of the state cut off all fists so that there is no risk of fistfight? Do you toss car owners in jail because they could cause damage on accident or even on purpose, before anything has been done?
> Not to mention echoing Tsuriru about that whatever private citizens can get, in most places, your police or military already has it



I really can't follow any of your argument. Presumptive guilt? We aren't talking guilt at all. Banning a product is just an acknowledgement that that product carries a risk, usually for misuse, deemed to large for society.

Do you believe asbestos or DDT should be banned? They both have very beneficial uses when used appropriately and why should those of us who use it properly have to suffer inferior products because some misuse...

The same argument can be made for anything that is deemed illegal if you follow that path until you reach the point where there is no longer a rule of law.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 20, 2017)

malexthekid said:


> Cause living in a "free" country is about being able to do whatever we want...
> 
> Maybe you are confusing free democratic with free of the wild west :sly:



No, I am most certainly not confusing anything with anything else. And while we're at it, democracy doesnt mean freedom.

Having the freedom as a responsible adult to acquire a bladed instrument (read: tool) for one purpose or another is perfectly within the grasp of even the most conservative (used as an adjective here, not a political affiliation) descriptions of a free society.

When the government gets to dictate what is and what isn't "allowed" in the hands of people they outright assume to be competent, sane, adults is when you have a quite literally erosion of freedom.

And don't come back at me with any argument along the lines of "it's for our own safety, some bad people have used them for bad things in the past" because that's completely nonsensical. I can technically turn my car into a fairly strong rolling explosive device, does that mean we should ban cars? 

This type of legislative action is beginning stages of a guilty until proven innocent scenario. I find it it ironic that all these so-called progressive, liberal governments deem you too stupid for your own good...unless they need something from you (your money).


----------



## tsuriru (Jul 20, 2017)

malexthekid said:


> The same argument can be made for anything that is deemed illegal if you follow that path until you reach the point where there is no longer a rule of law.



So you would rather start using food processors exclusively, rather than kitchen knives, as long as it keeps you on the right side of the law? And if so, do you really believe that sociopathic behavior is limited to only certain objects or would you think that in the total absence of these objects sociapaths would not still go around killing and maiming with sticks and stones? I mean, it sounds like the argument is "Kitchen knives kill people" but kitchen knives dont kill people - Sociopaths kill people. This proposed law sounds like "cutting ones nose to spite ones face" nothing more. Certainly not policable by a long shot, and definately targeting the wrong population as far as ownership of a "dangerous" object.


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 20, 2017)

The one thing is seldom brought up in these discussions about banning knives is that if you give me 5 minutes in any hardware store I will find the tools and raw materials to make a "shank" that is just as deadly as what ever Johnny Streetthug bought off the internet. I've done it more than once to prove that point. There is zero chance of being able to stop that.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 20, 2017)

Noodle Soup said:


> The one thing is seldom brought up in these discussions about banning knives is that if you give me 5 minutes in any hardware store I will find the tools and raw materials to make a "shank" that is just as deadly as what ever Johnny Streetthug bought off the internet. I've done it more than once to prove that point. There is zero chance of being able to stop that.



Exactly, and legislating specifically against the legal aquisition of tools in hopes to curb the exception, not the rule is ridiculous.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 20, 2017)

@StonedEdge course not. Cars (as well as kitchen knives, machetes, saws, axes, sports guns&swords...) have a plausible civilized use  But most countries restrict battle ready tanks in private ownership, no? Is that an unreasonable line to draw, even for the most libertarian minded? Such ownership, unrestricted, would be a big negative liberty - but a way for anyone to impinge on a lot of other people's negative liberties 

But why am I defending an unrelated and reasonable aspect of UK law while, indeed, a mostly unreasonable aspects is under discussion 

And I think arm-mostly-everyone societies (US) vs arm-mostly-no-one (UK) have to be viewed rather differently anyway when it comes to keeping the balance


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 20, 2017)

You can own a tank in the U.S., its the cannon ammo that is highly restricted. And I like it that way. Glad I don't live in Europe.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 20, 2017)

Noodle Soup said:


> You can own a tank in the U.S., its the cannon ammo that is highly restricted. And I like it that way. Glad I don't live in Europe.



That makes two of us at least.


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Having the freedom as a responsible adult to acquire a bladed instrument (read: tool) for one purpose or another is perfectly within the grasp of even the most conservative (used as an adjective here, not a political affiliation) descriptions of a free society.


Agreed.


> When the government gets to dictate what is and what isn't "allowed" in the hands of people they outright assume to be competent, sane, adults is when you have a quite literally erosion of freedom.


So you're saying that it is an erosion of freedom that we can't have armed tanks etc. I'm personally glad that we have strict gun laws, and I don't see that as an erosion of freedom.



> And don't come back at me with any argument along the lines of "it's for our own safety, some bad people have used them for bad things in the past" because that's completely nonsensical. I can technically turn my car into a fairly strong rolling explosive device, does that mean we should ban cars?


Well it's not a nonsensical argument, because it works. The lack of access to guns means less people are murdered here. Some people clearly think that we need a debate about knives too.



> This type of legislative action is beginning stages of a guilty until proven innocent scenario.


We have legislation to stop people owning guns. How does that make people guilty until proven innocent? There's no logic there.



Noodle Soup said:


> The one thing is seldom brought up in these discussions about banning knives is that if you give me 5 minutes in any hardware store I will find the tools and raw materials to make a "shank" that is just as deadly as what ever Johnny Streetthug bought off the internet. I've done it more than once to prove that point. There is zero chance of being able to stop that.


But the point is, that you're not generally walking around with that homemade device. People who have no intention of killing anyone, walk around with knives that are cool, and later, maybe when drunk or caught up in a bit of a fight, use a knife that they happened to have on them.



Noodle Soup said:


> You can own a tank in the U.S., its the cannon ammo that is highly restricted.


How dare they restrict your liberties!


> Glad I don't live in Europe.





StonedEdge said:


> That makes two of us at least.


Is it common on this site to slag of other countries/regions?


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 20, 2017)

All I'm saying is that today it could be kitchen knives we are no longer trusted with, while tomorrow it could be your toothbrush, your GPS device, lawn fertilizer, your cheese grater, you get the idea. If we are to trust governments with formulating and enacting laws to keep us safe from deranged lunatics, hostile drunks, terrorists (whatever that term means today), the boogeyman and whatever else keeps people up at night, there better be factual, empirical evidence supporting any legislation devised to keep people safe because they do, wether you want to admit it or not, always trade some level of personal freedom for a minuscule degree of feeling safer.

If someone wants to kill you badly enough, they will do so wether or not their Kato 240 kitaeji gyuto has been re-classified as a prohibited item or not.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 20, 2017)

Triggaaar said:


> Is it common on this site to slag of other countries/regions?


