Further knife ban

[locum76]

We should seek first to prevent the cause, second to detect the offender. Those who have slipped onto a path we should seek to reform. Those beyond reformation, should be made an object lesson of. The truly bad should be punished, hard, long and indeed never allowed to be a menace to society again.

Red

i would agree with that. hopefully the punishment part would be non-violent though. i think that state sponsored violence would exacerbate the problems.

I've managed to join in this debate and make my point without getting heated up, and so would like to leave it there. thanks to all for the discussion.

 

[Draven]

Guess another ban won't make em any less busy Nick.

Seriously - as John says - no-one wants violent crime. However we already have some of the most stringent laws in the world concerning guns, knives etc. The fact that such things still happen, does not mean we should stop trying to find a solution though. What it genuinely does mean, to me at least, is that there is no point just adding laws - we have seen that the existing ones don't work.

Since the definition of stupidity is "doing the same thing again and again and expecting the outcome to be different", can we agree on this?

No one wants violent crime.

Since the existing, very strict, laws haven't prevented it, we must find a new way. I think there are lots of things we can, and should, do. These things are "multi pronged"

1. Improve detection rates. More police, better equipped, better trained, better rewarded.

2. Reduce the sources of crime. Few people set out to become disenfranchised and violent. So lets get to the reasons why people move down this path. Lack of opportunities? Boredom? Peer pressure? All these things can be addressed with will, funding and comittment.

3. Accept that some people are genuinely rotten. The punishment for the truly bad should be truly bad. We should seek first to prevent the cause, second to detect the offender. Those who have slipped onto a path we should seek to reform. Those beyond reformation, should be made an object lesson of. The truly bad should be punished, hard, long and indeed never allowed to be a menace to society again.

We really don't need more laws, we need less criminals.

I hope we can agree on this and be as passionate about finding solutions as we have in the debate

Red

Very well put!

I also think that the courts should be able to recognise a "habitual" criminal and punish accordingly. Even with (comparatively speaking) minor crimes like theft, people do it over and over again and barely spend any time behind bars. Some people have upwards of 50-60 convictions for minor crimes - something is clearly wrong, people shouldn't be able to get that many convictions.

 

[sharp88]

do you think thats okay?

no its awful

 

[jojo]

Absolutely, Red, very well put. I just hope that the politicians will have some small amount of the common sense you have described here:You_Rock_

 

[Minotaur]

As a matter of interest, has anyone here been stopped by the police whilst carrying a knife for bushy purpose? I certainly haven't. I know this thing gets our heckles up a bit but have we really been affected at all?

Read over 10 plus stories of people getting stopped for various reasons in various public places, mainly since 7/7. The end result of the story is normally the person being conned into taking a caution, for carring a SAK, or similar. There is also a lot of people who got stopped carrying covered items, mostly the good reason was taken. It helps to know the law, and maybe even carry a copy of the relavant bit, just in case.

There is an interesting thread about this on British Blades. Basically, it is just Brown trying to apear tough on the crime of the moment, without actually doing anything. The 12 hotspots are just going to be a more active version of the current laws.

Guess another ban won't make em any less busy Nick.

Seriously - as John says - no-one wants violent crime. However we already have some of the most stringent laws in the world concerning guns, knives etc. The fact that such things still happen, does not mean we should stop trying to find a solution though. What it genuinely does mean, to me at least, is that there is no point just adding laws - we have seen that the existing ones don't work.

Since the definition of stupidity is "doing the same thing again and again and expecting the outcome to be different", can we agree on this?

No one wants violent crime.

Since the existing, very strict, laws haven't prevented it, we must find a new way. I think there are lots of things we can, and should, do. These things are "multi pronged"

1. Improve detection rates. More police, better equipped, better trained, better rewarded.

2. Reduce the sources of crime. Few people set out to become disenfranchised and violent. So lets get to the reasons why people move down this path. Lack of opportunities? Boredom? Peer pressure? All these things can be addressed with will, funding and comittment.

