In a country where laws are set by interpretation and precedent, I will have to respectfully disagree I think. To me it’s a clear indication of what the government means by ‘blade length’ in knife legislation.
Government consultation on banning large knives and machetes
- Thread starter Kiri
- Start date
In a country where laws are set by interpretation and precedent, I will have to respectfully disagree I think. To me it’s a clear indication of what the government means by ‘blade length’ in knife legislation.
I haven't got time to go back through at the moment - I will do at some time. However, I believe the legal carry description (non-locking, length, folding etc.) was specifically cutting edge length not blade length. This legislation is about a specific knife type and is using blade length because the cutting edge length is meaningless. I don't think it does any good to try and 'predict' how this specific legislation will change the previous definitions for unrelated articles.
Thus far they are still saying "cutting edge" rather than "blade length" regarding legal carry but I don't disagree that it may be interpreted differently in court and that the government's trend is towards tighter laws.
At the risk of being political, isn't the only real way to end the carry and use of any knife for knife crime reasons is to end knife crime by targeting the causes. I believe it was Glasgow that had a good result in reducing knife crime by treating it more as a public health situation than pure crime fighting. Multi agency research and attacking of route causes not symptoms.
Sorry if that's heading into political, it shouldn't be a political matter to actually use this practice that seems to work.
Also sorry if that heads off topic but there's less chance of it affecting law abiding knife use if there isn't a "knife crime crisis" to get the police noticing knife use / carry for reasonable / legal reasons. I sometimes think it's better to sign a petition calling for the implementation of a widespread policy shown to reduce such crime than one to affect change to reactionary knife laws. Basically reminding the politicians what the real issues and causes are not knife design.
Sorry for going off topic on such technical threads about knife design / legality under new laws proposed.
Sorry if that's heading into political, it shouldn't be a political matter to actually use this practice that seems to work.
Also sorry if that heads off topic but there's less chance of it affecting law abiding knife use if there isn't a "knife crime crisis" to get the police noticing knife use / carry for reasonable / legal reasons. I sometimes think it's better to sign a petition calling for the implementation of a widespread policy shown to reduce such crime than one to affect change to reactionary knife laws. Basically reminding the politicians what the real issues and causes are not knife design.
Sorry for going off topic on such technical threads about knife design / legality under new laws proposed.
It's absolutely the best way to deal with it. But media sensationalisation and entirely ineffectual bans allow the appearance of action without having to actually work very hard to do anything about it.
I know but it just feels as if petitions about the new knife laws is acting in a similar way. Avoiding the root causes of draconian knife laws which is basically politicians not doing their job to keep the public safe by actually doing something that has a chance of affecting the need to carry knives, to carry out knife crime and in doing so reducing big drivers for owning/carrying knives without good reason.
If your dog bites you do you take it's teeth out or do you train it and fulfil its needs such that it doesn't bite you again? At the moment there's a argument about which teeth need to be taken out so the bite doesn't really hurt. Some say all, others say front ones other guy thinks it's the side ones. I say a happy, fullfilled, trained dog won't bite so it gets to keep all it's teeth. Everyone happy!
Stop knife crime causes we get to keep our knives. Happy all round!
If your dog bites you do you take it's teeth out or do you train it and fulfil its needs such that it doesn't bite you again? At the moment there's a argument about which teeth need to be taken out so the bite doesn't really hurt. Some say all, others say front ones other guy thinks it's the side ones. I say a happy, fullfilled, trained dog won't bite so it gets to keep all it's teeth. Everyone happy!
Stop knife crime causes we get to keep our knives. Happy all round!
If you know how to do that stand for parliament, but it's a huge multi-cultural, multi district, and hugely political topic. It takes generations to change these attitudes sadly. I'm sure every political organisation would like to solve it but within the constraints that the public are prepared to pay (taxes) have loads of other fires to tackle - education, health, old-age, food production, and now, the environment. Remember, no matter how horrific it is, orders of magnitude more people are dying of treatable conditions, because our health service needs more money, than die of being knifed. Removing ridiculous looking knives is a quick win as far as public opinion is concerned.
IIRC Glasgow had very good results with a public health approach. This is mirrored in overseas approaches. There's a better way already. Not the complete solution but it's proven better than enforcement only approach. The politicians know this I've even seen them discussing it in various formats including national TV and in Parliament.
Everything costs something I'm afraid including implementing proven actions for problems in society. Is it worth it? No idea, but parents of the deceased always do. Who knows, if we were able to fund every solution perhaps it would mean we can't afford to get our knives or fund our hobbies.
However, it's still a proactive approach to attempt to move the discussion and action towards root causes than reacting to whatever shortcut, reactionary solution politicians choose in response to media calls for action.