Does it seem common on here to you? Don't be so sensitive, especially when no insults toward any individual or any nation have been slung.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 20, 2017)

Triggaaar said:


> How dare they restrict your liberties



Here's the thing, assuming he or she is American, this person is actually born with the natural right to keep and bear arms. I realize it sounds weird.


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 20, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Here's the thing, assuming he or she is American, this person is actually born with the natural right to keep and bear arms. I realize it sounds weird.



And we gained that right after a major argument with a certain government that still believes in kings and queens.


----------



## foody518 (Jul 20, 2017)

I'm still unsure on if you can use a consistent set of principles to target kitchen knives but not target automobiles? Or even bathroom cleaning formulas? Seems the reasoning is coming down to what legislators have the balls to impose on their people and what the people end up adapting to living with?


----------



## Rob_Sutherland (Jul 20, 2017)

foody518 said:


> I'm still unsure on if you can use a consistent set of principles to target kitchen knives but not target automobiles? Or even bathroom cleaning formulas? Seems the reasoning is coming down to what legislators have the balls to impose on their people and what the people end up adapting to living with?



Because Britain isn't having an issue with people hiding automobiles or Mr. Clean in their hoodies and stabbing people with them (Mr. Clean makes a particularly inefficient stabbing device).


----------



## Dan P. (Jul 20, 2017)

I can hardly even go to the supermarket in my polonium codpiece anymore without someone calling the police.
Where does it end??


----------



## malexthekid (Jul 20, 2017)

Noodle Soup said:


> And we gained that right after a major argument with a certain government that still believes in kings and queens.



So you own guns purely for a militia purpose. Sitting there just in case your government needs over throwing?.....


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 20, 2017)

Could be. Send the red coats over again and we will find out.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jul 20, 2017)

Dan P. said:


> I can hardly even go to the supermarket in my polonium codpiece anymore without someone calling the police.
> Where does it end??



Have they no fashion sense? Some people.... ROFL


----------



## malexthekid (Jul 20, 2017)

For the record I don't believe in the ban. But I don't believe in it because it won't have an actual effect in reducing knife related deaths.

However what I am commenting on is the whole negative liberty argument because it is frankly hilariously contradictory unless you basically don't believe in governments as law makers. Because law is all about reducing liberties that society as a whole deems inappropriate or too high risk.

Australia and England as a whole deem gun ownership, for the most part, as too high risk and they are banned, and as far as I know the latest polls still suggest that a very large majority here believe that.

The US frankly is prepared to accept mass shootings etc as an "unintended consequence" of gun ownership. And that is your right as a society.


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> All I'm saying is that today it could be kitchen knives we are no longer trusted with, while tomorrow it could be your toothbrush, your GPS device, lawn fertilizer, your cheese grater, you get the idea. If we are to trust governments with formulating and enacting laws to keep us safe from deranged lunatics, hostile drunks, terrorists (whatever that term means today), the boogeyman and whatever else keeps people up at night, there better be factual, empirical evidence supporting any legislation devised to keep people safe because they do, wether you want to admit it or not, always trade some level of personal freedom for a minuscule degree of feeling safer.


I hope they don't stop people having knives delivered, but I can understand that there is an issue with people getting hurt.



> If someone wants to kill you badly enough, they will do so wether or not their Kato 240 kitaeji gyuto has been re-classified as a prohibited item or not.


But as I've already said, this isn't about stopping premeditated murder. People are stabbed because people are carrying knives.



StonedEdge said:


> Does it seem common on here to you? Don't be so sensitive, especially when no insults toward any individual or any nation have been slung.


I don't know how common it is, I haven't read that many threads. I'm not sure how well it would go down if people were saying they wouldn't want to live in North America.



StonedEdge said:


> Here's the thing, assuming he or she is American, this person is actually born with the natural right to keep and bear arms. I realize it sounds weird.


If he or she is American, they're born with the right to follow the law of the land. The same as everyone else.



Noodle Soup said:


> And we gained that right after a major argument with a certain government that still believes in kings and queens.


I think the UK has changed government a few times since the 18th century. And what does 'still believes in kings and queens' mean? Kings and queens do exist, they're not like fairies or something. Not that they have any power in the UK.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 20, 2017)

@malexthekid more like "identify the potentially dangerous dissenters in case overthrowing of governments is on the table - and you even have a reason to shoot them first since they come at you levelling a gun"  

...

If you get a tank but no ammo, that is exactly not what I meant by "battle ready".

...

As I said, I am totally not against letting adults have balisongs, sharp (and functional) katanas etc ... at home or in a training space - these things have a purpose, and that is practicing techniques connected to a (bloody but still valid) martial arts context - and tool use could be argued with a balisong, too.

...


What Rob_Sutherland said. Realpolitik sucks, but it can sometimes save lives now and in practice... 

...


Who's "targeting kitchen knives and not targeting cars" - the law is about enforcing an age restriction (I'd make it "16 but you're tried as an adult if **** happens*"). It is enforced on cars in practice, isn't it?

*Because you absolutely do not want anyone with a weapon while not being fully accountable for its use. Anything else will be and has been misused in organized crime by sending youth first.

...

@Triggaar most of Europe doesn't even "stop people from owning guns" - they just stop people from legally carrying them or owning them without a reason or oversight.


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 20, 2017)

Actually, you can own cannon ammo. Its just requires a lot of paperwork and expense. But some people here do it. 

"If he or she is American, they're born with the right to follow the law of the land. The same as everyone else." If Americans believed that we would still be subjects of the queen.


----------



## MontezumaBoy (Jul 20, 2017)

My $0.02 - luckily for me my new BloodRoot (210mm Petty/Line/Suji  whatever you personally want to call it) has arrived just in nick of time to miss the ban (San Diego maybe not) and allow me to add (help end) to this conversation  =;^) 

She (sexist much?) is a thing Obeauty! Cant thank those wonderful BB folks enough and the US Postal Service for actually delivering it without me providing a DNA sample! Touche!





You all have a great day - I'm off to cut some stuff .... shipping B damned! :bliss:


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 20, 2017)

Nice knife.


----------



## fatboylim (Jul 20, 2017)

malexthekid said:


> For the record I don't believe in the ban. But I don't believe in it because it won't have an actual effect in reducing knife related deaths.
> 
> However what I am commenting on is the whole negative liberty argument because it is frankly hilariously contradictory unless you basically don't believe in governments as law makers. Because law is all about reducing liberties that society as a whole deems inappropriate or too high risk.
> 
> ...



As an Australian the no gun policy works as it is a hugely cosmopolitan population where police are within easy reach. 

I think the majority of American's population lives in the country where a police officer maybe 3 hours drive away (spread between 2-3 towns). In this case, many people feel safer if they are self armed as police support is not within reach. 

That said any system can be better both in American and Australia. 

