Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

British Politicians Declare War on Knives

Having failed to thwart crime with gun bans, British officials now want to restrict what may be the most useful tool ever invented.

It turns out that when you pass laws disarming people in an attempt to prevent violence, criminals who habitually disregard all laws don't make exceptions for the new rules. In London, crime still thrives despite the U.K.'s tight gun controls and the British political class is now desperately turning its attention to restricting knives.

A flurry of recent headlines reveal that London now has a higher murder rate than New York City, a metropolis of nearly identical population and one long considered more vulnerable to crime. "London police investigated more murders than their New York counterparts did over the last two months," Reuters reported earlier this month. "In the latest bloodshed, a 17-year-old girl died on Monday after she was found with gunshot wounds in Tottenham, north London, a day after a man was fatally stabbed in south London."

Commentators note that this may be a blip and that New York City's murder rate for 2017 stood at more than double that for London. In fact, London's murder rate really hasn't risen much—instead, New York's has dropped dramatically. But that still represents a big shift. In her 2002 Guns and Violence: The English Experience, historian Joyce Lee Malcolm noted that "New York City's homicide rate has been at least five times higher than London's for two hundred years. For most of that time, there were no serious firearm restrictions in either city."

New Yorkers didn't need firearms to exceed the bloodlust of their trans-Atlantic rivals. Even if you removed crimes committed with guns from the comparison, "New Yorkers still managed to outstab and outkick Liverpudlians by a multiple of 3 and Londoners by a multiple of 5.6" over those two centuries," wrote the late Eric H. Monkkonen in Murder in New York City, published in 2000.

The mayhem that's closed London's homicide gap with its trans-Atlantic rival appears to be largely the result of violent criminal gangs. Firearms are strictly restricted in the U.K., including a near-total ban on handguns. Nevertheless, "[i]n the 12 months to October 2017, there were 2,500 offences involving guns: a 16 per cent increase on the previous year and a 44 per cent increase on 2014," the London Assembly's Police and Crime Committee noted in January. Criminals, it seems, are not averse to committing crimes—including the illegal acquisition of tools that help them commit more crimes.

Besides illegal guns, British criminals also use edged weapons, which have been a favorite tool for mayhem since the dawn of civilization.

Having failed to disarm criminals with gun controls that they defy, British politicians are now turning their attention to implementing something new and different: knife control. Because criminals will be much more respectful of knife laws than of those targeted at firearms, I guess.

"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law," London's Mayor Sadiq Khan tweeted on April 8.

Not to be outdone, his predecessor, Boris Johnson, currently Foreign Secretary, called for increased use of stop-and-search powers by police. "You have got to stop them, you have got to search them and you have got to take the knives out of their possession."

Poundland (the British equivalent of a dollar store) announced last week that it will no longer sell kitchen knives in any of its 850 stores. Similar stores are being slapped with fines for selling knives to minors.

British politicians propose banning home delivery of knives and police promote street-corner bins for the surrender of knives while also conducting stings against knife vendors. Their goal is to "target not only those who carry and use knives, but also the supply, access and importation of weapons."

It all sounds all so familiar, doesn't it? And yet so utterly pointless. If British authorities have been unable to block criminals' access to firearms—mechanical devices that require some basic mechanical skill to manufacture, or at least a 3D printer—how are they going to cut off the flow of knives, which require nothing more than a piece of hard material that can take an edge?

There are also practical downsides to discouraging the public from possessing knives—one of the oldest and most useful tools ever invented. Poundland, after all, isn't dropping the sale of combat blades; the company's move applies specifically to the tools people use to make their meals. The law looks much more likely to inconvenience peaceful people planning to carve a roast than to put off thugs who, push comes to shove, can find a way to sharpen a piece of rebar against a rock.

And remember, if guns and knives can be used offensively by criminals, they can be used defensively by would-be victims—especially if they're permitted to do so. In her 2002 book, Malcolm noted that "English law now prohibits civilians from carrying any article" for private defense. Seventy-eight year-old Richard Osborn-Brooks was recently arrested on suspicion of murder for fatally stabbing a burglar who attacked him in his own home; only under public pressure did police released him without charges. Current British law actually enhances the advantage criminals who ignore the law have over their law-abiding prey.

Rather than a race to ban dangerous objects that can only end with the criminalization of rocks and pointed sticks, it's time politicians stopped pushing laws that are ignored by criminals and annoying and inconvenient to the rest of us.

Photo Credit: Marc Soler/agefotostock/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I wish the British would just cut to the chase.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You be eagerly snookered again.

    A flurry of recent headlines reveal that London now has a higher murder rate than New York City

    Shameful. That's February and March of this year only. Check his own link. The bar chart. Take a quick look at January. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936 (snort)

    Reason has become as fake news as Faux and Dimbart. And this Tucille is not his father.

  • John||

    Two months is a significant sample. That never happened in any month in the past absent a big terrorist attack. That is significant. And there are more crimes than just murder.

    London is now more crime ridden and dangerous than New York City, with rape, robbery and violent offences far higher on this side of the Atlantic.

    The latest statistics, published earlier this week, revealed that crime across the UK was up by 13 per cent, with a surge in violence in the capital blamed for much of the increase.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....s-suggest/

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Who was it that was trying to argue with me that a couple of data points is good enough and I was pointing out that you need more than two data points for a trend?

  • John||

    When the data points break a significant barrier that has not before been broken, they are significant. The data can be significant without being a perfect reflection of reality.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn, that's some sharp nonsense you have there.

  • Mock-star||

    Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.

  • ||

    I especially like the fact that his layered and well-constructed argument doesn't in any way refute what was said.

  • Michael Hihn||

    . Check his own link. The bar chart. Take a quick look at January. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936 (snort)

    I especially like the fact that his layered and well-constructed argument doesn't in any way refute what was said.