Everything costs something I'm afraid including implementing proven actions for problems in society. Is it worth it? No idea, but parents of the deceased always do. Who knows, if we were able to fund every solution perhaps it would mean we can't afford to get our knives or fund our hobbies.
However, it's still a proactive approach to attempt to move the discussion and action towards root causes than reacting to whatever shortcut, reactionary solution politicians choose in response to media calls for action.
You should not put ideas out to other countries' politicians.
Out of curiosity I understood that quite a while ago private gun ownership was severely restricted has that affected gun crime statistics in any way?
Out of curiosity I understood that quite a while ago private gun ownership was severely restricted has that affected gun crime statistics in any way?
Offensive weapons crimes Scotland 2023 | Statista
There were 9,717 handling offensive weapon crimes recorded by the police in Scotland between March 2022 and April 2023, a slight decrease on the previous reporting year of 2020/21, when there were 10,048.
www.statista.com
Yup, Boston did it with guncrime and made huge strides in not many hears. Thats where Glasgow police got the idea from.
But yeah, it also involves community funding and actual targetted effort instead of some eejit just standing up in Parliament and banning something.
Absolutely pointless gesture politics- “got to be seen to be doing something “. Those proposals would do nothing at all to reduce the violent crime rate. How about actually enacting the current legislation and use stop and search etc? Violent and illegal acts will still continue to be committed by the same people as they already take zero notice of existing laws.
I personally have no desire to own a crossbow and the only kind of archery I have ever practised does not require broadhead arrows but I can see that this is a rather ridiculous way to go as the only people with an interest in broadhead arrows so far as I am aware are historical re-enactors and experimental archaeologists, people whose existance tends to educate the general public and not threaten them. Education on the whole is a far better way to tackle crime. They have already found out that just calling something a zombie knife has not taken weapons off the streets, and as for machetes well I can see they will simply change into brush cutters or weed slashers. (hopefully)
Unfortunately I don't share your optimism.
Back when I was a serious target archer, even then we were conscious that we lived a charmed life being able to practice our sport without restriction, and club beginners' courses always emphasised responsibility.
If they ban crossbows and broadheads, it will be compound bows next..... unfortunately the "tactical" look of some compound bows doesn't help.
As the linked video points out, defining a broadhead will be difficult..... many longbow or horsebow archers I knew had one or two broadhead arrows as historical pieces, part of their interest in the whole area of historic type archery equipment.
As for certain tools..... the Fiskars XA3 was only a few months ago available from a large online retailer. It used the m-word in the description though, and is no longer being sold there now. Yes, there are still a few places they are available if you know where to look, but I wonder how long for, as being seen to sell such things is clearly becoming problematic. Which is a pity as the XA3 is a great tool for clearing rhododendron ponticum. Very much a brush hook for cutting woody shrub, not one of those sugar cane cutters.
As this is about politicians (of all parties) posturing for votes, appearing to "do something" rather than taking effective action (which would entail things proven like police on the streets- tackling the scrotes not the law abiding soft targets- and adopting proven ways of reducing not just knife crime but also robbery, burglary and theft) it's difficult to see it ending sensibly.
We can but respond in a sensible and level headed manner to the consultation and hope that they take heed of such responses.
GC
Back when I was a serious target archer, even then we were conscious that we lived a charmed life being able to practice our sport without restriction, and club beginners' courses always emphasised responsibility.
If they ban crossbows and broadheads, it will be compound bows next..... unfortunately the "tactical" look of some compound bows doesn't help.
As the linked video points out, defining a broadhead will be difficult..... many longbow or horsebow archers I knew had one or two broadhead arrows as historical pieces, part of their interest in the whole area of historic type archery equipment.
As for certain tools..... the Fiskars XA3 was only a few months ago available from a large online retailer. It used the m-word in the description though, and is no longer being sold there now. Yes, there are still a few places they are available if you know where to look, but I wonder how long for, as being seen to sell such things is clearly becoming problematic. Which is a pity as the XA3 is a great tool for clearing rhododendron ponticum. Very much a brush hook for cutting woody shrub, not one of those sugar cane cutters.
As this is about politicians (of all parties) posturing for votes, appearing to "do something" rather than taking effective action (which would entail things proven like police on the streets- tackling the scrotes not the law abiding soft targets- and adopting proven ways of reducing not just knife crime but also robbery, burglary and theft) it's difficult to see it ending sensibly.
We can but respond in a sensible and level headed manner to the consultation and hope that they take heed of such responses.
GC
Exactly. It is already illegal to be in possession of a fixed blade knife in public without good reason, making the knives more illegal isn't going to change anything
Sent from underground