What's "unhinged" is the very notion that people don't have an inherent right to both self defense and an effective tool (weapon) to exercise that right.Whilst I kind of agree with the sentiment, there are a ton of things that are designed as weapons. Even the Americans raise an eyebrow at a Streetsweeper, for instance. A random, inaccurate multi-shot shotgun to be used in numbers for firing indiscriminately into crowds of people. Not ducks or targets, just large groups of people. We have to be clear around this stuff and distinguish between reasonable tools and destructive weapons, otherwise we sound as unhinged as Them.
It should also be noted that policy says that identification may be required. It doesn't say it will be required.Copied from Amazon regarding Age prohibited Items
About Age Restrictions
Certain items available on Amazon.co.uk are age restricted.
By placing an order for one of these items you are declaring that you are 18 years of age or over. These items must be used responsibly and appropriately.
Delivery of age restricted items will require the signature of the recipient at the delivery address. Identification may be required in order to verify the age of the recipient. Delivery to a nominated neighbour or safe location isn't available for these items.
As they will deliver the package as long as it is signed for by an adult, they are not really checking the age of the purchaser, just ensuring whoever signs for it ( the recipient)is over 18.
No need to get your hackles up.What's "unhinged" is the very notion that people don't have an inherent right to both self defense and an effective tool (weapon) to exercise that right.
I get you argument but the reality is a bit contradictory. Even as gun ownership has grown since 1994 to a record level, gun violence has dropped to the lowest level since 1960 (the first year records were kept) www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/ The other problem with gun "control" (or knife control) laws, whether they be licensing or outright bans, is that they only affect the law abiding.No need to get your hackles up.
It is a perspective thing. I don't live in the US anymore and partly it is because of the high rate of death and injury due to the gun laws, and partly it is because (due to all that death and injury) I had found myself coming round to your way of thinking. It is kind of self fulfilling, I suppose. Everyone has the right to carry, so everyone does, so lots of people use them, so everyone needs to carry one.
I had a neighbour who told me about the guy who lived two doors down from us. He'd got into an argument over parking with his neighbour. An exchange got heated, so he went back into his house, came out with his gun and shot his neighbour. Not fatally or anything like, but he went to jail. There's the problem. Ordinarily a perfectly civil character. Now his kids get to see him wearing orange. Your self defense argument raises the ante too high in some ways, but in other ways, people are too attuned to the shooting.
It was notable yesterday, in a depressing sort of way. The shooting in the Maryland newspaper was the fourth item on the BBC radio news that night. Fourth! After stories about Brexit, the World Cup and a royal visit. When did it happen that happen that a shooting like that just falls off the news cycle? It is like everybody is becoming numb to it, and there's little can be done. I was watching a YouTube thread about hiking the AT the other day and the difficulties/inconveniences of carrying a concealed gun. Perfectly sane discussion on different state permits and what it means to be carrying a gun in your pack rather than on your hip or under your arm ... the Q&A in the comments quickly turned into a civil liberties squabble. So quickly, so kneejerk, that I really did have to wonder what the discussion was actually about.
Remove article 15 of the Offensive Weapons Bill (HC Bill 232)
After numerous representations to the Home Office and Metropolitan Police offering multiple solutions that will reduce availability of blades to those who wish to use them as weapons the Government have persisted with a misinformed proposal which is at best misguided and at worst dangerous.
I wouldn't be so quick to pigeon hole it like that.. otherwise hunting and fishing would not be considered sports either and there's no doubt they are.. I think bushcraft could easily fit in with all other "field sports", "country sports" and "outdoor sports".. Not all field sports have a competitive element and if it's insisted that to be a sport they must have then we only have to point to certain tv channels to see how often these shows are shown using survival and bushcraft skills to win money or fame. There's certainly a competitive element in programs like Alone and Naked and Afraid.There is no doubt that they mean fencing and medieval martial arts. Bushcraft isn't a sport. It is a pursuit and hobby. There is no competitive element.