Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

It's official, british Govt. bans knives !

manny78

Plat Hero
Platinum
OMFG, that's hilarious. What a fag country.

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article344223.ece

Good News For Rapists & Criminals: British Government Bans Knives
Launches PR 'amnesty,' encourages citizens to turn them in

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | February 9 2006

Not content with eliminating the last vestiges of private gun ownership, a policy which saw gun crime figures balloon, the British government has now declared war on knives. Criminals can now rape women safe in the knowledge that they now have absolutely no means with which to fight back.

The London Independent reports today,

"A five-week nationwide knives amnesty is being launched in the summer in an attempt to drive down numbers of stabbings."

"Under the amnesty, which will run between 24 May and 30 June in England, Wales and Scotland, members of the public can leave bladed weapons in drop-in bins which will be provided at police stations throughout the country without fear of prosecution."

Now I feel a great deal safer. The criminal who is prepared to break in your home and rip you to shreds in cold blood will finally see the error of his ways and comply with Charles Clarke's (pictured) PR campaign and turn in his knives.

We know that's not how it works. Self-indulgent do-gooders who think they're misbehaving by as much as crossing a road on a red light will pave the way for law-abiding citizens to be disarmed of even their trusty kitchen knife. What's next? Will we be allowed to own baseball bats? How about just forcefully wrapping us all in cotton wool and keeping us all in rubber rooms?



The criminals can now roam the streets safe in the knowledge that the woman they're brutally raping has no tools with which to fight back.

The PR campaign was preceded by stories of police approaching middle class middle aged women and initiating conversations about knife crime in an attempt to subtly interrogate the person as to whether they were carrying one.

As a woman who was caught up in such a situation wrote in the London Guardian,

"There are no more knives in circulation than there used to be. Perhaps there are better knives, titanium knives, knives with innovative serrations. Perhaps knives are more attractive or more acceptable as accessories. But it is no easier to get hold of a knife now than it was 1,000 years ago or to stab a person than it was in the iron age."

The London Telegraph reported today that traders in the southern English town of Bournemouth have been told by police not to bother them if shoplifters steal items worth under £75 ($170).

The police don't have any time for thieves but there are plenty around to harass middle aged women and people who wish to peacefully read out names of British soldiers killed in Iraq.



There are more than enough bobbies on the beat to apprehend 119,000 people under section 44 of the terrorism act. People including 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang (pictured) , who was forcefully dragged out of a Labour Party conference for calling Jack Straw a liar under the same terror law.

Coppers are more than happy to lounge around in the office and intimidate authors who commit the crime of disagreeing with homosexual adoption with bullying phone calls.

These are the real threats. Kitchen knives, peaceful political protesters, middle aged white women and people who have opinions and thoughts of their own.

I can now leave the house safe in the knowledge that my government has my best interests at heart and that they are keeping me protected from these dangerous elements of society.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/090206bansknives.htm
 
manny78 said:
I can now leave the house safe in the knowledge that my government has my best interests at heart and that they are keeping me protected from these dangerous elements of society.

^^That sounds like something Bluepeter would say
 
Okay, what's dumber:

1. Airliners not permitting you to take nailclippers on board planes ...

2. Britain wants you to butter your toast with a spoon (because you know forks will be next) ...

3. The little kid who got sued for sexual harrassment because he gave another kid a wedgie.

OMFG, isn't there ANYONE left with a thimble full of common sense in charge anywhere ...
 
Chalk one up for the criminals. There is one concept that people don't seem to be able to get CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS. I'm spent
 
Wow. No wonder we kicked thier ass.

To think, if we were to go to war with the British all we would need is Chuck Norris and Steven Seagul

Whiskey
 
Whiskey said:
Wow. No wonder we kicked thier ass.

To think, if we were to go to war with the British all we would need is Chuck Norris and Steven Seagul

Whiskey

Steven Seagal is geigh. DOnt think Chuck would appreciate to have a butt pirate to watch his 6
 
How can you say it's a bad thing outlawing people from carrying knives about with them on the streets? I can see it being nothing but a good thing.
Just like i really can't see what the need for guns are - there's a reason why there's comparitively not gun crime over here...cos noone has any guns.
 
HunterUk said:
How can you say it's a bad thing outlawing people from carrying knives about with them on the streets? I can see it being nothing but a good thing.
Just like i really can't see what the need for guns are - there's a reason why there's comparitively not gun crime over here...cos noone has any guns.

Have you spent the last 10 years under a rock ? They're gun cirmes in the UK. Criminals dont need to legally purchase their goodies.
 