3. Accept that some people are genuinely rotten. The punishment for the truly bad should be truly bad. We should seek first to prevent the cause, second to detect the offender. Those who have slipped onto a path we should seek to reform. Those beyond reformation, should be made an object lesson of. The truly bad should be punished, hard, long and indeed never allowed to be a menace to society again.

We really don't need more laws, we need less criminals.

I hope we can agree on this and be as passionate about finding solutions as we have in the debate

Red

More Police are not the answer, because unless you can put one in every house, and next to every person, criminals will still take the chance.

What we need is sensible laws i.e.

1) A constitution, that carves our rights in stone, in this country.

2) Self-defense law sorted.

3) From the moment you break the law, during the crime, and for the punishment of the crime you are not protected by the law. I do not think this could apply to all crimes(Civil disobedence, for example), but I am so fed up with prisoners suing the government, or people having to worry about hurting the criminal.

What worries me at the moment is there seem to be a lot of laws coming, that hark back to the 50's or 40's, or like the gun laws, to passify the vocal or media led miniority, without actual doing anything at all.

Interesting fact, the two safest places to live in the world, both have the most armed citzens. It is mutualy assured destruction on a small scale.

Also apprently, the Samurai sword law change might be stuck due to not being able to come up with a legal defintion of the sword.

 

[Steve R]

Some years ago an uncle of mine had his throat cut after an argument with a yob in a pub.

Yob ran next door to the butchers shop, grabbed a knife off the block, came back into the pub and took a swipe as uncle sat playing cards.

Maybe we should ban butchers from having knives?

 

[gregorach]

3) From the moment you break the law, during the crime, and for the punishment of the crime you are not protected by the law. I do not think this could apply to all crimes(Civil disobedence, for example), but I am so fed up with prisoners suing the government, or people having to worry about hurting the criminal.

So how's that going to work, given that we've got this whole "innocent until proven guilty" business? Or do you think we should assume guilt on the basis of accusation? And do you think that prisoners should be free to murder each other? Do you recognise the difference between a prisoner who's actually been found guilty of something, and someone who's on remand awaiting trial? Should someone lose all fundamental human rights for any offence, or do you envision some sort of sliding scale?

Interesting fact, the two safest places to live in the world, both have the most armed citzens. It is mutualy assured destruction on a small scale.

[Citation needed]

 

[Kepis]

Absolutely, Red, very well put. I just hope that the politicians will have some small amount of the common sense you have described here:You_Rock_

Politicians & common sense, that's a contradiction in terms surely .

Unfortunately these days, common sense is the most uncommon sense, to my mind if you ban anything it will go underground and you then lose control, it's happened before, handguns for instance, a long way back there was talk of banning Boxing, if they had that would have gone underground and would have ended up as unregulated bare fist brawls.

 

[Tiley]

We really don't need more laws; we need less criminals.

Part of the problem is the horrifically over-protective environment which is created not only in schools but in the home. Residential trips away, perhaps with an outdoor pursuits agenda, are becoming fewer and further between. This reluctance springs from an increasingly litigious society who are less and less unwilling to accept the vagaries of everyday life, cuts, scrapes, bruises and all, as a vital part of everyone's education. Without the visceral thrill of the outdoors, is it any wonder that young people in particular are bored and disenfranchised? The shopping centre, gang-life and a lack of imagination appear to be the currency of a good number of the youth of today.

Why has this come about? So many of them expect instant gratification; very few have to determination to keep on trying until they succeed. Many of them experience thrills at one remove, through television, computer games and/or the internet. They then assume that they've 'ticked that box'. Boredom sets in and, to alleviate that, some try other, less acceptable and often illegal avenues to lift their spirits.

