Save a Life – Surrender Your Knife

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/british-police-calling-for-knife-ban/

British Police Call On Nation To ‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife’ As ‘Knife Violence’ Continues
November 14, 2014 12:48 pm·

knife_ban

The news out of the United Kingdom almost reads like a satire piece from The Onion. But as strange as it may sound to people around the world, and especially in the United States, the British police push to ban knives is no joke.

The new “Save a Life – Surrender Your Knife” program is in full swing and police are telling us that they have joined forces with an already growing trend in the United Kingdom to ban “pointy” knives.

Lancashire Police tell us that an “amnesty” program began at the end of August, and “more than 800 knives have been handed in across the county – including swords, machetes and commando knives.”

“The amnesty was extended for a further week owing to its success,” Lancashire Police representatives explained.

The Lancashire department explains that their “officers have now given their backing to a national initiative designed to raise awareness of knife crime and encourage the surrender of dangerous weapons.”

In spite of the amnesty ending this week, police tell us that “people can continue to hand in any knife at any police station with a front counter as well being able to drop them into the designated bins.”

Those bins will be in cities all over the U.K. as this call for people to turn in pointed knives continues.

“We are keen to raise awareness of the devastating impact of knife crime and to reduce the number of families affected so we have decided to keep the knife bins indefinitely,” Detective Chief Inspector Steve Dowson said.

“While projects encouraging the surrender of knives are not a single solution to violence, they have an important role to play in inspiring communities to get behind education and preventative measures,” he added. “Such campaigns show a desire to address local concerns and Lancashire Police is keen to throw our weight behind them in support.

“We’ve been delighted with the response so far, but our communities have told us that they want an end to knife crime and that they want to work with us to make that happen.”

A call from the British Medical Journal was published several years ago, arguing that “many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon,” according to the BBC.

Researchers “consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.”

Again, we remind our readers outside of the UK, that this is not satire, just another example of the government claiming they are here to protect us from ourselves.

In the UK, the rate of knife violence is approximately one in every 374 people victimized, compared with a rate of one in 750 people victimized by gun violence in the United States.

No payment? Can they sell their knives on Ebay? I'd like to see what I could get.

I bid $25USD for a Wilkinson Sword Fairbairn Sikes first pattern

What about screws and nails, and pens, and pencils...are they next?

How about ball peen hammers? I would prefer one of those any day over a knife for a weapon.

The only logical solution is to get rid of all those tools - no screw drivers, nails, scissors, pencils, pens, etc. If you need to fix something, call a professional who is licensed to have such tools. If you need to write, you can type on a computer keyboard or use a touchscreen. If you absolutely need to hand write, then you can use a crayon, chalk, or similar utensil. Pointy things are just too dangerous to take any chances. These rules are for your safety.

Gently, good sirs. Different culture, different problems, different solutions.

Never heard of this 'initiative' here in the UK.

But, we have a growing problem of young kids carrying big knives for 'defence' the scarier looking the better e.g. Buckmaster 184 style.

These are drawn at the smallest hint of trouble i.e. being 'dissed' or even being 'looked at hard' and often used for the most trivial reasons leading, of course, to horrendous wounds or death.

For the normal person there is not a problem. I have daily carried a pocket knife from school 12-13 years old to today 65 years old. Never had the tiniest niggle of a problem. The majority of my friends do the same.

This is the normal experience in our society, 14 year olds with 10" fantasy knives is not.

Recent example:
BBC News

Understood, it's just that perhaps a more logical way to tackle that issue would be getting the gangs off the streets, not knives.

Some time ago, there was a ban on "samurai" swords in the UK because they were used in several violent incidents. Now it's kitchen knives.

By the way, the proposed ban on all "pointy" knives is clearly open to a wide interpretation. The police officer in the newspaper article above is proudly showing off three "illegal" machetes, none of which seems a particularly effective stabbing weapon. So where does it end?

Yes absolutely, you have the problem in a nutshell.

Unfortunately we have an ever increasingly politicised police forces who are happier being seen to have done something rather than doing something that works.

It is so easy to blame knives and guns than deal with the real causes, which are difficult, messy, take time and are costly.

To answer your question, it ends when the police (and politicians) are held to account. I can't see the Metropolitan police with their corruption and incompetency lasting much longer before they are taken in hand, disbanded and reformed. Perhaps the incoming Mayor of London will do it?

It is interesting that Scotland with the wind of change blowing through (another subject, another day) have recently combined ALL of their police forces, including the Transport Police, a totally different organisation, into one 'Police Scotland'. Early days but worth watching.

Somebody who read the article in full, help me understand something. For about the first 90% of the article, they are talking about getting rid of large knives, for example, machetes, kitchen knives, etc. Then, out of nowhere, they quote research from 10 top chefs saying "such knives" have no use to them, and so they are OK with the initiative.

That's where I'm confused (besides the fact that I don't belive the research). I'm pretty sure almost every knife a chef uses would universally be considered a LARGE knife if you were carrying it on the street. Or are the chefs in the UK actually using small knives (like 3 inches long)?

If I understand correctly the trend is going toward banning all "pointy" knives of some size, primarily large kitchen knives with a sharp tip. The rationale being that such knives have no practical value in the kitchen as confirmed by "10 top chefs from around the UK".

That's already old news, the same idea has been around for a while:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

So if one takes the idea further, a large kitchen knife with a blunt tip (e.g. sheepsfoot) would be considered ok. The same type of knife with a sharp tip would be classified as an "offensive weapon".

However, the recent Lancashire amnesty referred to in the original post clearly extends to all sorts of knives, including machetes. Which IMO implies that all knives and long bladed cutting tools are essentially considered dangerous weapons.

I suppose pretty soon some genius will discover that you don't even need a knife in the kitchen - think Microwave Dinner!

Humans are dangerous with hands and feet too.

What can be done about that?

I wish it was an Onion article......

An interesting aside regarding blunt tips:

Table knives all used to be pointed. Now they have blunt tips. From the Wikipedia article on table knives:

The distinguishing feature of a table knife is a blunt or rounded end. The origin of this, and thus of the table knife itself, is attributed by tradition to Cardinal Richelieu around 1637, reputedly to cure dinner guests of the unsavoury habit of picking their teeth with their knife-points.[1]

Later, in 1669, King Louis XIV of France banned pointed knives in the street and at his table, insisting on blunt tips, in order to reduce violence.[2][3]

Hasn´t anybody heard of slashing with a knife? Stabbing is not the only kind of violence a knife is capable of.

I despair of the state of the UK.

I'm guessing knives that are sharp are next.

The UK is fairly strict on health and safety things, so this would fit in to that trend.

Mind you, the normal UK policemen doesn't even carry any form of firearm.

Now that crime is getting out of hand maybe they will consider arming themselves with pointy kitchen knives?

Maybe they'll have 'call for backup' whistles.

Dogbert had it right:

Dilbert comic strip

Too true!

You might joke about the UK police, but there are places in the world where both bad and good guys don't see firearms as there primairy tool. Bad people still run away from them. Even the armed police units tend to grab tasers instead of there firearms when they can.

Firearms raises the stakes on both sides. Better to have a running competition between the good and the bad, then a gun competition.

I guess that would work if the bad guys followed the rules. But they don't. That's why they're called "criminals".

In the USA it certainly won't work, but there are more placed in the world then just the US. Unarmed police can safe lifes because they can't shoot. Police know when to back down and criminals know they don't have to shoot at the police to get away.

Have a read from the washingtonpost here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...-it-works-well/

Countries, regions, communities across the world are different. Don't judge them by compairing them to just yours. If it's stupid, but works it ain't stupid.

Tjin, I do agree with you to a point. There is always a fine line between an efficient police force and oppression. Arming the police to the teeth, dressing them in SWAT black and encouraging the use of military-style gear and tactics in a civilian environment is likely to do more harm than good... As demonstrated by a number of recent incidents and protests against police violence in the US for example (or France a few years ago).

Then again, I'm not sure the British strategy is working very well either. A somewhat tougher approach to law enforcement might work better than highly restrictive (and sometimes nonsensical) legislation that achieves little in the long run other than alienating the honest, law-abiding population.

In any case, I have travelled quite a bit in the UK and enjoyed my time spent there, whether it was business or leisure. Other than a few less than pleasant experiences in the big cities like London or Manchester I felt pretty safe. I did notice a sizeable police presence in the major urban centers though. I also felt a little uncomfortable about the ubiquitous Big Brother CCTV. Not quite my idea of a perfect society but surely I could think of many far more dangerous places to live.

IMO, this is the key. And it goes both ways.

A quick check on Google shows 196 recognized countries in the world in 2015. 5 are cited in the article (with some few also rans mentioned). This is a low percentage, call it 2.5%. The article itself mentions unique local social factors that influence the lack or armed law enforcement.

So direct comparisons of "this works for them, therefore it will/should work for you," are very suspect. The local conditions, social conventions and social unity all play into this.

Just adopting the laws from another country where those laws work to another does not mean that they will work there.

IMO, disarming the police in the U.S. would not work. No sane person would join the police force in such a situation. Personal example: during the 1972 anti-war demonstrations in D.C., my Military Police company was sent onto the D.C. streets. We were told that groups armed with automatic weapons were stalking us, but were not issued ammo for the M-16's we carried. If we had not been under military orders and threat of Court Marshall, how many in my company of M.P.'s does anyone think would sally forth? Every Time a police officer in the U.S. makes a traffic stop for a trivial traffic violation, he has to prepare himself, mentally and physically, for a shoot out. Every stop, every time, 365 days a year. It can and does wear the best down.

25 or more years ago, I had the opportunity to talk off the record with the chief of training of one of the local (to D.C.) police organizations. At that time, “concealed carry rights” was just getting started as a movement. I asked him, how, if it passed, would this change Police Training. His answer was words to the effect that “Not at all.” When I looked surprised/confused, he explained that (in words to the effect that) “I train every officer to assume everyone they contact is armed,---if I don’t, I will end up with dead officers.”

“For every complex social problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious, easy and wrong.” ---Anonymous.

So, yes there is a violence problem in the U.S. between police and civilians, but IMO, removing the objects used in the violence from one side (i.e. guns) does not solve the problem of the violence itself. It is a much harder problem, one for which I lack the wisdom to solve, but am pretty sure that disarming one side will not work.

I admire those nations that can work without armed police, but they are different nations and societies. As much as we in the U.S. might want something else, we must deal with reality as it is, not as what we wish it was.

I wasn't clear enough on that. I do mean it both ways. Certain thing work in certain locations. I just found the responce to the article at the top a little too viewed by the US kind of perspective. No illusion that disarming any US police will be a good idea.

In conversations like this, it seems like people fail to take into account the fact that the population does not include just able-bodied men.

If you go down the road of taking away all weapons, how is an injured person in bed supposed to defend against a robber who strolls into his house and wants stuff? Is the injured person just screwed, and oh well? What about handicapped people? What about elderly people? What about women who weigh 95 pounds? Are they just screwed too?

People who can fight well with their hands (mostly men) will be the only people who can defend themselves.

Haven't posted for quite a while but I saw this and ...

I use a wheelchair (5'0" 115lbs). Six months ago a 6'4" guy broke into my house. He told me he was going to beat my effing head in. I shot and killed him. The police were already looking for him. They, the police, were on the way but I didn't know that. I feel fortunate to live in a country where I am able to defend myself and my wife. Without a weapon there would not have been much I could have done. I know this is mostly a knife rights thread and I certainly do not mean to hijack it. Just my 2 cents.

Wheels, i'm sorry to hear you have to go through such experience.

From a european perspective, prevention is better then reaction. We invest more in target hardening (proper doors, locks, windows, fences). Last time I was in the US, I was rather not impressed by the exterieur doors and windows. My closet has a more impressive lock then they front door locks i have seen. My doors has 3 locks, extra pins on the hinged side and a anti-prybar bar.

Better to have a frustated thief on the outside and me having a good night sleep, then hoping you can shoot quicker then the bad guy.

A firearm is a last resort solution. From a security point of view, you need layers, that make it hard for the bad guy. Preferably a passive system, that doesn't require a person to do something. A firearm requires a awake and aware person near it to be usefull.

You just mentioned the one of the two 900 lb primates that are valid arguments against no-weapons legislature. A gun, knife, cane, mace, Taser, etc. allows the weak to mount an effective defense against the strong.



What you're esposing is the standard home protection setup. I have a similar setup to the ones you described at home. You're not getting in without alerting half the neighborhood.

If somebody wants in while I'm home, it's not going to be a matter of when they give up and go away. But, a matter of if they get in before the cops get there (typical response time in my area is 10 minutes). Anyody brazen enough to break into an occupied house is either completely off their rocker, and/or prepared for violence. That's where weapons comes in. 15 or 20 years ago I would have been a formidable opponent. Now the only thing deadly about me is if I were to sit on you.

Very, very true. All defenses need to in layers to buy time. I am impressed with the security in apartment buildings in my visits to eastern europe: 1) punch in code or intercom to enter building to the stairwell/elevator; 2) at the floor you want, another locked door to get to the wing of the apartment you want, again intercom or you know the code, and 3) get past the locked apartment door.

Yet, my niece had to call the police when some guys made it to her front door and were heard to be working on getting in and making comments like "she is in there, lets get her. . ."

The police got there in time, but just so, thus, from that point of view the system worked. But her last passive defense was about to be breached. So, to be frank, I would have liked her to have that last resort, an active defense. Not permitted where she lives.

I am also personally familiar with a woman here in the U.S. who was on the phone with with 911 trying to get help as a man was breaking into her room. Regretfully, the police arrived too late to save her from assault and murder. A last resort solution is sometimes necessary.

I agree that a gun is a last resort and we should all harden our homes. The break-in at my house was at 3:00 a.m. The intruder tried to get in through several windows - police found evidence all around our house. When he started kicking in our glass patio door it woke us up. Modern patio doors are incredibly strong. It took the intruder about three minutes of kicking and throwing his whole body into the door before it exploded into our house and he came in. During that time I tried to dissuade him - told him police were on the way (wasn't sure but what the heck); showed him my gun; told him to go away many times - all for naught. If a large strong person is determined, he will get through your defenses. Maybe a big loud dog would have gotten his attention. Maybe not.

It's difficult to imagine the adrenaline and fear you must have had, or at least I would have been full of adrenaline and fear.

I've never had a home invasion like that. However, I once had a person lightly tap my front door in the middle of the night. Imagine "knock, knock, knock, knock, knock" very light at the front door, every 15 seconds. While we're fully awake, this may not sound like something strange. However, it's extremely bizarre in the middle of a quiet night. My dog went berserk and woke me up before I heard the knocking. At the time, I figured it was somebody trying to determine if anybody was home without disturbing the neighbors (not a bad technique actually). I got my guns. It turned out to be my wife's friend who was escaping an episode with her abusive husband.

Anyway, I learned several things during this practice run:
(1) I cannot operate my big safe's combination too well when I'm half asleep, full of adrenaline, and freaked out.
(2) I can quickly get to my handgun that's in a quick safe.
(3) My gun setup gives me confidence that I can protect my family during a home invasion.
(4) I need to install security cameras.
(5) A dog earns a lifetime of keep from just one of these episodes.

If this quote from the initial post in this thread is true:



... then it sounds like the violence rate in the UK is about double that of the US. "But it's knives, not guns!" you might say. I don't really care how I go in this case. A knife, a gun. Doesn't really matter. I'm injured or dead either way.

The thing is, doing away with guns, and having all the criminals thus resort to knives, as in the UK, actually favors the criminals. Who are by in large, younger and stronger than their typical victims. Knives are up close and personal weapons. You still need physical agility to use them effectively. How about allowing the potential victims to have knives to defend themselves? (wait, scratch that, that's what the UK is trying to take away now) But even if allowed, that's still a losing proposition. A gun is a much better equalizer. An older out of shape person can still be an excellent marksman to defend themselves with a gun. And they can potentially do it at arms length, not requiring them to physically struggle with a younger and stronger assailant.

Actually, much of the "gun violence" in the US is one gang member/criminal killing another gang member/criminal. To that, I say "good riddance". I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a benefit to society. Now, if we could just figure out how to control it so it is 100% criminal killing criminal, with no innocents ever getting drug into it. We'd have the problem solved! We could stop building prisons. We could do away with the expensive and drawn out death penalty. We wouldn't have to go to the dreaded "jury duty" as often.

While self-defence with a gun is big no-no in Finland, there are some cases where the court has freed the person using a weapon for self-defence.
One case was where an intruder (broke in to the victims apartment) was stabbed with a decoration-sword. And the victim was freed in court because he was in imminent fear of life.

Another one where the intruder tried to climb in through a window above the door and was shot dead by the apartment owner. Here again the apartment owner was freed in court.

Is self defense considered a no-no, or just self defense with a weapon? Are you allowed to meet violence against you with equivalent force on the your (the victims) side? I would hope that a 250 lb young attacker beating on an 85 year old frail lady with his fists could legally be repelled with something better than that old ladies fists, which wouldn't be very effective. Fist-for-fist would not be equivalent in this case. Chances are the old lady couldn't even repel the attacker with a knife or a club. About the only thing that would be potentially effective, but not guaranteed, would be a gun in this case. Since those are a no-no, is the old lady just supposed to suck it up and die? I can't understand the mindset behind a law like that. Is it supposed to be for the better good of society for the attacker to live and the old lady to die? It rings rather hollow for me that someone would later smugly say, "Well, at least a GUN wasn't involved. R.I.P. old lady."

One is allowed to use reasonble force against an attacker. Basicly it is up to the court to afterwards judge if you used reasonable or excessive force. So there is a chance that the victim will also be prosecuted along with the attacker.
There have been multiple cases in the newspaper where the victim also was prosecuted for using too much violence in self-defence.
We live in a socialdemocratic country where the police is supposed to protect you. But that is of course only a nice dream which does not work in reality.

Idiots.

Inappropriate.

Or a banana.

[/quote]
. . .
We live in a socialdemocratic country where the police is supposed to protect you. But that is of course only a nice dream which does not work in reality. [/quote]

That brings to mind the snarky adage of "when seconds count, the cops are minutes away." Sad, but true for all of the world I would suspect.

Sing the bananaasong to the attacker, he will suffer a lethal laughing attack.

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFukyIIM1XI[/video]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/westfield_man_hospitalized_aft.html

...

The "Reasonable force" doctrine means you can use a weapon, and use more force than your attacker has, if a reasonable person would have. It's understood that the reasonable person would be scared and a bit panicked; "reasonable" doesn't mean some unrealistic level of rationality.

The bit you may find hard to understand is that although self-defence is OK, preparing for it usually isn't. If you happened to have a knife by your bedside for peeling fruit, you could use that as a weapon, but keeping a knife by your bedside specifically to use as a weapon against intruders wouldn't be. And that's what this amnesty is about. Youths carrying knives intending to use them as weapons.

Knives as tools are not illegal in the UK. I carry more than one, for example, and of course cooks' knives are fine in a kitchen. The amnesty is aimed at knives that have no real purpose as tools.

According to this link

While it becomes clear that certain types of offenses are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. Rape of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. Before anybody asks, no, these do not take into account justifiable homicide and other “acceptable shootings”, nor do murders for that matter

Comparisons are tricky, but I wouldn't take the initial post's figures at face value.

Advocacy regarding guns removed.

Advocacy regarding guns removed.

I'm a hair away from locking the thread. Please stay off of gun politics completely on ETS.


chaosmagnet

That's an example of a slippery slope.

There's probably some statistic like "You're 100x more likely to be shot on the street than in prison". But that doesn't mean I would want to live in prison.

But that's just speculation. Back to the point you made ...
If you're only 4x more likely to be murdered in the US, but 35x more likely to be shot dead (which certainly would be considered "murder"), you must have a much higher likelyhood of being murdered with something other than a gun in the UK (to make up the difference between 4x and 35x). So there has to be some equally shocking statistic that doesn't look favorable for the UK, like "you're 26x more likely to be murdered with a knife in the UK than in the US", or something like that to balance that area between 4x and 35x. Otherwise the statistics would be "You're 35x more likely to be shot dead in the US" and ALSO "you're 35x more likely to be murdered in the US". So what is the "and more staggeringly" balancing statistic for murder in the UK? Knives? Clubs? One has to be very careful when cherry picking statistics, else someone will call you on it and ask what other statistic you're hiding.

And while that 35x number may seem "staggering" as you say, it could be that a large chunk of that is because people in the US can DEFEND themselves against criminals by using a gun. Something that is not allowable in the UK (or only under very limited scenarios). So when you're shooting the bad guys to defend yourself, sure, your hit count goes up, but it's a GOOD hit count. It doesn't sound so bad when you say, "CRIMINAL VIOLENT ATTACKERS are 35x more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK". It actually sounds rather good, I think.

In the US intent has a lot to do with it. For example, if you're driving your work truck around from job site to job site it's normal to have a bunch of tools with you. However, if get pulled over because you caused a cops "antenna to go up" and you have a crow bar, bolt cutters and duct tape in your trunk you may be charged with possession of burglary tools. It depends on the context and circumstances.

Of course the tricky part of being equipped to survive is many of us carry all those things in our vehicles I have things like duct tape, rope, etc. Would probably look like a kidnapper or something. I try to carry pictures of each camping trip showing some of that gear in use to help show innocence.

And not just the police but $big insurance company$ who said you don't need all those things in your vehicle so we refuse to cover them and if you fight us we'll just say if your carrying all that stuff just to drive to work then you must be using it for work so we don't cover it in that case anyway. Needless to say I'll never get insurance through Allstate again.

As you said, intent has a lot to do with it. In California, there has to be an intent to commit a burglary along with the possession.

http://www.shouselaw.com/possession-burglary-tools.html

This is really an add-on charge. If you get caught with attempting burglary, then you'd receive an additional charge of possession. The trick is try not to burglarize people. (Also, never consent to a search, but that is another topic.)

Agreed. It's the total figures, regardless of means, that are significant here, not the figures broken down by weapon. That said, I did manage to find a break-down by means here. Briefly, "sharp instruments" is the biggest single means, at about 35% of all murders. According to that, there isn't a worse peak of something else. That does include broken bottles, etc, and they are also from a different year, but on the face of it, the figures don't reconcile. That's why my conclusion was, "Don't take the initial post's figures at face value" rather than, "The initial post's figures are wrong."

I'm not hiding anything. I linked to my source, and the source contained more links to government statistics. I'm genuinely curious as to the state of play.

First, do you realise blue part were not my words? I was quoting the conclusion from the linked page. (Maybe I should have left out the "staggering" part, because it seems like a distraction from the overall rates for violent crime and murder, but I didn't want to quote too selectively.)

Second, the figures already exclude justifiable homicide. It says that in the part I quoted. So, no, these aren't the "good" shootings.

That's truth. Everyone must surrender their kitchen knifes too according to that. The next step: "Surrender all of your backyard rocks and sticks!"

As a chef I'm stunned that they found any high profile culinary folks that would endorse this. A sharp point is integral to the way a knife is used. They would be apoplectic if they saw what I carry to work every day!

The crown has always liked their subjects disarmed.

"From this, it can be determined that of the roughly 1,000 Jacobites killed at Culloden, no more than one fifth carried a sword"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden

Gentlemen, the lack of civil and respectful discussion in this thread is truly embarrassing. It's a damned shame to watch a once-brilliant forum devolve to the level of the rest of the Internet.

English rules about self defense and arms gave rise to the USA's 2nd amendment.

When some were not allowed knives, swords etc. and then abused by government and others, the unfairness of it was not lost or forgotten by the US's founders. Many founders were Scots etc.

Not sure about the signal to noise ratio on this thread but given that some folks have expressed serious doubts about the "Surrender Your Knife" program it does appear to be real. In fact, there is a whole website dedicated to it:
http://surrenderyourknife.co.uk/

If you take the time to check out the blog section you'll see that the program has been around for a while. But the initial move toward banning "pointy" knives dates back to 2005. I've already posted a link to the BBC website and there's the Guardian story here:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/may/27/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

And for a quick impression of the yellow press response, here's a one story for starters:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new...d-machetes.html

Now, it's entirely up to the British to decide what kind of legislation they want. My only concern is that the anti-knife hysteria might gain more ground elsewhere and eventually put me in a position where I could no longer legally own knives that I use daily for all sorts of valid purposes, none of them having anything to do with crime or violence.

That's my concern as well. The "anti" crowd regularly references the UK in their arguments.

It is easy. You invite a chef to give his honest and unbiased opinion. After he agreed he has three options:

• bail out and be the coward who eventually has not got the guts to make his (obviously wrong) opininion public
• be the thug who is comfy with people owning deadly weapons and does not care about the death toll
• just say what the press wants to hear and be a hero for the general public

If he has a sound judgement about the objectivity of the reporters he will inevitably choose the last option. It may be different in the US but in Europe the press staff has worked long and hard to earn the title "liar".

Maybe it´s just reporting it in an inaccurate way.
In Germany legislation also tries keep dangerous knives from the streets. They are fairly accurate in their description (double edged knives, knives with a double edged point, bayonets, butterfly knives, ...).

I haven't read all the posts, but want to vent in a way about knives. I am a post-retirement guy and have always carried a pocket knife with another fixed blade in the car trunk bag. It disturbs me a great deal when I see the types of knives that are most available these days in gas station shops ..etc. Many of them are too narrow to be useful as a camp knife or survival knife. Not for cooking either. Narrow, straight, and not so flexible. They seem to be designed for stabbing !!

Then again there are big Bowi knives. Not good for camping, cooking or any other purpose but fighting. It seems when I look for smallish multi-purpse knife, it is the hardest to find.

The occasional stabbing crimes are not helping to make make people knife-friendly. And I have already heard negative comments on my pocket knife when I had to use it at work.

OK, I have vented.
Carry on.

I agree that many knife designs these days are a bit outlandish and impractical. Many "survival" knives are a lot like what you describe, basically closer to fighting knives than real tools.

That said, I would not dismiss Bowie-type knives out of hand. It's true that very large Bowies are essentially fighting knives, but many smaller versions actually work pretty well for utility purposes. The good old Kabar is a case in point IMHO. Not quite big enough for a dedicated chopper and a little long for fine work but as an all-around tool it works just fine. I've used a Kabar on many an outdoor expedition, often as my primary knife, and in my experience it is a very decent general purpose tool.

As far as criminal misuse, I'm afraid it's a very tricky subject. Any knife with an edge and/or point can be used to hurt a human being. The puukko is not thought of as a fighting knife and yet it established a very solid combat record during the Winter War in Finland. Even a tiny penknife can be lethal in the hands of an individual determined to use it for a violent purpose. Same as with any other tool, rock, stick, even one's bare hands. That's why I'm not particularly fond of knife bans in any shape or form.

There is a difference between what is needed for survival and what is functional as a field/camping knife. A larger and heavier knife capable of chopping is practical for camping, and still useful for survival. A smaller survival knife is less capable of larger wood cutting jobs but small enough to actually keep in a kit and still capable of sufficient wood cutting needed for survival.

Basically any durable cutting tool is useful for survival, and better than nothing. The smaller knives with a decent curve for possible skinning and the ability to shape wood or cut small pieces fit in kits better and conform to most laws regarding knives. If it is small, you are more likely to carry it, and it more likely to be available when you really need it.

All of that said, the tools I normally carry, even on commercial airplanes, are EMT shears and a very small saw. For wood cutting a saw is functional and capable. When teaching survival, I generally teach that you can build very good shelters without the need for chopping. The shears can perform most of the cutting jobs necessary, including helping with skinning small animals.

However, as someone who spends a good deal of time in the outdoors, I would rather have a larger chopping tool if I can. Most smaller cutting jobs are done by my SAK, including skinning.

http://www.onlycowardscarry.org Only Cowards Carry



Looks like they are going after screwdrivers and hammers as well.

Time for a tool rights movement?

Montanero, what brand/ model small saw have you been allowed thru a TSA check? I too have flown, without objection by TSA, with EMT Sicissors, a small screwdriver ( vest pocket size , reversible shaft points) and a small needle nose pliers. A saw would be a handy tool, but I never tried to fly with one in my carry on, self reasoning/ censoring that it was a forbidden cutting tool. I am happy to be wrong. Pls. Let us know make/ model & size? Many thanx.

This is the one I have carried:

Pocket Survival Saw

It is small but fairly durable. I have seen recently that TSA is prohibiting all saws though. The pocket survival saw has never been questioned, but when I saw the TSA notice I removed it to the bag of sharps in my checked bags.

That surrenderyourknife just looks an activist site, and not representative of anything governmental. There are similar campaigns to ban glass bottles.

I remember the whole pointy chef knife thing too, few articles and it disappeared.
I know of no current hysteria here in the UK, and being a member of a UK knife forum BritishBlades... would have heard about it.

I don't think the actual law is changing anytime soon. Yes, various organisations (police and media) don't accurately state the law, claiming it's illegal to have knives in public, but that is not the law.

I'm glad to see things aren't all that bad. It's similar to the US where there are always small but vocal minorities calling for bans of just about everything you can think of. Doesn't mean it will happen!

The term 'ban' does not have to be a legistration kind of ban. A call to ban something, can just be calling people to stop carrying/using stuff. Calling people to stop carrying things in a context where there is no other use then violence isn't really wrong in my mind.

Here is a example of a call to 'ban' something, I found last week during my trip in the UK. Pretty sure nobody will put that in legistration.

Slightly off topic but-

Can you translate into American English what a "chip pan" is?

Chip = Fries (but british, and cut in bigger piece).
Pan = fryer (in this case the old fashion one, you put on a stove)

British need there fish and chips (fried fish and fries)

I think this is not really the right mindset. There is nothing wrong with carrying a knife in a context where you likely wont need it as tool. However using violence in a context other then self defense is not really acceptable. It would make more sense calling people to stop using violence for settling disputes.
I feel much more comfortable attending events where you are allowed to bring your pocket knife. Those events tend to be peaceful and more fun.

Thanks. If forced to guess I would have guessed that.

"It would make more sense calling people to stop using violence for settling disputes."

That really should be the message. The message "cowards carry" implies you should be able to settle disputes with your fists.

Nice concept, but human nature prevents that on most scales.