Update- Carrying of knives

[Simon]

It looks to me like every one in the U.K. who thinks he should be able to own whatever kind of knife he wants to should unite with the others and then when you go to one of your political parties (either Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum) and say we have X million votes for the upcoming election what are you going to do for us if you get elected?

It's a pretty idea ... but you'd never get enough people together who understand and appreciate the concept that a knife is a tool to make it worth while. Millions of votes? You'd be lucky to get a few thousand.

 

[Nagual]

Jonny,

Private land can still be a public place- this is well established in law. Almost certainly all land other than attached to a dwelling or businesses will be regarded as a public place even though it is private land. Of the multitude of examples, Forestry Commission land, MOD ranges, farmers land- you get the idea.

A land owner cannot give Lawful Authority to possess blades, sharps etc only to be on the land.

Hope you enjoy your time away- I'm jealous!

Interesting. I've always had the belief that land within England and Wales such as MOD ranges and farmers land were private and the public do not have right of access. meaning that with out permission they shouldn't be there. Now I'm not too sure about Forestry Commission as they have an open access to members of the public. I think what counts is land where open access is not given, where access by is permission.

I don't think it's as simple as saying well if the public can go there it's not private land, to me that's just a bit silly. To explain let me give an example north of the border. Up here as most of you know we are lucky enough to have the Land Reform (Scotland)2003 Act. which gives us a basic right to wander most places including farms. Does this make farms public places? I would argue no. The reason I would argue no is that if I had a air rifle, which I am not allowed to use on public land, I can go to a farmer and gain permission to shoot there. Farmers still use shotguns and high cal rifles on their land here, where public can go. So arguing that a farmer can't give permission to carry a knife on his land seems a bit weird. You see what I'm trying to explain?

It's not as simple as saying public have access to private land, therefore it's not private. There is private and private with permission (which is what I think you were meaning with your examples?) and of course public. Of course there isn't any such thing as truly public land as it is all owned by someone, from the Crown, Government, Gentry, Companies and us Joe Bloggs (hmm with the possible exception of places in Berwick upon Tweed.. )

Anyway, it's enough to say that it's all damn complicated.

 

[Barney]

Barney - see Wanderingblade's response (#105) for my reply to the "not long enough" comment.
As for Nostradamus... granted we can't know for sure what is going to happen, but consider this.

Handguns were outlawed to prevent the circulation and prevent them being used in violent crime.
They are now (if you believe those who've said as much in this thread, and you've not disputed what they've said so I assume you do) more widespread in the criminal world than before and being used FAR more in violent crime.

So on the available evidence would you say that the handgun ban has been:
1> A complete success in reducing violent crime with handguns.
2> A marginal success in reducing violent crime with handguns.
3> Completely neutral having had no positive or negative impact on violent crime with handguns.
4> A marginal failure in that we have seen an increase in viloent crime with handguns but one not influenced by the ban.
5> A complete failure in that we have seen an increase in violent crime with handguns brought about by the ban.

Now, 1 and 2 certainly aren't the case.
3 might have been the case, but given the increase in violent crime with handguns we must rule that out too.
That leaves us either with the ban having zero positive effect whatsoever, or actually making things worse.

After over a decade, how much longer do you need to watch violent crime with handguns increase steadily starting from a falling trend pre-ban before you agree that indeed the ban has been a failure.

Once you come to realise that the ban has had no positive impact on the reduction of violent crime with handguns, and served only to alienate, marginalise and in some cases criminalise completely non-violent citizens (including our olympic pistol shooters who have to leave the country to train) you'll see exactly why I, and others object not only to the utterly absurd handgun laws in this country but also to any suggestion that a licencing system or any further restriction on the ownership, use and carry of sharp tools.

History has shown us time and again that such bans are either ineffective or damaging. There's no nostradamus prediction going on here... he looked at the past and said "it will happen again" (he worked on the "history repeats itself" principle) - I (and others) look at history and try to learn from its mistakes.