Possession of a knife raises their status; having the courage to use it against another individual seems to secure their rite of passage. Knives become 'unacceptable' and 'weapons', and anyone who carries or uses a knife is seen as a felon. The criminalisation of carrying a knife is grotesque. What could be the solution? Well, I suppose education of the suspicious and wary majority by folk like Ray Mears and Bear Grylls and Mors Kochanski - names that pop up with great regularity and which might be familiar to a good number of people - would be a step in the right direction.

On this thread, contributors have a captive and sympathetic audience and many wise observations have been offered. However, unless something is actually done (letters to MPs or whatever), we in the bushcraft community will become completely innocent victims of iniquitous laws and policy driven through by a nervous public and a sycophantic parliament.

I've cooled down now and my fingers have stopped twitching. I think I'll go and sit in the rain and carve a spoon - with my knife.

 

[Minotaur]

Being very careful, to try and avoid politics, I will try to answer you.

So how's that going to work, given that we've got this whole "innocent until proven guilty" business?

I get that it needs work, but if you are stood in the middle of my living room at 3:00 in the morning, your guilt is not really the issue that worries me. Innocent is based on money and knowledge. The only other group of people who have that knowledge, are criminals. Look at the poor bloke who proved himself innocent of a speeding fine, then went back to the £5,000 legal costs.

Or do you think we should assume guilt on the basis of accusation?

No is the easy answer, but on the other hand that is sort of the system we have. Ask anyone accused of rape, if they think the system works? Look at all the people who took a sex offenders conviction, rather than fight it in public court, for them only recently to find that the evidence is massively flawed. Look at the knife system, people get taking into taking a caution for legal carry, rather than go to court.

And do you think that prisoners should be free to murder each other?

They are. Why else would they need to put certain prisoners in protective custody.

Do you recognise the difference between a prisoner who's actually been found guilty of something, and someone who's on remand awaiting trial?

Yes, but I also think, that a system were a mass murderer gets more money, than a paramedic for the same injury, needs work. When we have more laws to protect criminals, than victims, the law is not working in the right way.

Should someone lose all fundamental human rights for any offence, or do you envision some sort of sliding scale?

We live in the UK, we have no fundamental human rights, except those given to us by Europe, that is the point of a constitution. The question is also who's human rights are more inportant to you? If I am mugged in the street, I have no right of protection or defense. There are actually more laws in place to protect the mugger than me.

[Citation needed]

I belive they are Laramie, Wyoming, and somewhere in Texas, but cannot find an article.

Find this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bias_Against_Guns

Interesting fact, in this article, is that crime decreases in a pro-gun enviroment, but violent crime increases.

 

[Minotaur]

We really don't need more laws; we need less criminals.

Part of the problem is the horrifically over-protective environment which is created not only in schools but in the home. Residential trips away, perhaps with an outdoor pursuits agenda, are becoming fewer and further between. This reluctance springs from an increasingly litigious society who are less and less unwilling to accept the vagaries of everyday life, cuts, scrapes, bruises and all, as a vital part of everyone's education. Without the visceral thrill of the outdoors, is it any wonder that young people in particular are bored and disenfranchised? The shopping centre, gang-life and a lack of imagination appear to be the currency of a good number of the youth of today.

Why has this come about? So many of them expect instant gratification; very few have to determination to keep on trying until they succeed. Many of them experience thrills at one remove, through television, computer games and/or the internet. They then assume that they've 'ticked that box'. Boredom sets in and, to alleviate that, some try other, less acceptable and often illegal avenues to lift their spirits.

Possession of a knife raises their status; having the courage to use it against another individual seems to secure their rite of passage. Knives become 'unacceptable' and 'weapons', and anyone who carries or uses a knife is seen as a felon. The criminalisation of carrying a knife is grotesque. What could be the solution? Well, I suppose education of the suspicious and wary majority by folk like Ray Mears and Bear Grylls and Mors Kochanski - names that pop up with great regularity and which might be familiar to a good number of people - would be a step in the right direction.

On this thread, contributors have a captive and sympathetic audience and many wise observations have been offered. However, unless something is actually done (letters to MPs or whatever), we in the bushcraft community will become completely innocent victims of iniquitous laws and policy driven through by a nervous public and a sycophantic parliament.

I've cooled down now and my fingers have stopped twitching. I think I'll go and sit in the rain and carve a spoon - with my knife.

Start quietly crying. I'm getting old.

Do you remember what would have happened to you if you mouthed off at a Police Officer, or were brought home by one. My brother was more worried about going home to my parents, than being caught scrumping by the Police.

 

[nickg]

The problem that I have with this kind of legislation is not how it applies to the lawbreakers and violent criminals that it purports to address, its the effect it has on the innocent who get caught up in the same net. Once a principle is established then the 'system' will simply apply the principle across the board with scant regard to the actual circumstances.
For example the current guideline that ANY locking blade is AUTOMATICALLY regarded by both the courts and police as an OFFENSIVE WEAPON, even if it is demonstrably wielded in a totally non offensive situation. This is not just an attitude that I speak of, it is a home office guidance formally handed to police and courts - that is to say they have no option but to comply regardless of the circumstances. Incidentally there is NO acceptable defence in court for this although the punishment can be mitigated.
This way non-laws seem to gain the power of legislation WITHOUT the formality of definition or royal assent.
Here is thge danger IMHO

Cheers
Nick

 

[Draven]

I have to agree with Minotaur about the self defence laws. I recall a story my old Lecturer told me about someone who robbed a shop and had planned to escape by running across the roofs of a row of sheds - he fell through the roof of an old woman's shed and sued her because it was unsafe. And won.
It's amazing how much victims are criminalised - even a police officer (who, keep in mind, only carries a glorified stick for self defence...) can go to court for defending himself about a knife-wielding or gun-toting criminal. It's terrible

 

[gregorach]

OK, I'm not going to get into a fisking match with Minotaur, people always complain...

Some minor points:

Prisoners are no more free to murder each other (ie without fear of legal recourse) than anyone else. The position I was objecting to was the idea that laws should no longer apply to convicted criminals, so they could kill each other scot-free.

There is a right to self-defence in this country - the idea that there isn't is completely and utterly false. You just aren't allowed to use anything beyond "reasonable force", with the determination as to what constitutes "reasonable force" made by the courts. And you're not allowed to pull a Tony Martin and shoot someone in the back as they run away - that's not self-defence, that's murder.

As for John Lott's "The Bias Against Guns" and "More Guns Less Crime"... His statistics are highly questionable, he has been repeatedly accused of bias, cherry-picking, and outright making-stuff-up. He's also admitted using sock-puppetry to promote and defend his work. You might like to start here or here to review some of the criticisms of him. Personally, I reckon he's a total crank. And the fact that he's funded by the hard-right AEI (or, at least, he was, until they apparently decided he was too far gone even for them) really doesn't reassure me.

 

[Scots_Charles_River]

Gregoroach,

Good post. I have just been reading the 'gun politics' and related facts and links to research on your wikipedia link. Good to read facts rather than opinons on this topic/threads. Very interesting. Amazed to read about the Swiss situation. Banning and laws can only work in certain cultures. This seems to come out from those facts. Indeed swiss culture and law making is very democratic with many many referendums, nationally and locally. You can even find soemones address form there car reg plate . Wonder if it reduces car rage ?

