Automatic four year sentence...

[Jon-86]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/287170-four-
year-prison-sentence-for-anyone-caught-w ith-a-knife/

What are your thoughts to this? Over the xmas period anyone caught carrying a knife regardless! Now the reason I am posting this is because a year or so ago on this forum their was something about guns, and while a like guns we don't get to play with them here.

I agree with the fact most people cant be trusted where I live, at the time their was an automatic 6 month jail sentence for anyone caught carrying a knife. NOBODY believed me! Now people are facing four years in jail.

How the hell is the republic supposed to rise? How can you arm your militia when even knives are being clamped down on> You yanks are fuckin spoilt rotten for choice.

Keep in mind I canny really argue against the reason for the gun ban, I know I'm surrounded by people with mental health issues, its a problem here to the extent the government have put a lot of effort into tackling it, and I would be long gone years ago if guns were easily accessible to any idiot!

But this is starting to take the biscuit...

[Dogbert581]

So why would you justify carrying a knife?

[All-American-Badass]

At 12/16/11 10:09 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: So why would you justify carrying a knife?

Maybe you have an article of clothing caught on a stationary object, nice to have a knife if that ever comes up.

[Jon-86]

At 12/16/11 10:09 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: So why would you justify carrying a knife?

I don't, but this is a bit extreme, even for the people who go out with the intent of doing damage. Their are a lot who carry knives to defend themselves from others. They would also get done. What if I bought my ma a set of knifes as an xmas present and got searched in the city center?

I've got a small (less than an inch) knife on a keyring along with some fold out scissors that I use to open stuff. I know they cant do me for that because its not classed as a weapon. And while this may be an attempt at a deterrent. It just like most deterrents don't address the cause.

[Korriken]

why carry a knife? well, given that Self Defense is illegal in the UK... I suppose none comes to mind.

of course, this system of being stripped of more and more of your rights and being forced to rely more and more on the government is only going to continue until the people decide they've had enough.

which will probably never happen, given how the culture grooms people to be dependent on the government.

[Dogbert581]

At 12/16/11 10:43 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 12/16/11 10:09 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: So why would you justify carrying a knife?

I don't, but this is a bit extreme, even for the people who go out with the intent of doing damage. Their are a lot who carry knives to defend themselves from others. They would also get done.

Those people are carrying knifes because the people they want to 'defend' themselves from are concievably also carrying knifes. If this deterrant works, it will stop the people who wish to cause hard carrying knives or at least remove them from the streets. Therefore this will have removed the people they feel the need to defend themselves against. Therefore they will feel no need to carry a knife.

What if I bought my ma a set of knifes as an xmas present and got searched in the city center?
I'm sure the law is not completely inflexible on this issue. Firstly, you would probably have needed to be doing something suspicious for you to get searched. Secondly, I'm sure if you presented a reciept or had an equally valid reason why you were carrying knives they would let you go with no charge.

[morefngdbs]

How are you going to butter bread ?
For that matter how will you be able to ever slice a piece of bread ?

When i'm working, I always have a leatherman on my belt (its a multi tool complete with 2 knife blades)
Plus I have at least 1 olfa knife on me. I have to I work with rope & sash cord, gel for lighting...I couldn't do my job,& often its outside right in the heart of the city, without at least 1 knife.

[SolInvictus]

At 12/16/11 10:09 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: So why would you justify carrying a knife?

any number of tooling related reasons such as cutting, prying, (un)screwing, sharpening a pencil, etc... and thats what you can do with a blade alone, think about all the fun that can be had with a multi-tool like the one i always have one me.

not to mention the closed knife would likely make a better weapon than the blade seeing as it doesn't lock open. in short, stupid law is stupid.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/16/11 10:09 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: So why would you justify carrying a knife?

So, you've never had to butcher your own meat on the go I see...

[Dogbert581]

At 12/16/11 02:00 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/16/11 10:09 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: So why would you justify carrying a knife?

any number of tooling related reasons such as cutting, prying, (un)screwing, sharpening a pencil, etc... and thats what you can do with a blade alone, think about all the fun that can be had with a multi-tool like the one i always have one me.

not to mention the closed knife would likely make a better weapon than the blade seeing as it doesn't lock open. in short, stupid law is stupid.

