Comments on the UK knife amnesty

[gopguy]

This is a little something I wrote earlier in the month on the UK knife amnesty for the Buckeye Firearms Association that I thought you all might enjoy. Tim

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3238.html

 

[Biker]

Good one, Tim. I'll be passing this along.

Biker

 

[Fosbery]

Since enacting the handgun ban, crime in the UK has skyrocketed. People in desperation to protect themselves began carrying knives.

I think that's terribly misleading. True crime has risen sicne the handgun ban, but before the handgun ban nobody could carry them in public and only a tiny percentage of the population owned them and they can still own rifles and shotguns today. I think it would wholly untrue to suggest that the handgun ban actually caused a rise in crime. Certainly it didn't slow down or stop the rise in crime or do anything positive, but I don't think we can blame it for causing crime. Also, I think it's false to suggest that ordinary law abiding people carry knives for protection. Doing so has been illegal for decades. I think many Americans just don't get what an amnesty is. There is no new law or restriction on knives, it's just a voluntary program letting people have knives destroyed. It won't work, it's just a PR stunt, but knives are no less legal than they were a year ago.

 

[gopguy]

Hi, Thanks Biker,

the handgun ban nobody could carry them in public and only a tiny percentage of the population owned them

Fosbery, I understood that CCW of handguns in the UK was virtually banned for the common folk prior to 1997. I was not suggesting that people had been carrying guns prior to that, but that with handguns being banned in homes it is certainly linked to the rise in crime. A number of articles I have read on this subject,and I add these were written by your fellow countrymen, suggest that with the prohibition of handgun ownership that the deterent against home invasion was eroded. They think criminals have been emboldened to committ home invasions, and that the number of home invasions while the folks are home is on the rise. Certainly the prosecution of people for defending their homes and doing harm to thugs is puzzling on this side of the pond. We have states that have now passed "Castle Doctrine" laws where you may use deadly force in defending ones home. Prior to that many states, sadly including my own of Ohio, expect you to try to flee your home before using deadly force to defend yourself.

Also, I think it's false to suggest that ordinary law abiding people carry knives for protection. Doing so has been illegal for decades.

A number of pieces have also been written suggesting people have indeed, in violation of the law, been carrying knives for thier defense. I see these in British publications frequently since I have been following the subject. So if I am wrong about this in anyway, it is impression I am getting from the UK press and friends who live here in the US that are from the UK....

I suspect if you do a google search on the subject you might be surprised by what you find if you get the same articles I have read over the last several months...

 

[Boom-stick]

This is a very fustrating topic and although the crime stats have risen I don't believe them to be a true example of whats happening, all thats mainly happening is an increase in the number of reported crimes. Crimes committed still outstrip this figure by a huge amount as many still are just aren't reported.

And as for carrying a knife for self defence, "well, thats just silly officer, I had left it in my pocket from my weekends rock climbing, it's my rescue knife and I'm just on my way home with it now "

 

[Fosbery]

I still think, as aweful as the handgun ban was, that it had no direct effect on crime. The number of gun owners is so small in this country - as long as they're not invading a farm, where guns are certain to be there, criminals don't have to worry. Besides, gun ownership levels in Britain are roughly the same today as they were in 1997. It woudl be great if we could stand up to the antis and say "Hey, your stupid gun banned caused all this crime" but I just don't think firearms were preventing any sizeable number of crimes in Britain after, say, the 60's.

I've never met a grown adult who carries a knife specifically for protection (though boom-stick may be the exception here? Not that I've met you, but you know what I mean). I know plenty who carry knives for work or just as utility knives, but nobody who carries one for protection. I think the people who carry knives for protection in Britain are almost entirely inner city, working class kids. Not to be stereotypical but I bet a large proportion of the ones carrying for self-defence are the ones causing the trouble too.

 

[Boom-stick]

I've never met a grown adult who carries a knife specifically for protection (though boom-stick may be the exception here? Not that I've met you, but you know what I mean). I know plenty who carry knives for work or just as utility knives, but nobody who carries one for protection. I think the people who carry knives for protection in Britain are almost entirely inner city, working class kids. Not to be stereotypical but I bet a large proportion of the ones carrying for self-defence are the ones causing the trouble too.

