Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38

Thread: IMPORTANT- UK Offensive Weapons Law Change Proposals

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,076
    In light of recent events here and other countries, do we now ban cars and trucks or just trucks? Perhaps my collecting swords is no value in the grand scheme of things but it does provide quality entertainment to me, much better I would think than the tube. It also causes me to hurt no one or for that matter my swords hurt anyone except for the slight intrusion into mine and my wifes pocket book. She has no interest in my obsession but sees no harm and indeed sees value in idle time well spent. We can not legislate our way to safety. Swords, knives, machetes, screwdrives, guns, trucks and hammers are inanimate objects. They do not move without a living breathing body to control them. Let's ban people. Eric
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Fairbanks View Post
    In light of recent events here and other countries, do we now ban cars and trucks or just trucks? Perhaps my collecting swords is no value in the grand scheme of things but it does provide quality entertainment to me, much better I would think than the tube. It also causes me to hurt no one or for that matter my swords hurt anyone except for the slight intrusion into mine and my wifes pocket book. She has no interest in my obsession but sees no harm and indeed sees value in idle time well spent. We can not legislate our way to safety. Swords, knives, machetes, screwdrives, guns, trucks and hammers are inanimate objects. They do not move without a living breathing body to control them. Let's ban people. Eric
    You pretty much nailed it. Did you ever consider running for president??

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North West US
    Posts
    1,076
    Thanks for the vote of confidence but I live in Wyoming and have a walk in gun safe. I am afraid most do not approve of such things.
    The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston area, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,902
    Once 80% or more lived in rural settings, now this number has reversed and 80% or more are city dwellers.
    I hope we'll never need others approval to own a walk in safe. Rights of individuals are being eroded under the disguise of govt. protection and safety.
    The demographics of who mostly commits violent crimes with pointy things (and others) are well known but not released as news. Govt. keeps the stats and refuses to make them public though shares it with security, prison and other departments. Until we are willing to hold the guilty people responsible only the law abiding will be targets of more restrictive laws.

  5. #30
    Any changes to the law should specifically target those items that are being used in crime while backing that up with robust, focussed policing and implimentation.

    We've all seen recent events and I'm sure that there are vivid images burned into all our minds.
    Attackers with meat cleavers and machetes or large ceramic carving knives.
    Reports of gang related stabbings.
    But most of those blades were not made as 'weapons' they were mis-used tools and cutlery.
    That's important to remember.

    I'm all for changes to the law that might help stop this and I think we have to be careful that we don't allow our worries over our objet d'art to colour our vision.
    What we mustn't do is adopt a position where we are so afraid of a total prohibition that will never happen, that we oppose common sense.
    Engagement is key, as is a cool head.
    Firstly lets see the government produce a report detailing the types of blades used in crime and their sources.

    I would personally think that doing something to stop millions of shops and online vendors stocking a dizzying array of cheap carving knives might be a start.
    I would personally back a total cessation of the sales of ceramic kitchen knives for example.

    In my lifetime, reports of crime have very seldom involved antique/vintage blades.
    In fact prior to writing I did a search online and this was the only report I could find:
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...ord-experience

    Lets look at this clearly.
    Were there to be some proposed 'total ban' now or in the future of swords and vintage blades of historical importance as some fear, we would see an immediate collapse in prices and the wholesale export of tens of thousands of items of huge cultural and historic importance.
    We would then potentially see a large percentage of items being handed over in the amnesty that would have to follow such a law change and the kind of public destruction of art and history that would have only the most uncomfortable historic paralells.

    No, what we need is to keep £1.99 razor sharp carving knives out of the hands of teenagers.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NW England, UK
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene Wilkinson View Post
    Firstly lets see the government produce a report detailing the types of blades used in crime and their sources.
    The government has recently refused to release the supposed data they are basing this legislation on, even when asked officially under the freedom of information act.

    I can see only one reason for that... the data does not support what they are proposing, and they know this.

    In other words they are effectively lying to us all once again, for simple political advantage. They are not interested in logical argument. They only care about how well they can hide what the real motive is from the majority of voters until it's too late for us to challenge it, and no-one else cares.

    This is exactly what they did many years ago to push through the firearms amendment act. That was based on false statistics too.
    When offered a spoon, one should not cling to one's fork. The soup will get cold.

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Fox View Post
    The government has recently refused to release the supposed data they are basing this legislation on, even when asked officially under the freedom of information act.
    Requests for information could be refused on various grounds. This isn't evidence of a cover-up, just that a different and more specific request should be made IMHO.
    However, there are a tsunami of 'statistics' available online.