Maybe I should have made my original point clearer. From what I can see, this law isnt going to stop any of the perfectly legitimate reasons for carrying a knife. If you can prove you are carrying it for a legitimate reason you should remain untouched. However, my original point was directed at the idea that people who are only carrying the knife with the intent of offence (even carrying it 'to protect yourself' should still count as having malicious intent) are also justified

[Camarohusky]

At 12/16/11 02:35 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: Maybe I should have made my original point clearer. From what I can see, this law isnt going to stop any of the perfectly legitimate reasons for carrying a knife. If you can prove you are carrying it for a legitimate reason you should remain untouched. However, my original point was directed at the idea that people who are only carrying the knife with the intent of offence (even carrying it 'to protect yourself' should still count as having malicious intent) are also justified

If this were it anyone who isn't stupid or too drunk will just say "I am going to my bud's place to help him prepare some tasty cuts of (insert animal here)"

The American rule only outlaws the carrying of weapon created with the sole, or primary purpose of injuring others. Applying this to knives usually includes: butterfly knives, stilletos, switchblades, bayonets, driks, daggers, swords and occasionally hunting knives. Steak knives, butcher knives, cleavers, butter knives, bread knives, pocket knives and such only elevate to "dangerous" or "deadly" weapons when used in an assault. Other than that they are a tool and therefore are legal. Cause, shit, if it's stabbing you're looknig for, just carry and rat-trail comb. They stab like crazy and are extremely legal. If it's slicing you're looking for, scissors do the trick and are legal. This knife rule is way too restrictive a means to achieve the stated goal.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/16/11 03:55 PM, thdrkside wrote: Why not just learn how to fight with martial arts so you wont even need a knife to defend yourself?

Does drunken boxing count as a martial art?

[djack]

Out of curiosity, how many of the people against this would still be against it if it was about guns instead of knives? Furthermore, how many of you read enough to know that this policy is in Scotland where knife crimes are extremely common and is only in effect for a few weeks around the holidays so that people can celebrate without having to worry about being stabbed?

At 12/16/11 04:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Does drunken boxing count as a martial art?

It's a Chinese technique called zui quan (or drunken fist) so yes it does count.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/16/11 07:02 PM, djack wrote: It's a Chinese technique called zui quan (or drunken fist) so yes it does count.

You missed my veiled poke at the Scots... However, point taken.

[Iron-Hampster]

anyone else worried about how the Sikhs are going to react to this? I hope they at least make an exception for them.

and I don't know what to say to that, carrying a knife, 4 years. What kind of self defence ARE you entitled to? A knife can be used to intimidate a gang of attackers for just long enough for you to make an escape if used right but nobody is going to back down if you are ambushed by a bunch of scum bags and all you can do is say "I know Kung Fu back off now or I'll kick all your heads off!".

that's not right though Kung Fu is a weapon based martial art...

you know what? you should probably consider bringing a staff around with you. (unless they have a law against that too!)

[Iron-Hampster]

At 12/16/11 08:11 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

that's not right though Kung Fu is a mostly weapon based martial art...

self fixed, hand to hand is its weakest field.

[Entice]

At 12/16/11 08:11 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: anyone else worried about how the Sikhs are going to react to this? I hope they at least make an exception for them.

I'd say that if a government is willing to give out a religious exception for a law, then it doesn't need to be a law at all. How can you justify banning the public carry of a knife for everyone but the Sikhs? They're just as likely to stab someone as a person of any other religion.

At 12/16/11 02:35 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: From what I can see, this law isnt going to stop any of the perfectly legitimate reasons for carrying a knife. If you can prove you are carrying it for a legitimate reason you should remain untouched.

Should, but the letter of the law says "anyone carrying a knife". Couldn't that be abused?

Even if it gets to point where everything but lil plastic knives are completely banned, there's still going to be stabbings. Of course, it'd be ridiculous to take it to that point. Hell, it's already ridiculous, at least from my point of view. Knives are valuable tools, albeit not for everyone in modern times but tools nonetheless. Taking weapon restrictions to the point of a zero tolerance policy on any knife carrying is just outright oppressive, and it does nothing to attack the actual causes of violent crime, it just puts a few people in jail for a while longer.

[Proteas]

At 12/16/11 12:10 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: What if I bought my ma a set of knifes as an xmas present and got searched in the city center?
I'm sure the law is not completely inflexible on this issue.