Interestingly, my favorite country for gun control is Norway. It has one of the highest gun ownership per person but the lowest gun crime. This is because almost every gun owner spent a year or so in the military learning to use a rifle and knowing the damage it causes. This education means that there is little fantasising of gun use, but instead a very sober understanding of the responsibilities of having a gun; and the emotional torture if you ever hurt or killed someone. As a side note, they have one of the lowest burglary rates too!


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 20, 2017)

@MontezumaBoy how would a change in UK law that regulates UK-to-UK shipping affect you?


----------



## MontezumaBoy (Jul 20, 2017)

Hi LByA1KCuts,

Sorry for the seqway/distraction in my comments! Just trying to lighten up the conversation a bit ... having said that I could see a scenario where those very same UK-2-UK regulations could impact shipping "extra-UK" so my (near future please!) WillC blade could become an issue as WillC could be labeled a "provider of weaponry" - stranger/unintended consequences have happened IMO! 

Now back to cutting things ...



LifeByA1000Cuts said:


> @MontezumaBoy how would a change in UK law that regulates UK-to-UK shipping affect you?


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

LifeByA1000Cuts said:


> @Triggaar most of Europe doesn't even "stop people from owning guns" - they just stop people from legally carrying them or owning them without a reason or oversight.


Categorising Europe as if it's one rule for all is indeed a bit weird.


Noodle Soup said:


> "If he or she is American, they're born with the right to follow the law of the land. The same as everyone else." If Americans believed that we would still be subjects of the queen.


That's obviously nonsense. You realise that America has been independent for more than a couple of hundred years, and everyone alive then is now dead. What Americans alive now think, regarding the right to follow the law of the land, will not affect American independence.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Jul 20, 2017)

@Triggaar "Most". There are exceptions - but in EU, national weapons/hazmat/environmental laws more and more become rebranded versions of each other 

Guess americans followed the law of the land, then found they didn't like it, made a new law of the land and followed it?


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

LifeByA1000Cuts said:


> @Triggaar "Most".


Yes I know, my comment that categorising Europe as it it's all the same was not suggesting you had done so.


> There are exceptions - but in EU, national weapons/hazmat/environmental laws more and more become rebranded versions of each other


But the EU doesn't cover all of Europe either.


> Guess americans followed the law of the land, then found they didn't like it, made a new law of the land and followed it?


Just like every other country in the world. If you're an American and you go on holiday to somewhere that doesn't allow guns, then you obviously don't have the right to bear arms. It's not some right given by god, it is a right while you are within the US, because it is currently the law of the land there. That law may change one day (no time soon I imagine).


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 20, 2017)

Triggaaar said:


> Categorising Europe as if it's one rule for all is indeed a bit weird.
> That's obviously nonsense. You realise that America has been independent for more than a couple of hundred years, and everyone alive then is now dead. What Americans alive now think, regarding the right to follow the law of the land, will not affect American independence.



Might as well tear up the constitution and get on with following your version of the "law of the land" right? The state I live in has fairly liberal gun laws and I've carried a concealed handgun for most of my adult life. That is a "law of the land" I can support.


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

Noodle Soup said:


> Might as well tear up the constitution and get on with following your version of the "law of the land" right?


What? Your constitution is part of the law of the land where you live. You do follow the law of the land. Not my version of it, I don't even have a version of it.



> The state I live in has fairly liberal gun laws and I've carried a concealed handgun for most of my adult life. That is a "law of the land" I can support.


Yeah I've no problem with that.


----------



## Noodle Soup (Jul 20, 2017)

Moving back to knives, it has been stated here that if people are allowed to carry scary one-hand opening knives they bought off the internet, they will just naturally use them on each other any time something angers them. I live in an area where practically every serious working man (including chefs) has something clipped to the top of his pocket. I have yet to see the rate of knife assaults being any higher that places with major restrictions. Its the culture and people that breeds lawlessness.


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

Noodle Soup said:


> Moving back to knives, it has been stated here that if people are allowed to carry scary one-hand opening knives they bought off the internet, they will just naturally use them on each other any time something angers them.


No it hasn't.


> I live in an area where practically every serious working man (including chefs) has something clipped to the top of his pocket. I have yet to see the rate of knife assaults being any higher that places with major restrictions.


Which places with major restrictions are you referring to?

Is it possible to order all weapons off the internet in the US, and have them delivered to people under 18?



> Its the culture and people that breeds lawlessness.


But having easy access to weapons increases the amount of death a person can cause.


----------



## malexthekid (Jul 20, 2017)

Triggaaar said:


> No it hasn't.
> Which places with major restrictions are you referring to?
> 
> Is it possible to order all weapons off the internet in the US, and have them delivered to people under 18?
> ...



If I was you I wouldn't bother with the argument.

Though I must admit the discussions of the constitution vs "law of the land" made me chuckle and reminded me of Jim Jefferies joke regarding "you can't change the 2nd Amendment" "of course you can, its in the name, maybe you need a thesaurus more than a gun" (paraphrasing)


----------



## Triggaaar (Jul 20, 2017)

malexthekid said:


> If I was you I wouldn't bother with the argument.


Given that this thread is specifically about UK law, might as well have someone from the UK contributing. I haven't looked at the stats behind the desire to bring in the law, but on the face of it I'm quite against it. But the law is just talking about the delivery of knives to your home, you can still have it delivered to local shops where you'd collect it (just like how we send items via UPS etc). You'll still have the right to bear a kitchen knife (without harming any bears).



> Though I must admit the discussions of the constitution vs "law of the land" made me chuckle and reminded me of Jim Jefferies joke regarding "you can't change the 2nd Amendment" "of course you can, its in the name, maybe you need a thesaurus more than a gun" (paraphrasing)


:laugh:


----------



## tsuriru (Jul 21, 2017)

Noodle Soup said:


> Moving back to knives, it has been stated here that if people are allowed to carry scary one-hand opening knives they bought off the internet, they will just naturally use them on each other any time something angers them. I live in an area where practically every serious working man (including chefs) has something clipped to the top of his pocket. I have yet to see the rate of knife assaults being any higher that places with major restrictions. Its the culture and people that breeds lawlessness.



I agree. I live in a place where there are very strict laws regarding carrying knives (and firearms too - but thats a different ball of wax). Still, there are a lot of stabbings here - mainly by drunken teenagers among themselves (but also in other instances such as domestic disputes, road rage, parking spot arguments, and of course terrorist attacks). I think your observation about culture is somewhat off though. I think this is mainly about education and up-bringing. We all have potential - but it is really up to our "handlers" to do a good job in the first 12 years or so, in teaching us right from wrong.

Also, I think policing (at least where I live) is a crap-shoot. I have, on several occasions in the past, been stopped while driving for a routine papers check i.d, drivers license, insurance etc. Some of these times, the car was searched, and knives where found. Big ass kitchen knives - really sharp ones. A short, polite, explanation and a business card was all it took to make them realize that the situation did not warrant further policing and that no possible crime was in progress and needed to be prevented. I assume the same would have been the case if the driver explained that he was a chef or a kitchen worker on the way to get the knives sharpened - or back from having them sharpened etc. 

