When gun control fails, the left moves to knife control Pay close attention to the rhetoric here
Dr John Crichton, the new chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, wants the sale of pointed kitchen knives to be banned to help reduce the number of fatal stabbings.
He first suggested the move three years ago, but his proposal did not win enough support from policy-makers. Since then dozens of people, including schoolchildren, have lost their lives as a result of attacks involving bladed instruments.
Dr Crichton, who took on the role of chairman in June this year, is championing a switch to so-called “R”-bladed knives, which have rounded points and are far less effective as weapons.
He said that research shows many attacks, particularly in households where there has been a history of violence, involve kitchen knives because they are so easily accessible.
Dr Crichton believes a switch from sharp-pointed, long-bladed knives to the new design could save lives.
Ah, “easily accessible”, “pointed knives” “long-bladed knives” and the inevitable “who needs a knife like that
“Why do we need these potentially deadly weapons in the home?”
See? The same type of rhetoric is being applied to knives now that guns are highly restricted in the UK. The left never stops, or even pauses in pursuing their goals. They just switch the next target. Of course, it is not just guns or knives which are in the crosshairs
Homeowner Richard Osborne-Brooks, 78, grappled with and then stabbed an intruder who entered his home in the middle of the night:
The pensioner, named locally as Richard Osborn-Brooks, was upstairs asleep with his wife when he was woken by the two men breaking into his suburban home in Hither Green, south-east London last night.
He was forced into his kitchen by one of the men, who was armed with a screwdriver, before a struggle ensued.
The intruder, a 38-year-old man, was left with wounds to his chest and local residents say he collapsed in a neighbouring road and died in hospital.
The homeowner was initially detained on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm but was later arrested on suspicion of murder.
Yes, you read that right: murder.
There is more about the war on self-defense
The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. These are not expensive and can be bought from most local police stations or supermarkets.
There are other self defence products which claim to be legal (e.g. non toxic sprays), however, until a test case is brought before the court, we cannot confirm their legality or endorse them. If you purchase one you must be aware that if you are stopped by the police and have it in your possession there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, its contents and legality can be verified.
However, accepting there is a lot of concern about street crime, we can try to clarify matters a little by putting forward the following points.
You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.
There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray). A properly designed product of this nature, used in the way it is intended, should not be able to cause an injury.
However, be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone’s eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.
Any products bought from abroad have a greater chance of being illegal.
Well, that clears it up. Self-Defense is BAD! The law is very murky on self-defense. But, the war against firearm ownership and the campaign against self-defense really go hand-in-hand
At American Thinker, Ciaran Brady eloquently makes the case for an effective right of self-defense in Europe, and in particular in Great Britain:
It is illegal in the U.K. for civilians to own handguns, and difficult to own any other firearms. The civil right of armed self-defense, as enshrined in our Second Amendment, may have originated in England, but it is not now recognized there. The result can be grim:
In the past I have fully and enthusiastically supported the UK’s complete ban on hand guns. But immediately after the killing of Lee Rigby I began to reconsider the wisdom of that ban and I now utterly oppose it. As things stand in the UK, hand guns are illegal. For those shotguns you could own, extremely strict licensing specifically disallows self defense as a motive for ownership and so the old adage “In countries where guns are illegal, only the criminals have guns” is the frankly mad situation we now have in the UK.
There is no place in the world where it is particularly difficult for criminals, let alone terrorists, to obtain weapons. Even if those weapons are only knives, they may be sufficient for the purpose when the populace has been disarmed.
Once illegal guns are used in anger, you then have to consider how long it takes armed police to respond. The three sprees most responsible for framing the gun laws we now have in the UK reveal a rather worrying problem, given it took 2 hours for armed police to arrive on the scene in Cumbria in 2010, by which time Bird had killed himself and 18 others. In Hungerford in 1987, Ryan had 6 hours to kill himself and 16 others before armed police arrived. In Dunblane in 1996, armed police again never made it to the scene before Hamilton killed himself and 17 people.
Frankly, I never knew that aspect of the mass shootings in the UK that led to their draconian gun restrictions. Of course, the police in the UK are often on duty sans forearms as well. Gun-free zones are, to a human predator, an open invitation. Add disarmed police to the mix, and, well. But, the left, well they simply turn their heads away. Their goal, is their only concern, not human life, or human rights
It is for this reason that UK authorities routinely protect politicians and dignitaries with armed escorts, but when it comes to us ordinary citizens, the state appears to consider our defense rights as almost irrelevant and then goes on to reinforce that policy by removing any and all tools that the law abiding citizen could realistically use to that end.
So the state not only fails to protect the citizen, it deliberately renders him defenseless. The result in the United Kingdom has been a steady increase in violent crime, even as violent crime continues to drop in the much better-armed United States. The violent crime rate in the traditionally peaceful U.K. now far exceeds that in the U.S.
Again, the left does not care. It only cares about its end aims, control, of you, and me, and………….