    We've seen a rise in violence among young people and this is reflected in the statistics being used from last year to push for tougher action.
    If reporting is to be believed there seems to have been a few areas of specific problem that the Government wants to tackle. Not only a couple of types of modern knife but also corrosive liquids etc.
    That said, the single most commonly used knife in stabbings has long been and continues to be the kitchen knife.

    From 2008: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...zed-blitz.html

    Perhaps unsuprising as they are of course the cheapest and most common type of knife available. Not to mention that while Police may sieze 'combat' knives found in raids on homes, I can't remember ever seeing it reported that 'During the raid, Police found two steak knives in the kitchen drawer'.

    Of course any attempt to limit access to 'knives' is problematic at best, as sharp objects are such a widespread and important part of daily life.
    That said, I do think that some changes are sensible and inevitable.

    This recent article makes some interesting points:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ife-in-britain

    If there was a specific issue with antique/vintage blades, it would be well reported.
    I don't think that any comparisons with firearms are relevant other than to point out the current reporting of the use of antique revolvers in crime and the likely impact that this is about to have on their current status as 'antique curios'.

    Antique blades are a totally different kettle of fish and there can be no comparison.
    We haven't seen an upsurge in the use of antique nihonto in crimes since the ban on modern 'samurai swords'.
    A ban on saw-back 'Zombie Killers' won't see gang members deciding to buy an atique pioneers sword instead.

    There could never be justification for any wideranging proscription of antique/vintage/ethnographic blades.

    The only potential problem will be if any new legistlation is not 'specific' enough and is open to interpretation.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NW England, UK
    Posts
    19
    The government's 'questionnaire' on the proposals asks if we agree that certain specific things need to be done. Without the information that the government supposedly has and is using to inform their decisions, how can we possibly determine a useful answer?

    The only information we have is government rhetoric and media propaganda unless the full details of the reports are made public.

    So, why not make them public? I believe for the same reason that the true details were not published during the firearms amendment act issue.

    My comparison with the firearms act is not to compare knives with firearms, but to compare the grossly misused statistics on gun crime and legitimate firearm owners with what is happening now with knives. There was no legitimate basis for the restriction of privately held firearms. The incident in 1987 used to trigger public opinion was done by someone who, if the police had followed the licensing guidelines, would not have been allowed an FAC to begin with. That was never even mentioned. It was all spin for political purposes. As it is now.

    It should be noted that the liar at that time, Douglas Hurd, later admitted that the government already had an agenda to reduce private firearm ownership and was just waiting for an opportune moment to strike. They jumped at the chance and justified it with misleading statistics.

    I agree that there is an issue with violence involving knives (and I spent nine years working closely with exactly the type of youths in question) ,and that something needs to be done. However, the law is already sufficient if it is used and courts do their bit too. I do wonder just how much the statistics are being, let's say, 'encouraged' at the moment. Again, without access to the real reports, all we hear is the propaganda.

    It is already illegal to sell a knife to a minor. The main online culprit has not been prosecuted. Why not??? It is already illegal to carry a knife in a public place (small folders exempt) without specific good reason.

    You are right; a ban on zombie killers will not see gang members buying antiques instead. Nor will it stop them using a different knife like a nice, big carving knife, or a cheap reproduction arming sword, or a slide-action carpet knife. What that ban will do is simply make it illegal to own an object. No difference on violence... big difference on freedom to own objects.

    The government's own justification for prohibiting ownership is partly to prevent the items from being stolen from 'law-abiding' people and subsequently used in crime.

    Can antiques not be stolen? Will one never be stolen, and subsequently used? Has an old bayonet never been used in crime? I don't know, but I would be surprised if not. What about other types of (modern) sword which are at the moment not mentioned anywhere, like the bastard sword I just bought? Many of those are just as cheap as the nasty stainless 'katana' that were banned.

    You say there could never be any justification for any wideranging proscription of antique/vintage/ethnographic blades.

    I think the government would see things differently, just as soon as it occurs to them that those are all that are left in circulation.

    I guess I feel very strongly about things. I strongly object to limitations being placed on my freedom because someone else has done something wrong, even more so when it's being used mostly as a political device and will do little to solve the problem. It is completely wrong. I will never back down from that stance.

    Punish criminals, not objects and lawful people.
    Last edited by Rick Fox; 11-18-2017 at 03:18 PM.
    When offered a spoon, one should not cling to one's fork. The soup will get cold.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston area, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,902
    Drafting bans under the disguise of creating a safer society does get votes from the ignorant and uninformed segment of society.
    Politicians know bans do nothing to prevent crime (they have stats proving this), they need the very same crime to run on the "BAN" platform.
    Lowering crime rates takes away a politician's platform to gain votes by enacting irrational bans.
    BANS = EMOTIONALLY CHARGED = VOTES.
    To fight bans with common sense and rationality is truly irrational.