    I linked to the proof, and invited readers to think for themselves.
    How shameful. (lol)

    (boldface in defense of unprovoked aggression. And to ridicule the liar)

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    boldface in defense of unprovoked aggression. And to ridicule the liar

    It certainly does that.

  • ||

    I linked to the proof, and invited readers to think for themselves.
    How shameful. (lol)

    Tuccille says, "lots of people are saying London has more violent crime than New York". You're refuting him by putting up facts saying, "Nuh uh, it's only had more crime for the last 2 mos."

    As best I can figure, you're trying to shoot the messenger by turning the gun on yourself.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are you denying his own link shows only two months, and the table shows NYC much higher than London for January. As always, I invite readers to see for themselves, that you too are full of shit
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936

  • ||

    Are you denying his own link shows only two months, and the table shows NYC much higher than London for January.

    Are you?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano has to wipe the egg off his puss.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano

    Readers can click the link and judge that for themselves. And compare it with you.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is ass-blasted that his supposed refutation didn't do what he thought.

  • Careless||

    Michael, what part of "you have to have a point of disagreement in your claims to claim that they are wrong" don't you get?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Denial is not an argument.

  • CE||

    And that's a pointed argument with a keen edge.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hihn, that's some sharp nonsense you have there.

    A link to the BBC, that was lied about here???

  • Kivlor||

    One of the difficulties in comparing crime rates between countries is differences in both law and reporting. I think I remember reading somewhere that the UK's reporting for murder is different than ours, and that they under-report in comparison. So it's actually possible they've had a higher murder rate in London for a while it's just getting so bad that even with their different methods it is starting to outstrip our rates.

    A good example of this is comparing rape between the US and Mexico. Mexico has a drastically lower instance of rape according to public record, but that doesn't take into account that in over half of the country they don't count it as rape if A) the girl wasn't a virgin or B) the rapist agrees to marry her.

    Another example is Japan, where they have a murder rate very low compared to ours, but the police often don't file deaths as murder unless they arrest a suspect. Makes it impossible to compare.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "You have enemies? Why, it is the story of every man who has done a great deed or created a new idea. It is the cloud which thunders around everything that shines. Fame must have enemies, as light must have gnats. Do no bother yourself about it; disdain. Keep your mind serene as you keep your life clear." — Victor Hugo, Choses Vues 1849-1885

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano posts and empty quote, thinks he's being profound.

  • Mannie||

    As you say, it's very hard to compare across national lines. For most of their histories, New York and London had no meaningful gun restrictions, yet New York has always been bloodier than London, both in terms of guns and knives. I suspect this has a lot to do with immigration and ethnic gangs. London is just starting to experience that. It will get worse.

    A big problem in Mexico, is that a lot of crime is not reported at all. It's sorted out locally, by vendetta. It's te same in many countries.

    Japan has a low murder rate, but an astronomical suicide rate. That gives them a violent death rate significantly higher than ours. But that's OK, because they kill themselves. But dead is dead.

    How do you eliminate a weapon that can be made from a sharp rock or a piece of scrap steel. They do it all the time in prison, which is a pretty restrictive environment. If they can't get blades out of prisons, how are you going to get them off the streets? Yes, the people who don't commit crimes with them will disarm. Big deal.

  • Flinch||

    Hold the phone... I remember the bbc taking to the airwaves [roughly 15 years back] saying the seas would rise 20 meters upon hearing the US side propaganda of 20 feet, all because Al Gore was on tour in his lear jet. I'm thinking... grain of salt, all around. Government hacks on both sides of the pond molest their own stats, and we don't know the half of it. How do we discover the unreported as a statistic? That takes boots on the ground, in neighborhoods. On the US side, the gang bangers can probably tell you what the trend is better and faster than any of our alphabet soup agencies by at least 30 days. In the UK however, there are extra handcuffs on speech as even the prime minister can't speak the obvious on account of "hate speech" laws. When May makes an inane "...never break our spirit" comment, that is a clear avoidance of admitting the UK is under Islamic attack from within. For those reasons, government stats always need qualifiers.
    As for ongoing corrosion at Reason... why isn't Shikha writing for The Atlantic, or some such thing?

  • Michael Hihn||

    You forgot to yell, "KENYA! ... EMAIL SERVER! "

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You forgot to shriek "BULLIES!...STALKERS! I'M JUST LIKE A HOLOCAUST VICTIM!!"

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ = Zero

  • Dariush||

    "Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ = Zero"

    I laughed at that longer than I should have. Thanks!

  • Bearded Spock||

    I don't get your point, John.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I suspect the only way all criminality can be eliminated is not through weapon control but rather through thought control. If the technology to control minds ever becomes available, I have no doubt politicians will be unable to contain their enthusiasm. The results for humanity will be sad indeed.

    In the meantime, it seems that the right to defend oneself is a pretty basic human right. It's really just a corollary of the instinct of self-preservation, isn't it?

    And, beyond even that, how about allowing people to cook their own foods? Even leaving aside meat and hoe difficult it is to cut without using a knife, it's not easy to prepare vegetables or even cut up potatoes without a proper chef's knife. Are British politicians going to propose that all meals must be purchased in restaurants so that only licensed professional chefs will be allowed to use sharp-edges cooking tools?

  • Oscarson44.||

    I also wonder if doctors and surgeons will be prohibited from having and using sharp instruments.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    They're government employees and therefore exempt, although they will have to keep their scalpels in a locked case inside the operating theatre.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    With serial numbers, and inventoried like police and military weapons?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    This will no doubt follow its logical course toward the Poe Horizon; as it is, I can no longer tell the difference between a "real" headline and The Onion.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I feel bad for the Onion's writers. They've been getting regularly scooped by reality for a couple of years now.

  • Get lit||

    Imagine a device that could monitor for murderous anger and then correspondingly release doses of something like ecstasy to pacify the aggression. #cyborg future

  • gaoxiaen||

    Aldous Huxley already did.

  • ||

    Oh, I thought he was talking about a conscience.

  • Eddie1975||

    No, actually, he didn't. I think you missed the point of that book and the post.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I would like to hear Gordon Ramsey's opinion of the knife laws.

  • axioma||

    Mr. Ramsey was the first name I thought of when I saw this headline. The insanity of looking to blame a "tool" for the wicked actions of a few (evil) misfits in society is always frightening in its basic stupidity and denial of the REAL problems, which are EVIL (or insane) people.

  • CE||

    No, they will ban private meat sales. You will only be able to buy pre-ground meat from government-run outlets. And then you'll find out what it really is.

  • ||

    "then you'll find out what it really is" we are certainly not talking about the meat's contents, are we?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    it's not easy to prepare vegetables or even cut up potatoes without a proper chef's knife

    You wouldn't need a knife if the govt mandated that all potatoes were supplied


    deconstructed.

    *fetches coat and makes a swift exit*

  • TLBD||

    Is the pussification of British society now complete?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In England, its pronounced pussay.

  • FlameCCT||

    IIRC it is fanny!

  • Careless||

    +1 arrested development

  • Cy||

    Oooooh, Babe Ooooooh Babe, Ooooh Babe, You'll always be baby to me.
    Mother, did it need to be so high?

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    And she said momma, it's a hard life now you're gone
    Momma, it's so hard to carry on

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, in the USA we have the 2nd Amendment which protects American's right to keep and bear arms, including knives, swords, machetes, and other bladed weapons.

  • kV||

    Yeah, but not the kind of knife with the thing that goes up. And surely the framers of the constitution never envisioned a Cutco knife with power enough to cut clean through a penny.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All bladed weapons. Switch blades and Ginsu knives included.

  • Flinch||

    Think big, and call it art. That should flummox half the libs out there. It's time to design a v12 powered mobile trebuchet with heated bucket seats, monster tires and an 800watt stereo. Towable jacuzzi optional. Plop the bust of some lesser known British ponce on the bonnet and voila!

  • Skyguy||

    No, they were using swords that would split someone's skull!

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    You don't think anyone in the 18th century could cut through a penny with a properly sharpened sabre?

  • Michael Hihn||

    How is that at all relevant to what he said?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Those things are protected, if at all, only for people serving in a militia. We can't have just anybody walking into a store and buying a samurai sword.

  • Cy||

    Aren't there capitalist babies somewhere that you should be eating?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The only meat an obvious parody feeds on is the tears of the gullible.

  • Cy||

    You must be lots of fun at parties.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    When did I ever claim to be anti-capitalist?

    On the contrary, I think people with net worths in the tens of BILLIONS of dollars are cool, as long as they use some of their money for open borders advocacy. I've even convinced some of my progressive friends to rethink their opinions of the Koch Brothers by showing them Shikha Dalmia's thoughtful Reason pieces on immigration, and reminding them the Kochs fund Reason.

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    "Shikha Dalmia's thoughtful Reason pieces" LOL

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Flinch||

    Bard of the outhouse?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Shibboleth of the shit house.

  • Nardz||

    A

  • FlameCCT||

    Shikha Dalmia and thoughtful together? LMAO

  • gaoxiaen||

    Bruce Willis has a sad.

  • Mannie||

    Every able bodied male is a member of the militia, and you must own your own weapons to join an organized militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're over a hundred years out of date.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Better check with the Selective Service if you think you're not a member of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You lose again

  • Mannie||

    Learn the law.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You go first.

  • Mannie||

    Look up the Dick Act. Read something about pre-Revolutionary history. Read the papers of the Founding Fathers. It's not that hard if you didn't sleep through the fourth grade.

  • Michael Hihn||

    you didn't sleep through the fourth grade.

    You asked for it. BEGGED for it

    Why do you want us to follow 18th century law?
    Why do you believe the PAPERS of the Founding Fathers are ... laws?
    The Dick Act was 1902, superseded by US v Miller in 1939.
    Are you aware that Supreme Court rulings are superior to the law?
    Are you one of the (censored) who say the Dick Act can never be repealed?
    Why, when challenged, did you create a diversion to an unrelated topic?

    I am eager for your answers. Educate me!

  • ace_m82||

    Korematsu, Pessy v Ferguson, Wickard v Filburn, Dred Scott.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Evasion. With diversion.

  • ace_m82||

    No, it goes to your point, that Supreme Court rulings are superior to the law.

    Well, let's assume for a moment that's true.

    That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court rulings are good, or Constitutional, or make any sense whatsoever.

    So, when Mannie says Read the papers of the Founding Fathers, he's making that point, that the Supreme Court does evil, nonsensical things all the time. Ergo, if you were to take whatever the Supreme Court did as good or Constitutional, you'd also have to take Korematsu, Pessy v Ferguson, Wickard v Filburn, Dred Scott as good and Constitutional as well.

    Therefore, crying "The Supreme Court said [blank]" is only an appeal to authority, and to a really bad authority.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Diversion, Has NOTHING to do with the thread.
    And DISHONEST.

    Ergo, if you were to take whatever the Supreme Court did as good or Constitutional

    (snort) They can be BAD and constitutional. So you fucked up again.

    ....TWELFTH ......... REQUEST:

    Complaining about a problem, without posing a solution, is whining.
    -Theodore Roosevelt

    STOP YOUR DAMN WHINING AND STATE YOUR ALTERMNATIVE.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Pay attention. The ISSUE is .... MILITIA.

    Read the thread and stop making a fool of yourself.

    And address your months of WHINING.

  • ace_m82||

    The ISSUE is .... MILITIA.

    And you made it the Supreme Court. I didn't.

    And address your months of WHINING.