It says "zero tolerance" on the site, dude. I'm pretty sure that means the same thing in Scotland as it does here in the United States. Basically, they're going to nail your ass to the wall regardless of WHY you have them, simply because you have them. From the little key-ring knife that Jon-86 is talking about, to kitchen knives in package like what you're talking about, you're going to be prosecuted if you're caught with them.

Don't you just LOVE liberal logic, where they blame inanimate objects for causing crime and not the individuals wielding them?

At 12/16/11 03:55 PM, thdrkside wrote: Why not just learn how to fight with martial arts so you wont even need a knife to defend yourself?

Even Bruce Lee carried a gun. Just because you're skilled at kicking ass and train like a maniac at it doesn't mean you can (conceivably) take on all comers.

[Dogbert581]

At 12/17/11 09:00 PM, Proteas wrote:

It says "zero tolerance" on the site, dude. I'm pretty sure that means the same thing in Scotland as it does here in the United States. Basically, they're going to nail your ass to the wall regardless of WHY you have them, simply because you have them.

I find it hard to believe that. The law may say 'zero tolerance' in the wording but I doubt it will be enforced. Policemen are human beings not robots, I get the impression that the vast majority of them will not be immovable objects unwilling to listen to your explanation. If you have a valid reason why you're carrying a knife you should be fine.

Also bear in mind that they will find these knives when they search you. If they search you, they must have had a valid reason to search you in the first place. So if you don't walk down the street waving your knife and don't do anything that could give them a reason to stop and search you, you should be fine carrying a knife for stuff like work or if you've bought it from the shops.

[Proteas]

At 12/18/11 10:10 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: I find it hard to believe that.

Your lack of belief does not invalidate reality.

If they search you, they must have had a valid reason to search you in the first place.

By "valid reason," you mean something beyond "Hey, I'm an officer of the law and I can do damn well what I please with this largely unarmed populace?"

[Dogbert581]

At 12/18/11 10:59 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/18/11 10:10 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: I find it hard to believe that.

Your lack of belief does not invalidate reality.

Firstly, what was the need to bring shotguns (unloaded or not) to school?

Secondly, this section of the article might interest you

'Geivett said the Education Code requires the school pursue expulsion, when a student is in possession of a firearm, knife or explosive without written permission from the school. He said he was concerned for the safety of students and staff.

"Gary should've known better than to come to campus with guns in his truck," Geivett said. '

He knew the possible consequences of his actions, he has no one to blame for his expulsion but himself

If they search you, they must have had a valid reason to search you in the first place.

By "valid reason," you mean something beyond "Hey, I'm an officer of the law and I can do damn well what I please with this largely unarmed populace?"

That may be the case in America, in the UK it is the opposite. I know several members of the police who's roles range from standard copper up to firearms expert. They all say the police have to be so careful in search incidents. Procedure has to be followed every step of the way. The reason is, at even the slightest cry of foul play, the media (and by association the general public) instantly jump on the side of the person making the accusation and vilify the police.

[Proteas]

At 12/18/11 11:27 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: He knew the possible consequences of his actions, he has no one to blame for his expulsion but himself

I find it ironic that you're taking the lawful neutral stance on this issue and simply agreeing with the law because it is the law. You fail to recognize that there was absolutely no malice or ill intent with this kid bringing these weapons to school, he was simply an idiot who didn't think to stop and drop them off at home.

Meanwhile, you bitch and gripe and complain about how the zero-tolerance policy (and that's what the article refers to it as, a zero-tolerance policy) that Scotland is adopting will not recognize the difference between legitimate and illigetimate reasons for somebody to carry a knife.

Perhaps this is a fine illustration of what djack said, earlier; "Out of curiosity, how many of the people against this would still be against it if it was about guns instead of knives?"

That may be the case in America, in the UK it is the opposite. I know several members of the police who's roles range from standard copper up to firearms expert. They all say the police have to be so careful in search incidents. Procedure has to be followed every step of the way. The reason is, at even the slightest cry of foul play, the media (and by association the general public) instantly jump on the side of the person making the accusation and vilify the police.

That's the way it is here in America, where if you so much as fill out a form wrong you can have a lawsuit on your hands. And guess what? Police abuse and misconduct still happens, and the police can and will do whatever they can to falsify documents and make it look like everything is legit.

