UK Knife Law - Updated

[JustAnotherViking]

That ban was again due to the cheap knockoffs which are purchase for nefarious or irresponsible reasons. 

Quote

there are some exceptions for registered martial artists, re-enactors and even certain genuine Japanese swords

Someone wanting to own a proper one will be paying much more than £10 for a piece of cheap and dangerous stamped steel, and have a proper reason for doing so. 

[JustAnotherViking]

On 4/11/2018 at 3:25 PM, JustAnotherViking said:

Similarly the same logic can be applied to a hammer.

In a bag with other blacksmithing tools - it's a tool.
In your hand and waving it around in a very public area... what possible sane reason would you have for doing that.

You couldn't make this up... Right after I made an offhand comment... 

[Will W.]

Thats a classic example, JAV. Guns, knives, hammers, cars, steel bars, pencils, and keyboards are all tools. They all serve a function and have a use. All of them can also be used to harm people. Intention is everything. 

I, for one, am enjoying this borderline rule breaking thread and sincerely hope it is allowed to keep going. 

I also hope the Northern Irish boy is alright. 

[JustAnotherViking]

For the most part, it seems to be youths causing the issues, and I for one am in favour of any restrictions that make it harder for them to obtain and abuse tools until they come of age. 

As previously mentioned a few times, the UK laws just make it difficult to obtain certain things without good cause. 

If this someone prevents one child from making a life changing mistake (both for them and any potential victims), I'm all for it being more difficult for myself to obtain a tool. 

Doesn't prevent crime, but it does make it harder and has to have intent and premeditation. In those causes, there's not much can be done anyway, but it should reduce reckless accidents where a young person acts in passion without comprehension of their actions. 

[Buzzkill]

 

24 minutes ago, JustAnotherViking said:

If this someone prevents one child from making a life changing mistake (both for them and any potential victims), I'm all for it being more difficult for myself to obtain a tool. 

And there's the rub.  The data doesn't support that idea at all.  It sounds like it makes sense in the same way that imposing harsher penalties *should* be a deterrent.  We tend to look at things through our own eyes and assume if we would pause and reconsider that others will as well.  Granted, I'm no expert in these things, but I have done a fair amount of research on my own time. What I've found is that there is no significant departure (statistically speaking) from established trends when either objects are removed or penalties become harsher. The minority of people who engage in crime continue to do so at roughly the same rates while the overwhelming majority of the people get extra hoops to jump through or are prohibited from possessing a valuable tool for nothing more than a feeling.

In a very general sense the purpose of laws and regulations is safety.  Unfortunately sometimes the appearance or illusion of safety is all that is achieved.   On the job I remind people that compliance does not equal safety. In some cases strict adherence to regulations can actually be less safe.   Whether in public or on the job ultimately it is each person's responsibility (imo) to ensure his own safety. Removing your ability to protect yourself does not accomplish that goal any more than removing your PPE will make you safer in the shop.  The dangers such as they are continue to exist regardless of whether you prepare or not.  If you are prepared with the proper gear you are less likely to be injured though.  The data does back that up.

[Charles R. Stevens]

I think our continued civility has a lot to do with the continued life of this thread. My first realization was that the Queen’s English must define “locking” differently than Americanized English does. It isn’t all i boade, it’s a switchblade such is actually a class 3 weapon requiring a $200 federal tax stamp to own. Many states and manisipalities go on to restrict general carry of bladed tools as well, knives 4” or less is pretty common. 

I think a big disconnect here fo is in the US is that most prosecutors or elected, so they have a vested interest in keep there conviction rates up. So if the law says no, it’s up to the accused to prove the exemptions. We could never get away with slowing police and prosecutors that kind of discretion, as the simple motivation of “do your job, keep your job” in such an environment can and dose lead to abuses. 

As motive is so difficult to prove or disprove many jurisdictions simply add enhancements. So it’s not illegal to carry a knife, gun etc. but it is a further enhancement on a crime it is used in. So a strong arm robbery is a lesser crime than one using knife, and a gun in an even higher offence. As we have 50 states and a handful of difrent jurisdictions these change from state to state. 

Recently the federal courts have desired that there exists no constitutional requirement for law enforcement to provide an individual with protection from violence or other crime, this has opened some of the most oppressive jurisdictions (DC as an example) to challenges as to restrictions to defensive tools (weapons). 

I have a good friend who is a crime analyst by trade, so I have less of a belief driven perspective on such things. 

[JustAnotherViking]

14 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

And there's the rub.  The data doesn't support that idea at all

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dunblane-school-shootings-ban/

 

NOTICE Snopes is  funded by Soros and it is extremely biased politically

[Buzzkill]

Despite that my previous statement still stands:

19 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

What I've found is that there is no significant departure (statistically speaking) from established trends when either objects are removed or penalties become harsher.