    Proving you wrong isn't "whining".

  • Michael Hihn||

    The ISSUE is .... MILITIA.

    And you made it the Supreme Court. I didn't.

    THE MILITIA

  • ace_m82||

    "THE MILITIA"

    But you only accept Supreme Court rulings. So, that became central to the issue.

    Unless you want to ignore Supreme Court rulings. You are free to do that as well (but we know you won't).

  • ace_m82||

    Has NOTHING to do with the thread.

    The Supreme Court's evil has everything to do with the thread.

    They can be BAD and constitutional

    Technically true, though this proves you have limited understanding as to what "or" means.

    STOP YOUR DAMN WHINING AND STATE YOUR ALTERMNATIVE.

    www.mises.org/library/economic.....-society-0

  • Michael Hihn||

    the Supreme Court's evil has everything to do with the thread

    Now a FUCKING liar. SECOND posting of thread
    If you were to take whatever the Supreme Court did as good or Constitutional

    They can be BAD and constitutional

    Technically true, though this proves you have limited understanding as to what "or" means.

    FAIL ...
    .... EVASION ..
    .... HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THE ACCURACY OF MY RESPONSE ,... INTENTIONALLY THE WORST SCENARIO TO PROVE YOU WRONG

    STOP YOUR DAMN WHINING AND STATE YOUR ALTERNATIVE. (to SCOTUS)

    www.mises.org/library/economic.....-society-0

    FAIL .. MASSIVE ...

    THIRTEENTH REQUEST --- COWARD

    STATE ... STATE ...STATE ...STATE ...YOUR ALTERNATIVE ... SO EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU'RE .... FULL ,..... OF ..... SHIT ..

    YOU LINK TO A 47 MINUTE VIDEO ..... ON ECONOMICS! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    PUT UP OR SHUT UP

  • Michael Hihn||

    HOW BIG A FUCKING LIAR ARE YOU.

    1) You FAIL to state your alternative to SCOTUS
    2) You link a forty-seven minute on ECONOMICS

    THIS IS .... YOUR ... MOST ... SHAMEFUL ... ARROGANCE ... YET.

    At the very beginning .... 0:35 ... he says ... I'M .... NOT .... GOING ... TO .... DISCUSS .... .....
    ...... ....... ........ .....
    ..... ....... ........ .....
    ..... ....... ........ .....
    JUDICIAL SYSTEMS

  • ace_m82||

    "You FAIL to state your alternative to SCOTUS"

    We, the People, who were supposed to defend the Constitution from the Feds.

    "You link a forty-seven minute on ECONOMICS"

    No, I linked to a video on how a stateless society would work. You don't read very well, or you'd see that in the title.

    "I'M .... NOT .... GOING ... TO .... DISCUSS ... JUDICIAL SYSTEMS"

    And? I gave you my alternative to the State. If you need judicial systems:

    www.mises.org/library/law-without-state
    www.mises.org/library/possibility-private-law

  • ace_m82||

    "EVASION"

    Answering you directly isn't evasion, even by your Common Core English.

    "STATE ...YOUR ALTERNATIVE"

    A Stateless society. See my link.

  • Mannie||

    Because The Constitution, with all its imperfections, is the best foundation for a government ever created by man. And it appears you actually did sleep through the fourth grade.

    >>"Are you aware that Supreme Court rulings are superior to the law?"

    It is not superior to The Constitution.

    >>" Why do you believe the PAPERS of the Founding Fathers are ... laws?"

    They reflect the history of the foundation of the Nation. But you slept through that part.

    >>"The Dick Act was 1902, superseded by US v Miller in 1939."

    Have you actually read Miller? or even a synopsis? I didn't think so. It has little to do with membership in The Militia. What it does say, is that all able bodied males, 18 - 50 years of age are enrolled in the Militia.

    In addition DC v Heller held that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Are you aware that Supreme Court rulings are superior to the law?"

    It is not superior to The Constitution.

    Diversion.

    " Why do you believe the PAPERS of the Founding Fathers are ... laws?"

    They reflect the history of the foundation of the Nation. But you slept through that part.

    ANOTHER Diversion
    HOW DO WE AMEND THOSE LAWS?

    "The Dick Act was 1902, superseded by US v Miller in 1939."

    Have you actually read Miller? or even a synopsis?

    (sneer)
    It also ruled -- confirmed by Scalia in Heller -- that the only weapons protected by 2A are those in common uses at ratification, brought from home

    In addition DC v Heller held that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

    That was only the handgun portion of the ruling. (smirk)

    I didn't think so

    Which explains your massive fuckups!

  • Mannie||

    Have you read DC v Heller ? It's not all that hard.

    "Held:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

    Notice that it says "firearms," not "pistols." Back to the fourth grade with you.

    And since you obviously have no grasp of history or of the Constitution, I hereby dismiss you as a lost cause. Go back to your mother's basement. Spongebob is on the TV.

  • fgsll||

    Pistols are not firearms? Definition of fire arm from dictionary.com "a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder", Merriam-Webster "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder — usually used of small arms ", Cambridge English Dictionary "a gun that can be carried easily: Pistols and revolvers are firearms" Oxford Dictionary "A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun". Shall I go on? There are more.

  • fgsll||

    Tell that to the Supreme Court. They don't seem to agree.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Not so in practice. Pennsylvania, for instance, has an even stronger version of the Second Amendment in its state constitution, yet carrying any of a laundry list of blunt and edged weapons is banned. There is no National Blackjack Association to defend those rights.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    And yet anyone, including children, lunatics, and convicted felons, can go out and purchase that most potent of Penna weapons - scrapple.

  • Curt||

    lunatics... scrapple

    redundant

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    Holy fucking heartburn, Batman

  • Longtobefree||

    And yet, despite all reason, they have baseball teams. Armed to the teeth with clubs and projectiles.
    Amazing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People have no standing to fight these laws unless they get arrested for it and regular people don't get arrested under these laws. The actual criminals using said clubs and such tend to face bigger crimes when caught, so they don't worry about contesting the constitutionality of banning blunt objects as weapons.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Baseball bat? Carry a ball and glove. Tire iron, hammer, screwdriver? Carry a few other tools in the back seat. Problem solved. I preferred a bumper jack on the floor of the back seat.

  • Flinch||

    A cricket bat is more stout, and can really do some damage.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    The police in GB recently conducted a round up of "weapons" and the picture looked as though they had raided a hardware store; pliers, screwdriver, and a file.

  • ||

    Pennsylvania, for instance, has an even stronger version of the Second Amendment in its state constitution, yet carrying any of a laundry list of blunt and edged weapons is banned. There is no National Blackjack Association to defend those rights.

    Yeah, it continually and repeatedly blows my mind but brass knuckles are illegal in IL. Even plastic facsimiles can draw weapons charges. Helps make it clear to anti-gun types that it's not really about guns but rather literally about where I swing my fists whether I hit anyone's nose with them or not.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    The Baseball Furies hardest hit

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's more than one lesson in this story.

    1) The murder rate doesn't necessarily go down because you ban a certain class of weapons.

    2) If you jurisdiction bans the carrying of firearms, consider getting yourself a karambit!

    Read about the karambit online, and you may come away thinking you need some kind of special training to use one. No doubt, learn how not to cut yourself with it. Apart from that, having a 2 3./4" blade sticking out past your knuckles when you punch someone in the face doesn't require much more specialized training than punching someone in the face.

    In many jurisdictions, because it's less than 3", it might even be legal to carry it concealed.

    And women who are concerned about their safety should think about getting a blade like that as much as anyone. When worse comes to worst, you may not even have to use it. There's something about angry women brandishing knives that makes men want to run in the other direction--cross culturally and throughout history.

    Oh, and there's something suspiciously patriarchal about expecting women to call men to come save them when they're in trouble. Isn't it woke to think women can learn how to protect themselves?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I was told once in no uncertain terms that the only woke position to take vis a vis assaults on women is to condemn them. "Teach men not to rape!" is the only solution, they said; teaching women how to defend themselves against predatory men is exactly the same thing as approving that predatory male behavior, you see. I asked my interlocutor if they locked their house when they left or if they preferred to just get mad about burglary. The conversation rapidly devolved from there.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I've come across that line of thinking as well; in response to being advised to avoid sketchy areas, especially after dark, a "woke" person countered that to do so was supporting rape culture as women have a right to go any where at any time. Guess they just:

    Can't
    Understand
    Normal
    Thinking

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The response to that is, "Sure, I'd love for blonde white girls to be able to walk in the ghetto at night without being attacked, but until Quontravious, Craphonso, and LaShelton can stop being afraid of getting shot by police for raping while black, she'll just have to avoid those areas."

  • Kivlor||

    "until Quontravious, Craphonso, and LaShelton can stop being afraid of getting shot by police for raping while black"

    Lol. We're rapidly moving toward that future.

  • Flinch||

    Nice work. Wish I could have seen their faces.
    Teach our daughters to shoot, and to stay away from 'womens studies' cash drains in college.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How should women defend themselves against other women?

  • Mehitable||

    It's hard to argue with the mentally ill. Liberalism IS a mental disorder.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Every bit as dangerous as the Christian Taliban.
    Both populated with low-information goobers reciting slogans.

    Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
    - H. L. Mencken, US editor (1880 - 1956)
  • Mannie||

    Yes, they say that is victim blaming. I guess it is also victim blaming to warn someone not to step out in front of a bus.

    I suppose, in an ideal society, a beautiful naked virgin would be able to walk with a bag of gold in each hand, down any dark alley on the South Side at midnight in perfect safety, but we don't live there, and probably never will.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Firearms are the great equalizer.

    An old lady who weighs barely 100 lbs can stop a 300 pound male trying to hurt her with a firearm.

  • Flinch||

    There's a lovely story that published sometime late 90s. I forget what city in Louisiana, but an old lady who had corralled a would be burglar with a shotgun [gifting him some time behind bars] was visited by the same fool after he got paroled a few years later. She put a load of bird shot in his behind as he was climbing out the window, and... back to jail he went. So fuck gun control: those people out there that hate grandma need their heads examined.

  • ||

    There's something about angry women brandishing knives that makes men want to run in the other direction--cross culturally and throughout history.

    Not that I enjoy putting women into that situation but she'd have to do more brandish it before I'd get concerned.

  • Eddie1975||

    I like when Ken posts about things I've been carrying every day for years.

  • Midnightrider||

    I gave my daughters switchblades. One pulled it out and opened it when a guy started harassing her while she got gas. Thankfully for both of their sakes he ran.

  • Mannie||

    I gave my granddaughter a concealable knife.

    "Death before dishonor. His death before your dishonor."

  • Conchfritters||

    Can't they use their fox hunting weapons for defense?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Bad genes and a handful of sleepy hounds?

  • Longtobefree||

    Only if it is a dog. The shotgun is gone as well.
    And if they use the dog, they WILL be arrested.

  • JCS||

    J.D., it's not that they are proposing restrictions on carrying knives in public. They want to more strictly enforce the restrictions that have already been in place. Is it ridiculous? Sure. Is it a proposal for new restrictions? Nope.

    Current UK law: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    "Your weapon will kill."

  • Tom Bombadil||

    My favorite show.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    { Bows respectfully }

  • Mehitable||

    I absolutely love that guy, always cracks me up when he says that. I think that's how any real American would react to that phrase.

  • jerryg1018||

    Plastic toothbrush handles are routinely sharpened into stabbing instruments by sharpening them against concrete.
    And the best news is they are usually given for free after a dentist visit.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This is Britain. There is not the idea of "dentist visit."

