'Assault knives'
- Thread starter Faithless
- Start date
I never understood the "tougher sentencing for [blank] crime". Are the dead, maimed, and injured less so because they were assaulted by other means?
Are they in less pain?The variability in sentencing terms allows a judge to apply some discretion. I would like to think things like intent and viciousness are more important factors than method.
Prove it.
Airsoft guns in no way can be converted to real ones.
Well once they cannot carry guns for protection what are they supposed to carry? :barf:
Remember what we said about criminals will either sneek weapons in or switch to other methods?
Let's ban scissors and brooms so that won't happen. :barf:
Last time I checked cops refused to carry guns once...and were severely restricted to limited magazines :barf:
Gimme something to drink...
And a machine pistol with a pile of ammo
Oh well, better hope they never figure out how a good person with a full staff...can be as much of a problem as somebody with a machete. And as for machete's...I assume the guv'ment there won't let you have a Falchion?. Much more capable than a machete...but on the whole a drawing/cutting weapon rather than a point weapon.
And what about war hammers, maces, sickles, Tucks.. and onwards...methinks the guv'ment has forgotten (good), just how many varient implements were actually quite successful in past.
And aren't that far from common work implements, still being used today.
And what about war hammers, maces, sickles, Tucks.. and onwards...methinks the guv'ment has forgotten (good), just how many varient implements were actually quite successful in past.
And aren't that far from common work implements, still being used today.
progunner1957
Moderator
I have several "assault knives" - when I read that the People's Democratic Republic of Kalifornia outlawed the Busse Combat "Argonne Assault" I tracked one down and bought it; see www.badmojo.tv
My policy is, if Big Brother (or Big Bitch) wants it for themselves and wants to keep it out of our hands - GET IT!!! Get two!!
If it is a device that makes the sissy boy bureaucrats of PDRK (or the UK) lose their grip on their liquid byproduct and hydrate their white cotton panties, no home should be without it!!
My policy is, if Big Brother (or Big Bitch) wants it for themselves and wants to keep it out of our hands - GET IT!!! Get two!!
If it is a device that makes the sissy boy bureaucrats of PDRK (or the UK) lose their grip on their liquid byproduct and hydrate their white cotton panties, no home should be without it!!
I've read a couple liberal-slanted books on weapons laws, which of course makes me an expert 
The general rationale given for weapon bans is that if a killing isn't premeditated, i.e. the attacker is just mad at the victim and lacks self-control and is using any weapon available with no real prior training, a gun will be more lethal than a knife, which will be more lethal than bottle-as-club or bare hands. Statistically.
They neatly ignore all sorts of things, like why the aggressor was upset in the first place (it probably wasn't your mere existence), or why you didn't leave when it was obvious you were about to get into a fight (pride).
The bottom line is that a jerk with a knife is more dangerous than an untrained jerk without a knife, and that's good enough reason for most politicians to try to ban them. Which is ironic, because those politicians also typically support learning martial arts that can seriously disable or even kill an attacker.
Another possible reason for this stuff is that the media is so saturated with armed violence that for anyone who doesn't stop to think about these things, guns and knives are, at a young age, associated with unlawful violence. I think that's the best explanation.
Once that initial association is made, unless it's challenged immediately, it grows legs. Other supporting justifications are made: "nobody _needs_ a 4" knife", etc. By the time politicians get elected for the first time, they've built up an entire list of BS reasons that aren't any good, but it's nevertheless extremely difficult to disabuse them of those reasons.
The above statistical-danger-of-weapon-x is one of those supporting justifications, and it's really one of the better ones until you realize that those sorts of fights can often be diffused by the victim before they get started; that doesn't mean the victim is at fault, but it means these are not the random, unpredictable, can-happen-to-anyone attacks that politicians want people to believe. If citizens are disabused of that notion, they are no longer afraid, and politicians lose some power.
The general rationale given for weapon bans is that if a killing isn't premeditated, i.e. the attacker is just mad at the victim and lacks self-control and is using any weapon available with no real prior training, a gun will be more lethal than a knife, which will be more lethal than bottle-as-club or bare hands. Statistically.
They neatly ignore all sorts of things, like why the aggressor was upset in the first place (it probably wasn't your mere existence), or why you didn't leave when it was obvious you were about to get into a fight (pride).
The bottom line is that a jerk with a knife is more dangerous than an untrained jerk without a knife, and that's good enough reason for most politicians to try to ban them. Which is ironic, because those politicians also typically support learning martial arts that can seriously disable or even kill an attacker.
Another possible reason for this stuff is that the media is so saturated with armed violence that for anyone who doesn't stop to think about these things, guns and knives are, at a young age, associated with unlawful violence. I think that's the best explanation.
Once that initial association is made, unless it's challenged immediately, it grows legs. Other supporting justifications are made: "nobody _needs_ a 4" knife", etc. By the time politicians get elected for the first time, they've built up an entire list of BS reasons that aren't any good, but it's nevertheless extremely difficult to disabuse them of those reasons.
The above statistical-danger-of-weapon-x is one of those supporting justifications, and it's really one of the better ones until you realize that those sorts of fights can often be diffused by the victim before they get started; that doesn't mean the victim is at fault, but it means these are not the random, unpredictable, can-happen-to-anyone attacks that politicians want people to believe. If citizens are disabused of that notion, they are no longer afraid, and politicians lose some power.
Vanguard.45
New member
Leave it to the British!
A. Thank GOD for the Revolutionary War!
B. I guess the 4th Amendment was not even considered a step up by the Brits considering they are apparently willing to endure "random searches."
C. What a bunch of sheep!
D. You want my guns? MOLON LABE
A. Thank GOD for the Revolutionary War!
B. I guess the 4th Amendment was not even considered a step up by the Brits considering they are apparently willing to endure "random searches."
C. What a bunch of sheep!
D. You want my guns? MOLON LABE
Out of curiosity, on stop and search:
Stop And Search Powers
The rights of people when they are stopped by a police officer…. Police officers can stop and speak to anybody, that's not covered by law in any way, there's no reason why you can't stop and speak to a police officer (and vice versa). However, if the police officer wants to search you they, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, have to have grounds to do that. If they intend to search you they must give you their name, number, the station to which they're attached, and the reasons why they want to search you.
Detained
They can detain you for the purpose of searching you, and if necessary take you to a police station to do the search. They will take your details, your name, your address. You're not obliged to give your name and address, even after you've been searched, but I would suggest that if you've got nothing to hide it's useful and cooperative just to give your name and address. A detailed copy is made of that and you are entitled to a copy of that search record. If you refuse to be searched then you can be forcibly taken to a police station. Again, we have to justify why we are searching you, we can't just go on a 'fishing expedition'.
Cited from here
How different is this to the American experience?
Stop And Search Powers
The rights of people when they are stopped by a police officer…. Police officers can stop and speak to anybody, that's not covered by law in any way, there's no reason why you can't stop and speak to a police officer (and vice versa). However, if the police officer wants to search you they, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, have to have grounds to do that. If they intend to search you they must give you their name, number, the station to which they're attached, and the reasons why they want to search you.
Detained
They can detain you for the purpose of searching you, and if necessary take you to a police station to do the search. They will take your details, your name, your address. You're not obliged to give your name and address, even after you've been searched, but I would suggest that if you've got nothing to hide it's useful and cooperative just to give your name and address. A detailed copy is made of that and you are entitled to a copy of that search record. If you refuse to be searched then you can be forcibly taken to a police station. Again, we have to justify why we are searching you, we can't just go on a 'fishing expedition'.
Cited from here
How different is this to the American experience?
Vanguard.45
New member
Faithless
The grounds for an officer to search a citizen for weapons requires that the officer have "probable cause" or at least "reasonable suspicion" that the person is armed (see the court case Terry v. Ohio). To search a person for other types of contraband requires probable cause.
I was primarily commenting on the fact that the article stated that the police in England might receive greater powers in regard to searches and use the out of control crime to justify it.
My curiosity about the ban on guns in your country is that no one in power there has bothered to look up the definition of the word "criminal" (i.e. one who disregards laws). Many times the anti-gunners say that the stiff penalties for gun crimes will deter criminals from using guns. Well, if that is the case, then they could double the deterrence by arming the law abiding public (deterrent #1) and then increasing the penalties on the crimes themselves (i.e. murder, burglary, robbery, etc.) that the antis hope to deter (deterrent #2). What is funny is that it is the liberals/ socialists/ antis that always seem to come to the defense of the goblins as if the goblins are victims!!!??? Give the people a means of protection and the goblins WOULD be victims (and thank GOD!!)!
Just my $.02 worth,
Vanguard.45
The grounds for an officer to search a citizen for weapons requires that the officer have "probable cause" or at least "reasonable suspicion" that the person is armed (see the court case Terry v. Ohio). To search a person for other types of contraband requires probable cause.
I was primarily commenting on the fact that the article stated that the police in England might receive greater powers in regard to searches and use the out of control crime to justify it.
My curiosity about the ban on guns in your country is that no one in power there has bothered to look up the definition of the word "criminal" (i.e. one who disregards laws). Many times the anti-gunners say that the stiff penalties for gun crimes will deter criminals from using guns. Well, if that is the case, then they could double the deterrence by arming the law abiding public (deterrent #1) and then increasing the penalties on the crimes themselves (i.e. murder, burglary, robbery, etc.) that the antis hope to deter (deterrent #2). What is funny is that it is the liberals/ socialists/ antis that always seem to come to the defense of the goblins as if the goblins are victims!!!??? Give the people a means of protection and the goblins WOULD be victims (and thank GOD!!)!
Just my $.02 worth,
Vanguard.45
I must not have read the article carefully my first time through. How'd I miss this gem? Maybe I'm becoming jaded.
It's amazing that liberals, for all the "education" they claim to have, fail to grasp simple semantics.
"Illegal use", which is all most people care about, is already illegal, you miserable "executive" moron. What is "illegal carriage"? *Yawn*
It's amazing that liberals, for all the "education" they claim to have, fail to grasp simple semantics.
CobrayCommando
Moderator
We should all become trained in the deadly art of "Pickup-toothpick-throwey". When they have banned all manner of knives, rifles, pistols, forks etc, those trained in the deadly super secret southeastern Mongolian art of
Pickup-toothpick-throwey kata or pickata for short will be able to pick up any random toothpick and obtain cranio-ocular shots at close to 18,000 meters, well over the range of any handheld firearm.
Toothpicks, a graceful weapon from a more civilized time.
Well have you got a better idea?! 
Pickup-toothpick-throwey kata or pickata for short will be able to pick up any random toothpick and obtain cranio-ocular shots at close to 18,000 meters, well over the range of any handheld firearm.
Toothpicks, a graceful weapon from a more civilized time.
Well have you got a better idea?!
Here in the US our prisons, they manage to manufacture weapons out of almost nothing, and they are under a controlled enviroment.
A can of oven cleaner works wonders for the gremlin, when it sprayed into the eyes, although I suppose you might be limited in the cleaning supplies that you have access to!
Again, I did e-mail you info on manufacturing a blow-gun and a simple toxin to make it work!
In the prisons, they heat up razor blades, and insert them into toothbrushes for simple slashing weapon. The lid from a can (metal) can be sharpened and made into a crude knife!
A light bulb in which you have heated up the base, removed it, then filled with sodium hydroxide, then re-glued the base back to the bulb would make a nice weapon to tossed into a gremlin's face!
Nails punched through a potato can be used for throwing, a bar of soap also works!
A can of oven cleaner works wonders for the gremlin, when it sprayed into the eyes, although I suppose you might be limited in the cleaning supplies that you have access to!
Again, I did e-mail you info on manufacturing a blow-gun and a simple toxin to make it work!
In the prisons, they heat up razor blades, and insert them into toothbrushes for simple slashing weapon. The lid from a can (metal) can be sharpened and made into a crude knife!
A light bulb in which you have heated up the base, removed it, then filled with sodium hydroxide, then re-glued the base back to the bulb would make a nice weapon to tossed into a gremlin's face!
Nails punched through a potato can be used for throwing, a bar of soap also works!
progunner1957
Moderator
I pity the folks in the UK - if I lived there, I'd sell everything and move to one of the U.S. states where they actually recognize the right to keep and bear arms; Alaska and Vermont being the best choices (carry what you want, no "permit" required); Indiana isn't too bad, either, and Montana and Wyoming are good also.