As for the "people like you" comment - it was meant as a general collective term for people who argue that "if it saves just one life" when every shred of evidence we have from the whole of history is that banning any tool, object (or indeed weapon) to reduce crime fails to achieve it.
The only thing it achieves is, at best, the alienation, criminalisation and marginalisation of everyday citizens.
At worst it achieves the victimisation and sometimes even complete abuse and in worst case massacre of the same.


Those who refuse to learn from history and are intent to follow the same nonsensical and ineffective paths in the name of the utterly fictional "just one life saved" are, in my mind, almost as guilty as the person wielding the murder weapon, as it is exactly that approach which allows those predators who arm themselves in spite of laws and prey on the innocent unchecked.
If you learn from history and put it into practice, you make the predator's job more difficult and remove any possible accusation of complicity.

I'm going to stop here as this is a wide open door for stepping into the whole self defence argument, and that's a door I'm not about to walk through as too many people on this board finr the topic strangely uncomfortable.

Apologies for any offence I might have cause with the "people like you" comment, it was not intended.

I'm not always right, I don't have to be right, I just argue very hard when it's something I care about and have this habit of pouncing on things that sound sensible on the surface but are actually mistaken, misleading and in some cases, downright dangerous and ignorant of history.


Anyway - enough for tonight.




Draven - Thanks for the Jefferson quote. I actually need to get around to reading some of his work - from the scraps I've seen so far it strikes me that he was the kind of politician/leader we are in dire need of today.

Hey Bigshot

I have thought long and hard about what to put forward for consideration in this reply, or even if I should make at all. You and gunslinger, Sorry to drag you into this as well but judging by your username and your earlier posted "full sympathies" with Hot shot you have a vested interest in the Guns debate also. To me the debate over the hand gun bans dont effect me and dont really matter one way or the other, I can see however, that those who participate in a particular aspect of handgun ownwership would be very disappointed at their loss of "rights". The knife debate does affect me and suprisingly my views are still pretty much the same on this subject, shortly I will try to lay out my reasons for thinking this way. Before that, as you have asked me to consider so much I will ask you a thing or two which is the of what you currently think. I fully expect you trot out the results of many well worn arguments from the shooting club. I am joe public(with some knives)

What is a handgun designed for?

Hunting? A poor design if ever there was one, no range as such, no sights in normal usage, no "steady" to speak of.
No Its designed for close quarters combat, easily concealed, generally a large caliber in order that assailants should be stopped as quickly as possible.
I my view the only people who should generally have access to this invention are the military and police. Of course there will always be enthusiasts or ex military and ex police who, as is the want of human beings, refine the use of handguns through participation outside there day to day environment into a sporting spectacle.

I cannot see any other justification for owning one. Wanting one because they exist is not a good enough reason for owning one. IMO. That is my starting point.

But I digress,

"Once you come to realise that the ban has had no positive impact on the reduction of violent crime with handguns, and served only to alienate, marginalise and in some cases criminalise completely non-violent citizens (including our olympic pistol shooters who have to leave the country to train) you'll see exactly why I, and others object not only to the utterly absurd handgun laws in this country but also to any suggestion that a licencing system or any further restriction on the ownership, use and carry of sharp tools."

I do not agree with the first part of your statement as in my opinion the results of the ban are unquantifiable.

"History has shown us time and again that such bans are either ineffective or damaging. There's no Nostradamus prediction going on here... he looked at the past and said "it will happen again" (he worked on the "history repeats itself" principle) - I (and others) look at history and try to learn from its mistakes."

Here you touch on the essence of the problem without appearing to understand it, we are Depending on the time scale that you choose to use( let us use decades for simplicity and average) living at the peak of an exponential curve, everything that we have done historically has failed to prevent us being where we are today as a society.
There are also many individual exponential curves that run throughout.
Deforestation is at its most prolific, medicine is at most ingenious, populations are the largest in human history, greenhouse gasses are accumulating at massive rate. Murders are at their highest, gun use in crime is at a record high.
Corporal punishment did not reduce crime nor did abolition of it, we are still where we are in spite of what we do as a society.