HunterUk said:
How can you say it's a bad thing outlawing people from carrying knives about with them on the streets? I can see it being nothing but a good thing.
Just like i really can't see what the need for guns are - there's a reason why there's comparitively not gun crime over here...cos noone has any guns.
All they do is un-arm the law abiding citizens who won't cause problems and letting criminals run rampant knowing they won't have anyone who can fight back. How do you not get that? Not following laws is what makes them criminals.
 
I said comparatively, when walking almost any street at night in england I have absolutely no fear of gun crime whatsoever as it's so rare, I know noone who has had a gun pulled on them and I'm from London, probably the gun crime capital of Britain.
Criminals don't need to legally purchase their goodies no, but they have to have connections to get them instead of wandering to the local store.

Few people need large blades about their person and a ban on them and the ability for the police to take them off people and charge them can only do good imo.
 
HunterUk said:
I said comparatively, when walking almost any street at night in england I have absolutely no fear of gun crime whatsoever as it's so rare, I know noone who has had a gun pulled on them and I'm from London, probably the gun crime capital of Britain.
Criminals don't need to legally purchase their goodies no, but they have to have connections to get them instead of wandering to the local store.

Few people need large blades about their person and a ban on them and the ability for the police to take them off people and charge them can only do good imo.

If you enjoy having the government managing every aspect of your life, then it's your problem. We have guns in Canada (more than 5 millions for a population of 30M+) and guess what, crime is low. I dont think my freedom and own protection is somehting I can give out to someone.
 
My town of 5600 probably has a total of 10,000 guns it in. No joke either. Almost no crime with the unfortunate exception of Meth and the occasionel go-go juice user. ;-)

Whiskey
 
alien amp pharm said:
^^That sounds like something Bluepeter would say

Yeah right. Nobody but nobody criticizes and has greater disdain for their governments ability to govern than I do.
 
Now, if they could only crack down on bad dentistry.

You are more likely to get kicked to death than stabbed in the UK. For some reason they like kicking things --- soccer balls, heads, ribs, kidneys, etc.
 
manny78 said:
If you enjoy having the government managing every aspect of your life, then it's your problem. We have guns in Canada (more than 5 millions for a population of 30M+) and guess what, crime is low. I dont think my freedom and own protection is somehting I can give out to someone.
Gun related deaths in 2002 - UK: 81, Canada: 816, US: 30,242

In 2002 Canada still had 10x more gun related deaths than the UK whereas the US had a stagering 373x more deaths. The UK has approximately twice the population of Canada so would it be fair to say (based solely on those statistics) that allowing people to own guns increases the chances of gun related deaths by at least twenty fold? Vice versa could it also be said that not allowing people to own firearms would save lives?

If true then broadly speaking one might reason that restricting the availability of a certain weapon has a direct effect on the number of deaths caused by that weapon.

You might consider that gay but in my eyes it makes perfect sense.
 
JayC9 said:
Gun related deaths in 2002 - UK: 81, Canada: 816, US: 30,242

In 2002 Canada still had 10x more gun related deaths than the UK whereas the US had a stagering 373x more deaths. The UK has approximately twice the population of Canada so would it be fair to say (based solely on those statistics) that allowing people to own guns increases the chances of gun related deaths by at least twenty fold? Vice versa could it also be said that not allowing people to own firearms would save lives?

If true then broadly speaking one might reason that restricting the availability of a certain weapon has a direct effect on the number of deaths caused by that weapon.

You might consider that gay but in my eyes it makes perfect sense.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031001/d031001a.htm

582 homicides in Canada in 2002. 149 with a firearm. A bit over 34M population

UK: 1036 in 2002 for 52M folks. How many of them were actually committed with a firearm ? No idea but the Home Office mentionned a 35% increase of firearm crimes.
 
I think we should all go back to fighting with swords and stuff. That way if someone wanted to rob you they could challenge you to a duel.
 
can't believe the stupidity of this thread. "Well you already have guns so why not let everyone have guns!" Dumb fucking argument
 
maccer said:
can't believe the stupidity of this thread. "Well you already have guns so why not let everyone have guns!" Dumb fucking argument
I know what you mean.

"Only the criminals have weapons."

"Oh, I know. We'll make them illegal!"

"Wait, but the criminals don't follow the laws."

"Never mind, it would make good press."

Dumb fucking argument.

At least I now know where to go on a crime spree.
 
EnderJE said:
I mean really, how are you going to butter your toast or cut the steak anymore?

