"Offensive Weapons" in the UK

[Autumnlicious]

Strawman.

We already do give the government a monopoly through regulation, tracking (paperwork) and certification. And many criminals use legally bought weapons in the US -- you just simply go to a state with relaxed gun laws.

Obtaining hot weapons illegally is rather difficult.

Not to mention ammo without markings.

Score one for free market responsibility.

[cratehorus]

The law is stupid.

Any "actor" caught with any weapon (which could mean a butter knife) faces weapons charges. Have you been watching white supremacist propaganda? Are you planning on buying an M-16 with a grenade launcher attachment? what's really going on here? what are you worried about?

[Darth]

And this guy ^ has a better rep than I.
Yeesh.

What a terrible thing to insinuate.

[cratehorus]

And this guy ^ has a better rep than I.
Yeesh.

What a terrible thing to insinuate.

awww I would give you ALL my repping points if I could. But I can't, because there are rules........ there ARE rules

[festive1]

I'm just mystified... We have states where you don't need a special permit to legally carry a concealed handgun on your person (just the standard gun permit). I don't agree with that, but a baton... Even a police riot baton... Seems a wee bit excessive, in my opinion.

I have heard this before about carrying a concealed weapon(TV cop shows), does this mean if the weapon is not concealed it is okay?

I honestly don't know. I can see reasoning both for and against, but I Googled, and yes, one can carry a non-concealed weapon in some states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_...ted_States

I do not own any weapons (guns, batons, tasers, etc.). There aren't any in my house. Though we do have a couple of kid's baseball bats, they've only been used for baseball, and they're kept outside so they would prove of little help in the case of an intruder entering our home.

[Napoléon]

I do think a police baton is a little different to a baseball bat or tire iron. Only for the fact that you can't really justify carrying one around. A baseball bat? Hey, you might like baseball. A tire iron? Well that's obvious. A police baton? Umm, well, I occasionally like bludgeoning peoples heads?

Yeah, I can kinda see why he's been done for it. Still, I do think the law is pretty dumb to allow one thing and not the other when they can all cause equal damage.

[Cyberman]

I think it's more to do with the law having to be as precise as possible with its definitions. That's why there are, in this case, at least two supporting definitions; three if you throw in the one defining a public place. Just to recap, a weapon is defined in law as "any object that has been made or adapted to cause injury". On its own that would make ownership of any item illegal, since pretty much anything can be said to have been made to cause injury - a breadknife, for instance - or can be so adapted, such as a beer bottle or car keys, or the traditional housewife's favourite, the rolling pin. However, the second definition then comes into play to determine whether a potential weapon is one that a person might reasonably be expected to carry in public. Equal damage, perhaps, but the definitions exist so as to increase personal freedoms as opposed to curtailing them. Not to mention the correct application of justice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend laws at the expense of a free society and every law intended for no reason other than to oppress the populace, or are otherwise irrelevant, must be fought. However, for the most part there are sound reasons why laws such as these are worded the way the way they are, not to mention being drafted at all. I'm only glad to live in a society in which our laws and their enabling Acts are freely accessible.

[Welsh cake]

The law is stupid.

Just the law? And not footballers carrying around police-style batons for no apparent reason?

[downbeatplumb]

Tiberious just wants to justify his large collection of whips.

[Something completely different]

Gun laws in Germany are pritty harsh officialy: psychological tests, a practicaly non existing criminal record and the completion of a gun-use course which will give you a licence, are due to be capable of owning a firearm.
Silencers, Explosives, Assault rifels and automatic rifles are forbidden to be sold and purchased.

But I have the feeling that no one seems to give a damn, especialy in rural ereas.
I know alot of people who own firearms and eaven world war 2 equipment.

I dont think that prohibiting the sale and ownership of firearms will crack down on criminal activity. Most murders happen in emotionaly tense situations due to a outbreak of aggression (Husband killing his wife after argument or other), and if that murderer uses a gun or a kitchen knife doesnt make a that big difference to me.
And those who commit a crime with deliberate intention, like robbing a bank - will find means to commit the crime anyway.
There were 3 highschool massacres in Germany in the past 12 years, and all of them were commited by kids with legaly owned guns which were their property or the property of their parents. I think the advication of responsible use is the far better solution than to forbid the ownership totaly.
But I do think that carrying a weapon in public should be forbidden, I myself was once threatened outside a pub by a guy with a knife. Not very pleasant.