Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's kind of a knife ban: zombie knives, sword sticks, butterfly knives and blowpipes, as well as a range of martial arts weapons such as deathstars and handclaws.  Cannot have at home or in public.

Cannot carry a knife in public.

You also cannot order ordinary knives to a residential address, must pickup in store, which makes the previous point hard to comply with.

Edited by JBJ
Posted

I think knives we're banned a few years ago. From what I understand the mayor is calling for a stronger enforcement of the knife ban.

Personally, I don't carry a gun but I always have a knife on me. It's a very utilitarian thing to carry.

Posted
  On 4/9/2018 at 10:21 PM, CowboyFred said:

so still no cite? alrighty then...

Is this swam's new account?

Expand  

I'm going to go with numbers. 

If you outlaw knives only outlaws will have knives. Well, maybe you'll still be able to have butter knives. 

Posted (edited)

In case anyone is confused, the United Kingdom is not a truly free country.  Looks like one, but it isn't.

 

Lest anyone forget, the Bill or Rights is premised on things the English government did 200 years ago and largely still retains the ability to do today.  There still is no equivalent to at least the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments in the UK.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
  On 4/9/2018 at 10:11 PM, AnonymousInternetPoster said:

Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want.  London and their mayor are a laughing stock.

Expand  

yeah, as otherwise stated, london is fucking fantastic. i love that town, and i feel safe while there. and i stay in whitechapel. haha.

that said, i've been reading about this supposed post-code war and it does sound like a bunch of stupid teenager gangster bullshit. the mayor is probably going to tell the metropolitan police to make life very difficult for any teenager caught with a blade. saw in one article, stop and frisk is a strategy. it will probably work to some degree. 

Posted

Regardless of semantics, it's pretty clear that even though guns are banned over there, they still have a problem with violent people.  I see the same dynamic playing out over there as here - focusing on the tools/instruments instead of root causes, but I suppose it's the low hanging fruit.

Posted
  On 4/10/2018 at 10:45 AM, bernorange said:

Regardless of semantics, it's pretty clear that even though guns are banned over there, they still have a problem with violent people.  I see the same dynamic playing out over there as here - focusing on the tools/instruments instead of root causes, but I suppose it's the low hanging fruit.

Expand  

 

The root cause is that people are violent.  Some of us more than others but nearly all of us at one time or another. Good luck "focusing"  on that. All we can do, collectively, as a society, is to try to limit the calamity.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 4/10/2018 at 11:24 AM, Hornius Emeritus said:
 
The root cause is that people are violent.  Some of us more than others but nearly all of us at one time or another. Good luck "focusing"  on that. All we can do, collectively, as a society, is to try to limit the calamity.


This. Their calamities involve stabbing, while ours involve multiple children in dead hallways.
Posted
  On 4/10/2018 at 12:18 PM, bernorange said:
From the Reason article mentioned above:
  Quote
London's murder numbers now exceed New York's. But the new murders teach old lessons: Drug wars are bad and weapon laws don't stop crime.
 

Introducing greater access to guns must be the solution then.

There’s a huge flaw in that argument if gun supporters want to use it. Do you see it?

And I’m not anti-gun. I’m anti-poor reasoning.
Posted

If you are anti-poor reasoning, perhaps you should reevaluate your last post and consider that your arguing against a position that you made up.  It's a classic straw man.  But I'm sure it made you feel good to post it.

If you want to discuss a topic honestly, you should start by reading what I've actually said and maybe address the points I've actually made.

Posted (edited)
  On 4/10/2018 at 1:38 AM, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Not sure about this guy? Let me help... 

 

a70.gif

Expand  

In ancient Rome, of course, the "thumbs down" meant that the combatant was worth more to spare (crowd favorite), so the gesture was akin to "throw your sword down" and the life was spared.  The "thumbs up", although the Latin isn't real clear about this, is generally thought to mean that they should thrust the sword up to the heart and be rid of the combatant.

So, you want to keep the guy around.

I bet a lot of you didn't know that.  About Rome.  And thumbs.  And death.  And whether they sold beer in the Colosseum.  

Edit: This got fucked up because some French guy fucked it up in a painting in 1872.  The French... <rolls eyes, shakes head>

Edited by phdhorn
Posted
  On 4/10/2018 at 12:45 PM, phdhorn said:
In ancient Rome, of course, the "thumbs down" meant that the combatant was worth more to spare (crowd favorite), so the gesture was akin to "throw your sword down" and the life was spared.  The "thumbs up", although the Latin isn't real clear about this, is generally thought to mean that they should thrust the sword up to the heart and be rid of the combatant.

So, you want to keep the guy around.

I bet a lot of you didn't know that.  About Rome.  And thumbs.  And death.  And whether they sold beer in the Colosseum.  
Edit: This got fucked up because some French guy fucked it up in a painting in 1872.  The French...
Wait, so aggy is really booing?


×
×
  • Create New...