What's next? Banning hammers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
At some point they'll have to ban hands and feet, because those can be deadly weapons too. Imagine a bunch of bloody Brits hopping around the streets of London hog-tied. Or they could lobotomize their subjects for even thinking about a violent act. By Jove, then we'll be safe!
 
When you look at the campaigns that British political hacks are using, it all seems very familiar. It's just old-style Soviet Communist propaganda designed to justify increasing police powers to restrict their citizen's movements and to strip away the last laws against unlawful search and seizure. "We must track your movements, and watch you constantly, and search your person under any pretext. You might be a terrorist."
"You object? Why? Are you a terrorist? Why else would you object?"
If you have ever watched any number of You Tube videos coming out of England, you already know that this is a far different country than the USA and even Canada. Cameras monitor you on your own residential street, but making video recordings yourself in public is met with swift threats and harassment by anyone from police officers to street wardens to private security.
These hacks are perfectly aware how asinine their campaigns are, and how ineffective they will be. But, why would they care?
They will have stripped away the liberty of their citizens under the pretext of making them safer.
And, when handmade knives show up in stabbings, they will demand more laws to ban bench grinders from being sold to the public.
It's like when I used to remind people who were staunch advocates of banning handguns that the only real difference between a handgun or a shotgun or a rifle was 15 minutes work with a hacksaw and a file.
They would simply blink and then say: "But, that's illegal." o_O
 
Last edited:
That UK ad campaign is truly horrifying. They are asking people to report to big brother someone buying a hammer and someone filming the police. This is precisely the kind of thing that advocates for greater government control over individuals (always in the name of safety/security) dismiss as being ridiculous absurdities when they are raised as the logical next step on from the gun control and cameras-everywhere being advocated here in the U.S. Well, it's not ridiculous.

When you take it as a given that the answer to a crime problem is further restriction of individual rights, when you take away right X and it doesn't solve the problem, you have a choice to make: either a) re-evaluated your starting assumptions and consider revisiting whether right X should be returned; or b) decide that taking away just a few more rights will finally start getting results. Since most people - particularly the kind of people who climb to the top of the political heap - don't like to admit that they were wrong in their prior thinking, choice "b" totally dominates as a preference. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
There is a world wide ban on something. It will never change a thing. If someone has intent to do harm to a person or a group of people. That evil rotten bastard will find a way to do it. Just look at the prison system. Weapons all the time being made and used to do harm. Cant shoot, knife someone. Hell run em over with a car or moving truck. We live in an insane society. Best we can hope for is to be prepared and alert to our surroundings.
 
Reading the article it looks like they are looking for people carrying knives, screwdrivers, straight razors and broken bottles.
You can be reported if you look suspicious when buying knives or hammers. Maybe if you buy 3 knives and a hammer it may be reported as a straw purchase.
This is out of control. I remember a case where a guy defended himself during a robbery. The attacker was killed and he was the one in trouble
 
The way British self-defense law works, if someone surprises you in your home, and as an instinctive response you pick up a lamp, cricket stick, hammer, knife, etc., and it's a panicked reaction of the moment, you're in the clear.

If you pick up that hammer, as a planned self-defense response, other circumstances don't matter, it's a felony.

If you happen to have a baseball bat, lacrosse stick, or any other sporting equipment lying about, and it becomes part of a self-defense scenario, you better be able to prove you're part of an organized sports program.

Much of the British Isles: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, is conquered ground, and the idea that these people can be trusted with weapons is an anathema to the government. After the Russian revolution in '17, the British government was terrified their country would go the same way, and to retain power they felt the need to keep the working classes disarmed.
 
Wow. Hail Hydra I guess.

At some point they'll have to ban hands and feet
Nah, they won't ban them, they'll just implant micro chips in children's spinal chords that won't allow them to make a fist, or kick things.

We'll all have "Smart Feet" and "Smart Hands". Swearing will be illegal too. So bar fights will come down to drunken slapping contests, where we call each other "wankers" and "gits". Soccer will be reduced to skinny people running around on grass trying to vaguely nudge a ball toward the nets.

Ok seriously though, this is just as silly of a thing to do as in the other thread about Democrats trying yet again to make it legal to sue gun makers.

So stay calm. Engauge with socialist and try to explain the lack of logic in legislation like this. But don't take the bait and get angry. It makes us look unreasonable. Support what ever gun advocacy groups you can that has a legal team, and vote. Nonsense legislation like this gets proposed in the USA, and it can lead us down a similar path.

Stay vigilant and vote for representatives that protect your personal freedom.
 
That UK ad campaign is truly horrifying. They are asking people to report to big brother someone buying a hammer and someone filming the police. This is precisely the kind of thing that advocates for greater government control over individuals (always in the name of safety/security) dismiss as being ridiculous absurdities when they are raised as the logical next step on from the gun control and cameras-everywhere being advocated here in the U.S. Well, it's not ridiculous.

When you take it as a given that the answer to a crime problem is further restriction of individual rights, when you take away right X and it doesn't solve the problem, you have a choice to make: either a) re-evaluated your starting assumptions and consider revisiting whether right X should be returned; or b) decide that taking away just a few more rights will finally start getting results. Since most people - particularly the kind of people who climb to the top of the political heap - don't like to admit that they were wrong in their prior thinking, choice "b" totally dominates as a preference. Lather, rinse, repeat.
"For a safer, more secure, society." - Emperor Sheev Palpatine.

Yes, his first name was Sheev.:confused:
 
This is exactly why gun control, or blaming an inanimate object for the behavior of bad people, is nonsense. They restrict guns and crime still occurs, so it must be the knives. They restrict knives and crime still occurs, it must be hammers and so on. There is no way to ban every object that can be used as a weapon. Given that evil has been around as long as people have been (just ask Abel), disarming good people who wnat to protect themselves and their loved ones does nothing to address this issue. It's simply an excuse to disarm people.
 
Last edited:
There's actually very strong evidence that, over the sweep of human history, weapon technology has an inverse correlation with levels of intra-society violence.

Most stone-tool societies that have been encountered during the age of written history (e.g., native American cultures, remote Amazonian or south Pacific island cultures, etc.) have very, very high rates of what we would deem homicide. Obviously, a lot of this has to do with cultural values and honor codes and the absence of a society-wide "leviathan" with a monopoly on violence outside of self-defense. The point is that access to more sophisticated, deadlier weaponry has not driven homicide rates in human history. So the notion that, here in this particular moment, we have suddenly changed and reached a point where access to particular killing tools is going to be correlated with murder seems implausible to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top