What if the fisherman on the way to fish were attacked by someone on the way to the river and used his long gutting knife as a defensive weapon? What would happen to him?
Nothing, if it were a genuine case of self defence. If it wasn't, for example if someone stole one of his fish and he threw the knife at them as they ran away, then he is open to prosecution, but the prosecution is for the act, not the possesion of the knife.
That's true no matter the reason for carrying the knife, it would be perfectly possible to be charged with carrying an offensive weapon, and at the same time not be charged with using it in a clear case of self defence. Of course, the police and a jury are likely to wonder whether there was some prior intent if you didn't have a reason for carrying a knife in the first place.
Why can't a normal, sane, law abiding citizen be trusted to carry a knife for defensive reasons?
Who's to decide who's a normal sane law-abiding citizen? What's to stop the man hanging around in a dark alley waiting for someone to rob from claiming he's a normal sane law-abiding citizen carrying a knife for self defence when the police stop him?
The point is, there are no "defensive" weapons, there are weapons which can be used for offence or defence.
where to start? pongo.. yes.. allmost all of our violent sprees are stopped by a firearm.
Usually after fairly large numbers of people have been killed.
nashwan..knife can be very effiecient killer
Of course it can be, but in most circumstances a gun is more lethal than a knife. Modern armies seem to have abandoned the use of swords, for example, and seem to use rather a lot of guns.
the most effective killer on a world scale is the bomb.
Yes, but even the US has had the good sense to restrict the sale of those.
If you wanted to go on a spree killing tomorrow, the easiest way to rack up a lot of kills would be with a gun. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous
as you say... murder rates fluctuate in the UK but... as you yourself can doubtlessly see... they stay about the same no matter what tools are banned by your nanny
Which again is ignoring the fact the "ban" is simply a tightening of already tight laws.
fear that as the haves and have nots are a wider rift in your country... you will regret losing your god given right to defend yourself.
I haven't lost the right to defend myself lazs. What I have lost is the right to defend myself with a handgun, but in return I have the "right" not to have to face a criminal with a handgun, except in extremely rare circumstances.
You on the other hand need a gun to defend yourself but the criminals sure as hell have guns.
The point being that a fisherman, simply because he is a fisherman, is trusted to carry a knife and it would not be considered an offensive weapon.
He's not "trusted", he has a valid reason for carrying a knife. Anyone with a valid reason is similarly "trusted".
There is quite a bit of grey area between hanging out with a machette at a pub and carrying a fishing knife to go fishing.
Yes, I used extreme examples at either end of the spectrum to illustrate the point.
So, since the fisherman is trusted to carry a knife, what would happen in the RARE case that he used it on someone trying to do him harm? Would they accept that he was not intending to use it on someone and not prosecute ?
He wouldn't be prosecuted for having the knife if he defended himself. Possesion of the knife and using it to attack or defend are two different things, although if he attacked someone without provocation the prosecution might claim that he carried the knife with the purpose of attacking someone.
I'd be willing to bet that they would prosecute the guy no matter if he was defending his life or not.
Not in a clear cut case of self defence. If he stabbed someone who was stealing one of his fish, for example, he would get prosecuted, if he stabbed someone who was trying to stab him he almost certainly wouldn't.
Here for example is a typical clear cut case of self defence:
Man was `justified in stabbing burglar - Trial.
16 July 1996
The Times
A man who came home to find a burglar ransacking his flat was fully justified in seizing a kitchen knife and stabbing him, a judge at the Old Bailey said yesterday. The burglar, Brian Firmager, 32, later died from a heart attack on the operating table at Guys Hospital, where his accomplice, Tony Garrard, had taken him after they fled.
Firmager had attacked John Campbell with a pepper spray and baseball paddle when he returned to his home and disturbed the burglars. I have not the slightest doubt that, in my judgment, Mr Campbell was fully justified in what he did in lawful self defence, Brian Higgs, QC, the Recorder, said. He jailed Garrard for six years for the aggravated burglary at Mr Campbells flat in Holborn, London, last January.
Thugs like you who attack householders in this country and subject them to the violence that you two did cannot be surprised if the householders fight back in self-defence, the judge told Garrard.
When Garrard, 34, from Lee, southeast London, heard of the death of Firmager, he went to police in tears and confessed, the court was told. He still experiences the agony of it, Geoffrey Cox, for the defence, said. This man has had it brought home to him the sheer absurdity, folly and error of his ways.
The Crown Prosecution Service had considered prosecuting Mr Campbell but decided not to take action as it was considered to be self-defence. Mr Campbell, who needed three stitches after the attack, is awaiting trial on two drug-related matters.
Or this one, where the man who defended himself was carrying a knife, and still wasn't prosecuted:
Man who killed burglar escapes prosecution.
15 June 1994
Reuters News
A British man who killed a burglar he found stealing from his parents home escaped prosecution on Wednesday after a coroner ruled he acted in self-defence.
Dean Davis, 33, was visiting his parents home to measure up their windows for curtains when he caught the burglar in the act and stabbed him after a scuffle. Police found an array of weapons including a pickaxe handle and a chisel on the dead man, 43-year-old Patrick Halcrow.
The coroner at the inquest in Essex, west of London, recorded a verdict of lawful killing.
Davis admitted carrying a knife but the state prosecutor, the Crown Prosecution Service, said it would not be taking legal action against him in light of the coroners verdict.
And as to the serious gun control stuff: criminals will always find a way to get the weapons they want, on the black market, from other countries, whatever.
From what I understand, the price of an illegal handgun is so high in the UK it's out of reach for most common criminals.
In the US, a crack addict can buy a gun, and use it to committ robberies. In the UK, a crack addict who came in possesion of a gun would sell it for several week's worth of crack.
By restricting supply, you price the guns out of the reach of the lowest level criminals, who prey on the public, and into the hands of the mid levels, like drug dealers who only want a gun to protect themselves from other drug dealers.
Most criminals in the UK would find it extremely difficult to get hold of a gun. So much so that many of the guns siezed recently have been air pistols converted to fire 22 LR.
does anyone here think that if I wanted a gun in england to go on a suicidal shooting spree that I couldn't get one?
lazs
Unless you are well "connected", no.
In 2003, the Metropolitan Police, who cover over 7 million Londoners, seized 385 illegaly held guns, half of which were replicas or converted air pistols.
That gives some idea of how many guns are actually in circulation amongst the criminals.
