Those English have some pretty sharp instruments!

[Thrawn]

England, where you need a license to watch tv and dance.

"Pubs fined because drinkers also dance
LONDON(AP)
Youre drinking with friends in a pub in London's lively West End when a catchy tune come on the juke-box and you begin swaying to the music. Stop right there- you might be breaking the law.
A British pub chain was fined $7,850 after undercover inspectors caught a few patrons dancing at two of its of its popular bars.
The crime: flounting licensing laws that ban "rhythmic moving".
Under British law, dancing is only allowed in pubs that have public entertainment licenses. But getting the license from local goverments can be expensive and overly bureaucratic process and, consequently, only around 5 percent of pubs ,restaurants and nightclubs allow live dancing and entertainment. "


It would explain why they have less sex though, not everyone has a "Rythmic moving" licence.

[NUKE]

Please ponder on the lives that were lost on 11-09-2001 - because of sharp instrumets. And now I'm going to bed.

Loss of life was due to Arab/Muslim fanatics. If the Flight crew had had guns, 911 could have been prevented. Guns save lives.

How many people did they kill with the knives b.t.w.? I thought the planes caused most of the damage.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
Homicide by sharp instruments - tragic.  

Oh, indeed. My oh my yes.

But I eagerly await your solution to the "sharp instrument" problem in England/Wales/Scotland.

After all, a person as concerned as yourself over needless/pointless loss of life will undoubtedly have the solution. After all, you've got the solution for our firearms problems over here. "Sharp instruments" causing 3X the homicides that firearms do on your home turf should be a piece of cake for you.

Cya tomorrow.

[Nashwan]

Toad, every single person on this board owns several knives, or at least live in a house that has several knives in it.

A great many people don't own guns, and don't live in a house with guns.

In other words, we can get along without guns, we can't get along without knives.

There have been attempts to ban certain types of knives, swords etc, and many campaigns by the press against them. They have foundered due to the fact it's very hard to classify what is a "normal" knife and what isn't. A Kukri might look impressive, but a long kitchen knife it's likely to be more deadly, if only for the fact it's probably made with better steel, and has a much better edge.

If knives were as effective a tool for killing people, then more murders in the US would be carried out with knives than guns, right? After all, there's no background check for knives, and they are a damn sight cheaper too.

Yet 5 times as many people are murdered with guns than knives in the US.

Guns are a modern meathod of defence as well, and I'd rather be armed when encountering some nutcase that wants to kill me or break into my house.

The vast majority of people who break in to houses are doing it to steal, not to kill. Of course, if they have a gun, and they think you have a gun, then they find themselves in the position of shoot or be shot. I doubt the fact that you are innocent, and they the criminal, matters much to them.

I'd much rather be unarmed in an unarmed society than armed in an armed society. After all, US policemen are all armed, and well trained as well. 50 of them get murdered on duty every year. British policemen are invariably unarmed, and approx 1 gets murdered every 5 years.

[Toad]

In other words, we can get along without guns, we can't get along without knives.

Ah, OK. It's a personal opinion thing then? Murder by knife is inescapable because "we can't get along without knives".

I guess the same would apply loss of life due to drunk driving then, since we can't get along without alcoholic beverages. And, well, the automobile itself then.

So as long as a society can determine what's non-essential it can be banned in pursuit of lowering homicide. However, if something is essential, the deaths are "acceptable losses" I guess.

Not trying to put words in your mouth. Just trying to understand the logic that can look the other way when "sharp instruments" are involved.

I guess any argument that some folks would find firearms a necessary tool in the enjoyment of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness would be roundly denounced while the humble knife, broadsword, battle axe, spear, kukri, chef's knife, pocket knife or scalpel can be held up as a vital tool of civilisation and honorable for all to own and enjoy?

[gatso]

How does the fact that murder itself is against the law factor in? Does it perhaps suggest to you that folks that will murder have little or no regard for any law?

In all likelyhood yes. If the murder is premeditated then there will always be a method for the potential murderer. Restricting options however reduces on the spot, heat of the moment murders by giving both parties time to think. Such as:

You get in an argument outside a bar. The other guy is really pissing you off, you pull a gun and shoot the bastard.

ditto but you pull a knife and stab the person to death.

Well. 90% of guns are illegal over here. It's illegal to carry a knife. Unless you are already breaking the law and therefore could be classed as a criminal by carrying a knife what are you going to do? You could try to beat the other bloke to death but thats a lot harder.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen every now and again. I'm saying it happens a lot LESS when you restrict options. Ordinary law abiding people very rarely get killed because there are very few scenarios in which they could face an immediately dangerous weapon.

So it is the nature of the tool used that matters in murder?

Take away all the guns and knives and I have no doubt that the 9 iron or some other object would become the primary murder weapon of choice. A 9 iron could still be classed as an offensive weapon and I very much doubt whether our police would allow a concealed one to be carried (even if that was possible).

The nature of the tool is not the primary motivation for killing someone. But! certain tools can lead to situations that end in murders while others will not. By removing the opportunity you reduce the rate at which it occurs.

They've (guns) been used to preseve life

Name a single example.

I don't need a gun to provide me with food or protect my liberty. However, as so graphically illustrated earlier in this thread I would struggle to cut up my food with anything other than a knife.

Late here now. Had a drink or two before writing this so I may take it all back tomorow.  

Gatso

[gatso]

Last last last post.

I think we can get along without drink driving just fine TY.

As to the 'acceptable losses' thing. Do you want to ban all legal drugs too? Pretty much all of them can cause death if you take to many of them.

It's even possible to OD on water FFS.

90% of the overtly offensive weapons are already either heavily regulated or illegal over here already. The sharps that are used are either illegal in there very nature or illegal in the sence that they can't be carried legally.

Gatso

[Toad]

Originally posted by gatso
Well. 90% of guns are illegal over here. It's illegal to carry a knife. Unless you are already breaking the law and therefore could be classed as a criminal by carrying a knife what are you going to do?

[/B]

90% of the guns are illegal. It's illegal to carry a knife. Your "sharp instrument" homicide rate is ~3X your firearm homicide rate. Yet there is apparently no concern, no movement to do to knives what you did to guns.

The obvious point in your statement is that either is already illegal. Harkening back to an older thread, it's been shown that our firearm homicide rate came down without drastic confiscation measures.

Again, it isn't the tool. It's the man.

Originally posted by gatso
I'm not saying it doesn't happen every now and again. I'm saying it happens a lot LESS when you restrict options.

[/b]

So when will you folks restrict the "sharp instrument" options? How much more ahead of the firearm homicide rate does it have to get? 5X? 10X? Or do you need a Dunblane with a chef's knife. And don't kid yourself..... a whacko could accomplish that quite easily if he tried.

 

Originally posted by gatso
By removing the opportunity you reduce the rate at which it occurs.

[/b]

Well then! Time to get cracking on those "sharp instruments"! I guess you could try ideas out on the Scots first.

Originally posted by gatso
Name a single example.

[/b]

"Seeking a suspect in a botched pawn shop holdup, Huntsville, Alabama, police didn't have to look far before finding the man's vehicle-it was parked in front of the store with his daily "to do" list inside that, incredibly, included the penciled-in reminder to "Rob pawn shop." The man had allegedly entered the store, asked owner John Dempsey to show him some stereo equipment and then, as Dempsey turned away, stabbed him with a knife. Dempsey pulled his .32-cal. handgun and, after chasing his assailant-who stopped long enough to inflict additional stab wounds-fired a shot that found its mark. Police later apprehended the man and charged him with robbery and attempted murder. (The Huntsville Times, Huntsville, AL, 9/9/99)"

Good enough?

[Toad]

Originally posted by gatso
90% of the overtly offensive weapons are already either heavily regulated or illegal over here already. The sharps that are used are either illegal in there very nature or illegal in the sence that they can't be carried legally.

Gatso

So you're telling me that making them heavily regulated or illegal hasn't worked?



Are you going to try rounding them all up next?

[Toad]

CRIMINAL STATISTICS England and Wales England and Wales

Victims (Tables 4.3 to 4.6 and Figures 4.2 to 4.4)
4.5 Seventy per cent of the victims of currently recorded homicide were male (Table 4.3). The proportion of female victims in 2000/01 (30 per cent) was lower than in 1990 when it was 38 per cent.

Method of killing

4.6 Table 4.3 shows that, overall, the most common method of killing in 2000/01 was with a sharp instrument (26 per cent). Nine per cent of homicide victims were shot.

Seems like things haven't changed much since '97, either.

Seems like something should be done about the "most common method of killing". You know, ban, registration, licenses, etc.

[Dago]

Bumper stickers seen in England:

"When sharp instruments are outlawed, only Outlaws will have shapr instruments"

"I'll give up my knife when they pry it from my cold dead and bloody hands"

"Sharp instrument control means stabbing your target"

[john9001]

hand me my broadsword mate ,tis time to carve the turkey, after that , we will have "rhythmic moving". to the tune of "rule titanic, titanic rule the waves".

[lazs2]

looking at the pictures I can't figure out which of those "sharp instruments" are indespensible in anyones daily lives.

guns in the U.S. are used for many things.   Hunting target shooting defense deterance etc..  They are one of the few things that save lives and injuries... about double or more what seat belts do if you use the figures supplied by the FBI... some people here (and abroad) want to destroy their usefulness with restrictive laws... now...

let's take knives....  sure... we need em but.... why can't we at least have some sensible laws... start with knife locks... sue knife manufacturers that have these deadly weapons used in crimes...  I see nothing wrong with a national regestration of all knives and banning cheap "saturday nite special' knives... who needs a knife over 3" long or that costs less than $800?   They are only good for one thing... killing people...  And why do you need such a dangerous thing in the house... Maybe eating at home is the problem... knives should be only allowed at government approved resteraunts and you can use them there... banning home cooking is a small price to pay to 'save the children".   You knife owners have got to quit equating your knives with your noodle and start thinking of the children.  Collectors can keep their knives at approved knife clubs.

oh... if more than 40% of all homicides are commited by blacks then simply moving blacks to england would lower Our homicide rate to below theirs (theirs would of course increase to about double ours per capita).   guns would have nothing to do with it.   Should we do that?   I mean... their extremely high murder per capita rate is skewing the U.S. figures... Anyone know what their 'sharp instument' murder rate is?
lazs

[Rude]

Originally posted by Nash
I don't know if there's much to be gained from those stats Toad.

If you want someone dead, but don't have access to a gun (strict gun laws), yer next best option is a knife. Such is the case in England. So it should be no suprise that since knives by far outnumber guns, deaths by knives would surpass that of death by guns.

Or are you trying to imply something else and it's going over my head?

Seems you have stated the obvious....when guns are banned, folks find alternative means to do the dasterdly deed.

So banning guns doesn't seem to solve the problem?

Could it be that people do the killing by whatever means is available?

Could it be man's nature that is the problem and not the tools they choose to use.

Is taking away innocent citizens rights the answer?

I await the truth.

[Nash]

Lol I can't belive you're still running with this Toad. Very sketchy....