British PM on knives.
- Thread starter Mk-211
- Start date
- Status
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
It is sad that the British empire once spanned the whole world. "Sun never sets on the British Empire" was the slogan. Now they are afraid of pocket knives.
theotherwaldo
Member
The British common people are subjects.
They are owned and controlled by their government.
They have no real right to self defense.
Americans are citizens.
They own and control their government.
They are supposed to have an inherent right to self defense.
That's the difference.
They are owned and controlled by their government.
They have no real right to self defense.
Americans are citizens.
They own and control their government.
They are supposed to have an inherent right to self defense.
That's the difference.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
The sun never set on the british empire because God didn't trust an englishman in the dark.
That's funny, I don't care who you are.The sun never set on the british empire because God didn't trust an englishman in the dark.
Old Dog
Member
Every Brit (got a few in my social circle) I know that emigrated to the U.S. is (1) an owner of multiple firearms and (2) politically conservative. And, they all like knives too.
Churchill is rolling over in his grave...
Churchill is rolling over in his grave...
Savage30L
Member
One of the most outspoken members of our gun club is a British immigrant. He lives way out in the country (not far from the club), and operates a small, under-the-radar shooting and self-defense class operation on his property. Open carry is legal in KY, and I've never seen him without a .45 strapped to his waist.
Mr Creosote
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2024
- Messages
- 6
I've been dropping in on this site for a while now, but I was quite interested to read all of the above posts, so I thought I’d stick my head above the parapet. By way of background, I am a career Detective, approaching retirement, in a British Police force. People obviously claim to be all sorts of things on the internet, but that is who I am as it happens.
These sorts of discussions do tend to get a bit divisive, so I will kick off by saying that whilst I may disagree with one or two things previously posted, it doesn't follow that there is right or wrong answer to the specific question or that I am attacking the poster.
I’ll begin with the knife depicted with its “extreme weapon powers” (does it glow in the presence of orcs or something?) which our current Prime Minister Rishi SUNAK is waving about whilst weirdly grimacing (the other gent is the Metropolitan Police Commissioner). That particular design of knife would in fact be lawful to possess in private in the UK. It would be unlawful to possess in public unless you had a lawful purpose for doing so (I suppose you could claim it was a camping tool but I doubt you’d win). UK weapons laws are extremely complicated and frequently absurd; even Police officers get confused by them. A so-called Zombie knife has to have, in addition to a cutting and a serrated edge “images or words suggesting it should be used for violence”. Don’t see the latter. Does writing “Head-splitter” or something equally childish on the blade make it more dangerous? Of course not. But that’s the system we operate under.
Knives in drop boxes
Yeah, obviously these are just about pretending to do something about violent crime. If a person wanted to stab someone, they wouldn’t put their stabbing implement of choice in an amnesty bin. The only circumstance I can think where it might add value would be where a Mum finds a knife in her son’s bedroom and wants to get rid of it. But why couldn't she just wrap it in a bit of newspaper and stick in the bin/garbage can. Or in a metal recycling bin. There are plenty of them about.
Since the folks in the UK have very restricted access to firearms… young men tend to go at it with blades (or boots… the old knock ‘em down and stomp routine…).
Yes and no. Even where British criminals had more or less unrestricted access to firearms (basically before the late 60’s, which is when the progressive tightening of restrictions really began) it didn’t mean they necessarily preferred them. The robbery crew which carried out the Great Train Robbery in the 1960’s, one of Britain’s most notorious crimes, used coshes; they just didn’t think firearms would be necessary.
It is, despite what some people claim, difficult for criminals to source illegal firearms. Not impossible. Difficult. Generally only higher tier criminals will be able to get their hands on an original purpose firearm. Even then, they tend to get used again and again, rather than being chucked into the sea like a sensible person would do after shooting someone. Most criminals rely on conversions of often dubious quality (well, I wouldn’t want to fire one, since I am quite fond of my hands). Hence knives, at least to some extent. “Kicking or hitting” comprises 17% of homicides from the most recent figures so it is obviously not unknown for people to be kicked to death in this country. However, it’s only really old men like me who wear boots on a regular basis, probably because they were fashionable in the 1970’s and 80’s when we grew up. Your average thug on the street wears trainers/sneakers and wouldn’t be seen dead in boots (you can obviously still kick someone to death wearing sneakers but it sounds a bit painful on your toseies).
As a result politicians wanting to be noticed find easy answers in the weapons themselves.
Spot on, 100%.
I heard that London by it's self has more stab deaths than the entire united states.
