Gun control in the USA

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 03:53PM

jank wrote: »

The UK is well on its way to becoming a police state, give it another 20-30 years. Government there is much too powerful. Banning something through legislation wont solve anything. We would all like a world without guns but we understand why guns exist. Some use it to force their terror onto others, some use it to protect us from that terror, being in Irish we kinda forget that there is a big bad world out there outside our own parish that doesn't have the same protections on civil liberties and life as we have in the west and the US.
Lefties love blathering on about guns and their control, they love getting government to do their bidding yet then say that they have no right to tell them what religion they must follow. How about a country where the state has no right to tell you either way that you cannot own a gun or tell you to follow a religion, isn't that is what freedom is about?

If you think the UK government exerts too much control you are going to love the Australian one. Not.

You seem to assume apart from yourself no Irish have never left our little island - ironic then that so many like myself left due to the lack of civil liberties in Ireland and fled to the sanctuary of the UK.

Apart from that - your post is nothing but whataboutery.

MadsL · 12-01-2013 05:16PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Source?

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 Section 139

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-11658645

Islington borough police commander Bob Carr called for automatic prison sentences for anyone found carrying a knife.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/06/ukcrime.youthjustice?INTCMP=SRCH

Don't carry knives, Scouts told
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8244316.stm

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 05:42PM

MadsL wrote: »

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 Section 139

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-11658645

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/06/ukcrime.youthjustice?INTCMP=SRCH

Don't carry knives, Scouts told
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8244316.stm

Norman Brennan, of the Knives Destroy Lives Campaign, reiterated his demand for a mandatory five-year prison sentence for anyone who carries a knife unreasonably.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/06/ukcrime.youthjustice?INTCMP=SRCH

(4)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139

How does this make it illegal to 'walk across to the neighbours with a kitchen knife to lend her' as you claimed? Seems to me that falls under 'good reason'.

MagicMarker · 12-01-2013 05:43PM

MadsL wrote: »

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 Section 139

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-11658645

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/06/ukcrime.youthjustice?INTCMP=SRCH

Don't carry knives, Scouts told
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8244316.stm

I've highlighted the important part in your post and the important part of the CJA below...

It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your sensationalism.

MadsL · 12-01-2013 07:01PM

It is not sensationalism, the fact of the matter is that carrying a knife in public is illegal unless you can show good reason. If that neighbour has no prior knowledge that you are bringing that kitchen knife with you then you have some explaining to do. If police are not satisfied, then you can be charged under the CJA.

Far fetched?
You're going down mate!

Caravanner, 61, prosecuted for having Swiss Army knife in his glove box... to cut up fruit on picnics

Arrested for having a penknife on keyring

A butter knife can be an offensive weapon, the High Court ruled yesterday.

Judge orders court to apologise to gardener prosecuted for having a scythe

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1075572/Judge-orders-court-apologise-gardener-prosecuted-having-scythe.html#ixzz2HmgKlCtc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Increasingly UK police are using CJA and other sanctions to criminalise trivial offences.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2050667/Middle-classes-are-more-dissatisfied-with-rude-police.html

I'd just like to contrast the idiot UK police who decided to arrest a householder who picked up a kitchen knife to defend himself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9708511/Judge-attacks-genius-prosecutors-after-householder-confronts-yobs-with-knife.html

with the situation in the US that actively enshrines the right to self defence.

That and the fact that UK citizens have become so passive about their personal civil rights that it is deemed acceptable to randomly stop and sweep search with metal detectors 287,898 people across London.

Compare that with the US citizens right to carry arms under the 2nd Amendment and rights under the 4th Amendment "the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause and the protection of the 5th Amendment against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Not to mention the numerous protections of the right to self-defence.

When police are conducting random searches on quarter of a million people and disarming and charging people with criminal acts even those who are defensively carrying knives (or even scissors) I think it difficult not to conclude that the UK is effectively a police state.

I have made my choice of which regime to live under, and I am grateful to be well away from the insane overkill of UK legislation having left shortly after the passing of the appalling CJA 1988. A society that considers it a crime to dance in a field, or that has power of arrest on suspicion that you may commit a crime is not a society i frankly want to live in.

The Patriot Act may have been an equally appalling piece of legislation, but as far as I am aware the 4th Amendment still stands.

MagicMarker · 12-01-2013 07:05PM

MadsL wrote: »

the fact of the matter is that carrying a knife in public is illegal unless you can show good reason.

Sure tis madness Ted.

MadsL · 12-01-2013 07:13PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sure tis madness Ted.

I await the 'stick' legislation next when some gobsh1te beats someone to death with a pimp cane.

Do you have no interest in protecting personal civil liberties?

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2013 07:30PM

MadsL wrote: »

I await the 'stick' legislation next when some gobsh1te beats someone to death with a pimp cane.

Do you have no interest in protecting personal civil liberties?

And why should someone have a right to carry a knife?

robindch · 12-01-2013 07:40PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And why should someone have a right to carry a knife?

In case somebody else might be carrying a knife and you need to protect yourself.(*)

(*) Only applicable in countries where guns are not available.

MadsL · 12-01-2013 07:47PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And why should someone have a right to carry a knife?

Ever try cutting up an apple with a spoon?

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2013 07:47PM

MadsL wrote: »

Ever try cutting up an apple with a spoon?

Ever try eating an apple without a knife?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 07:49PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ever try eating an apple without a knife?

If I prefer to cut and eat it in public with a knife I should be arrested? That where your argument leads you to?

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2013 07:58PM

MadsL wrote: »

If I prefer to cut and eat it in public with a knife I should be arrested? That where your argument leads you to?

And if I prefer to eat my cool whip with a gun should I be allowed to :pac:?

In all seriousness though, you said earlier "the fact of the matter is that carrying a knife in public is illegal unless you can show good reason". Well, you've just given a good reason - a small knife can be used to eat apples. Small, apple slicing knives wont be affected by any legislation. So what's the problem?

This still doesn't answer my original question of why people should have a right to carry knives. You may prefer to use a knife to eat an apple, but you don't need to use one.

stevejazzx · 12-01-2013 07:59PM

MadsL wrote: »

If I prefer to cut and eat it in public with a knife I should be arrested? That where your argument leads you to?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about knives if someone's already got a apple. An apple is just as lethal as a potato after all - don't need no knives if you've got yourself an apple.

MadsL · 12-01-2013 08:20PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

. Small, apple slicing knives wont be affected by any legislation. So what's the problem? .

Did you not read the links I posted above?

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2013 08:32PM

MadsL wrote: »

Did you not read the links I posted above?

Yes, did you? I assume you are referring specifically to the guy who was prosecuted for having a knife in his car for slicing fruit. Well, in the article, the guy's solicitor says:
'He accepts it was in his car and the law is very clear,' he said. He admits possession of it and he had no good reason for having it.'

robindch · 12-01-2013 08:34PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

An apple is just as lethal as a potato after all - don't need no knives if you've got yourself an apple.

Agreed. I can't understand why the vast majority of soldiers carry guns instead of apples or spuds.

MadSL - do you've any idea?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 08:35PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, did you? I assume you are referring specifically to the guy who was prosecuted for having a knife in his car for slicing fruit. Well, in the article, the guy's solicitor says:
'He accepts it was in his car and the law is very clear,' he said. He admits possession of it and he had no good reason for having it.'

Sometimes admitting guilt and possession is better than taking the consequences of a not guity plea

MagicMarker · 12-01-2013 08:38PM

I am distraught at my civil liberties being stripped away from me like this. In protest I'm going to start carrying a Katana around with me, sheathed of course. Safety first etc...

robindch · 12-01-2013 08:41PM

Just back to the real world briefly:

Turns out that somebody referred to as "youtube's most popular "gun nut'" was found murdered, surrounded by guns which appear to have done little or nothing to protect him.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/youtubes-most-popular-gun-nut-found-shot-death-surrounded-guns/60871/

The Atlantic wrote:

Keith Ratliff was better known to the gun-loving side of YouTube as the curator to FPSRussia, aka Professional Russia, a channel of ammunition porn racking up 3.5 million subscribers and over 500 million views. Last week, in a gruesome and still mysterious twist of fate, Georgia police found him shot in the head and surrounded by guns — just not the one that left him dead. Ratliff curated, according to the New York Times, the ninth most popular YouTube channel, which displayed high-powered guns.

"But last week, the authorities said, Mr. Ratliff, 32, ended up on the wrong end of a gun. The police in northeast Georgia found him dead at his office on Jan. 3, shot once in the head," reads the Times report from Robbie Brown. The Huffington Post gets a bit more hyperbolic, saying that Ratliff's "office" was actually a "weapons and development facility he operated in Carnesville, GA."

Both HuffPo and the Times confirm that Georgia police are treating this is as a homicide, and police, HuffPo reports, have had to battle the untrue rumors that Ratliff was found tied and dumped on a rural road. It may have been a surprise attack — police say Ratliff was shot once and there were no signs of a struggle.

Of course, Ratliff's popularity with the gun crowd — HuffPo reports that in one his videos he claims, "I am a gun nut" — lends this case a dimension of Internet celebrity, and perhaps even some political grandstanding about gun control. Here are the first few Twitter reactions when you search for "FPSRussia".

I await a press-release from the NRA recommending that all the gun nuts out there on youtube buy more guns.

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2013 08:42PM

MadsL wrote: »

Sometimes admitting guilt and possession is better than taking the consequences of a not guity plea

So he did have a good reason for having it, but he chose to explain to you, but not the courts?

None of this answers my initial question, why should people have a right to carry knives?

robindch · 12-01-2013 08:49PM

Also turns out that the level of gun violence in the USA is so high that it's contributing noticeably to the significantly lower life expectancy of the average US citizen:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-bringing-down-us-life-expectancy/60803/

The Atlantic wrote:

Less than a month after the Newtown shootings, a new report confirms an unsettling truth that already seemed statistically likely: On average, Americans are dying younger because of guns. Americans are also dying younger because of obesity and because of alcohol and because of drugs and because of AIDS, too. The rate of deaths caused by these factors is higher in America than in other developed countries, but the statistics about gun violence stand out because many gun rights organizations have denied any major public health consequences as a result of guns. "One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home," reads the report. "The statistics are dramatic."

Indeed, they are. At six per 100,000, the rate of violent deaths is higher in the U.S. than in any other country in the world, and the majority of those deaths involve firearms. The rest of the world is pretty far behind, too. We have three times as many violent deaths than the next most violent country, Finland. Researchers linked this trend with the U.S. having the lowest life expectancy -- 75.6 years for men and 80.7 years for women -- out of the 17 wealthy countries surveyed in the report.

The statistics couldn't have come at a more opportune time, as Vice President Joe Biden holds the first meetings for his task force on gun violence at the White House. And once again, the statistics are dramatic. "The size of the health disadvantage was pretty stunning," explained Dr. Steven H. Woolf, the lead researcher on the study. "The fact that our risk of death from homicide is seven times higher and from shootings 20 times higher is pretty dramatic."

The CDC, btw, is prevented (by a law brought in by the Republicans at the request of the NRA) from researching the level of gun deaths which are so high that they'd be classified as an epidemic in any other country.

Manic Moran · 12-01-2013 08:49PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And why should someone have a right to carry a knife?

I -always- carry a knife. More specifically, a Gerber or Leatherman multi tool which has a couple of blades with the screwdrivers etc. I find I routinely use it as I conduct my daily business.

I do not, however, carry it in Ireland because I have no confidence that what I consider to be common sense would be applied if a Gard saw it on my belt.

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2013 09:02PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I -always- carry a knife. More specifically, a Gerber or Leatherman multi tool which has a couple of blades with the screwdrivers etc. I find I routinely use it as I conduct my daily business.

I do not, however, carry it in Ireland because I have no confidence that what I consider to be common sense would be applied if a Gard saw it on my belt.

Why not? My dad carries a knife for work. My brother carries a knife for work.

The problem with pointing out examples of stupid police or stupid prosecutors (Madsl's links from before) are that these are an argument against stupid police and stupid prosecutors, not the law itself. Any law can be abused by a cretin with power. The alternative is to have only laws which allow for no interpretation whatsoever. Either no one can have knives at all, which would effect many professionals, or everyone can have knives anywhere they like, which would increase knife crime (or, at least, the lethality of knife crime).

Also, by explaining that you use a knife routinely, you have described your need for a knife. This is different to saying you carry a knife simply to satisfy a right to carry it.

Manic Moran · 12-01-2013 09:03PM

robindch wrote: »

Just back to the real world briefly:

Turns out that somebody referred to as "youtube's most popular "gun nut'" was found murdered, surrounded by guns which appear to have done little or nothing to protect him.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/youtubes-most-popular-gun-nut-found-shot-death-surrounded-guns/60871/

I await a press-release from the NRA recommending that all the gun nuts out there on youtube buy more guns.

Personally, I didn't like him very much, after having worked with him a few times. It appears I am not alone, and he also made a few enemies along the way. His death has caused much discussion on the firearms boards, it appears that there is a backstory to it.

We'll see what transpires over time.

Manic Moran · 12-01-2013 09:14PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why not? My dad carries a knife for work. My brother carries a knife for work.

The problem with pointing out examples of stupid police or stupid prosecutors (Madsl's links from before) are that these are an argument against stupid police and stupid prosecutors, not the law itself. Any law can be abused by a cretin with power. The alternative is to have only laws which allow for no interpretation whatsoever. Either no one can have knives at all, which would effect many professionals, or everyone can have knives anywhere they like, which would increase knife crime (or, at least, the lethality of knife crime).