The law here plainly states that you are allowed to keep knives, axes, or any other sharp edged tools and use them for their intended purpose, you may also carry them but they must be in a box, and in plain sight (forget one handed opening - that will land you in a cell very quickly. So, it's really a matter of the actual situation where a police man encounters X and how X presents himself. Of course, you never know - the most common regular looking people could turn on you in a flash, but profiling and using your head helps a lot. The police here does not harass people needlessly. But if you are a loud, unkempt, impolite kid with alcohol on your breath (or any other profile that the police find to be suspicious) - you may very well be searched, and if they find a knife on you, you may very well be arrested, your knife will be confiscated, and you will be charged accordingly.


----------



## Nemo (Jul 21, 2017)

tsuriru said:


> I agree. I live in a place where there are very strict laws regarding carrying knives (and firearms too - but thats a different ball of wax). Still, there are a lot of stabbings here - mainly by drunken teenagers among themselves (but also in other instances such as domestic disputes, road rage, parking spot arguments, and of course terrorist attacks). I think your observation about culture is somewhat off though. I think this is mainly about education and up-bringing. We all have potential - but it is really up to our "handlers" to do a good job in the first 12 years or so, in teaching us right from wrong.
> 
> Also, I think policing (at least where I live) is a crap-shoot. I have, on several occasions in the past, been stopped while driving for a routine papers check i.d, drivers license, insurance etc. Some of these times, the car was searched, and knives where found. Big ass kitchen knives - really sharp ones. A short, polite, explanation and a business card was all it took to make them realize that the situation did not warrant further policing and that no possible crime was in progress and needed to be prevented. I assume the same would have been the case if the driver explained that he was a chef or a kitchen worker on the way to get the knives sharpened - or back from having them sharpened etc.
> 
> The law here plainly states that you are allowed to keep knives, axes, or any other sharp edged tools and use them for their intended purpose, you may also carry them but they must be in a box, and in plain sight (forget one handed opening - that will land you in a cell very quickly. So, it's really a matter of the actual situation where a police man encounters X and how X presents himself. Of course, you never know - the most common regular looking people could turn on you in a flash, but profiling and using your head helps a lot. The police here does not harass people needlessly. But if you are a loud, unkempt, impolite kid with alcohol on your breath (or any other profile that the police find to be suspicious) - you may very well be searched, and if they find a knife on you, you may very well be arrested, your knife will be confiscated, and you will be charged accordingly.



Sounds a lot like the situation here. You need to have an acceptable reason to carry a knife (for example, being a chef and going to work). I don't think that this law gets enforced very often except when people are being antisocial.


----------



## WillC (Aug 23, 2017)

Relevant to fellow uk Makers, here is what I got back from the home office.....

Dear Mr Catcheside,

Thank you for your letter of 26 July 2017 about the intended Government consultation on proposed changes to the sale of knives in the internet marketplace. Your letter has been passed to the Home Office for a response. 

While it is of course the case that knives are used lawfully and legitimately in households and by businesses across the country, we do consider that the measures which the Government announced will further strengthen the law, including in relation to online sales to under-18s. Our intention is to consult on changes so that knives purchased online would no longer be delivered to a private address and would instead require collection at a place where age ID can be checked in person. We do consider that this change, and others that we will consult on, will help us to go further in tackling knife crime.

Alongside the consultation on the legislative measures we are taking forward an immediate package of non-legislative action. This includes:

	a national prevention campaign: our intention is to launch an anti-knife crime media campaign in the Autumn; 

	supporting intervention work in hospital accident and emergency departments: we are exploring ways of expanding the capacity of youth violence intervention projects based in hospital emergency departments; and 

	an anti-knife community fund to support local communities respond: we believe that community organisations have an important role to play in tackling this issue. A range of organisations are already delivering anti-knife crime work and we will launch a competition as soon as possible inviting bids to deliver measures under a new anti-knife crime community fund.

We understand your concern and I encourage you to be fully involved in the consultation, which we intend to publish in the Autumn. This will be published on the Gov.uk website, will be open to the public so that all interested parties, including retailers, to provide their views on what is proposed. The consultation will provide further detail in respect of our proposal to legislate on online sales to under 18s. 


Yours sincerely


----------



## TheCaptain (Aug 23, 2017)

Well that should fix all your stabbing "issues". 

Obviously you're better educated on the nuances than am I. However I cannot recall any of the recent attacks being committed by a minor who purchased a knife over the internet...

Sheer madness!


----------



## Matus (Aug 23, 2017)

Well, good luck fighting.


----------



## WildBoar (Aug 23, 2017)

Matus said:


> Well, good luck fighting.


...especially when you can't use guns or knives :biggrin:


----------



## tsuriru (Aug 23, 2017)

Dont say "Knives" say "Manual food processing units".


----------



## Matus (Aug 23, 2017)

Well, let's just hope that they will not come up with an idea to make a referendum on that - you may end up keeping your kitchen knives in a locked cupboard and require special permission to use them.

The interesting thing is - since a few years there is a very tough law that only allows one to carry (without a proper reason) a sub 3" blade on non locking pocket knife (like a small SAK or similar). So how is the proposed new law going to decrease knife related violence in UK is not easy to understand.


----------



## FoRdLaz (Aug 23, 2017)

WillC said:


> Relevant to fellow uk Makers, here is what I got back from the home office.....
> 
> Dear Mr Catcheside,
> 
> ...



This is so interesting for me to read about the UK Government trying to "mother" society.

I live in South Africa where violent crimes are quite high, most of them involving some sort of weapon - be it unlicenced (usually) firearms, knives or other means. I am involved in the healthcare industry and spent many years working in A&E Departments and the prehospital environment. What I can tell you is that many stabbings were commited with homemade "shanks", screwdrivers, and even broken bottles (which do a surprising amount of damage). The point I'm trying to make is that so-called "legal" knives are not used as weapons by people who do not have the means to purchase them - and actually the homemade weapons which are then substituted (by say a teenager who could not "legally aquire" a knife to use as a weapon) do far more damage than than the real thing.
In fact a screwdriver to the chest will generally be much more lethal than a stab wound by a knife. And many times the wound is hardly even noticeable.

Anyhow - the UK Government is so naive about things like this. They think their prevention campaign is going to curb penetrating trauma. It will never change - those who want to arm themselves will do so using whatever is available - from a pen to a scissors to a steak knife to a home made shank.

Good luck with fighting this. Hope your government realises how futile these regulations will be!