"So on the available evidence would you say that the handgun ban has been:
1> A complete success in reducing violent crime with handguns.
2> A marginal success in reducing violent crime with handguns.
3> Completely neutral having had no positive or negative impact on violent crime with handguns.
4> A marginal failure in that we have seen an increase in violent crime with handguns but one not influenced by the ban.
5> A complete failure in that we have seen an increase in violent crime with handguns brought about by the ban.

Now, 1 and 2 certainly aren't the case.
3 might have been the case, but given the increase in violent crime with handguns we must rule that out too.
That leaves us either with the ban having zero positive effect whatsoever, or actually making things worse.

After over a decade, how much longer do you need to watch violent crime with handguns increase steadily starting from a falling trend pre-ban before you agree that indeed the ban has been a failure."

Your argument is fundamentally flawed, don't forget that everything that we do is on an exponential curve, the only option that society has is to try to slow the rate of acceleration on the exponential curve. Some things will speed up the acceleration to "more of it" for instance wider availability of guns, because availability itself is exponential.
You can never win the debate by stating that X is the result of Y and there has been no improvement because it is impossible to asses with any degree of certainty (Nostradamus) what would have occurred if Y had never took place. Would the figures that you quote have been worse if the measures introduced had not taken place? This is a serious question and one that is sadly lacking for those that just wish to knock any attempt at modifying the rate of the progression along the curve and one that we must consider equally as fully as the"numbers game".

I will ask you another question, How many innocent lives have been saved by the ban of handguns in this country?

I am getting a bit weary, many people just do not have the capacity to understand the complexity of the situation. I would love to give you crack at solving the problems faced, what are your solutions? They appear to be give everyone a gun. Like the good old wild west That Jefferson presided over, its easy to forget that this is the same era as Napoleon was "out and about" and there is no guarantee that the actions sanctioned and endorsed over 200 hundred years ago would be the same in todays day and age. He was to clever for that.

Anyway back to the knife debate

 

[Minotaur]

widu - the annoying part, is all of those things (at least in theory) get their authority from US. Or to Americanise it a bit... they get their authority to do so from "We the People". Yet those things seem (in this case and some others) to be doing nothing to benefit We The People and plenty to unreasonably restrict us.

Personally I'm of a very, very liberal persuasion (but not quite libertarian) in political terms, so I take very strong exception with the state imposing itself on me as a non-violent, non-criminal individual.

The problem is, We The People in the UK have never actually said "We The People" in a clear voice.
Sometimes I wish we had, and at the moment, I really wish we would!

There is no we the people in the UK. That is the big point. American law starts from that point.

Even a written constitution as opposed to an "unwritten constitution" is not without problems. Remember, that where I'm writing from, we have a written constitution BUT the constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is and they can say any damned thing that they want to say -- and have. It looks to me like every one in the U.K. who thinks he should be able to own whatever kind of knife he wants to should unite with the others and then when you go to one of your political parties (either Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum) and say we have X million votes for the upcoming election what are you going to do for us if you get elected? Then good things will happen. Otherwise never.

I disagree, they can bend them, but you have a set of statements that protect you from the state. We do not, and have never had them.

The problem with the law has always been money. Those with it can effect the rest of us to such a massive degree, and buy themselves out of trouble.

Corporal punishment did not reduce crime nor did abolition of it, we are still where we are in spite of what we do as a society.

Really, you are putting forward the arguement that stopping corporal punishment has not had an effect, and is still having an effect on the country.

I think our arguement is simple, ban things, and it does not effect criminals, because they break laws anyway.

 

[Draven]

Barney - how do you figure that everything is on an exponential curve? That sounds like supposition, and flawed supposition. It's cause and effect. If gun crime is relatively steady, or even slowly rising, then guns are banned and gun crime shoots up, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's because innocent people are being disarmed and crooks are the only ones with guns. By your reasoning, the empirical method of experimentation is completely useless because the result might have occurred anyway.

And a matter of technicality about handguns; while their primary purpose is stopping power against another person at close range, it doesn't mean that the one firing it is on the offensive. And there are plenty of pistols designed specifically to be target pistols, which would have the stopping power of a spud gun.

 

[sandbender]

And there are plenty of pistols designed specifically to be target pistols, which would have the stopping power of a spud gun.

I was never a handgun user and the ban didn't directly affect me, however I do recall thinking it odd that the ban covered Olympic target pistols, which were neither easy to conceal or carry and that had to be reloaded after each shot.

 

[wanderingblade]

Some interesting points raised there.
Allow me to put forward some thoughts.

With reference to 'What are Handguns designed for'

Hunting? A poor design if ever there was one, no range as such, no sights in normal usage, no "steady" to speak of.

Could you not use the exact same reasoning to ban Archery?

Wanting one because they exist is not a good enough reason for owning one. IMO.

If we have to start justifying a genuine 'need' to own an item before ownership is considered valid we are on a slippery slope.

Does anyone really 'need' an iPod? How about Artwork? TV's, Microwave ovens, pets etc, etc. If everything you 'need' for your day to day life can fit in a rucksack - does that mean there is no justification for owning the rest of the contents of your house?

.......in my opinion the results of the ban are unquantifiable.

Really?
How about looking at rates of gun crime prior to the ban, then looking at rates of gun crime after the ban. That should quantify the effect clearly.

If the ban had not been implemented, it would be reasonable to assume gun crime rates would more or less have followed the same trends that they had done for the previous few decades rather than take the huge leap up that they have.

Is there an example of a ban that has worked?
Or do they just create black markets and a heightened interest in the item from a certain section of the population?

I will ask you another question, How many innocent lives have been saved by the ban of handguns in this country?

I've only got 11 years of figures to hand but looking at Gun related homicides in 1988 - 1999 there were 45.

2006 - 2007 there were 59.

This is following a peak of 2002 - 2003 where there were 81 gun related homicides.

If you could find the figures for the previous 10 years we could try and determine how mand 'innocent lives' have been saved as a result of the ban.

many people just do not have the capacity to understand the complexity of the situation. I would love to give you crack at solving the problems faced, what are your solutions?

You are right. In this day and age of soundbyte politics and popularist policies the actual facts behind the problems are often ignored. Addressing social deprivation, poor employment and prospects, inner city housing, education, parental responsibilities etc, etc, may well have a dramatic effect on crime but it would mean implementing unpopular policies and would cost millions.

Why not just bung in a quick ban that costs peanuts and be seen to be doing something. It makes for better headlines too.

My soloution? I'm afraid for my soloutions to work it will involve a short coup, abolishing government and installing me as king.

 

[wistuart]

The establishment in the UK seems to be focusing more and more on punishing people who only have some potential to cause harm whilst being overly soft on those that actually do. Thousands of people get done every week for going a few miles over the speed limit and yet those that actually kill people as a result of wreckless driving get trifling sentences. Likewise, we are going to see more and more people being done for carrying knives even though in many cases they had absolutely no intention of using them as weapons, whilst those that do actually stab someone get a paltry 18 month sentence. The whole system needs a thorough rewrite IMO.

That said, the law is the law and we should all be very wary of niavely believing that common sense will prevail when our turn comes. The fact is all but the very highest of courts are concerned only with applying the law, not determining whether it is fair, just or sensible. For most of us, even a minor conviction would be devastating and I for one am not willing to risk the impact that would have on my family so I will do my utmost to comply with the legislation even though I may not totally agree with it.

For all that it seems overly oppressive and tars decent, law abiding people with the same brush as should be reserved for chavs, neds and scumbags the law on carrying offensive weapons and knives seems quite clear to me. I suspect that many people who claim to find it confusing are just not willing to accept that they don't have some special dispensation that means it doesn't apply to them.

Some examples:
You are out fishing and have a filleting knive in your tackle box - legal;
You have a filleting knife in the boot of your car because you were fishing last week - not legal;
You are on your way fishing and have your filleting knive lying on the passenger seat instead of in the boot with the rest of your gear - not legal;
You walk into a shop with a filleting knife dangling from your belt because you're going fishing - not legal;
You have a 14inch double-edged dagger with spiked hand-guard in your tackle box - not legal.

How hard is it to understand the logic?

 

[myotis]

Really?
How about looking at rates of gun crime prior to the ban, then looking at rates of gun crime after the ban. That should quantify the effect clearly.

If the ban had not been implemented, it would be reasonable to assume gun crime rates would more or less have followed the same trends that they had done for the previous few decades rather than take the huge leap up that they have.

Ignoring the specifics of this discussion and looking at the "quantifiable" aspects.

It would not be possible to draw any clear conclusions from what you suggest, as it assumes a causal link between gun crime and legal hand gun availability. You would need to know what was driving the trend in gun crime.

For example, are the hand gun trends strongly correlated with changes in gang culture, unemployment levels, general social unrest, densities of populations in cities etc etc

Asuming you can identfy all the likely factors affecting gun crime, you can then develop a statistical model for gun crime numbers and establish the probability of the hand gun ban playing any significant role in explaining changes in gun crime numbers, or it playing no role in explaining gun crime numbers.

With the proviso that statistical anlysis is never about "proof" and only about the "balance of probabilities" then yes you can quantify the effects of the hand gun ban on gun crime, but not as simply as you suggest.

Its also worth bearing in mind that because we often see a lot of variation in these types data anyway, you would probably need 30+ years worth of data to draw any useful conclusions. There is nothing specific about the 30 years just the figure I have seen bandied about by statistician who work in time series analysis as being an absolute minimum data set required.

With caution you may be able to say something useful with less data, but this would depend on the characteristics of the data.

Graham

 

[durulz]

Wasn't this thread about knives?
Hold on, let me check...yeah, yeah, there it is - about the change in policy on prosecuting those found carrying knives.
Not guns.
It seems that those members who have a chip on their shoulder about handguns are hijacking this thread. Go to a gun forum and debate it there, please.
This thread is about knives, which has a direct influence on bushcrafting.
Handguns are not at all relevant to bushcrafting, so let's get off the handgun debate. Again. One or two members have made it quite clear, in previous threads, where they stand on the handgun issue. So please stop ramming your (irrelevant to this site) propaganda down our throats. Take it to a gun forum.
This thread is meant to be about knives and knife law - which is of value and relevance to bushcrafting in the UK. NOT handguns.
Cheers.

 

[British Red]

As a knife and gun user I see a direct correlation between bans on either.

Both are harmless when used properly

Neither need to be carried by most people in everyday life

Both have the capacity to kill when misused

Both are enjoyed responsibly as part of a hobby

Both are disliked and feared by many members of the general public

Both may have to be used by small numbers of people in their professional capacity

No-one here NEEDS a bushcraft knife - they WANT a bushcraft knife because they enjoy bushcraft. Target shooters WANT a gun because they enjoy target shooting.

Hobbies are hobbies - no one hobby has more intrinsic merit than another hobby. A ban on knives is no more (and no less) justifiable than a ban on guns for people who only want them to pursue their chosen hobby. There is a point of logic here. If we support a ban on some things intrinsic to hobby use, we have no recourse to complaint when others take the same approach to knives.

Red

 

[Draven]

Wasn't this thread about knives?
Hold on, let me check...yeah, yeah, there it is - about the change in policy on prosecuting those found carrying knives.
Not guns.
It seems that those members who have a chip on their shoulder about handguns are hijacking this thread. Go to a gun forum and debate it there, please.
This thread is about knives, which has a direct influence on bushcrafting.
Handguns are not at all relevant to bushcrafting, so let's get off the handgun debate. Again. One or two members have made it quite clear, in previous threads, where they stand on the handgun issue. So please stop ramming your (irrelevant to this site) propaganda down our throats. Take it to a gun forum.
This thread is meant to be about knives and knife law - which is of value and relevance to bushcrafting in the UK. NOT handguns.
Cheers.

It's true, handguns are not part of Bushcraft. They're related to the knife debate though, very closely, in that the handgun ban and the knife regulations require innocence to be proven rather than assumed. Since knives have not yet been banned or regulated tighter than they are, we cannot see directly the effects that such action would take - however, since handguns are banned, we can see the effect that has had and draw conclusions about tighter knife regulations. While I understand that isn't what everyone is doing, if the ban wasn't mentioned, such conclusions cannot be drawn, and we cannot discuss in greater detail the effect it would have on the country, outside the Bushcrafting community - which, lets face it, is small.

 

[BigShot]

Durulz - I assume the "chip on the shoulder" comment refers partly to me.

If you care to read again you'll notice that the only reason, and only context I mentioned guns at all was in analogy.
People were suggesting that different forms of restriction, bans and so on may be a good thing, particularly in relation to violent crime.

The comparison was perfectly valid. Just because your views are as firecely opposed to public ownership and carry of handguns as my views are in favour of it does NOT make the comparisson any less valid.


Barney - thanks for the response.
I disagree strongly that we're on an exponential curve with these things. Immediately post-ban there was a clear shift in the rates of violent crime with handguns, they shifted from pretty steady (actually a gradual fall if I remember the numbers correctly) to a marked and sharp increase.

I see no reason whatsoever that any ban or further restriction on the carrying of knives would be any different.
As I said earlier, someone who takes a knife out with them and uses it in a crime commits something like 4 or 5 crimes in doing so - crimes with, in some cases, very lengthy sentences attached - there is no way adding one more crime, would make a blind bit of difference.

We do not need the restrictions we currently have (for one, the locking blade issue that comes from case law is a complete and utter nonsense, for another the very idea that there's any major difference in violent use between a "legal" pocket knife (3", non locking folder) and a 3" fixed blade is also complete and utter nonsense. All knives are potentially lethal in the hands of someone who intends to use them as an offensive weapon.
We do not need licencing.
We do not need further restrictions.
We need to stop attempting to cure a societal illness by attacking a part of one symptom of it.
The symptom is violent crime with knives, the knives themselves are one part of that.
Focusing on the knives is completely and utterly missing the point and at very least will be ineffective - at worst it will worsen the problem - most likely it will have no effect on violent crime and needlessly restrict people completely disinclined to commit violent crime.

Until we focus on the actual problem and its causes we will never see an improvement in the rates of violent crime involving knives (or guns for that matter) that can be attributed to anything more than natural shifts.

Until we (as a nation) stop focussing on knives (and guns) as a problem and start focussing on the actual problem and its causes we will never see an improvement.

As knife users we should not roll over and allow this constant attack on the tools of our hobbies, passions and way of life to continue unopposed.
You may think you're not the target of these laws and of the media frenzy, but try showing your bushcraft knife to a non-knife person and see what they think of it.

A lot of the time you'll hear comments about weapons.
One that stuck with me was "It looks like the kind of knife you kill people with" - this wasn't some double edged combat knife, but a woodlore clone.
Most of the public think it's really wierd that anyone would carry a knife for anything more than hurting people.
Most of the public think it would be no loss whatsoever if you and your friends/family were never allowed to take a knife outside your home.
Some would think it would be no loss whatsoever if you weren't allowed to SHARPEN your knives (see how many kitchens you go into have completely blunt cook's knives).

For the most part, public opinion of knives is NOT positive and does NOT allow space for the likes of us to use them responsibly. The very thought that non-violent people are criminals just for having a forgotten bushie on their belt when they walk into Tesco to grab a snack on a long walk is absolutely abhorrent, but most of the public DON'T think it is.

If we don't defend our legitimate ownership, carry and use of knives we WILL lose the privilege.

 

[gunslinger]

Hey Bigshot

I have thought long and hard about what to put forward for consideration in this reply, or even if I should make at all. You and gunslinger, Sorry to drag you into this as well but judging by your username and your earlier posted "full sympathies" with Hot shot you have a vested interest in the Guns debate also.

Firstly your comment on my username is not a judgement,rather an assumption,and in this case an incorrect one. It has nothing to do with firearms at all, it is in fact to do with my work. I am a custom sprayer and airbrush painter ,hence spending my time whilst earning my living,clutching a spraygun.
However I admit to having been a hunter and target shooter most of my life. Including losing handguns post Dunblane. The investigation of which was single biggest debacle any Police force, has perpetrated in history.So yes I have sympathies with what I am sure you would term the gun lobby,but it has absolutely nothing to do with my username.


What is a handgun designed for ?
Hunting? A poor design if ever there was one, no range as such, no sights in normal usage, no "steady" to speak of.
No Its designed for close quarters combat, easily concealed, generally a large caliber in order that assailants should be stopped as quickly as possible.
I my view the only people who should generally have access to this invention are the military and police. Of course there will always be enthusiasts or ex military and ex police who, as is the want of human beings, refine the use of handguns through participation outside there day to day environment into a sporting spectacle.ed for?

Well tell the people who owned guns like these or similar conversions ? At a cost of a couple of grand,that they were designed to kill people. Not true, they were designed for IPSCC target shooting.

I cannot see any other justification for owning one. Wanting one because they exist is not a good enough reason for owning one. IMO. That is my starting point.

I can think of many things people want solely because it exists.

But I digress,

"Once you come to realise that the ban has had no positive impact on the reduction of violent crime with handguns, and served only to alienate, marginalise and in some cases criminalise completely non-violent citizens (including our olympic pistol shooters who have to leave the country to train) you'll see exactly why I, and others object not only to the utterly absurd handgun laws in this country but also to any suggestion that a licencing system or any further restriction on the ownership, use and carry of sharp tools."

I do not agree with the first part of your statement as in my opinion the results of the ban are unquantifiable.

Pre Dunblane relatively stable level of gun crime,post Dunblane gun crime soaring.
It certainly hasnt helped


I am getting a bit weary,

Me too.

Anyway back to the knife debate

It was part of the same debate as knives seem to be heading down the same road,which will only culminate in the Sun or one of the other toilet papers,waging their "War on knives" and they will be subjected to the same knee jerk response. Which will again solve nothing.

Durulz.
A sarcastic and arrogant response does nothing to further your cause,and is IMO unnecessary.
Others have posted intelligent points without having to descend to this level.
Guns have entered this debate ,whether you like it or not,because there are direct parallels in the public attitude to guns and knives. And the possible outcome of public outrage could provoke the same kneejerk reaction from government.
No one IMO is ramming anything down your throat but rather entering a lively, and interesting debate relevant to bushcrafting,ie. legal regulation of bladed items, and using examples of previous ill thought out out reactions to illustrate the possible outcome.

Your attitude to the plight of other sportsmen/hobbyists, who have fallen foul of the regulation of their tools speaks volumes.

Cheers

 

[locum76]

I've said this before in other knife threads but i'm going to say it again anyway. Without a ban on the unjustified carrying of knives in public, the police would have no powers to confiscate knives from potential trouble makers until they have used the knife in anger. By which time it would be too late.

with this ban, they can remove the threat before any blood is shed, should they see fit.

as far as i can see there is no need for any of us to be carrying a knife in a shopping centre, high street, cinema, football ground or where ever. If you have a knife in your pack on the way to a meet - keep it under wraps until you get there. you have a justifiable reason to have it in your pack but not in your pocket.

its really simple and for me, at least, this law is entirely justifiable.

bear in mind I have had and used opinels since i was 7.

 

[Minotaur]

its really simple and for me, at least, this law is entirely justifiable.

bear in mind I have had and used opinels since i was 7.

The problem is that this Government like to be seen to do stuff.

So as long as this goes on they are going to want to do something.

The current law makes some sense.

I agree that part of what we need to do, is be as careful as possible, and as vocal as possible about any changes.

 

[nige7whit]

Does this relate to all knives, or just those that could be judged 'offensive weapons'? As I understand it, a pocket knife with a non-locking blade of less than 3" length is not classed as an offensive weapon. Has the law changed, or are the police making it up as they go?

This statement reads that the Police MUST charge anyone found with a bladed implement with some sort of offence, regardless of 'just cause, or reasonable excuse'.

I know many police officers that carry either pocket knives, or multi-tools, do they HAVE to charge each other, every day?

I'm in the RAF, and occasionally, we have parades in public places, do the police HAVE to charge each and every member of the parade for having a bayonet (we'll overlook the battle rifle that is used to mount the bayonet, for the purposes of this question).

A look at the TV and tabloid articles, whenever a knife crackdown is publicised will show tables full of kitchen knives and machetes, not £200 semi-custom small pocket knives. By all means, target and lock up the criminals who use knives for criminal purposes, but just apply the law to the crime, not the object.

I've just read a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) memo dated 31/3/08 which has now been ratified and agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that with immediate effect anyone found in possession of an offensive weapon, sharply pointed or bladed article will be CHARGED with the offence and be sent to court without the opportunity of a caution. The CPS have undertaken to vigorously prosecute "offenders".

I would urge you all to carefully consider your EDC and BOBs / kits in cars. Remember this is one of the few laws where the police/CPS don't have to prove anything beyond you had it with you; you have to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that you had good reason to carry with you.

It will had quite far ranging implications as this is a crime and will show on a CRB check if convicted. It WILL effect things like SGC/FACs.

I don't know whether or not this is the agreement for Scotland as well but certainly covers England and Wales.

"Be careful out there" (Hill St Blues circa 1980)

 

[Chinkapin]

Minotaur, over here we call it the "golden rule" -- Those with the gold, rule.

Wistuart, I totally understand your logic and its fine if you don't mind being perpetually one step away from an overzealous policeman and a felony charge, but how about this for logic: Its no ones damn business what kind of knife you got in your tackle box. period.

 

[Minotaur]

Minotaur, over here we call it the "golden rule" -- Those with the gold, rule.

Sounds about right.

Wistuart, I totally understand your logic and its fine if you don't mind being perpetually one step away from an overzealous policeman and a felony charge, but how about this for logic: Its no ones damn business what kind of knife you got in your tackle box. period.

Must be nice to live in a free-ish country.

 

[wanderingblade]

Does this relate to all knives, or just those that could be judged 'offensive weapons'? As I understand it, a pocket knife with a non-locking blade of less than 3" length is not classed as an offensive weapon.

Not quite - a 3" slipjoint knife is legal to carry without the need to provide a reasonable cause to do so. It still can be classed as an offensive weapon depending on the circumstances - waving your SAK about (quiet at the back) in the supermarket or pub will very likely get you an offensive weapons charge.

ANYTHING can be classified as an offensive weapon if used as such.

A look at the TV and tabloid articles, whenever a knife crackdown is publicised will show tables full of kitchen knives and machetes, not £200 semi-custom small pocket knives. By all means, target and lock up the criminals who use knives for criminal purposes, but just apply the law to the crime, not the object.

One of the biggest obsticles I have personally faced in my efforts is the apathy among knife makers / users / dealers who don't think any change in the law will effect them 'because I make proper knives for proper users, not cheap chinese tat or kitchen knives'

Any change in legislation will not differentiate between a £3.50 Rambo copy and a £300 woodlore.