Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hock]

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call  
 
Doctors say knives are too pointed
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

 
Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such
 

[Professor]

I'm sure that the criminals are scared of these extreme measures....

                   
                     
                   
                     

God Bless Texas!   I went to an International Defensive Pistols Association (IDPA) competetion this morning with a pistol concealed on my hip and a knife in my pocket.   Most of the guys had the same . . .

Not a single criminal in sight.        Maybe they are all heading to the UK for the sheep that the government is creating. 

[tlouis]

i used to feel that knives were beyond  danger of being banned, simply because of their utility. I mean every household in America has sharp knives. You don't have to have a $200 tactical to be effective. However, I guess i could be wrong. Whats next? No rat tail combs? Re-designing pens and pencils so there is no sharp end? All glass replaced with plexiglass because its too easy to take a shard and make a shiv? No baseball bats unless you are within 1 mile of a ball field?

[Professor]

i used to feel that knives were beyond  danger of being banned, simply because of their utility. I mean every household in America has sharp knives. You don't have to have a $200 tactical to be effective. However, I guess i could be wrong. Whats next? No rat tail combs? Re-designing pens and pencils so there is no sharp end? All glass replaced with plexiglass because its too easy to take a shard and make a shiv? No baseball bats unless you are within 1 mile of a ball field?

Here's the measurement of law:

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason   or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

[Bri Thai]

I get rather annoyed and offended when people imply that my country is full of "sheep", merely because they have a different culture as regards weapons. 

[Nick Hughes]

Americans don't refer to the Brits as sheep because they have a different weapons culture.  The term "sheep" is used because it appears to us here that the British governement is determined to disarm their citizens until they have no weapons left at their disposal. 

It began with draconian gun laws for private citizens which became even worse after Dunblane.  Then it was a ban on tear gas and sprays etc, tasers, extendable batons, and in fact anything designed as a weapon for personal defense.  It's now going to include kitchen knives and so, the logical question is, where does this end, if indeed it ever does.  Perhaps it will be screwdrivers next.

Once the entire populace has been disarmed thus you are in effect "sheep" due to the fact you don't have any "teeth" with which to fight back with.

The Americans, rightly or wrongly, enjoy their "right to bear arms" and can't fathom (especially here on a forum devoted to self protection and the right to self defense) how a group of people would allow their governement to do that to them without fighting back.

Having lived in the UK for six years and training with and working with govt operatives etc I know the governement's position.  They believe that if there aren't any weapons to be had there will be less violence, and, if some raises its ugly head they'll quickly take care of business with their cctv cameras and police officers.  Would that it were so.  We both know that isn't the case and all they've succeeded in doing is depriving honest, law abiding citizens of any effective means with which to defend themselves.

The gun laws in England have been in effect for a long time.  If they worked like they're supposed to there wouldn't be any gun deaths in the UK and of course there are.  Obviously their theory therefore is bollocks.  Instead of admitting that (gadzooks, can you ever imagine a govt admitting they got it wrong?) and giving the people back their right to defense they keep hammering away with more asinine and stringent rules.  The people over there seem happy to accept that which is why here, they think they're sheep.

[misshinryu]

Americans don't refer to the Brits as sheep because they have a different weapons culture. The term "sheep" is used because it appears to us here that the British governement is determined to disarm their citizens until they have no weapons left at their disposal.

It began with draconian gun laws for private citizens which became even worse after Dunblane. Then it was a ban on tear gas and sprays etc, tasers, extendable batons, and in fact anything designed as a weapon for personal defense. It's now going to include kitchen knives and so, the logical question is, where does this end, if indeed it ever does. Perhaps it will be screwdrivers next.

Once the entire populace has been disarmed thus you are in effect "sheep" due to the fact you don't have any "teeth" with which to fight back with.

The Americans, rightly or wrongly, enjoy their "right to bear arms" and can't fathom (especially here on a forum devoted to self protection and the right to self defense) how a group of people would allow their governement to do that to them without fighting back.

Having lived in the UK for six years and training with and working with govt operatives etc I know the governement's position. They believe that if there aren't any weapons to be had there will be less violence, and, if some raises its ugly head they'll quickly take care of business with their cctv cameras and police officers. Would that it were so. We both know that isn't the case and all they've succeeded in doing is depriving honest, law abiding citizens of any effective means with which to defend themselves.

The gun laws in England have been in effect for a long time. If they worked like they're supposed to there wouldn't be any gun deaths in the UK and of course there are. Obviously their theory therefore is bollocks. Instead of admitting that (gadzooks, can you ever imagine a govt admitting they got it wrong?) and giving the people back their right to defense they keep hammering away with more asinine and stringent rules. The people over there seem happy to accept that which is why here, they think they're sheep.

Damn! Could not have said it better myself.
Bri Thai, I started writing to you but deleted it because I did not wish to offend you, BUT because those who do not speak up now in your country, will be lead to slaughter like sheep.

[Bri Thai]

Obviously people from both sides of the water on a forum like this will have stringent views on this issue.  But many UK people look at the USA and scratch their heads in bewilderment at the USA's fascination with weapons, especially guns.  They don't share the same history, not having had the experience of your constitution.  They just don't understand you.  Luckily for me I have guys like you to fill me in.

Yes, people in the UK are worried about their safety AND worried about their rights to self defence.  But they are not campaigning to be allowed to carry weapons. 

In the last few months the right to defend yourself in the home became a hot potato over here.  People like yourselves stirred up a hornets nest, absolutely aghast at all the injustices where innocent people had been prosecuted for harming an intruder.  So the Crown Prosecution Service looked back through records for the last 15 years.  Guess how many potential cases they found over all that time?  Eleven.  And guess what?  Those "innocent" home defenders included such cases as the man who overcame an intruder, subdued him.....then tortured him.....then set him on fire....... etc. etc.  Hardly reasonable self defence.

The UK has not got the balance right.  Our Govt does not yet give us got adequate protection, as law breakers seem to get released after tiny sentences.  But one thing is very sure.  The perception of the vast majority of UK citizens is that they are far safer in the UK than they are in the inner city areas of the USA.  They would laugh at the supposition that it is safer in the US.

Now I do see people point to quaint little towns in Texas or wherever, where everybody knows everybody, and they all walk round armed.  Theres certainly little trouble there.  But the NRA types seem to either brush over the horrendous crime rates in the cities or, conversely, point to them as evidence that people should be armed in order to protect themselves.  They seem to like it both ways, don't they?

How many US citizens agree with the NRA types anyway?  How many millions of your countrymen also think firearms should be banned?  Even your own people who share your own culture don't agree with you, so it's hardly a done deal that all US people are on your side.

And what is all this talk of self defence?  wasn't the right to bear arms in order to rise up against an unjust Government?  Things get a little murky, don't they?

Don't get me wrong.  I don't oppose the USA 2nd Amnmendment.  Not one bit.  It is a USA law for the USA. 

Like Ninor said, if the current position in the UK was correct, then there wouldn't be any gun deaths in the UK.  Guess what?  You can say exactly the same thing about the USA position.  Unless you want to have it both ways again.

We are from different cultures.  Lets celebrate the differences without trying to prove some kind of superiority.  Britain will solve things the British way.  America has given us too much in the way McDonalds, Whacko Jacko and Britney Spears.  Please don't give us anything else........

[Professor]

I get rather annoyed and offended when people imply that my country is full of "sheep", merely because they have a different culture as regards weapons. 

From my post:  "Maybe they are all heading to the UK for the sheep that the government is creating."

Please be annoyed and offended.  YOUR COUNTRY IS FULL OF SHEEP!!!!   Your government is creating them with stupid inconsistent laws that does not allow for the fact that people having brains enough to use a weapon in self defense.   

wasn't the right to bear arms in order to rise up against an unjust Government?  Things get a little murky, don't they?.

Yes.    Not murkey at all.   Our citizens have continued to fight for the right to have citizens armed to protect themselves from people that might harm them -- including the government.     

We are from different cultures.  Lets celebrate the differences without trying to prove some kind of superiority.

We are different.   The American colonies fought against the oppression by the English government and created its own constitution to protect the people from the government....with the rights of the people firmly held in above the rights of the government - thus the reason the 2nd is written as it was....due to fear of government oppression.....goblins were a problem already dealt with by citizens with their weapons - they wanted to assure their right to fight a oppressive goverment..

It's OK to be a sheep.   Just be aware that sheep are at the mercy of the goblins that stalk easy prey.   The US chose a different path (not necessarily superior), just the citizens have continued to uphold that they right to have teeth to defend themselves.

Jeff [JohnAdamsWannaBe] Allen

[Milldog1776]

And what is all this talk of self defence?  wasn't the right to bear arms in order to rise up against an unjust Government?  Things get a little murky, don't they?

Something for you to think about...

Every great genocide and dictatorship/totalitarian regime was preceded by the disarming of the citizenry "for their own good."

[Deadeye Dave]

BriThai wrote:

How many US citizens agree with the NRA types anyway?  How many millions of your countrymen also think firearms should be banned?  Even your own people who share your own culture don't agree with you, so it's hardly a done deal that all US people are on your side?

Who cares? It doesn't matter whether they agree or disagree. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. The Bill of Rights merely enumerated those rights. It says, in effect, "Here the Government may not tread." Natural rights are not subject to "mob rule" (i.e., democracy). Also, being a natural right means that everyone possesses the same right, be they American, British, Indian, Muslim, what have you. We Americans are just lucky enough to live in a Constitutional Republic that protects these natural rights from the whims of popular opinion.

Now the unfortunate reality in this country is that the place is becoming increasingly "Mommy-ized" and our representatives are all too happy to cave in to the demands of the mob.


Remember folks, Democracy is two wolves and a pig voting on what's for dinner...

P.S.- John Stuart Mill (On Liberty) and Fredric Bastiat (The Law) can clear up this "natural rights" thing for ya... Both are available online for free.

[Bri Thai]

Lets not dig at what the English have done throughout history.  The American Indians might want to remind you about the murderous way their own culture was destroyed in order to make way for you freedom lovers.   

And please don't live up to the unfair American stereotype of being people who are always "right" no matter what they do.  Their are enough racist anti American sentiments in the world without you fuelling them. 

And the anti democracy sentiments that leak out are disappointing, particularly when you invade countries for democracy's sake.  I know we are there with you, but we are not the ones questioning democracy.  Only you do when it looks like you might not get you're own way.  Now if there was ever an argument AGAINST arming the populace, then that is it.  Its an "everyone must do as I want or I will shoot thm" argument.

Back to topic.  If the right to bear arms is so good at keeping the peace, just how are all these thousands of Americans ending up dead every year?

I actually love America, but don't share this day dream that it is always right.

By the way, is anyone feeling offended by this?  I hope so.  You might learn about what happens when you throw stones at people, especially when you live in a glass house.

Fond regards,

Brian S

[cgonzales]

I once herd that when a law dosent make sense its not about safty or protection its about control. More cops, cameras or laws dont make me feel safer. And these kinds of laws are already here in the US, look at california and new york and nation wide with gun registration in the new patriot act.

[Virgil]

I think disarming a populace is such a hot-button topic, not because we Americans are such heavily armed cowboys (though we can be!  ), but because it represents the ability of self-determination.  When the govt refuses to allow you to own a gun, knife, or other tool of defense, they are implicitly (and often explicitly)denying you the right to defend yourself.  Who "owns" you, you or your government?  Gun or knife ownership implies (indeed, demands) self control and accountability, and simply owning a weapon doesn't provide those. You can't solve social issues by giving everyone a .45, in spite of what my buddies in the NRA may believe.  But neither can you solve social problems simply by taking away everyone's .45, because weapons are inert; people are dangerous.
I read an article about defense that stated that in England, historically one had to have one's back to the wall before defense was justified, and in America we deviated from that with a 'no retreat rule' which meant one could legally stand one's ground.  Generally we still follow this, with notable exceptions like California.  California is a notable exception in most things, which is why it is regarded with suspicion by neighboring states. 
We do have crime, and violent crime at that.  But crime is not directly correlated to gun ownership, and is more closely related to population density and socioeconomic factors.  As cgonzales points out, the most violent areas of our country have the highest level of government control of weapons.  Hmmnn, maybe there IS a direct link!
V

[Professor]

Lets not dig at what the English have done throughout history.  The American Indians might want to remind you about the murderous way their own culture was destroyed in order to make way for you freedom lovers.   

I have indian bloodlines.....I'm aware.   I'm trying to keep the discussion to stupid weapons laws.....It doesn't seem to be working.

And please don't live up to the unfair American stereotype of being people who are always "right" no matter what they do.  Their are enough racist anti American sentiments in the world without you fuelling them. 

Convince me that disarming citizens and taking away their ability to defend themselves is correct.

And the anti democracy sentiments that leak out are disappointing, particularly when you invade countries for democracy's sake.  I know we are there with you, but we are not the ones questioning democracy.  Only you do when it looks like you might not get you're own way.  Now if there was ever an argument AGAINST arming the populace, then that is it.   Its an "everyone must do as I want or I will shoot thm" argument.

I don't understand this.....Again, convince me that disarming citizens and taking away their ability to defend themselves is correct.   

Back to topic.  If the right to bear arms is so good at keeping the peace, just how are all these thousands of Americans ending up dead every year?

I can't imagine the deaths if criminals had the ability to fleece us at will without us having any teeth.....This is unkin to leaving your the doors to your house unlock....you have to provide some self-protection - even my six year old has learned this lesson with his backpack that he takes to school.

This has nothing to do with America or the UK.   This has to do with out of control weapons laws [in any country] that disarm citizens.....Australia is one of the latest.

By the way, is anyone feeling offended by this?  I hope so.  You might learn about what happens when you throw stones at people, especially when you live in a glass house.

I'm not offended...I'm hard to offend.    Please teach me what happens....I didn't know that I threw a stone at anyone in particular.    By the way....I live in a ranch style brick house...with some glass windows....I've only broke one lately with a rock thrown from my mower.  I'm trying to be careful.