Also, by explaining that you use a knife routinely, you have described your need for a knife. This is different to saying you carry a knife simply to satisfy a right to carry it.

I don't carry it for work. I carry it because I want to and because I find it convenient to do so, as it appears to be given how often I use it for personal, non work related tasks. I don't like laws which are discretionary and which depend on whether or not I get an unreasonable policeman or prosecutor. I want to know and be confident that what I am doing is legal, without having to justify it to the satisfaction of someone else.

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2013 09:19PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't carry it for work. I carry it because I want to and because I find it convenient to do so, as it appears to be given how often I use it for personal, non work related tasks. I don't like laws which are discretionary and which depend on whether or not I get an unreasonable policeman or prosecutor. I want to know and be confident that what I am doing is legal, without having to justify it to the satisfaction of someone else.

All laws are essentially discretionary and dependent on whether or not you get an unreasonable legislator though. So you haven't really avoided that problem.

Which would you prefer? No-one allowed any knives, or everyone allowed any knives?

robindch · 12-01-2013 09:32PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

[...] it appears that there is a backstory to it. [...]

No doubt there is.

Still, it does kind of disprove the NRA's weird notion that the best solution to gun crime is more guns.

stevejazzx · 12-01-2013 10:06PM

robindch wrote: »

Just back to the real world briefly:

Turns out that somebody referred to as "youtube's most popular "gun nut'" was found murdered, surrounded by guns which appear to have done little or nothing to protect him.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/youtubes-most-popular-gun-nut-found-shot-death-surrounded-guns/60871/

I await a press-release from the NRA recommending that all the gun nuts out there on youtube buy more guns.

Maybe he needed some explosives to defend himself properly?
After all if the bad guys have guns what could possibly be the harm in arming the good guys with explosives? It's only natural after all that we can defend ourselves against people with guns?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 10:19PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why not? My dad carries a knife for work. My brother carries a knife for work.

The problem with pointing out examples of stupid police or stupid prosecutors (Madsl's links from before) are that these are an argument against stupid police and stupid prosecutors, not the law itself. Any law can be abused by a cretin with power. The alternative is to have only laws which allow for no interpretation whatsoever. Either no one can have knives at all, which would effect many professionals, or everyone can have knives anywhere they like, which would increase knife crime (or, at least, the lethality of knife crime).

Also, by explaining that you use a knife routinely, you have described your need for a knife. This is different to saying you carry a knife simply to satisfy a right to carry it.

Or you could have a bill of rights that protects a persons right to defend themselves, prevents random searches without probable cause and doesn't require police to arrest someone effectively for something they may do. the entire methodology in the UK is to assume that someone is up to no good despite innocent explanation. In the example I showed of the kitchen knife it is up to you to prove that you have a good reason, not for the police to prove you meant harm with it. That would seem to my mind to fly in the face of the justice system.

If you want a stark contrast, I can strap on a holstered gun, walk about downtown and claim my 2nd Amendment rights and if a officer wishes to challenge that, I can assert my 4th and 5th Amendment rights. Why? Because the basic assumption is that I am law-abiding until proved otherwise. Contrast that with a society that detains its citizens, and runs metal detectors over them and searches them in vast numbers on its capital's streets without requiring any consent nor probable cause, and then god help you if you are, say, an oboe player with a sharp penknife in your pocket to trim reeds. Down the station, sunshine, until we find said oboe. All whilst going about your business harming no-one. Why? Because the only possible explanation for having a knife in public is that you mean others harm, and in the UK possession without explanation is prosecuted as thoughtcrime.

This runs to the heart of the debate: In the UK, the people have become so desensitized to the erosion of civil liberties that the next step is to start monitoring every citizens's email, text and phone call. Think that's crazy? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18434232 and http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/government-security-privacy-issues.html
now fishermen, builders, DIYer, scouts, divers, boaters, campers, caravanners and so forth are all having to question how they prove innocence when asked why they possess in public an item which has become 'scary' in the eyes of the law. That seems fundamentally wrong to me.

The basis of the law is to punish wrongdoing as a consequence of actions, not some imagined intent. Now that the UK has slid into some kind of Orwellian nightmare where even a butter knife may be regarded as suspicious, I fear that next will be laws requiring hockey sticks to be carried in bags only. This will be yet another step towards removing personal responsibility from the citizen for their actions. the message is simple, we no longer trust our law-abiding citizens. What a sorry state of affairs to get into.

Yet this is what is being held up as a model for the US to follow, no thanks.

Gun control in the USA

Comments