Dude, It's used for opening boxes, mail, paper bundle etc....

a knife is a real last ditch 'SHTF' tool for me and I've got a whole lot of other 'tools' to come out an' play before that happens

You are right about the inner city kids causing trouble although they don't seem to be staying in the inner city, the little buggers seem to be causing havoc near me in Surrey

SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC,

Came back from an appointment last week to find 4 'youths'(aged between 15-18) in my office trying to 'set' a pit-bull cross breed on a collegue????(he's 21 and about 9 stone dripping wet)
He had caught them about 18mths ago graffiting the window and told them to get lost, now they come back bigger & stronger (with beer) to get him!!!
I talked the situation down and got them out, but they could have had 'anything' tucked up their sleeves.

The funny thing was, as they were leaving they said to my guy "You're all big now your mates here!!"
I thought,
you think he's big now I'm here, Bloody hell, there's FOUR of you and a dog?

The mentality of these kids is outstanding, really makes you think the world is going down the U-bend.

I was worried that if I had of hit them I'd get charged with striking a minor but
I reported it to the police, who have told me if they come back I have credible grounds for 'first strike', which made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

 

[Matt_W]

Handguns for self defence have been 'banned' as a matter of Government policy since 1947. The firearms legislation since the very first Firearms Act has and still does allow for Self Defence, but if you state that as being your 'good reason' the Police will refuse to grant the necessary paperwork on the grounds that you are likely to be a danger to the public and/or the peace!

Has the Firearms legislation post 1997 lead to a direct increase in firearms related crime?

Probably not, but as the vast majority of 'firearm crime' involves teenagers playing with BB guns and Airguns in public places one might argue that if these kids had the opportunity to be involved in oraganised shooting practices they might not feel the need to play about with them in public to the degree that they now do.

Since the handgun ban the only view that most people have of firearms in negative. A teenager growing up sees firearms as being 'cool and criminal' rather than 'what we do at school, or what my little brother plinks with'. The authorities have a lot to blame for on that score.

Do large numbers of people in England carry knives for SD?
It depends on which demographic you are considering. Lots of teenagers do. Some women I have met and spoken with about the subject do.

Do people worry more about personal safety than used to in England?
Yep, 'fraid so.

Do we have a tradition of being able to carry weapons for SD?
Yep, and most people do not see any problem with having 'something' for protection when given enough of a reason. (people, not the Police though)

Do people generally carry things for SD in England?
In my experience they very often have something to hand that they have given 'some' thought to as being 'good in an emergency'.

Do criminals worry about their victims fighting back?
Not in my experience. The most important legislation to affect the ability of the criminal classes to victimise the inncocent citizen was not the Firearms Act, but the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. It placed for the first time in history a requirement for the ordinary English citizen to justify themselves if they carry a weapon into a public place. Since 1953 the only people who regularly carry weapons in public are the Police and violent criminals.

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and the Police's attidude towards self defence are the biggest causes of our increased levels of crime.

Strict firearms controls however did a great deal of damage to the principle of armed [efffective] self defence.

Having said all of that if an Englishman carries a weapon for defence he can do so with Lawful Authority under the 1953 Act.

The Bill of Rights 1689 gives each one us the statutory right to carry a weapon for defence-and I have yet to find a higher form of legal authority than an Act of Parliament.

Since 1953 the legal establishment have done their upmost to pull the wool over our eyes and we have fallen for it. Crime is at an all time high and yet we still hear the Police talking about 'attack alarms' and 'walk in well lit areas' and our right to 'instantly arm'. If we have the right to instantly arm ourselves then we have to right to carry defensive weapons because teleportation is not yet available.

The Police carry their truncheons from the the Common Law right for everyone of us to have defensive weapons. The Police are afterall 'citizens in uniform' and have never been a privileged class - the Bill of Rights gives statutory protection to that Common Law right.

If the Police or the Armed Forces need additional Lawful Authority it is only to enable the offensive use of their weapons. Parliaments permission to have a Standing Army in Peacetime for example.

 

[sterling180]

The Firearm Ammendment Acts of 1988,1997 and 1998,were all passed to stop psychopaths,from obtaining a license and misusing their guns to slaughter innocent people with-despite the police knowing about both Micheal Ryans and Thomas Hamiltons,warped minds.

This was done as a feel good legislation,not to protect against crime-in general.The fact that a psycho Scout master/teacher and an Antiques dealer,could go mad and kill will legal weapony-freaked alot of people out.

 

[Matt_W]

This was done as a feel good legislation,not to protect against crime-in general.The fact that a psycho Scout master/teacher and an Antiques dealer,could go mad and kill will legal weapony-freaked alot of people out.

Whereas they should have freaked out by the fact that the police allowed mad people to own firearms legally. Both individuals were by all accounts 'mad' before they started shooting people.

As for the knife amnesty, I was in the Post Office this morning when a lad in his twenties asked the counter staff if it 'was OK to post knives through the Royal Mail?' Perhaps the knife amnesty has helped to reinforce the idea that knives are taboo objects?