Nick

 

[directdrive]

Hi, All: I live in the States so the ban of knives wouldn't apply to me. However, there are those in government here who would love nothing better than to disarm the public from guns to knives to toothpicks! Essentially, an unarmed public is a public at risk of higher crime and a authoritarian government. I have a license to carry a concealed firearm here in the States. I went through a training course and a rigorous background check. There are some forty other states where I can use my concealed carry legally. In all of the states where the right to carry concealed has been upheld, violent crime against it's citizens has dropped off dramatically. The bad guys don't like it because there is a likely-hood that they will get aerated with lead if they try to cause someone harm. You all in Great Britain need to have a strong pro-gun lobby to protect yourselves from the dirtbags and from the government.
The idea that knives should also be classified as weapons and outlawed just shows that you have slid further down a slippery slope. To me, and any logically thinking human being, a knife, like most anything else, can be a tool (my definition) or a weapon. I can do as much damage with a fountain pen as with a knife. Should we ban those? How many people are killed or seriously injured by autos every year? Ban those as well? The list goes on and on. I think it is high time for those of you who value individual freedom to step up to the plate and take on the loonies who are imposing these injustices on you. Get rid of them and their ilk through the voting booth or by introducing legislation through like-minded legislators that will rescind laws that have taken away your freedoms. Every man and woman should have the right to arm themselves in order to protect them and their loved ones from harm.
In California back in the 80's, the California state legislature passed a law outlawing all "assault weapons". Citizens who owned them were required to turn them in or face jail time. Guess what? No one turned them in. The state could not arrest hundreds of thousands of people and the law wound up being swept under the rug. If everyone stands together, an unjust law cannot affect them.
Best to all

 

[stotRE]

I would advice all who are able to take regular and structured self defence classes.

 

[SimonM]

I would advice all who are able to take regular and structured self defence classes.

Along with all my colleagues, I undertake annual training and assessment in Restrictive Physical Intervention. Part of this training covers the physical aspect of dealing with an aggressive person. By far the biggest part is de-escalation techniques - put simply, talking them down!

My points are:-

1. We are all trained to the same level, but only some of us actually feel confident to use the training.
2. The training instills a false sense of security in some people, making them take on tasks that are far beyond their ability level.
3. If you can talk your way out of a situation - do so.

Not quite sure how this fits the thread tho!

 

[Bogman10]

Guess another ban won't make em any less busy Nick.

Seriously - as John says - no-one wants violent crime. However we already have some of the most stringent laws in the world concerning guns, knives etc. The fact that such things still happen, does not mean we should stop trying to find a solution though. What it genuinely does mean, to me at least, is that there is no point just adding laws - we have seen that the existing ones don't work.

Since the definition of stupidity is "doing the same thing again and again and expecting the outcome to be different", can we agree on this?

No one wants violent crime.

Since the existing, very strict, laws haven't prevented it, we must find a new way. I think there are lots of things we can, and should, do. These things are "multi pronged"

1. Improve detection rates. More police, better equipped, better trained, better rewarded.

2. Reduce the sources of crime. Few people set out to become disenfranchised and violent. So lets get to the reasons why people move down this path. Lack of opportunities? Boredom? Peer pressure? All these things can be addressed with will, funding and comittment.

3. Accept that some people are genuinely rotten. The punishment for the truly bad should be truly bad. We should seek first to prevent the cause, second to detect the offender. Those who have slipped onto a path we should seek to reform. Those beyond reformation, should be made an object lesson of. The truly bad should be punished, hard, long and indeed never allowed to be a menace to society again.

We really don't need more laws, we need less criminals.

I hope we can agree on this and be as passionate about finding solutions as we have in the debate

Red

In Canada We can have a judge declare someone as a " Dangerous offender " , after which they are jailed indefinitely. I only wish they would use it more often.

 

[nickg]

No offense Gregorach but there is no RIGHT to self defence in the UK - you must gamble high stakes that the 'reasonable force' you use is accepted in the courts as such.

I may be wrong on this point but I believe that Mr Martin shot barras in the LEGS as he climbed in through the window while his mates were hacking at the door. He was fit enough to leg it to a hedge shouting to his mates that hed been shot. He then laid down and bled to death while his mates had it on thier toes - they killed him not Mr Martin. And the reason he did such a long stretch is because he wouldnt pretend that he was sorry.

Like i say nothing personalbut those are the facts as I heard them.

Cheers
Nick