The End of Internet Knife Sales. Law change could target one-hand opening folders
- Thread starter C_Claycomb
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, We're having our annual Winter Moot and we'd love you to come. PLEASE LOOK HERE to secure your place and get more information.
For forum threads CLICK HERE
- Status
Lol turbo snake? I see how we could easily cheat their proposals with vague content descriptions on our parcels. Always been a thing tbh, but soon a necessity I guess..
Thanks for the info guys. Aslong as there no instant change when many of us could have items bought pre ban etc then I guess we just wait and express concerns in the meantime to the right ears.
Peace
Thanks for the info guys. Aslong as there no instant change when many of us could have items bought pre ban etc then I guess we just wait and express concerns in the meantime to the right ears.
Peace
Well that is rather the point. You've basically contradicted your own arguement several times in your post. You think tighter controls on sales are bad but admit that it doesn't affect anyone in real terms. So what is the problem? You also say legal sales are preferred but don't think ensuring that all sales are legal is necessary?
From the consultation documents:
From the impact assessment docements:
That's basically all we know at this stage.
My worry would be that it might end up being the legal responsibility of the purchaser to ensure that a restricted item bought from abroad is posted in the correct manner. This would mean that the person buying could be prosecuted for a retailer's mistake if they chuck 'knife' into Google translate and it comes up with turbo snake. Customs are bound to get more proactive in scanning parcels once this legislation is passed.
That depends if you're going to insist on going around offering people an injection of the 'anti-venom'
I was thinking really hard, but then I saw the 'in' in your sentence.
When are those proposed changes happening? Or is it just one of these suggestions they forgot as soon as it landed on their desks?
When are those proposed changes happening? Or is it just one of these suggestions they forgot as soon as it landed on their desks?
I can only weep when I see such a post.
K
Ps: Just noticed thread post #. Must be a sign from above!
I don't shoot. I don't see anyone "needs" a 0.50...but then I don't drink alcohol, so none of you need to do that either...and I am never going to afford a Porsche, stupid ridiculously dangerously fast things...no one "needs" one of those! Oh...I think I could be on a roll...
With that in mind, I used all 250 of my allocated words in the consultation expressing my bafflement why the government are wasting time considering banning a firearm that has never been used in a crime, and is never likely to be used in a crime, and if it were used in a crime, would be a darned sight less deadly than all the illegal AKs that must be slipping past our patchy border controls. They had this same debate in the US, and it is hard to find any instances of anyone using such a rifle for a crime. I did hear that the IRA might have had one, and might have sent one guy to the US so he could be trained how to shoot it, but don't know if that was just rumour.
In fact, if they want to ban something with the aim of saving lives, there is a far greater precedent for banning men with beards from renting delivery vehicles. (I have a beard, so this would be annoying too).
With that in mind, I used all 250 of my allocated words in the consultation expressing my bafflement why the government are wasting time considering banning a firearm that has never been used in a crime, and is never likely to be used in a crime, and if it were used in a crime, would be a darned sight less deadly than all the illegal AKs that must be slipping past our patchy border controls. They had this same debate in the US, and it is hard to find any instances of anyone using such a rifle for a crime. I did hear that the IRA might have had one, and might have sent one guy to the US so he could be trained how to shoot it, but don't know if that was just rumour.
In fact, if they want to ban something with the aim of saving lives, there is a far greater precedent for banning men with beards from renting delivery vehicles. (I have a beard, so this would be annoying too).
Actually what he was saying was that tighter controls have no real affect on anybody willing to break the law; only on the very people who don't need to be controlled.
C-Clay, there is no difference between shooting a .22LR rifle and a .50 BMG rifle.
You aim and squeeze the trigger.
Recoil is much stronger of course, not unlike a 10 ga.
Sure you can hunt with it. But expensive cartridges, large meat destruction and penetration makes this impractical.
I guess you could handload it for less power though to make it milder.
To ban a rifle caliber only because of its size shows how little the decision makers understand, and that they do not listen to expert advice.
You aim and squeeze the trigger.
Recoil is much stronger of course, not unlike a 10 ga.
Sure you can hunt with it. But expensive cartridges, large meat destruction and penetration makes this impractical.
I guess you could handload it for less power though to make it milder.
To ban a rifle caliber only because of its size shows how little the decision makers understand, and that they do not listen to expert advice.
Last edited:
I believe C-Clay was mostly being facetious but I'll let him answer that himself. Regarding hunting with a "50 Caliber" you have to remember there's more than one cartridge that's designated a 50 caliber. I suspect any new legislation wouldn't recognize that and would ban common hunting cartridges as well; cartridges that have been around and used for hunting for nearly a century and a half www.tremors.wikia.com/wiki/1874_.50_Sharps_Buffalo_Rifle
Janne,
I don't really understand why you posted. I thought it was pretty clear whether I was in favour of the proposed ban or not. If I am against a ban, I can't see why you are trying to persuade me of anything, and if I am for a ban, I cannot see why you would think such a weak argument would sway me.
Santaman,
Not sure if facetious is the right word, but derision, certainly. I don't think there is anything inappropriate with meeting the argument that it is okay to ban things because they are not "needed" with derision.
Not sure that the 0.50 Sharps type cartridges are used for hunting here. I have seen such things at ranges, but never heard of deer stalkers using them, and that is the only big game we have.
I hope everyone has filled in that consultation. I was up with my folks this passed weekend helping them to fill it in. In the end they said they would print it out, hand write it and mail it. The use of the internet and electronic form was too much for them at 70+ years old. This raises a good point, anyone we should probably all follow up with folk we have told about this consultation. I am sure that there are many who will care, but who have been stalled by the volume of Impact statements, and the manner of filling in the form.
I don't really understand why you posted. I thought it was pretty clear whether I was in favour of the proposed ban or not. If I am against a ban, I can't see why you are trying to persuade me of anything, and if I am for a ban, I cannot see why you would think such a weak argument would sway me.
Santaman,
Not sure if facetious is the right word, but derision, certainly. I don't think there is anything inappropriate with meeting the argument that it is okay to ban things because they are not "needed" with derision.
Not sure that the 0.50 Sharps type cartridges are used for hunting here. I have seen such things at ranges, but never heard of deer stalkers using them, and that is the only big game we have.
I hope everyone has filled in that consultation. I was up with my folks this passed weekend helping them to fill it in. In the end they said they would print it out, hand write it and mail it. The use of the internet and electronic form was too much for them at 70+ years old. This raises a good point, anyone we should probably all follow up with folk we have told about this consultation. I am sure that there are many who will care, but who have been stalled by the volume of Impact statements, and the manner of filling in the form.
Just in case I was misunderstood, was agreeing with you about meeting the argument with derision (my choice of words was indeed less accurate) My reference to the 50 Sharps was meant only as an example that those writing legislation rarely know much (if anything) more than the public perception even exists. .
no worries. Did understand.
I am 63 yrs old. 64 in January. My dad gave me an old pen knife. I've had one in my pocket ever since. Nowadays it's an Opinel which is lockable and therefore illegal. And you know what? I don't give a monkey's about that stupid law. I'll carry one when they put me up the chimney. I went once through airport security and forgot to take off my leatherman and the security guy said to me. Put the leatherman into the tray Sir with a smile in his face. He hadn't seen it, only showed in the x-ray thingy and my face must have said it all
Sorry Clay but if like me you want a decent mid life crisis you will need a Porsche! and at only 260 bhp it's mild
ho I have the hairdresser / poor man's version 
- Status
Similar threads