  • CE||

    And you can't really call the way they prepare their meals "cooking".

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Finally the British will use toothbrushes for something.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Toothbrushes, as well as plastic combs, are often used to make shivs in maximum security prisons. Soon all of Great Britain will be an open air version of such a place, if it is not already.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Someone is a prison guard or has been in the clink before.

  • Longtobefree||

    Or is literate enough to have read a book - - - - - -

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is a book that describes inmates sharpening toothbrushes to fashion weapons?

    I had a client once who faced a charge of possessing a weapon inside a state facility, otherwise I don't think I have ever paid attention to that being a thing people talk about outside prison.

  • Ron||

    they show how to make weapons from plastic on tv all the time, reading not required

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    And there's probably 100s of videos on YouTube for that.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    Dude, watch "The Night Of" or "Oz".... damn....

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Just Google "shiv," counselor.

  • Eddie1975||

    You seem massively uninformed about society in general.

  • Flinch||

    Yep. Make way for the non-metallic that can pass as something else. The reason high security prisons don't like to allow shoelaces is... bad brains.

  • Midnightrider||

    I was always intrigued about a knife sharpener commercial. It showed them sharpening all kinds of knives and then they did a credit card and sliced a tomato or something.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    There are fiberglass "windshield scrapers" that have some defensive purposes.

  • Mehitable||

    When I was a kid, girls would sharpen the ends of their combs. You could also put razor blades in your Afro (I'm pretty old) or use a card, like a credit card, to slash someone. You can turn just about anything into a knife or cutting/slashing tool. You can sharpen the end of an umbrella. An umbrella can be a pretty good weapon. C'mon Brits, fight back - don't just take this crap off your weakling govt and Muslim invaders!!!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hell, we can beat people to death with FRY PANS!
    We should ban EVERYTHING that's ... hard.
    Starting with goobers' brains.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    London police investigated more murders than their New York counterparts did over the last two months...

    In London's defense, it's possible that NYPD has its hands too full doing much easier drug busts and petty code enforcements to actually investigate murder. Hence the wording.

  • Ron||

    considering it takes five cops to bust a man selling one black market cigarette your probably correct in your asessment

  • Rhywun||

    Current British law actually enhances the advantage criminals who ignore the law have over their law-abiding prey.

    And will only lead to higher crime rates. Enjoy your relative peace while it lasts, the UK.

  • damikesc||

    I'm betting importing a bunch of non-Brits end have no bearing on why, suddenly, the social order is breaking down a bit.

    For all of the claims, diversity has little evidence of actually making many things better.

  • Nardz||

    That board with a nail in it may have defeated us, but the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails. Soon they'll make a board with a nail so big it will destroy them all!

  • So97gc||

    Great minds think alike

  • gaoxiaen||

    Itchy and Scratchy agree.

  • So97gc||

    One of my favorite episodes of the Simpsons is the treehouse of horror where the monkey paw disarms the whole planet and the aliens take over with a slingshot and a bat. After the inevitable hijinks ensue Moe comes to the rescue with a board with a nail sticking out of it. The aliens run away and console each other with the knowledge that eventually humans will just keep making bigger boards with bigger nails until they destroy themselves. Funny that a 25 year old animated series who's best days are behind it understands the idiocy of nanny state policies better than any current politician.

  • Nardz||

    Nice

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "the most useful tool ever invented."

    You never heard of the Buttplug?

  • John||

    "Useful" does not mean the same as "useless'.

  • Chipper Jones||

    Something something Poundland something something dorm room nickname.

  • Curt||

    "Malcolm noted that "English law now prohibits civilians from carrying any article" for private defense...Current British law actually enhances the advantage criminals who ignore the law have over their law-abiding prey."

    You just have to look at it from the British point of view. Civilians carrying an article for their private defense become self-sufficient and independent. That, of course, is the most dangerous crime in a socialist society. Thieves and hoodlums don't threaten the system. Independent citizens do.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Exactly, Just as Penn State now forbids any of their outdoor clubs from actually doing anything outdoors for reasons of "safety and security." I am more inclined to think it will encourage people to fend for themselves, and even provide for their own safety and security, when out of cell phone range. Such behavior clearly leads to the unforgivable sin of wrong think.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Does it prohibit carrying such an article for offense?

  • Michael Hihn||

    (yawn) Inconvenient facts (fully documented) (ignore the screeching guntards)

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) .
    Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?

    FACT: England's 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 8 in the first 6 weeks of 2018. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher
    Are those YOUR values on "sanctity of human life?"

    Left - Right = Zero
    Two sides of the same authoritarian coin.

  • John||

    Yawn. There is more to the homocide rate than gun control you half wit. You leave this figure out

    Mexico 16.35

    Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. It is punishable by up to 2 years in prison to possess any kind of firearm in Mexico. Yet, it has a homicide rate three times that of the US. Some societies are more violent than others. You can't just compare one to the other. Britain banned guns in 1997. It's homicide rate that year was 11.8. Today it is 12.1 and trending upwards and has never been lower than 8.9 in the years since. Banning guns did nothing to reduce the homicide rate in Britain.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepo.....gmarch2017

    And as we saw in Toronto yesterday, banning guns does nothing to prevent incidents of mass murder. It just sometimes changes the methods.

    Go away and lie about this issue somewhere where people will believe it.

  • colorblindkid||

    And all of these people ignore that the vast majority of gun crime in this country is done by young black men with illegally obtained hand guns. Any "War on Guns" will have the same effects as the War on Drugs. More black men in prison simply for possessing something the government decided is bad, even if there was no actual victim.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Much of America's ban on guns was to prevent black males from having guns.

    The Democrats in big cities didn't want blacks living anywhere near them and having guns.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The gun crime is more from smugglers (i.e. the WoD) than by skin color. Do you know what smugglers are good at? Getting illegal things into the country.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There is more to the homocide rate than gun control you half wit.

    Did I say otherwise?

  • John||

    Yes you did. Your entire point depends on the single variable being dispositive.

  • damikesc||

    John, is this evidence that Hihn does not read the crap he posts?

    You know, like most of the rest of us do not....

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's why you don't know how badly John fucked up!
    Strategy is not your game/

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Strategy is not your game/

    Making coherent arguments isn't yours.

  • damikesc||

    Well, I see no point in wasting "strategy" when, honestly, it is not needed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You'd have avoided the fuckup.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Banning guns did nothing to reduce the homicide rate in Britain.

    FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

    ANOTHER goober PROVEN full of shit! ...ANOTHER goober PROVEN full of shit! ...ANOTHER goober PROVEN full of shit! ... By his own link!!!

    Historically, the number of homicides increased from around 300 per year in the early 1960s to over 800 per year in the early years of this century, which was at a faster rate than population growth over the same period. However, to the year ending March 2015, the volume of homicides has generally decreased while the population of England and Wales has continued to grow.

    Figure 1 shows that in the latest two years, the number of homicides has begun to increase, but the homicide rate for the year ending March 2017 was still 20% lower than 10 years ago

    Read past the first two paragraghs ... which are ONE YEAR

    Go away and lie about this issue somewhere where people will believe it.

    Another One Bites ... Another One Bites ... Another One Bites The Dust!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still pimping his gun ban.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    So, Hinny, is there less violent crime in UK now than there was before they started restrictive gun ownership back in the early 20th century? Can you really say all those laws you favor havwe made a rat's ass worth of difference? Really?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Where do I favor ANY laws?

    is there less violent crime in UK now than there was before they started restrictive gun ownership back in the early 20th century

    (aside: I put it in boldface, and he STILL refuses to see it.)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping his gun ban again.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Seems they let you out of the crazy bin again. It is against my personal policy to reply to [aka "feed" ] trolls like you, but what the hell.

    If the homicide rate of the US continues to fall, as it has by more than 50% in the past couple of decades, we will soon be on a par with Europe. Then what will you cite as your damning evidence emanating from our liberties, shit lord of the flies?

  • John||

    It never occurs to hicks like Hihn that Europe might have a different population than the US.

  • Michael Hihn||

    a) Per 100,000 population
    Adjust for population (5:1)...


    It never occurs to hicks like Hihn that Europe might have a different population than the US.

    Same old John (sneer)

    "I usually judge how cool I'm being by how many angry people are following me around with signs." — Seanbaby

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    Retarded
    A word used to describe someone who is profoundly stupid. A type of stupidity that is an insult to intelligence itself.

    psychopath
    1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
    2. The Authoritarian Left
    3. The Authoritarian Right

  • John||

    a) Per 100,000 population
    Adjust for population (5:1)...

    It never occurs to hicks like Hihn that Europe might have a different population than the US.

    A population that is different qualitatively. You idiot. Yes, I know the population numbers are different and the rates are adjusted for it.

    And yes, you do get bullied on here. It is because you are stupid and dishonest and deserve it. If you don't like being kicked around, get smarter. You are just dumber than a post and make for a very easy target.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I don't feel right, ain't got enough haters . Somebody send me some, so I can aggravate them" — Plies - "Watch Dis"

  • John||

    You are an idiot Hihn. And it will never get old calling you on it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    PROUD to be a bully. SELF-RIGHTEOUS!

    Left-Wing Snowflake = Right-Wing Snowflake
    Like Hitler's brownshirts

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks like a bitch when he can't get in the last word.

  • ||

    It is because you are stupid and dishonest and deserve it.

    I gotta be honest. I would feel a bit guilty if it turned out Hihn had brain damage and suffered from a form of Tourette's or Aphasia. It would quickly wear off as I realized that I'm not a professional and that even professionals would be hard pressed to make such a diagnosis over the internet, but I'd still probably wind up with some pity that the guy didn't get help sooner.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Oh my god Michael Hihn is quoting Seanbaby now what the fuck

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm the one who understands what he said.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Nah.

  • Ron||

    don't insult hicks John we know how to us our guns

  • John||

    And then there is this little fact that people never want to speak. In 2016, over 10,000 of the 15,000 murder victims in this country were either black or Hispanic and the vast majority of the perpetrators of all murders are of the same race as the victim.

    http://www.statista.com/statis.....nd-gender/

    If you take out blacks and Hispanics, the US has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Our problem is not guns. Our problem is large minority communities who like to kill one another. I don't know how you stop that but gun control isn't going to do it.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The gun crime is more from smugglers (i.e. the WoD) than by skin color. Do you know what smugglers are good at? Getting illegal things into the country.

  • John||

    Not true. Ending the WOD would help. But it would not end the violent society we have. The gangs would just find other reasons to kill one another. And plenty of white people sell and use drugs.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Actually, one of the strongest positive correlations of murder rate by US state is the percent of black population. Percent Hispanic population shows no correlation with murder rate. And percent white population shows a weak negative correlation.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It would disarm the blacks!!!
    And your Klavern will rejoice!!!

  • John||

    You are the one who wants to disarm the blacks. Own that position.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (pathetic)

  • JuanQPublic||

    The problem of higher violence in the US doesn't have any easy answers (eg. "too many guns", "minorities", "immigration" etc). The hard reality is that multiple factors contribute to it that we don't fully understand, and no magic bullet, easy fix "ideas" that are merely bias projections can obscure that fact.

    Unfortunately, most mainstream politicians and the tribal public are doing more harm than good by focusing on their politically convenient, comforting brand of easy-fix cure-all's.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What the fuck. It's mostly just niggers. Improves the gene pool.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (ignore the screeching guntards)

    Seems they let you out of the crazy bin again ... trolls like you ... shit lord of the flies?