That's the difference between you and me; I recognize that too much power placed in one man's hands isn't a good thing. You guys have placed so much power in the hands of your government that you have no choice left but to follow with what they say because you have no ability to stand up and change things, and this is what you've been left with; a nanny state that can and will remove your rights at a moment's notice for "your best interests."

Make fun of the rednecks who say "they want our guns!" and groups like the National Rifle Association all you want, at least at the end of the day I can still carry one of these on me.

[Dogbert581]

At 12/18/11 12:26 PM, Proteas wrote:

Meanwhile, you bitch and gripe and complain about how the zero-tolerance policy that Scotland is adopting will not recognize the difference between legitimate and illigetimate reasons for somebody to carry a knife.

I havve never said that, throughout this thread I have always said that people who have a legitimate reason to carry a knife have nothing to worry about and that the police WILL recognise the difference.

[Proteas]

At 12/18/11 01:49 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: I havve never said that, throughout this thread I have always said that people who have a legitimate reason to carry a knife have nothing to worry about and that the police WILL recognise the difference.

If they are going to be reasonable and recognize the difference between legitimate and illegitimate usage of a knife, then it's not zero tolerance. Zero tolerance means they're not going to differentiate the two and there is no such thing as an "innocent person with a knife," just "person with a knife."

So, there's YOUR version of reality, and then there's REALITY which you clearly have no part or parcel of.

[Dogbert581]

At 12/18/11 04:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/18/11 01:49 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: I havve never said that, throughout this thread I have always said that people who have a legitimate reason to carry a knife have nothing to worry about and that the police WILL recognise the difference.

If they are going to be reasonable and recognize the difference between legitimate and illegitimate usage of a knife, then it's not zero tolerance. Zero tolerance means they're not going to differentiate the two and there is no such thing as an "innocent person with a knife," just "person with a knife."

So, there's YOUR version of reality, and then there's REALITY which you clearly have no part or parcel of.

It is worded Zero Tolerance for a reason. If they were to put 'Zero Tolerance apart from situations A B C D E F G H I J etc' then that would cause even more confusion. Policemen and the CPS will have common sense about when to prosecute and when to show tolerance. For instnace, if someone was carrying a knife to work they might get arrested, but the case would be dropped straight away, if it even made it that far.

[Proteas]

At 12/18/11 05:15 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: It is worded Zero Tolerance for a reason.

Yeah, because there's not jack shit else in that article about what you're talking about.

[Proteas]

Let me also point out that I can vouch for the fact that Jon-86 actually from Scotland, and the reality of what he's saying actually lines up with the reality of the article he presented.

I don't know for a fact that Dogbert581 is from Scotland, which is what this article specifically applies to. For all I know he could be from Germany or Spain or right here in the States, I simply don't know. His profile says he's from Exeter, which a quick google search shows is in Devon, England, on the exact opposite side of the island from Scotland. So how this effects him or what first hand knowledge he could offer is beyond me. What I do know is that what he's saying doesn't line up with what Jon is saying, and as such, there's something really wrong with this picture.

[Dogbert581]

At 12/18/11 05:24 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/18/11 05:15 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: It is worded Zero Tolerance for a reason.

Yeah, because there's not jack shit else in that article about what you're talking about.

There doesn't have to be. I know how the police in this country work. If they detain someone carrying a knife, and find out that person had a good reason they will let them go. Its just common sense. Or are you saying that its best not to err on the side of caution and just adopt the complete opposite policy - ignore anyone carrying a knife no matter what they're explanation is?

[Iron-Hampster]

should they have to explain themselves? it is starting to sound like martial law.

[Proteas]

At 12/18/11 05:54 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: There doesn't have to be. I know how the police in this country work.

You know how the police in England work. Scotland, on the other hand, is completely seperate (legally) from the way England and Ireland work. So you commenting on how you "know" how the police in your "country" work is about as asinine as me commenting on how I "know" how the police in Canada work.

And on top of that, Zero Tolerance is just that, ZERO TOLERANCE. It does not err on the side of common sense, it does not distinguish between right and wrong, it just goes with what is presented in front of it; somebody who was stupid enough to get caught in public with a knife.

Or are you saying that its best not to err on the side of caution and just adopt the complete opposite policy - ignore anyone carrying a knife no matter what they're explanation is?

No, I'm saying you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Don't try to make out like I'm saying something I'm clearly not.