Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Syzygys, Aug 28, 2009.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you can't sell cutlery to teenagers...
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No, because their sale is governed by Offensive Weapons Act. Since teenagers can not be hold fully responsible from their acts like an adult, shopkeeper can not take the responsibility.
An adult can buy the cutlery set, and give it to teenager and take the responsibility. These are legal shit. But in reality probably a teenager bought a cutlery set and stab someone with knife; right after that government passed this law in accordance with legal advices.
this came up here as well. both pocket knives ank kitchen knives need you to be 18 to buy. tne pocket knives arnt such a problem as parents can buy them but the kitchen knives ARE a huge problem. teenages younger than 18 live alone for various reasons and therefore NEED knives. its a stupid law
I understand the idea behind it, but it is stupid and flawed. Most kids could get knives from their kitchen drawer, and butterknives are not even sharp...
I bet one can find much better killing tools in a hardware store...
I haven't seen anything as sharp as that butter knife around here for a while now.
Reminds me of the rules of kids not taking weapons to school and a boy being suspended for his GI Joe's gun.
The local plod weren't tremendously happy about the AK-47 propped against the wall in my living room the last time they paid a visit.
Remember the No. 1 and No. 2 Firearms Act of 1997 in the United Kingdom? Completing its pass through Parliament, it amended firearms regulation to the point where all guns, except for antique guns, guns of historic interest, and air pistols, were made illegal to own. Following the amendment, knife crimes in the United Kingdom have skyrocketed, and a "knife culture" has been established on the city-streets. As such, ridiculous proposals have been made to counter the knife dilemma, such as taxing violent video games and rap music sales, and banning the sale of sharp objects to people younger than eighteen. The United Kingdom is a prime example of the totalitarianism that can ensue when something as simple as guns are outlawed from private ownership.
The United Kingdom has a horrible future ahead of it, and it will never return to its former glory.
Not quite true.
The act was for handguns, rifles are still legal, and so are certain classes of target-shooting pistol, although it's hard to get hold of a licence for them.
Also not exactly true: it's more scare-mongering than reality.
Rifles beyond the scope of .22 rimfire are outlawed as well. You certainly cannot possess a semi-automatic or pump-action of any sort.
Also not true:
So if we can't prevent something completely, we should stop trying altogether?
You probably can, and they're not available to under 18s either.
Rifles used for competition and sport (target shooting, hunting, and so on) do not fall under the same category as rifles that can be privately owned without having to explain your intentions. Your nitpicking over rifle measurements ignores the larger picture, a picture involving the prohibition of the private ownership of pistols and non-competitive rifles. As a result of these laws, knife violence in the United Kingdom has skyrocketed, leading to the types of laws we see in the picture provided in the opening post. Most of the knife crime perpetrators in the United Kingdom - especially amongst youth - are Black, and most of the knife crime victims - especially amongst youth - are White.
Why would we want to own rifles?
So we can shoot people instead of stabbing them?
Correction: my pointing out your misconceptions.
Although a check does indicate that Scotland is worse than England or Wales...
People may wish to own rifles (amongst other types of firearms) for collection, self-protection, and a host of other reasons. The United Kingdom's crime rates - both property and violent - have increased dramatically following post-1997 gun regulations. Admittedly, these surges in crime are due primarily to the large influx of non-White war-torn immigrants to the nation, and the increasingly violent tendencies of the urban Black population. As such, most knife crime perpetrators in the United Kingdom - especially amongst youth - are Black, whereas most knife crime victims - especially amongst youth - are White.
They are not misconceptions. Rifles outside of .22 rimfire can only be "owned" for competition and sport. This is different from private ownership which does not require the government to know of your intentions with the firearms in question.
Actually, police memos in the United Kingdom have admitted to under reporting knife crimes, amongst others. Fatal stabbings have increased 30% since 1997 and knife crime is at its highest in three decades, to mention two examples. Because the United Kingdom's Parliament is continuously enacting totalitarian style laws - such as banning the sales of sharp objects to peoples younger than eighteen - there has been a growing movement within toward rightwing and extreme-rightwing parties. Surges in crime and rapidly changing demographics in favor of non-Whites have popularized the British National Party. The Labour is failing to address its traditional supporters' issues, and as a result, the extreme right is looking better and better for the United Kingdom's White voter base.
sporks are more dangerous than knives because they are confusing. are they forks or spoons or neither?
"May" is not "do". The only people I know who have any interest in actually owning firearms do so.
Any actual statistics?
Anything to show that it's the gun regulations that have any bearing whatsoever on those statistics?
Gun ownership in the UK was extremely sparse except for rifle/ pistol club members who can still own the weapons. Gun ownership for "self defence" in the UK was extremely low. It's a foreign concept over here.
Which is not what you stated.
Like I said: why would we want firearms if not for target shooting?
Actually police memos say they may have under-reported.
Contradicted by the quote in my last post.
Growing movement my arse.
Or do you have links?
In England the most destructive wounds they see are from knife wounds in young people usually caused by gang attacks.
Huge rise in child knife victims
The rise in child knife victims is worse in London
There has been a 120% rise in the number of children admitted to London hospitals suffering knife injuries, figures from an MP have shown.
Justine Greening MP said NHS figures show there had been 34 emergency hospital admissions of children aged under 16 with stab wounds in 2003/04.
This figure rose to 75 admissions in 2007/08.
The latest figures from the Metropolitan Police show a 12% drop in knife crime in the capital.
The records, obtained by the Conservative MP for Putney in London, also show more teenagers aged between 16 and 18 are suffering knife wounds in the capital, with hospital admissions up from 129 in 2003/04 to 238 in 2007/08 - an 84% rise.
The figure show why tackling youth crime, and in particular knife crime, is fundamental for our capital and keeping the streets safe."
"Last May, the Metropolitan Police began Operation Blunt 2 which used metal detectors to fight knife crime and stopped people using powers under Section 60 of the Public Order Act, which allows them to search targets under the presumption of reasonable suspicion.
As of 9 March 2009, officers had carried out 245,152 searches, arrested 8,527 people and seized 4,723 knives, as a part of the operation."
Senselessly, yes, we should stop trying. The example is particulary stupid, because cutlery is not very good for attacks and can be found in EVERY home anyway...
You shitting me. So a teenager can't buy a hoe or a pick or any gardening tool?
cause obviously teenagers cant use the knifes readily available in their own home.
Separate names with a comma.