T-900
08-03-04, 11:36 AM
'allo, me again, the one you already believe to be criminally insane.
This is in no way intended to cause friction, trouble, as an attack, or as anything but a friendly debate to sate my own curiosity as to your (the users of the british blades forums) views on british knife law.
Rooight then.
In the interests of our own protection against knife-wielding maniacs, we (the nice law abiding sensible people of the UK) are not allowed to carry a discreet weapon purely for the purposes of defence in a tight corner when one of the local townie madmen comes at you with a switchblade. Logical? I believe you all know the answer, but I'd still like to hear some detailed feedback if you've got time. What system would you rather, what do you think are the pro's and con's of this, etc etc.
I realise alternatives would be difficult, but can't we just have a national exam for idiocy and ban those regarded as dangerously stupid kept a long way from anything with a sharp edge? Fantastical, but in a more perfect world it would be this way... The simple basic fact behind all of this is:
It's illegal to carry a real knife. A bladed object has been considered for a very very long time the primary weapon among our entire species. Blades are just the king of true weapons (Excluding things like heavy machine guns and WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)).
However, those who will use a bladed weapon to perpetrate any kind of true crime (I.e. a crime of activity, for example to harm or intimidate, as in an attack or a mugging. As opposed to a 'passive' crime, such as merely carrying the blade.) are already criminals in intention, and why would someone already willing to commit a crime such as mugging or an attack pay any attention to a law about carrying a blade? Only an idiot waving his knife about, showing it off (Someone who should not be allowed within a mile of a sharp object) will get caught with one of these things...
Why are those of us liable to be victims of knife-crime prevented from self defence? Someone skilled in a martial art or merely particularly strong (strong enough to lock a limb and break it for example, or break weak joints of bones with a punch) is just as dangerous as someone carrying (and capable of using) a knife. Are boxers, karate students, weight lifters, persecuted for bearing their skills with intention of self defence? In practicality there is no difference between a martial artist and 'someone carrying a knife' and yet only one of these parties are persecuted.
I realise how many times each of you must have debated this with yourselves, with friends, and perhaps here, but I would like to hear what you think in direct responce to my points, if you don't mind taking the time to respond. Thankyou :)
If this post is deemed unsuitable for this forum (and i realise, it probably will.), then any of you interested/willing to continue this debate with me in private can contact me at t9falloutfreak@hotmail.com. I'd very much like to hear from you.
Thanks,
T-900.
This is in no way intended to cause friction, trouble, as an attack, or as anything but a friendly debate to sate my own curiosity as to your (the users of the british blades forums) views on british knife law.
Rooight then.
In the interests of our own protection against knife-wielding maniacs, we (the nice law abiding sensible people of the UK) are not allowed to carry a discreet weapon purely for the purposes of defence in a tight corner when one of the local townie madmen comes at you with a switchblade. Logical? I believe you all know the answer, but I'd still like to hear some detailed feedback if you've got time. What system would you rather, what do you think are the pro's and con's of this, etc etc.
I realise alternatives would be difficult, but can't we just have a national exam for idiocy and ban those regarded as dangerously stupid kept a long way from anything with a sharp edge? Fantastical, but in a more perfect world it would be this way... The simple basic fact behind all of this is:
It's illegal to carry a real knife. A bladed object has been considered for a very very long time the primary weapon among our entire species. Blades are just the king of true weapons (Excluding things like heavy machine guns and WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)).
However, those who will use a bladed weapon to perpetrate any kind of true crime (I.e. a crime of activity, for example to harm or intimidate, as in an attack or a mugging. As opposed to a 'passive' crime, such as merely carrying the blade.) are already criminals in intention, and why would someone already willing to commit a crime such as mugging or an attack pay any attention to a law about carrying a blade? Only an idiot waving his knife about, showing it off (Someone who should not be allowed within a mile of a sharp object) will get caught with one of these things...
Why are those of us liable to be victims of knife-crime prevented from self defence? Someone skilled in a martial art or merely particularly strong (strong enough to lock a limb and break it for example, or break weak joints of bones with a punch) is just as dangerous as someone carrying (and capable of using) a knife. Are boxers, karate students, weight lifters, persecuted for bearing their skills with intention of self defence? In practicality there is no difference between a martial artist and 'someone carrying a knife' and yet only one of these parties are persecuted.
I realise how many times each of you must have debated this with yourselves, with friends, and perhaps here, but I would like to hear what you think in direct responce to my points, if you don't mind taking the time to respond. Thankyou :)
If this post is deemed unsuitable for this forum (and i realise, it probably will.), then any of you interested/willing to continue this debate with me in private can contact me at t9falloutfreak@hotmail.com. I'd very much like to hear from you.
Thanks,
T-900.