Weapon? Or Intent?

[ChrisJones 7,975]

I've just been reading an article in what was my former local newspaper. In it, a drunk teenager with mental health issues has stabbed and seriously wounded a member of the public who was going about his daily business. Apparently the 10" 'Rambo' knife is the focus of the article with the judge in the case concluding with “For this to be about the person of an 18-year-old lad in the streets of Greater Manchester is quite extraordinary. To carry a weapon such as this, indeed any weapon, is absolutely beyond the pale.”

Knives have always been carried for both legitimate and illicit purposes but have come under increasing scrutiny in Britain with arbitrary measurements and blade lengths. Recently there have been several high profile terrorist events using vehicles as weapons. Not to mention the increasing use of household chemicals in assaults. Unfortunately, I cannot find the article to link to but I read in an issue of New Scientist in the early 00's that the ubiquitous pint pot is still behind over 80% of weapons used in assaults. A bold figure and I'd love to see how that stacks up in 2017.

Given the propensity of the state to ban anything which it deems necessary to public safety at what point will they start looking at the intent behind the action instead of the tool being used to commit the offence? Does [Insert Item Here] need to be banned or does the state need to actually start looking at the reasons why [Insert Item Here] was used?

[walshie 2,804]

The fact is almost anything can be used to injure another person if they really want to. Pint glasses are probably most common just because they are nearest to hand when people get pissed up and bolshy.

To carry a 10" knife on the street is just crazy. There can be no reason other than to "look 'ard" or to hurt someone. I'd like to see much tougher sentences on these idiots that carry blades for no legitimate reason.

[Born Hunter 17,832]

Jesus Christ don't get me started! 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Jesus Christ don't get me started! 

That's the whole point!

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Just now, baker boy said:

5 yrs minimum for injury or attempted injury with a knife unless for valid self defence

If you're not allowed to carry them then how can they be legitimate for self-defence? Just curious here.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

20 minutes ago, walshie said:

The fact is almost anything can be used to injure another person if they really want to. Pint glasses are probably most common just because they are nearest to hand when people get pissed up and bolshy.

To carry a 10" knife on the street is just crazy. There can be no reason other than to "look 'ard" or to hurt someone. I'd like to see much tougher sentences on these idiots that carry blades for no legitimate reason.

Are there increasing restrictions on what is deemed a legitimate reason?

[delswal 3,819]

8 hours ago, ChrisJones said:

If you're not allowed to carry them then how can they be legitimate for self-defence? Just curious here.

Beat me to it Chris lol, bit of a risk to take " I was carrying it for self defence" seeing as how you never defended yourself with it, " you can have 5 yrs for possession instead 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

2 minutes ago, delswal said:

Beat me to it Chris lol, bit of a risk to take " I was carrying it for self defence" seeing as how you never defended yourself with it, " you can have 5 yrs for possession instead 

I get what Walshie is saying too. You don't need to carry a 10" knife around. I regularly carry a hatchet but I don't have any restrictions on what constitutes legitimate reasons. Again it asks the question is it the weapon or the intent that should be under scrutiny?

[WILF 48,217]

The intent......always!

you can’t legislate for lunatics ! 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Just now, WILF said:

The intent......always!

you can’t legislate for lunatics ! 

Agreed mate but that requires certain people to do actual work!

[WILF 48,217]

It throws back to the debate about gun ownership really don’t it mate, there’s no reason in the world people shouldn’t be allowed to own whatever they please as long as they are not killing anyone........it’s the killing people bit that’s the problem .

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Just now, WILF said:

It throws back to the debate about gun ownership really don’t it mate, there’s no reason in the world people shouldn’t be allowed to own whatever they please as long as they are not killing anyone........it’s the killing people bit that’s the problem .

Again I agree but I was trying to avoid steering it towards a 2A thread because it's always going to turn polarized. The latest terrorism stunt is to use vans and trucks... Following the same logic, there should be further restrictions, no? Whips out a knife and MP's are on arbitrary blade lengths.

[Billy b 795]

A weapon is only dangerous when in the hands of someone with bad intentions 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

4 minutes ago, Billy b said:

A weapon is only dangerous when in the hands of someone with bad intentions 

I'd argue that before those circumstances it's not even a weapon, it's a tool.

Edited November 28, 2017 by ChrisJones
Clarification

[WILF 48,217]

Anything can be a weapon, if you see a bunch of dudes when you are out and it looks like it could get lively it’s as simple as lighting a fag and pushing in the first dude eyeball.

There a murder case going on at the moment for a young lad from my old town, got hit on the head with a plasterers whisk and died.

Obviously you don’t now ban plasterers whisks and that logic should apply across the board.