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Fox View Post
    The government's 'questionnaire' on the proposals asks if we agree that certain specific things need to be done. Without the information that the government supposedly has and is using to inform their decisions, how can we possibly determine a useful answer?
    I agree that an informed answer clearly requires that the question is framed correctly, but the viewpoint of the person framing the question may not be complete (from our perspective). We have to calmly try to add some correction where it is needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Fox View Post
    The only information we have is government rhetoric and media propaganda unless the full details of the reports are made public.?
    A political 'sticking plaster' applied to a 'symptom' is often more expedient a solution than a genuine remedy to the underlying causes of a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Fox View Post
    So, why not make them public? I believe for the same reason that the true details were not published during the firearms amendment act issue.?

    My comparison with the firearms act is not to compare knives with firearms, but to compare the grossly misused statistics on gun crime and legitimate firearm owners with what is happening now with knives. There was no legitimate basis for the restriction of privately held firearms. The incident in 1987 used to trigger public opinion was done by someone who, if the police had followed the licensing guidelines, would not have been allowed an FAC to begin with. That was never even mentioned. It was all spin for political purposes. As it is now.

    It should be noted that the liar at that time, Douglas Hurd, later admitted that the government already had an agenda to reduce private firearm ownership and was just waiting for an opportune moment to strike. They jumped at the chance and justified it with misleading statistics.

    Rick, to conflate these issues on any level is a mistake. The prohibition of 'live fireing' firearms had no bearing on items of historic or cultural importance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Fox View Post
    I agree that there is an issue with violence involving knives (and I spent nine years working closely with exactly the type of youths in question) ,and that something needs to be done. However, the law is already sufficient if it is used and courts do their bit too. I do wonder just how much the statistics are being, let's say, 'encouraged' at the moment. Again, without access to the real reports, all we hear is the propaganda.

    It is already illegal to sell a knife to a minor. The main online culprit has not been prosecuted. Why not??? It is already illegal to carry a knife in a public place (small folders exempt) without specific good reason.

    You are right; a ban on zombie killers will not see gang members buying antiques instead. Nor will it stop them using a different knife like a nice, big carving knife, or a cheap reproduction arming sword, or a slide-action carpet knife. What that ban will do is simply make it illegal to own an object. No difference on violence... big difference on freedom to own objects.

    No, what we must do is to help frame the debate. As I've said already, we shouldn't essentially 'have to' oppose legistlation pertaining to anything of current manufature.
    When it comes to bladed weapons, whatever preventative measures are put in place, the main alternative for criminals will never be antiques/collectables/vintage blades.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Fox View Post
    The government's own justification for prohibiting ownership is partly to prevent the items from being stolen from 'law-abiding' people and subsequently used in crime.

    Can antiques not be stolen? Will one never be stolen, and subsequently used? Has an old bayonet never been used in crime? I don't know, but I would be surprised if not. What about other types of (modern) sword which are at the moment not mentioned anywhere, like the bastard sword I just bought? Many of those are just as cheap as the nasty stainless 'katana' that were banned.
    The potential of theft isn't enough of a reason in legal terms to justify a ban.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Fox View Post
    You say there could never be any justification for any wideranging proscription of antique/vintage/ethnographic blades.

    I think the government would see things differently, just as soon as it occurs to them that those are all that are left in circulation.
    Exactly. Rick, that's one of my fundamental points.
    I mentioned it in relation to the firearms legistlation. We've made it so hard for criminals to find guns that it's worth them using hugely expensive antique revolvers! With the upshot being that the law regarding these antiques is likely going to be revised.
    Thankfully they are not something that I collect!
    So if we come to a point where criminals can't open their kitchen drawer and take out a carving knife worth £1, then I'll worry about a ban on the objet d'art that form my collection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Fox View Post
    I guess I feel very strongly about things. I strongly object to limitations being placed on my freedom because someone else has done something wrong, even more so when it's being used mostly as a political device and will do little to solve the problem. It is completely wrong. I will never back down from that stance.

    Punish criminals, not objects and lawful people.
    We mustn't let the 'dog whistle' approach of the media and the 'knee jerk' reactions of politicians drag us away from sensible discourse.
    restrictions on our 'freedoms' because of others missuse of those freedoms are a fact of life.
    It's a balance of course.
    We have to take a 'balanced view'.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Durham, UK
    Posts
    95
    Just giving this a bump.

    The consultation closes on the 9th December

  12. #37
    You're probably wasting your time. No matter how "rational" an argument any of us can give. , some polititians have seen this of a vote winner.."Proof" that they are getting "tough on crime and terrorism". No amount of rational argument is going to sway them from the goal of re-election.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston area, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,902
    I agree, politicians have had their bean counters figure out how many votes this legislation is worth. Self serving govt. just like mine across the pond.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •