Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Blickers,

Quote:

When you know quite well the proposed ban is in response to a rise in London in knife murders.

The rise in crime has nothing to do with knives. It is a problem caused by the forced multiculture that has failed. When London and the UK recognize that problem maybe something can be done.

It is the same here, guns are not the problem, criminals are. When crime is punished and families are strong again the problem will begin to disappear to a more acceptable level, because crime is something that can never be stopped completely.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

I have no ides (actually, I've got one) why you fix on the mayor of London: he doesn't make laws, they are made by the Parliament

If your implication is because he's a Muslim, then it doesn't hold water. He's the Mayor of London and the subject was the banning of carrying knifes, you can ask the man, he Tweeted about it. If he was a white christian dude, I wouldn't care, I would have made the same comments. You guys and your racists claims, it really gets old.

Quote:

https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon
No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.

Quote:

Prevention of Crime Act 1953;
Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (prohibits the importation, sale, hire, lending, or gift of certain types of knives) - Sadiq Aman Khan is born 8 October 1970;
the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (carrying knives in public places);
the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 (knives within school premises);
Knives Act 1997.

Reading some articles about these, it seems there were some exceptions for certain types of knifes, a folding pocket knifes but not ones with locking blades, so people would carry Swiss Army Knifes. It now seems that all types of knifes are illegal to carry because no one has a real reason to carry one.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

It now seems that all types of knifes are illegal to carry because no one has a real reason to carry one.

In England and Wales you can carry a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less.
(Source)

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Still?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Still?

Haven't noticed discussions about a new law. Did you?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Still?

Meanwhile in Germany.

Quote:

Hamburg Dad: Turkish Classmate Stabbed My 12 Year Old Son, School Did Nothing

Quote:

The attacker is still a child too!
Luca can’t forget the scenes how his Turkish classmate Ahmed (12, name changed) threatened him: “He held a jackknife to my chest. When I did not hand over my phone, he immediately stabbed me. I got stabbed in the groin, four times.”

The smart phone in his pocket halted the knife. Luca’s buddy fends off stabs to his chest with his bare hands. In the end, the perpetrator makes the boys lie down, kicks them, and collects their mobile phones.

Luca’s father Toni (45) immediately alerts the police. Eight officers search the perpetrator’s apartment the same day, and find the weapon of the deed. Police confirm the incident to Bild. A spokesman: “Investigations are still ongoing.”

And the school? “They did nothing at all! They are shitting their pants”, laments father Toni. The under-aged offender was suspended from school for eleven days, but returned to a parallel class, and his school yard ban is not monitored.

The wonders of multiculture.
https://vladtepesblog.com/2018/04/09/hamburg-dad-turkish-classmate-stabbed-my-12-year-old-son-school-did-nothing/

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

But when you say that if they can ban guns, they will just go down the list of possible weapons, you imply that it would be for no good reason.

Unless people who are killed with cricket bats are somehow less dead than people who are killed with knives, a ban on knives doesn't really have much in the way of justification.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Of course they went down because they had been increadibly rude to him. But that's already an important achievement to teach this pack of wolves some politeness. Remind them that common decency is still expected of them, you know?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

But when you say that if they can ban guns, they will just go down the list of possible weapons, you imply that it would be for no good reason.
That's not the case here. This whole discussion is about a spike in knife murders in London, and that is why they are considering outlawing knives for carrying on the street.

Duh. Guns: check Knifes: check Next murder tool: unknown at this point but I'm sure it will join the list of more items that will be banned in public.

Quote:

You make it sound like everything is fine in London, no increases in knife murder to be concerned about, it's just some London lawmakers who decide to ban knives on the street for no good reason. When you know quite well the proposed ban is in response to a rise in London in knife murders.

That's where you are wrong, I'm not surprised by this at all, there are several of us here on A2K who have pointed out issues with violence in London in previous years, but we were told that there was nothing wrong with London. They were doing just fine and our concerns were unfounded, or don't you recall the debate about violent crime in the UK vs the US and the pointless definition between what "violent crime" in the US was vs the UK.

Quote:

Tell me, if a community is noticing a sudden increase in murder of their citizens by means of knife, do they have the right to try to correct the problem by outlawing knives on the street? Or does that somehow offend you?

Well, if the problem was young people doing this and not older people, I would have a problem with it. I carry a knife every day, not for defense reasons but knifes are a handy thing to have on you. So they would restrict me a 44 year old man from carrying a knife when the majority of these fools are between the age of 14-21.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

We are talking about London, and the comment by the Mayor that no one should be carrying a knife and if they are found to be doing so, they will feel the full weight of the law. Did you not read what I posted, or are you ignoring the mans own words?

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

the majority of these fools are between the age of 14-21.

In London the overwhelming majority of "these fools" are also Muslim.

0 Replies

Apparently not all of our youth are freedom-hating whiny brats:

http://www.wbrz.com/news/college-student-defends-her-gun-toting-graduation-photo/

Although I don't know about that little .380 pistol. Get that girl a .45!

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Yes, but as murderers switch from one tool to the next, all they are going to do is keep banning more and more tools.

Some tools used for killing are far more effective than others. A gun is more effective than a knife in almost all circumstances. A large knife is more effective than a small one. The following illustrates the last sentence admirably:

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Some tools used for killing are far more effective than others. A gun is more effective than a knife in almost all circumstances. A large knife is more effective than a small one.

More effective doesn't matter much if the lesser-effective tool is still more than adequate to kill someone with.

That's why gun availability has a very low correlation with homicide rates.

But since we have freedom and rights here in America it wouldn't matter even if gun availability did make a difference. We'd still have the right to have guns anyway.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

Well, if the problem was young people doing this and not older people, I would have a problem with it. I carry a knife every day, not for defense reasons but knifes are a handy thing to have on you. So they would restrict me a 44 year old man from carrying a knife when the majority of these fools are between the age of 14-21.

Oh good grief, now you want to get around weapons legislation by requiring completely different weapons laws for different age groups. Young men have always been more violent than other groups, that's why the Boys Clubs were founded, to get young men with time on their hands off the streets where the trouble starts. Up until now, adults all had the same gun laws to follow. Now you want to make it all complicated so the whole attempt to corral dangerous weapons collapses.

Sorry, that's just too bizarre, even for you.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

More effective doesn't matter much if the lesser-effective tool is still more than adequate to kill someone with.

So you're saying that unless anything that can possibly be lethal is made illegal, to the point where we are all eating with plastic utensils off styrofoam plates 100% of the time, weapons like guns must be legal for all.

Sorry, no. The effectiveness of a weapon is a factor in the assailant deciding whether or not to assail. While comparative physical ability is not that important with a gun, with other weapons it is. With a knife a physically weaker or untrained assailant can be overpowered by a stronger, faster or better trained would-be victim. Similar to a baseball bat or other cudgel. The criminal might be confident confronting a larger victim with a very large knife-with a pen knife he is not likely to feel confident at all.

Your theory that effectiveness of the weapon is not important in the criminal's decision to attack is very unproven.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

So you're saying that unless anything that can possibly be lethal is made illegal, to the point where we are all eating with plastic utensils off styrofoam plates 100% of the time, weapons like guns must be legal for all.

No. People have the right to have guns in America period. It doesn't matter whether or not banning them would save lives.

I was just pointing out that banning guns wouldn't save lives.

Even if we were reduced to plastic utensils and styrofoam plates, that would not save any lives. Killers could simply beat people to death with their bare hands. Plus if prisoners can make shivs so can anyone else.

Blickers wrote:

Your theory that effectiveness of the weapon is not important in the criminal's decision to attack is very unproven.

It is very clear that gun availability has little correlation with homicide rates.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Oh good grief, now you want to get around weapons legislation by requiring completely different weapons laws for different age groups.

Having legislation that limits ages, is not "getting around" legislation, we already have such laws in place. There is no age limit here in CO for carrying a knife, kids can't have them in school. You can be 18 and purchase a long gun/shotgun and 21 to buy a handgun. This is actually how "common sense" laws should work.
We also have other types of age laws on other items. Alcohol, is one of those. You have to be 21 to belly up to a bar or buy from the store, but in some states it is legal to give your 16 year old a beer in a restaurant if they are with their parents. Is this a way of getting around alcohol laws?

Quote:

Young men have always been more violent than other groups, that's why the Boys Clubs were founded, to get young men with time on their hands off the streets where the trouble starts.

Do they have such things in the UK? I wonder what their participation rate is.

Quote:

Up until now, adults all had the same gun laws to follow. Now you want to make it all complicated so the whole attempt to corral dangerous weapons collapses.

Are we talking about UK or US gun laws? I thought we were talking about knife laws. If you want to be honest, which you can't be on guns, not all adults have had the same laws. If you are between the age of 18-20, you can't purchase or carry a handgun. People in that age group can join the military and go die on foreign soil, but they can't own a handgun.

I'll say this much, I think we should increase the age of adulthood to 21. Why give "partial adulthood", I would almost think that would violate separate but equal under Federal law.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Your proposal of making weapons legislation not apply to people over 40 is typically dunderheaded. Legal age restrictions are applied because as people grow from children into adulthood, they gain the judgment to perform certain important tasks at different ages, until they reach full legal adulthood at 21. So we allow them driver's licenses at 16, voting at 18, alcohol at 21, etc. However, once you reach adulthood, you get put into the same pool as everyone else until such time as you qualify for Social Security and Medicare, which are essentially government run insurance systems the person has paid into their whole working life anyway.

Your foolish suggestion would break the age of adult privileges from over 21 to 21-40, then 40 on up. For no discernible reason. The only purpose of such a law would be to piss off those people between the ages of 21-40 and set them into opposition to those over 40, which would doom the bill. Sorry, adulthood remains adulthood, we don't want to go down the path of allowing some laws not applying to you if you are over 30, others not apply to you if you're over 35, other not apply to you if you are over 40, etc.

I'd hate to think what would happen if we started applying such laws to other situations besides weapons. Like maybe sending people to jail for embezzling over a million dollars for 7 years if you are between 21-40 but for only 2 years if you are over 40 because, statistically, you have less time left before you die. The entire legislative and legal system would collapse.

Any other brilliant observations you care to make about the right of Londoners to control their spike in knife attacks?

3 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Any other brilliant observations you care to make about the right of Londoners to control their spike in knife attacks?

Londoners would be better off controlling immigration, not knives, the people their government imports that use them.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know