Just no. There were 109 homicides in LONDON in 2022 (69 stabbings, 9 shootings). As I understand it from the FBI’s figures, there were 16,485 homicides in the US in 2022 with “knife or cutting instrument” the weapon used in 1216 of them. So the US has eighteen times as many stabbings as LONDON
He [SUNAK] wouldn't want to point the finger at "his people."
I may have entirely missed the point, but SUNAK was born in BRITAIN so “his people” would be the British. Or perhaps “Oxford University graduates” or “Stanford University graduates”. If the reference was to his ethnicity, he is from an Indian/Punjabi/Hindu background. British people of Indian descent are the second least likely group to get themselves mixed up in crime. If you fall into the category “White British” you are at least twice as likely to be an offender as a person who is “Indian British”.
The murder rate of London surpassed NYC this year.
Nope. Establishing a figure isn’t completely straight-forward (a person who had suffered critical injuries due to violence and then had their life support turned off would be treated as a victim of homicide; also not all homicides are immediately discovered of course). But the figure for LONDON at the end of 2023 was 98. The figure for NEW YORK seems to be 349, four times as many (after rounding). LONDON is also actually slightly larger than NEW YORK in terms of population (size-wise, it's much larger). What you may be thinking of are press stories from 2018 when, for a couple of months, the Metropolitan Police opened more homicide investigations than the NYPD. The NYPD soon pulled ahead and it appears, due to the late discovery of homicides, NEW YORK was always ahead even for those particular months.
The British common people are subjects.
To be strictly accurate, all Brits bar one - and not just the “common people” - are subjects. We’re all subjects of HM King Charles III. Even his wife and sons.
They are owned and controlled by their government.
But that’s just rhetoric. I can’t think of anything off hand that I can’t do in the UK which I could do in the US. Just like you, I have the right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, to vote, what have you. The King rarely, if ever, comes round my house, pushing me around and nicking my stuff. Because laws differ, there are a things I can do in the UK I couldn’t do in the US. Even if we restrict the question purely to firearms, to be clear, being a person of good character and relatively stable mind, I can possess firearms in the UK. There isn’t a limit to the number of firearms I can possess. I need a firearms certificate but getting one here is considerably easier than I understand it to be in parts of the US (NEW YORK CITY?). I can’t own the range of firearms I could potentially in the US but I can own them (though, let’s be honest, I will be over-charged for them).
They have no real right to self defense.
Let's say a man broke into my house in the middle of the night, armed with, say, a knife. I proceed to beat that individual to death with a length of rebar. If I thought he was going to kill me or cause me serious harm - and I am confident I could make the case - I have acted lawfully. I'll almost certainly get nicked and questioned but those are the break. I could even use a lawfully owned firearm provided I had the justification, though I would need to explain how I managed to get it out of my mandated gun safe and load it so quickly, which might be tricky. Let freedom ring.
Churchill is rolling over in his grave...
I rather imagine he is. I would think most people on a site like this have at least some interest in history and so would be aware that not only was Churchill an excellent shot who personally killed a number of enemy soldiers in battle on three continents, he also routinely carried a firearm. He also had also amassed a pretty impressive firearm collection by the time of his death. In addition to his many handguns and long guns, he also owned four sub machineguns, presumably still capable of automatic fire.
These sorts of discussions do tend to get a bit divisive, so I will kick off by saying that whilst I may disagree with one or two things previously posted, it doesn't follow that there is right or wrong answer to the specific question or that I am attacking the poster.
I’ll begin with the knife depicted with its “extreme weapon powers” (does it glow in the presence of orcs or something?) which our current Prime Minister Rishi SUNAK is waving about whilst weirdly grimacing (the other gent is the Metropolitan Police Commissioner). That particular design of knife would in fact be lawful to possess in private in the UK. It would be unlawful to possess in public unless you had a lawful purpose for doing so (I suppose you could claim it was a camping tool but I doubt you’d win). UK weapons laws are extremely complicated and frequently absurd; even Police officers get confused by them. A so-called Zombie knife has to have, in addition to a cutting and a serrated edge “images or words suggesting it should be used for violence”. Don’t see the latter. Does writing “Head-splitter” or something equally childish on the blade make it more dangerous? Of course not. But that’s the system we operate under.
Knives in drop boxes
Yeah, obviously these are just about pretending to do something about violent crime. If a person wanted to stab someone, they wouldn’t put their stabbing implement of choice in an amnesty bin. The only circumstance I can think where it might add value would be where a Mum finds a knife in her son’s bedroom and wants to get rid of it. But why couldn't she just wrap it in a bit of newspaper and stick in the bin/garbage can. Or in a metal recycling bin. There are plenty of them about.
Since the folks in the UK have very restricted access to firearms… young men tend to go at it with blades (or boots… the old knock ‘em down and stomp routine…).
Yes and no. Even where British criminals had more or less unrestricted access to firearms (basically before the late 60’s, which is when the progressive tightening of restrictions really began) it didn’t mean they necessarily preferred them. The robbery crew which carried out the Great Train Robbery in the 1960’s, one of Britain’s most notorious crimes, used coshes; they just didn’t think firearms would be necessary.
It is, despite what some people claim, difficult for criminals to source illegal firearms. Not impossible. Difficult. Generally only higher tier criminals will be able to get their hands on an original purpose firearm. Even then, they tend to get used again and again, rather than being chucked into the sea like a sensible person would do after shooting someone. Most criminals rely on conversions of often dubious quality (well, I wouldn’t want to fire one, since I am quite fond of my hands). Hence knives, at least to some extent. “Kicking or hitting” comprises 17% of homicides from the most recent figures so it is obviously not unknown for people to be kicked to death in this country. However, it’s only really old men like me who wear boots on a regular basis, probably because they were fashionable in the 1970’s and 80’s when we grew up. Your average thug on the street wears trainers/sneakers and wouldn’t be seen dead in boots (you can obviously still kick someone to death wearing sneakers but it sounds a bit painful on your toseies).
As a result politicians wanting to be noticed find easy answers in the weapons themselves.
Spot on, 100%.
I heard that London by it's self has more stab deaths than the entire united states.
Just no. There were 109 homicides in LONDON in 2022 (69 stabbings, 9 shootings). As I understand it from the FBI’s figures, there were 16,485 homicides in the US in 2022 with “knife or cutting instrument” the weapon used in 1216 of them. So the US has eighteen times as many stabbings as LONDON
He [SUNAK] wouldn't want to point the finger at "his people."
I may have entirely missed the point, but SUNAK was born in BRITAIN so “his people” would be the British. Or perhaps “Oxford University graduates” or “Stanford University graduates”. If the reference was to his ethnicity, he is from an Indian/Punjabi/Hindu background. British people of Indian descent are the second least likely group to get themselves mixed up in crime. If you fall into the category “White British” you are at least twice as likely to be an offender as a person who is “Indian British”.
The murder rate of London surpassed NYC this year.
Nope. Establishing a figure isn’t completely straight-forward (a person who had suffered critical injuries due to violence and then had their life support turned off would be treated as a victim of homicide; also not all homicides are immediately discovered of course). But the figure for LONDON at the end of 2023 was 98. The figure for NEW YORK seems to be 349, four times as many (after rounding). LONDON is also actually slightly larger than NEW YORK in terms of population (size-wise, it's much larger). What you may be thinking of are press stories from 2018 when, for a couple of months, the Metropolitan Police opened more homicide investigations than the NYPD. The NYPD soon pulled ahead and it appears, due to the late discovery of homicides, NEW YORK was always ahead even for those particular months.
The British common people are subjects.
To be strictly accurate, all Brits bar one - and not just the “common people” - are subjects. We’re all subjects of HM King Charles III. Even his wife and sons.
They are owned and controlled by their government.
But that’s just rhetoric. I can’t think of anything off hand that I can’t do in the UK which I could do in the US. Just like you, I have the right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, to vote, what have you. The King rarely, if ever, comes round my house, pushing me around and nicking my stuff. Because laws differ, there are a things I can do in the UK I couldn’t do in the US. Even if we restrict the question purely to firearms, to be clear, being a person of good character and relatively stable mind, I can possess firearms in the UK. There isn’t a limit to the number of firearms I can possess. I need a firearms certificate but getting one here is considerably easier than I understand it to be in parts of the US (NEW YORK CITY?). I can’t own the range of firearms I could potentially in the US but I can own them (though, let’s be honest, I will be over-charged for them).
They have no real right to self defense.
Let's say a man broke into my house in the middle of the night, armed with, say, a knife. I proceed to beat that individual to death with a length of rebar. If I thought he was going to kill me or cause me serious harm - and I am confident I could make the case - I have acted lawfully. I'll almost certainly get nicked and questioned but those are the break. I could even use a lawfully owned firearm provided I had the justification, though I would need to explain how I managed to get it out of my mandated gun safe and load it so quickly, which might be tricky. Let freedom ring.
Churchill is rolling over in his grave...
I rather imagine he is. I would think most people on a site like this have at least some interest in history and so would be aware that not only was Churchill an excellent shot who personally killed a number of enemy soldiers in battle on three continents, he also routinely carried a firearm. He also had also amassed a pretty impressive firearm collection by the time of his death. In addition to his many handguns and long guns, he also owned four sub machineguns, presumably still capable of automatic fire.
- Status