Butter is not good, will make you fat. Butter will be banned so its not an issue anymore comrade.
 
unglaublich.jpg
 
JayC9 said:
Gun related deaths in 2002 - UK: 81, Canada: 816, US: 30,242

In 2002 Canada still had 10x more gun related deaths than the UK whereas the US had a stagering 373x more deaths. The UK has approximately twice the population of Canada so would it be fair to say (based solely on those statistics) that allowing people to own guns increases the chances of gun related deaths by at least twenty fold? Vice versa could it also be said that not allowing people to own firearms would save lives?

If true then broadly speaking one might reason that restricting the availability of a certain weapon has a direct effect on the number of deaths caused by that weapon.

You might consider that gay but in my eyes it makes perfect sense.

In 2002, there were 14,000 homicides in the US. Only 71% of them were commited with a gun.
 
careful with those statistics. gun crimes under newly revised laws often mean having an unsecured round outside of your safe. what you need are numbers of VIOLENT gun crimes.

there is far too much lobbying and spin with this argument.
 
redguru said:
The point is, of those 71% that used guns, how many of them would have happened without a gun? I say a vast majority would still have occured.
what makes you say that? escalation without a gun usually leads to a broken head, not a corpse. guns reduce the killing theshold, simple as that
 
redguru said:
The point is, of those 71% that used guns, how many of them would have happened without a gun? I say a vast majority would still have occured.
You're suggesting that the death would have occurred whether a firearm was used or not. In answer, I can't see how that can that be proven so I honestly don't know? If one person is determined to kill another person regardless of the consequences then what can be done to prevent them from going through with it? Very little! There are far too many external factors and variations involved to go down that line of argument. All I'm stating is that statistics dictate that countries which allow the ownership of firearms will have a higher rate of deaths caused by firearms than countries that do not allow the ownership of firearms.

One of the main arguments being used in this thread (and referenced article) justifying the right to own a firearm and also the logic behind preserving firearm/weapon ownership for the purpose of self-defense is "criminals don't abide by the rules". Of course this statement is correct because criminals by definition violate and ignore laws however in this context the question really is, would a criminal find it easier to obtain a firearm in the UK or the US/Canada? The answer is obvious, the reason being because of the differences in the laws governing the availability of firearms. Would that criminal have trouble finding an alternative weapon (e.g. knife) in either country? No, because there are practical limitations to what a governing body can do to stipulate, define and enforce a law.

Here we must pause to examine the fundamental difference between a weapon of consequence and a firearm or weapon designed specifically for killing. An object which is designed primarily for peaceable use, when used for the purpose of killing is abused by the individual for the purpose of committing that crime. A firearm though is designed only for one purpose, to kill and it fulfills that purpose very efficiently.

The knife amnesty the UK government is launching is not aimed at table or butter knifes, its aimed specifically at knives designed for stabbing (flick-knives, switchblades, automatic knives, gravity knives, stealth knives, disguised knives, push daggers, butterfly knives, swords) or knives of a length that could kill a human in one stab the same as a gun can with a single bullet.

This is not a new law in the UK! It's simply a push by the government in response to the increasing violent crimes (particularly stabbings) and pressure from the UK public to take action to remedy and put an end to this type of crime. As a matter of interest legislation in the UK restricting the use, sale and carrying of certain types of knives has been in effect dating from 1959, so this is certainly nothing new by any stretch of the imagination.

In my opinion: Stepping back and looking at world patterns concerning the manufacture and use of weapons, I will say that I understand the whole concept of peace and security based on the mutual ability to kill one another as not only a negative despondent cycle but also completely mindless, born of survival rather than of any hope of rectifying the situation.
 
manny78 said:
Butter is not good, will make you fat. Butter will be banned so its not an issue anymore comrade.
Agreed! We need the government to protect us from our own free will and intelligence! We need communism to make a comeback. This democracy thing is just a fad.
 
JayC9 said:
Gun related deaths in 2002 - UK: 81, Canada: 816, US: 30,242

In 2002 Canada still had 10x more gun related deaths than the UK whereas the US had a stagering 373x more deaths. The UK has approximately twice the population of Canada so would it be fair to say (based solely on those statistics) that allowing people to own guns increases the chances of gun related deaths by at least twenty fold? Vice versa could it also be said that not allowing people to own firearms would save lives?

If true then broadly speaking one might reason that restricting the availability of a certain weapon has a direct effect on the number of deaths caused by that weapon.

You might consider that gay but in my eyes it makes perfect sense.

The State of Vermont has more guns per capita than any state in the US.

It also has the least violent crime rate than any other state in the US. You just know they will shoot your sorry ass.
 
Top Bottom