 

[Thatcher]

One of the 'big' secrets in the UK is how many section 5 firearms certificates there are. These are individually granted by the Home Secretary (i.e. 3rd most senior Politican in the country) and could literally be for anything from a stinger missile to a glock with CCW. I've found nothing to suggest whether its tens, hundreds, or thousands. I would guess its thousands.

One thing that isn't a secret but isn't commonly known is that there are 13000 people with normal firearms certificates for ccw with handguns for self-defense in Northern Ireland (granted by the Police like a normal target shooting licence).

 

[Cromlech]

One of the 'big' secrets in the UK is how many section 5 firearms certificates there are.

Pish, tosh, it's no secret! I have one myself, here I am protecting my fellow man, though they do not yet know it:

On a serious note, I have come across a website that sells deacts, section 7.1 and 7.3 firearms, and also sell section 5 firearms if you have the right paperwork.

http://www.classicfirearms.co.uk/

 

[Boom-stick]

One of the 'big' secrets in the UK is how many section 5 firearms certificates there are.

No it's not, the home office have currently issued approx 400 sect 5 certs.
Getting one is serious aggro, but what it is harder, is keeping hold of it.
A friend of mine lost his because it wasn't getting used enough, if you don't have enough 'traffic' through the books they'll say you don't need it. Another guy I know has his because he provides handguns for international sales and also a few 'select' police officers are allowed they own firearms
Quite how you get such statis is beyond me and my Police friends, one of my best buddies is a Diplomatic Protection officer in London, running around plain clothed with a Glock!!, christ knows how he got that gig, I wouldn't trust him with a box of swan vestas, where as he trusted me to be his "best man"

 

[Matt_W]

Sec 5 certs

The point is that the firearms law still allows for self defence as being a reason to have a handgun in the UK.

The 'secret' if anything is just how many 'connected' people get to take advantage of it.

Ordinary people apply for Sec Authority and are told that unless they are dealing in such weapons on a regular basis they are unlikely to get it granted.

I know of one man who applied for reasons of self defence and the Home Sec. 'after taking his individual circumstances into consideration' refused his application because they did not believe he was under enough of a threat to warrant the ownership of a handgun or two. Thus meeting their legal obligations and respect the Subjects right to arms.

 

[Fosbery]

Nowhere in UK law does it say you can't have a gun for self-defence. The Home Office guidelines drawn up secretly in the 40's told police not to issue FACs for reasons of self defence. This is not binding, it's just a guideline. Nowadays, self defence with a gun is such a taboo thing that you'll only get one for self-defence if you're an undercover police officer or something.

Section 5 isn't very common at all, as Boom stick said, 400 out of 60 million isn't much.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Fosbery, we know what an amnesty is. We just find it silly to have an amnesty for an object you can make with with a piece of scrap and a file by the hundreds.

It's even more silly to have an amnesty for an object that's legal to own (and frankly quite difficult to live without.)

 

[sterling180]

If section 5(formally legal weapons.) were to be reclassed as legal weapons-then all hell wpould break loose and the GCN would hold mass demonstrations,against handguns and assault rifles.

 

[Fosbery]

Fine with me, just so long as I can own section 5

I would say "Once I get my L1A1 back, ain't nobody gonna take my weapons away again" but alas, I'll only have the same problem I did last time. I mean, if plod comes knocking for them I'm not gonna shoot them, what with their wife and kids and their damned innocene They may be enforcing an unjust law but they're not exactly the gestapo.

 

[sterling180]

Blair knows that the handgun ban was, back then and still is a complete farce,but the Labour antis won't accept this to be true.Instead they banned them because of anti-handgun demonstrations in Scotland and of the fact that it would affect their popularity,with the public.

Hazell Blears said a year ago,about handgun events in 2012:"I don't think it is going to be a problem,but we must reassure the public,etc,etc...."

All this nonsense about crime is total rubbish(including statistics as well.) the antis feel safer,that ordinary people didn't have access to firearms,because they don't want their lives endangered,by a lunatic-who might shoot at them.As one person said a while ago:"That is the price one has to pay,for a safer society".

The Home Office has admitted that crime statistics,had no relevence towards the firearm bans.

 

[Boom-stick]

The Home Office guidelines drawn up secretly in the 40's told police not to issue FACs for reasons of self defence. This is not binding, it's just a guideline.

You got in one- it's a GUIDELINE.

It also happens to be a 'guideline' that has been open to serious mis-interpretation for years:banghead: