RE: "Offensive Weapons" in the UK
November 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm by Autumnlicious.)
(November 21, 2012 at 7:27 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The report said he had it in his car; he wasn't carrying it around in public. The police most likely stopped him for some other offense, and searched his vehicle. If he's using it as a weapon, he should be arrested and the weapon taken from him. Otherwise, he should be left alone.
So he's using a specially designed weapon, not just the run-of-the-mill item that may or may not be used.
I take it you're against an assault weapons ban too?
(November 21, 2012 at 7:27 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The fact is, we all waltz around public with potential weapons; we all have fists, our heads, our feet, etc. In a moment's notice, we can unleash some real damage on people by using our bodies. I fail to see why carrying weapons around is grounds for arresting someone and removing it. Self-defense should be an adequate defense.Beating someone with fists or an impromptu club is harder and evokes less damage to the victim than specially weighted police batons designed to break bones.
And you know it too.
The point of the law is to make it harder to casually harm someone.
"If you're gonna beat someone to death, you might as well work for it" was probably the rationale behind said law.
(November 21, 2012 at 7:27 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I've used this argument time and time again: if you remove a right to any sort of weapon, the only people with the weapons are the government and the criminals...neither of whom should ever be allowed to have all the weapons.
When you look at it, why the hell should anyone, barring responsible, certified enthusiasts, be allowed to own weapons?
Hmm?
Why should the lowest common denominator deserve devices that make it easier to kill?
If you really need a weapon, then the system has failed you and you probably do need it.
In that case, there is a pressing need for more reactive and professional police departments with independent citizens review boards that penalize police pension funds in case of sustained officer misconduct.
The above would do more for reducing the conditions that contribute to common public crime than "taking your chances" man versus man.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more