----------



## Matus (Aug 23, 2017)

FoRdLaz said:


> This is so interesting for me to read about the UK Government trying to "mother" society.
> 
> I live in South Africa where violent crimes are quite high, most of them involving some sort of weapon - be it unlicenced (usually) firearms, knives or other means. I am involved in the healthcare industry and spent many years working in A&E Departments and the prehospital environment. What I can tell you is that many stabbings were commited with homemade "shanks", screwdrivers, and even broken bottles (which do a surprising amount of damage). The point I'm trying to make is that so-called "legal" knives are not used as weapons by people who do not have the means to purchase them - and actually the homemade weapons which are then substituted (by say a teenager who could not "legally aquire" a knife to use as a weapon) do far more damage than than the real thing.
> In fact a screwdriver to the chest will generally be much more lethal than a stab wound by a knife. And many times the wound is hardly even noticeable.
> ...



You should send that to the UK officials. It is actually a very interesting piece of information.


----------



## StonedEdge (Aug 23, 2017)

Blaming stabbing crime on the availability of knives is like blaming obesity on the availability of forks. 

Knives don't kill people, guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people...people kill people. 

Maybe the UK government should more precisely look at WHO are committing these crimes (spoiler: it's not underaged minors)

Also, the only way to defend yourself against someone using a weapon is by being armed yourself. I don't see how government control of material objects in the name of safety can make people safe when dangerous criminal types will ALWAYS be armed, thus leaving the law-abiding citizen unarmed and his/her life rests in the hands of people who may or may not get there in time. 

There's a joke in Canada that only the police, the mafia and drug dealers are allowed to carry any sort of weapon &#129315;


----------



## WildBoar (Aug 23, 2017)

On the 'plus' side, the inability for the UK peeps to easily but kitchen knives means more for us who are not in the UK irate1:


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 23, 2017)

Matus said:


> You should send that to the UK officials. It is actually a very interesting piece of information.


And totally irrelevant to the UK situation. South Africa isn't the UK.


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 23, 2017)

I must be the only one that thinks this is s reasonable discussion to have.

Should it result in law change, maybe not but you have to have the discussion.

And my understating of the UK environment beyond just the last few terrorist attacks is that they do have a significant youth crime issue in areas.

So maybe those of us not In the country shouldn't be talking about "who is committing the crimes".


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 23, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Blaming stabbing crime on the availability of knives is like blaming obesity on the availability of forks.
> 
> Knives don't kill people, guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people...people kill people.



And may i ask what is easier to control, knives or people.

And sorry but the easiest way to defend against someone with a weapon is to ensure they don't have a weapon in the first place.

Not to mention do you want to supply me with any evidence that supports your statement that arming yourself reduces your chance of being exposed to armed violence?


----------



## Nemo (Aug 23, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Blaming stabbing crime on the availability of knives is like blaming obesity on the availability of forks.



I reckon it's actually more like blaming the obesity epidemic on the ready availablity of higly processed food.

Yes, people still have to eat it for harm to occur, but it's pretty easy to get and many people do eat it without giving thought to the consequences.


----------



## Nemo (Aug 23, 2017)

FoRdLaz said:


> I live in South Africa where violent crimes are quite high, most of them involving some sort of weapon - be it unlicenced (usually) firearms, knives or other means. I am involved in the healthcare industry and spent many years working in A&E Departments and the prehospital environment. What I can tell you is that many stabbings were commited with homemade "shanks", screwdrivers, and even broken bottles (which do a surprising amount of damage). The point I'm trying to make is that so-called "legal" knives are not used as weapons by people who do not have the means to purchase them - and actually the homemade weapons which are then substituted (by say a teenager who could not "legally aquire" a knife to use as a weapon) do far more damage than than the real thing.
> In fact a screwdriver to the chest will generally be much more lethal than a stab wound by a knife. And many times the wound is hardly even noticeable.



It's interesting how patterns of violent trauma vary from society to society.

I work in an operating theatre, often dealing with trauma. In 20 odd years doing this sort of work, I have never had to deal with a violent gunshot wound (meaning one that wasn't either accidental or self-inflicted). Not one. I have dealt with a few knife attacks, and attacks with blunt weapons, several of which were very nearly fatal.

A few years ago, there was a spate of "glassings", where people would smash a beer glass or bottle and use it as a weapon in a pub (bar) altercation. These can produce some pretty awful facial and eye injuries. High risk pubs now use plastic glasses and I haven't seen a glassing injury in several years.

I see lots of blunt facial trauma (inflicted by fists) and a bit of hand trauma (inflicted by faces). Most of the victims and perpetrators are being d**ks and alcohol or drugs are usually involved. Fairly uncommon that anyone dies though.

I don't know if the different patterns of violent trauma are primarily related to the way the society works or the availability of weapons or perhaps a bit of both. In my experience (in Australia), the significant majority of violent trauma is not premeditated but the result of a heated altercation or an over-reaction to an insult, often when people are affected by substances which reduce their impulse control (often in people with fairly poor impulse control to begin with). Minimising the damage that can be done in this situation seems sensible to me (especially if it keeps me in bed in the early hours of the morning). I do suspect that if those idiots who were doing the glassings (and nowadays are just using fists) were carrying firearms, I would have dealt with a lot more gunshot wounds. And been out of bed in the wee hours more often.

Your country may vary, I don't know.

There is often a trade-off to be made between liberty and safety. Where that line should be drawn is very situation dependent and should take into account the magnitude and frequency of the risks involved, the degree of imposition on individual liberty and the way that the particular society works. Taking one extreme, I don't think it's sensible to ban the use of kitchen knives because you can't prepare food propperly without them. And, as has been mentioned, improvised weapons can probably do almost as much damage in determined hands. Taking the other extreme, giving everybody access to weapons of mass destruction would be ridiculously dangerous.

FWIW, I suspect that the proposed UK ban on mail order knives will not achieve much, but I don't live in the UK so my opinion probably doesn't count for much.


----------



## Devon_Steven (Aug 25, 2017)

Apologies that I have not had time to read all of the posts in this important thread.

On thought I had whilst reading the beginning of the discussion relates to eBay (UK's) policy on knife sales. UK buyers cannot buy knives using eBay and this is as a result of some cases where illegal knives were bought by UK buyers using eBay. eBay then implemented the blanket ban on UK knife sales to prevent this happening again.

As inconvenient as it may be to be required to present with ID and collect a knife at the mail sorting office, that would surely be preferable to the eBay solution of stopping all sales.

My thanks to Will C for pursuing this issue through the official channels.



Steven


----------



## tsuriru (Aug 25, 2017)

malexthekid said:


> And sorry but the easiest way to defend against someone with a weapon is to ensure they don't have a weapon in the first place.
> 
> Not to mention do you want to supply me with any evidence that supports your statement that arming yourself reduces your chance of being exposed to armed violence?



You cannot regulate weapons to the point of insuring no one will have possession over them. Heck you can download and print weapons at home now days - easy as pie. And no, the easiest way to defend yourself from someone with a weapon is not to insure they dont have a weapon in the first place. Arming yourself wont reduce your chances of being exposed to armed violence - but it will sure as **** increase your chances of walking away from the situation instead of being wheeled off, feet first, big toe tagged. You want evidence? Ask anyone who has ever found himself under attack and HAD a weapon with him to defend himself with.


----------



## dwalker (Aug 25, 2017)

Seems to me, lorries, trucks, and vans are more the instrument of choice for those who choose to do violence to others lately. I point this out just to say, a government cannot regulate violence away while maintaining any sort of freedom. Any law should consider how many good, law abiding citizens are negatively affected and weigh that against the potential upside. The "If only 1 life is saved, it is worth it" argument is complete B.S. If that were true, and people REALLY believed that, there would be a push to outlaw such things as swimming pools.


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 25, 2017)

Just as a point of reference.... swimming pools are by far the most over regulated "building" in some places around the world.

And while I may agree with you, the general populace (and I am going to take a risk and say even you) don't agree with regulating across the board on a "cost-benefit" or risk basis.

Some things people "fear" more than other things and are therefore over regulated proportionally to their risk.

Aka anything when compared to cars.

So while I agree with you, the reality is that it isn't as simple as you make it sound because in some areas people are prepared to wear a high cost, and in others the "save just one death" wears true.

And no it can't regulate violence away but in most places in the world the population demands it continually reduce violence... it can't control people beyond the moral law of making violence illegal. The next is to control the tools of violence to the point they are allowed to


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 25, 2017)

tsuriru said:


> You cannot regulate weapons to the point of insuring no one will have possession over them. Heck you can download and print weapons at home now days - easy as pie. And no, the easiest way to defend yourself from someone with a weapon is not to insure they dont have a weapon in the first place. Arming yourself wont reduce your chances of being exposed to armed violence - but it will sure as **** increase your chances of walking away from the situation instead of being wheeled off, feet first, big toe tagged. You want evidence? Ask anyone who has ever found himself under attack and HAD a weapon with him to defend himself with.


I really don't want to pick this fight but I can't leave that u responded....

Sorry but I totally disagree with you. You may feel like you are more "secure" being able to "defend" yourself in your situation. But I think statistically the results around the world actually show that isn't the case.

I am happy to be proven wrong, but as far as I am aware those with the most "liberal" stance on weapon carrying are the amongst the highest on violent crime. Especially when you start looking at similar socio-economic structures etc.


----------



## WildBoar (Aug 25, 2017)

I can say that is not the case here in the US. Some of the worst areas of violent crime are places with more stringent gun laws.


----------



## TheCaptain (Aug 25, 2017)

WildBoar said:


> I can say that is not the case here in the US. Some of the worst areas of violent crime are places with more stringent gun laws.



As an individual living in the greater Chicago area I can attest to that. In fact, I feel very confident saying the rate of gun ownership is much higher among those who cannot own guns by law, than those who are legally able to possess them.

Now some changes may reduce the spur of the moment idiot moves (the glass bottle thing as a good example). But if someone is determined to do damage, they will find a way.


----------



## StonedEdge (Aug 25, 2017)

tsuriru said:


> Arming yourself wont reduce your chances of being exposed to armed violence - but it will sure as **** increase your chances of walking away from the situation instead of being wheeled off, feet first, big toe tagged. You want evidence? Ask anyone who has ever found himself under attack and HAD a weapon with him to defend himself with.



Bingo


----------



## StonedEdge (Aug 25, 2017)

malexthekid said:


> as far as I am aware those with the most "liberal" stance on weapon carrying are the amongst the highest on violent crime



Liberal stance on weapons laws=strict regulations, no one can carry= you're ****** when **** hits the fan 

I wish you best of luck surviving an armed mugging with nothing but your stranger danger whistle to protect you. 

As for proof, just look at the correlation of violent crime in jurisdictions having the tighter personal carry laws in the US.


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 25, 2017)

I'm am going to respectfully say I disagree (until evidence is provided) because from all I have read and seen, while that is stated as anecdotal evidence against stricter gun laws, again happy to be wrong just from what I have read, most of the time that has been stated, at least in the media that has been proven to be a false or misleading statement.

But you also have to look at the socio-economic side of things too.

Hence why it is probably better to do whole of US vs whole of Aus vs whole UK rather than a Detroit Vs Canberra Vs Glasgow.


And also don't want to sound like a D!ck talking about political, or social issues, in other countries but I take a keen interest in what is happening in the UK and US because like it or love it they are good indicators on the direction our government may go.


----------



## dwalker (Aug 25, 2017)

malexthekid said:


> Just as a point of reference.... swimming pools are by far the most over regulated "building" in some places around the world.
> 
> And while I may agree with you, the general populace (and I am going to take a risk and say even you) don't agree with regulating across the board on a "cost-benefit" or risk basis.
> 
> ...


You are completely right. I'm not saying this proposed law is good or bad. That is for the people who are affected by it to decide. Your assessment of the problem is spot on. You mentioned "fear". Emotion plays a strong role in these affairs. Facts and statistics rarely have a place in these decisions. I would be asking
1. How many people have been seriously injured or killed by someone in illegal possession of a knife? 
2. If this law went into effect, how many of these incidents would have been prevented? 
3. If someone possesses a knife illegally, how much difference will this law make? The person is already a criminal. 

I am all for any regulation that makes sense. The problem is, laws such as this one tend to inconvenience good people while having little or no effect on the intended target. This seems like more of a vote getting emotional response to a miniscule problem. If the good people of the U.K. are o.k. with this, great. My only point is, take the emotion out of it, think analytically, rely on science and numbers, and common sense. 

The pool analogy may not be a good one, but, at least here in the states, no one regulates backyard pools. It is truly sad when a child drowns in one, but I still think people should be allowed to have them.


----------



## StonedEdge (Aug 25, 2017)

Im worried for the next few generations growing up in this culture of never being accountable for one's self because of a wrongful sense that big Gov't no matter what a) acts in your best interest and b) that words on a page (the law) are an inanlienable, concrete and never failing mechanism that guarantees your safety and well being (it's not, and it won't). 

My stance is that I'm the only one who's looking out for myself and that no matter what "the law"...words on a page somewhere, says, there will always be people waiting to prey on you in one form or another.

Now I don't leave the house every morning thinking that, but when it boils down to it, you're on your own in the real world. 

Bad people will to bad things, I chose to be prepared and not to give myself that false sense of safety that everyone in the 1st world walks around with thinking nothing can happen to me because Prime Minister so and so says we're all loving each other.


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 25, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Liberal stance on weapons laws=strict regulations, no one can carry= you're ****** when **** hits the fan
> 
> I wish you best of luck surviving an armed mugging with nothing but your stranger danger whistle to protect you.
> 
> As for proof, just look at the correlation of violent crime in jurisdictions having the tighter personal carry laws in the US.


I used the word liberal in its actual definition. Not political.

I disagree and tend to think the real stats state differently than what you believe.

But look I don't want to get into the whole gun control argument because it ain't gonna go anywhere but people railing on me because I am in Australia, and am old enough to understand and have been through what strict gun control reform actually is and the effects it can have.

But when it comes to the discussion on hand Aus is a lot more like the UK and therefore I can relate a lot more to this rule and where it comes from.

Will it have any real effect, it is debatable... but is it a worthwhile discussion having if there is actually a significant amount of youth knife violence. Of course it is. You wont get any improvements if you can't even discuss all potential options.


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 25, 2017)

dwalker said:


> You are completely right. I'm not saying this proposed law is good or bad. That is for the people who are affected by it to decide. Your assessment of the problem is spot on. You mentioned "fear". Emotion plays a strong role in these affairs. Facts and statistics rarely have a place in these decisions. I would be asking
> 1. How many people have been seriously injured or killed by someone in illegal possession of a knife?
> 2. If this law went into effect, how many of these incidents would have been prevented?
> 3. If someone possesses a knife illegally, how much difference will this law make? The person is already a criminal.
> ...


The pool may be apt for the UK, I am only speaking for Aus on that one.

But yes I wish regulation was as simple as you say. Just that most don't accept that pure logic.


----------



## dwalker (Aug 25, 2017)

malexthekid said:


> The pool may be apt for the UK, I am only speaking for Aus on that one.
> 
> But yes I wish regulation was as simple as you say. Just that most don't accept that pure logic.


I think we completely agree on this issue.


----------



## WillC (Aug 25, 2017)

It will do naff all....of course....that much is obvious, if they manage to do anything at all, other than blind gesturing then it all falling down on classifications, if they get round that with a blanket ban on sharp things being delivered to peoples door in the uk then I suppose people will just have to pick there knife up at the local post office. Where theres a Will theres a way


----------



## Matus (Aug 25, 2017)

TheCaptain said:


> As an individual living in the greater Chicago area I can attest to that. In fact, I feel very confident saying the rate of gun ownership is much higher among those who cannot own guns by law, than those who are legally able to possess them.
> 
> Now some changes may reduce the spur of the moment idiot moves (the glass bottle thing as a good example). But if someone is determined to do damage, they will find a way.


Well, we should not forget that because of very lax laws on gun ownership in US since ... ever, unregistered guns probably outnumber inhabitants in US. It is just so easy to get a gun on black market. Having a stronger regulation, or changing to it, is indeed not going to have immediate effect on gun related violence. 

And if that is all wrong, than the only conclusion left is to assume, that there are way more violent people in US than pretty much everywhere else.

Or is there a third option?


----------



## TheCaptain (Aug 25, 2017)

Matus said:


> Well, we should not forget that because of very lax laws on gun ownership in US since ... ever, unregistered guns probably outnumber inhabitants in US. It is just so easy to get a gun on black market. Having a stronger regulation, or changing to it, is indeed not going to have immediate effect on gun related violence.
> 
> And if that is all wrong, than the only conclusion left is to assume, that there are way more violent people in US than pretty much everywhere else.
> 
> Or is there a third option?



Yes. I've long been a proponent of making ammunition as expensive as [email protected] Yes, I know you can make your own bullets, but tax the he!! out of the raw materials needed. Require gun powder purchasers to be registered and track quantities. It can be, and is, done with other chemicals deemed to be dangerous. Try buying certain kinds of cough syrup for example. Hasn't totally eliminated the home meth labs, but it has made a dent in production.

Yes, American's are in love with their guns and a majority will fight to the death for their right to own them. But they are useless without ammo. 

In IL you can get get three .4 S&W for the same price as one cigarette. Hmmm. Seems prices have gone up. Last time I posted that statistic is was about 8 bullets to one cigarette. Guess which one will kill you faster?


----------



## Dan P. (Aug 25, 2017)

StonedEdge said:


> Maybe the UK government should more precisely look at WHO are committing these crimes (spoiler: it's not underaged minors)



Important to remember that, however stupid and ineffectual the proposition that is the subject of this thread might be, it is designed because the problem is exactly knife crime amongst minors. And in parts of the UK it is a real problem.
My wife worked for some years in an inner-city primary school (4-10yrs) in S London. Confiscation of knives was something they had to do, perhaps not often, but maybe a couple of times a term/semester. 4-10 year old kids. Think about it. We are not talking about "freedom" or any of that political flim-flam, we are talking about little kids who are ready to kill one another.


----------



## Lars (Aug 25, 2017)

TheCaptain said:


> I've long been a proponent of making ammunition as expensive as [email protected]



Agree 100% 

Lars


----------



## Matus (Aug 25, 2017)

Dan, you are correct as to what triggered this law proposal and that there is a problem to be solved. But kids can not really order a knife on internet - they either grab something at home, or their parents find it ok for them ti have one and carry it whenever they like.


----------



## TheCaptain (Aug 25, 2017)

Dare I eve go a step further and ask why is seems excessive violence is more prevalent in some countries as opposed to others? I'm in the US and we're pretty bad, I admit. Yes, in general it seems to be less prevalent in suppressive countries (communist, authoritarian regime, etc) but I hope that's not the only answer.

Violence and anti social behavior is very limited in Singapore, but in general I don't think individual freedoms are all that restricted? I'm pretty sure they aren't in Denmark and New Zealand where I don't hear about a lot of violence.

Whish I had an answer.


----------



## Lars (Aug 25, 2017)

In Denmark freedom is not restricted, but we have seen more gun related crimes lately.

Lars


----------



## tsuriru (Aug 25, 2017)

Lars said:


> In Denmark freedom is not restricted, but we have seen more gun related crimes lately.
> 
> Lars



Not to mention submarine related violence... :wink:


----------



## Dan P. (Aug 25, 2017)

Matus said:


> Dan, you are correct as to what triggered this law proposal and that there is a problem to be solved. But kids can not really order a knife on internet - they either grab something at home, or their parents find it ok for them ti have one and carry it whenever they like.



I think you might have misunderstood the point of my post, which was to redress the tedious freedom vs. safety arguments (in my opinion mostly spurious) with a dose of reality, which is that this situation is happening specifically in the UK, and the proposed legislation is to address a specifically UK problem.


----------



## Matus (Aug 25, 2017)

Dan, indeed I did miss part of your point. And I agree.


----------



## Noodle Soup (Aug 25, 2017)

TheCaptain said:


> Yes. I've long been a proponent of making ammunition as expensive as [email protected] Yes, I know you can make your own bullets, but tax the he!! out of the raw materials needed. Require gun powder purchasers to be registered and track quantities. It can be, and is, done with other chemicals deemed to be dangerous. Try buying certain kinds of cough syrup for example. Hasn't totally eliminated the home meth labs, but it has made a dent in production.
> 
> Yes, American's are in love with their guns and a majority will fight to the death for their right to own them. But they are useless without ammo.
> 
> In IL you can get get three .4 S&W for the same price as one cigarette. Hmmm. Seems prices have gone up. Last time I posted that statistic is was about 8 bullets to one cigarette. Guess which one will kill you faster?



Oh come on, how much ammo does it take to commit a crime? On the other hand, when I was a competitive shooter, I some times fires several thousand rounds a month. Your high price ammo would have made me stop my hobby but would have never prevented a single crime. As for Illinois, I left when I was 17 and would never consider moving back to that den of corrupt political thieves.


----------



## malexthekid (Aug 25, 2017)

Dan P. said:


> Important to remember that, however stupid and ineffectual the proposition that is the subject of this thread might be, it is designed because the problem is exactly knife crime amongst minors. And in parts of the UK it is a real problem.
> My wife worked for some years in an inner-city primary school (4-10yrs) in S London. Confiscation of knives was something they had to do, perhaps not often, but maybe a couple of times a term/semester. 4-10 year old kids. Think about it. We are not talking about "freedom" or any of that political flim-flam, we are talking about little kids who are ready to kill one another.


And it isn't a new problem. I remember a high school teacher who worked in England telling me similar stories 15 years ago. So 20 to 25 years since he was in England.


----------



## SliceNDice (Aug 25, 2017)

Aphex said:


> The British government has proposed changes to UK knife law banning the shipping of knives bought online. Instead, online consumers would have to collect in person.
> 
> http://news.sky.com/story/online-kn...new-restrictions-as-crime-rate-rises-10952288



Chef knives are the greatest terrorism, after war...:lol2:


----------



## kurwamac (Aug 25, 2017)

I struggle to see how effectively this could be enforced; they struggle enough trying to prevent far more restricted things being imported. On a personal note; I've always picked up my knives from the post office anyways in order to pay VAT.


----------



## Nemo (Aug 25, 2017)

dwalker said:


> I am all for any regulation that makes sense. The problem is, laws such as this one tend to inconvenience good people while having little or no effect on the intended target.
> 
> The pool analogy may not be a good one, but, at least here in the states, no one regulates backyard pools. It is truly sad when a child drowns in one, but I still think people should be allowed to have them.



Regulation can be made to work reasonably smoothly but also have a beneficial effect. Particuarly where the regulation provides an expertise-based (or even better, an evidence-based) guide as to what is considered a minimum safety standard (which might otherwise be difficult for the average punter to work out).

Locally, there are regulations around the fencing required when you put a pool in. It can be (and was for us) a little bit of a fiddle to get the fence set up with proper clearances but once you've done it, its set and forget. And you know that your (or someone else's) 2 year old won't be found floating face down in the pool while you weren't looking.


----------



## dwalker (Aug 25, 2017)

Nemo said:


> Regulation can be made to work reasonably smoothly but also have a beneficial effect. Particuarly where the regulation provides an expertise-based (or even better, an evidence-based) guide as to what is considered a minimum safety standard (which might otherwise be difficult for the average punter to work out).
> 
> Locally, there are regulations around the fencing required when you put a pool in. It can be (and was for us) a little bit of a fiddle to get the fence set up with proper clearances but once you've done it, its set and forget. And you know that your (or someone else's) 2 year old won't be found floating face down in the pool while you weren't looking.


You totally make sense and I agree with your premise. If said two year old could simply step over or around the fence, the regulation would serve no purpose other than to inconvenience the home owner. Regulation such as proposed would do little to keep a 17 year old from finding a knife, in much the same way how regulations do little to prevent the same 17 year old from possession of alcohol of marijuana.


----------



## Nemo (Aug 25, 2017)

TheCaptain said:


> Dare I eve go a step further and ask why is seems excessive violence is more prevalent in some countries as opposed to others? I'm in the US and we're pretty bad, I admit. Yes, in general it seems to be less prevalent in suppressive countries (communist, authoritarian regime, etc) but I hope that's not the only answer.
> 
> Violence and anti social behavior is very limited in Singapore, but in general I don't think individual freedoms are all that restricted? I'm pretty sure they aren't in Denmark and New Zealand where I don't hear about a lot of violence.
> 
> Whish I had an answer.



I think that this is an important issue in the whole debate around violence and weapon regulation.

In Aus, there are uniform strict gun laws and violence is pretty low key. And gun violence is very rare. Cause and effect? Probably much more complex than that. However, since the ban on auto and semi-auto firearms came into effect (around 20 years ago), there have been zero mass casualty shootings in this country.

Do I feel the need to carry a weapon for personal defence in Aus? No. And I like it that way.

Would I if I lived in USA? Not sure. Maybe. If I lived parts of Centeral America or Africa? From what I've heard, probably.


----------



## Keith Sinclair (Aug 25, 2017)

Kids do stupid things that later in life they learn to regret. Some don't make it to old age. I think it is prudent to check backpacks at school. 

Here Meth is the largest cause of property crime. They get jacked up & go for it. It is a terrible drug esp. for the user.

We have a fare amount of knife crime. Agree that it is the person not the blade that does the killing. One of my good friends was the Chef at Sheraton Waikiki. Local Japanese. He was murdered with a chef knife in his office by a short fuse loser. The writing was already on wall with this guy.

When I was in Singapore years ago made me realize that laws work. When you fly in they warn that drugs are a death penalty offense. Not unlike Hawaii many different cultures. Place was clean no trash laying around. Quite a few people in a small area seems to work well.

We have a serious homeless problem on Oahu. Quite a few do not want to go to shelters because they do not allow drugs or alcohol. Many of the smaller parks the bathrooms are closed because they trash them. We could never have laws that work like in Singapore. Local Lawyer ads on TV telling you to sue for anything they can think of. 


I can see why smaller EU countries train young men with military service and proper gun use. An armed population might make an invader think twice. Hitler took over Norway because it had high quality iron ore.


----------



## Noodle Soup (Aug 25, 2017)

Nemo said:


> I think that this is an important issue in the whole debate around violence and weapon regulation.
> 
> In Aus, there are uniform strict gun laws and violence is pretty low key. And gun violence is very rare. Cause and effect? Probably much more complex than that. However, since the ban on auto and semi-auto firearms came into effect (around 20 years ago), there have been zero mass casualty shootings in this country.
> 
> ...



I live about 8 miles outside a small logging town. We can and do legally own just about any kind of firearm we want (no full autos) yet I can't remember the last time a firearm was used in a murder. A local activist tried to get strict firearm laws pasted here to "stop the terrible outbreak of violence." Another resident wrote our paper saying it seemed like most of the murders that had taken place in recent years where with knives, clubs, feet, and strangling. The paper checked the records and he was right. Firearm bans would have prevented very little as our crime rates were already like your Australian ones.


----------