While heartbreaking and tragic, school (or other mass type) killings represent such a small percentage of intentional homicides in society that their elimination has no statistical impact.  The people are important, but in terms of impact on the totals, the numbers are irrelevant.  It's very much like deaths in air travel incidents compared to overall deaths in transportation.  It's international news when a plane goes down and dozens or more of lives are lost.  However, compared to the deaths involving all forms of transportation the numbers are statistically insignificant.  We still feel for the families involved, and of course we want to decrease or eliminate any and all of these senseless deaths.  The balance point between what should be given up or endured compared to what is gained may be different for each individual.  For me there has to be reasonably good evidence that inconveniencing or penalizing more than 99% of the population will produce measurable benefits, not just the illusion of benefits, to get my attention.  FWIW, I still have 3 children in school, so I am potentially as affected by these things as anyone else.

The "if it saves just one life" concept sounds noble and good but it is not a standard *ever* used in reality.  We could easily cut highway deaths in half or more by limiting the maximum speed of vehicles to something like 30 mph, requiring full cage designs like race cars in all vehicles, requiring all occupants to wear 5 point racing harnesses with neck restraints, and perhaps installing gel-filled or other shock absorbing materials around the perimeter of the vehicles.  That would save a LOT more than a single life. The lives saved would be measured in tens or hundreds of thousands each year. Why don't we do it?  The harsh reality is that most people do not wish to be inconvenienced at that level in order to save those lives - even potentially their own.

[Charles R. Stevens]

The statistics certainly show a corilation between stricter weapons laws and crime rates, unfortunately they are inverse proportional. But this has the potential or wading off into political debate. 

Was I correct in my asurtion that their is a disconnect in our definition of “locking”?

[BIGGUNDOCTOR]

Buzzkill, interesting that you brought up automobiles, as they are the leading cause of teen deaths here in the USA.

My friend from Germany can't understand why we have so many accidents and deaths here with our "slow" speed limits when he was used to driving 120+ on the Autobahn. A big difference is how we treat driver's training here compared to Germany. Take a written test, a drive around the block, pay a minimal fee,  and hand the keys to a 16 year old.  Germany is several hours of on the road training in all types of conditions,  and the license runs around $2,500 US dollars. My friend said that Germans drive like they are on a race track and very focused. When one drives with an elbow out the window they call it American cruising.  I see it everyday; texting, on the phone, distracted driving of all sorts even though they are now illegal in NV people continue to do it.

You cannot legislate morality. Evil people will find ways to do what they want to do despite any laws on the books (Happy Land Fire, Nice France truck attack, Oklahoma City bombing, etc..). What I don't see being done is finding the root cause of the violence that we see in today's society - not just shootings but even things like road rage, parental fights at kids sports events, guys getting almost beaten to death after a ballgame because they were for the other team, that kind of daily type violence.  What is it that drives these actions? When the root cause is found, then, and only then can we hope to see a reduction.

[Will W.]

BGD 

Regarding the root cause of violence, that is probably literally impossible to pin down. If you could find the actual cause of violence on a case by case basis, im sure you would end up with 100 different reasons out of 100 cases. Mental illness, desensitization, mob mentality, etc. Its a very complex issue. 

Im not even going to get started on the whole distracted driving thing. Just today i was stuck at a green light because the lady in front of me was on her cell phone. While it is infuriating, im glad she stopped, then texted, instead of texting, running the red light and getting hit/hitting someone. 

[Daswulf]

Buzzkill, Big Gun, you guys are right there with how I feel and say it way better. 

[Charles R. Stevens]

Humans are animals, who form violent hierarchical societies, there is the root cause.    I will certainly take issue with categorising mental illness with violence. Tho it makes for ratings and movie ticket sales, it is a fallacy. In the US 18% of the population is mentally ill (drugs and alcohol we more rightly considered mental health issues) but we commit only 1% of the homicides. In fact we are about 3 times as likely to be the victims of violent crime than the general population. 

 

[Buzzkill]

52 minutes ago, Will W. said:

Regarding the root cause of violence, that is probably literally impossible to pin down.

Agreed, but whether we can pin down the root cause or not I do believe that more people learning to strike hot steel safely would decrease incidents of violence.  Of course I'm probably projecting a bit here, but there is something quite therapeutic in this (for me) hobby.  It requires focus to the point where I'm not really thinking about other things and that provides a temporary relief from stress, and equally as important, I can hit the steel as hard as I want with a hammer.  As a bonus when I do it well I actually create something useful instead of destroying things.   "Reduce violence through blacksmithing."    For some things we don't need to know the cause if we have the cure. 

 

[Charles R. Stevens]

To true, lol.

 

[Will W.]

2 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

Reduce violence through blacksmithing.

Can we have this on a shirt, Glenn?

I meant no offense, Charles. I was merely using it as an example. I would never claim that all mentally ill people wish to harm others, i know a few people who struggle with mental disorders and they are some of the least violent people you could meet. 

[ThomasPowers]

Pound On Anvils Not On People!"

[Charles R. Stevens]

Will I take no offense, it is a common fallacy.