    "A man with no enemies is a man with no character." — Paul Newman

    If the homicide rate of the US continues to fall, as it has by more than 50% in the past couple of decades, we will soon be on a par with Europe. Then what will you cite as your damning evidence emanating from our liberties

    If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow, the world will have ended. If Trump goes 48 hours without at least three lies, the world may have ended.

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means""

    You keep saying that but I have not found anything in the definition of unalienable that applies to conflicting rights. You opinion is not part of the definition of unalienable.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You keep saying that but I have not found anything in the definition of unalienable that applies to conflicting rights.

    Both of them are absolute. Do you know what THAT means?
    If two absolute rights are in conflict, which one is superior?

    You opinion is not part of the definition of unalienable.

    Anything else?

  • Eddie1975||

    Apart from you making naked, baseless assertions?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Apart from you making naked, baseless assertions?

    Guntard says "baseless" that an unalienable right is absolute.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Guntard says "baseless" that an unalienable right is absolute.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is too stupid to figure out how the right to life and right to bear arms conflict.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Both of them are absolute. Do you know what THAT means?
    If two absolute rights are in conflict, which one is superior?""

    None of that has anything to do with the definition of unalienable.

    """"WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means""""

    That statement is still false because that's not what unalienable means.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER Guntard says "unalienable rights" are NOT absolute.

    Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    From MW online

    unalienable

    adjective

    Definition of unalienable for English Language Learners

    : impossible to take away or give up

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER Guntard says "unalienable rights" are NOT absolute.

    Definition of unalienable for English Language Learners
    : impossible to take away or give up

    OMFG! Doesn't know what "absolute" means EITHER! Proves HIMSELF wrong!!

    Dumbing down further "What happens when two unalineable rights are in conflict, NEITHER of which can be taken away or given up?" ....

    THAT is how unalienable addresses conflicting rights ...; which you FIRST said has nothing to do with the definition of unalienable ... until you CHECK the definition ... PROVING you wrong ... and humiliating Eddie1975.

    You people are a blessing that enriches my entire life!

    (boldface in defense of aggression ... and to highlight my ridicule)

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    You are arguing against the dictionary, and going off on your own tangent.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (sneer)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (chortle)

  • Michael Hihn||

    That statement is still false because that's not what unalienable means.

    I never said it was

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lying again.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You keep insisting that in/unalienable rights are, in fact, alienable "when they come into conflict"

    But they can't.

    The inalienable rights can't come into conflict. They do not compete. They simply are.

    You WILL live.
    You WILL express yourself
    You WILL defend yourself.

    What you call "conflicting or competing" is the violation of unalienable rights.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You keep insisting that in/unalienable rights are, in fact, alienable "when they come into conflict"

    I said the exact opposite.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies about his arguments.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I'll probably regret this, but I'm curious: if two rights are in conflict as you say, how do you go about adjudicating the conflict? What principles do you use to determine which right has to give way?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't explain how the right to life and the right to bear arms conflict.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't explain how the right to life and the right to bear arms conflict.

    Do the math. (smirk)

    If you encounter enemies, you're going the right way.
    — Videogame saying

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks an empty quote is intelligent thought. (smirk)

  • Michael Hihn||

    I SAID DO THE MATH. FAIL

  • Eddie1975||

    There isn't any math there.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    DO IT ANYWAY.
    (fart)

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Do the math."

    There isn't any math there.

    That's why YOU have to "do" the math. (smirk)

    I provided the numbers. How many Guntards can't handle the math?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimps his gun ban again.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't explain how the right to life and the right to bear arms conflict.""

    Of course not. Because they don't.

    I guess he's assuming that the right to bear arms equals a right to kill therefore in conflict to the right to life. That math don't add up.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's precisely how TrickyVic humiliated himself here!

    (sneer)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the self-link to his own stupidity is a humiliation of someone else. Because he's too much of a retard to explain how the right to life and right to bear arms conflict.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Our mass murder rate is 31,000% higher than the UK.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping his gun ban again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    'll probably regret this

    For exposing your ignorance,
    Ignorant of what unalienable means?
    Did you take US History yet?
    Never heard of, No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?
    Or, You right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose?

    The last one is allegorical. That there is a boundary between any two conflicting rights. The nose tip here.
    THIS EXPLODES THE BRAINS OF AUTHORITARIANS

    When rights are competing are conflicting or competing, ONLY the judiciary may resolve the conflict, draw the line -- as the CONSTITUTIONAL check on the legislative and executive branches creating such conflicts. . They are obliged to draw a line that BEST defends BOTH rights EQUALLY.

    Now we have the battling goobers, the authoritarian right and left, who want to IMPOSE their favorite right ... FORCE to get it all their way. See abortion and gun ownership. where each extreme wants ABSOLUTE ban vs UNLIMITED access ... with right and left extremists flipping on those two.

    They'e both wrong, by definition and morally, But authoritarian bellowing.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    You've explained WHO will adjudicate the conflicts. But based on what principles?

    There's no need to get insulting or go into a defensive crouch.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There's no need to get insulting or go into a defensive crouch.

    The best defense against aggression is a strong offense/

    THIS EXPLODES THE BRAINS OF AUTHORITARIANS
    They are obliged to draw a line that BEST defends BOTH rights EQUALLY.
    You've explained WHO will adjudicate the conflicts. But based on what principles?

    Does boldface help?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    No. Saying "defend both rights equally" is a platitude, not a principle.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Equal is a principle
    Each right is a principle.
    (sigh)

  • Eddie1975||

    So, you can't answer his question.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Does he ever?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Well, gee, you've convinced me...that I'm wasting my time.

    So, go ahead and get it over with: caterwaul that I'm "bullying" you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Laughing too hard at you goobers!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I laugh every day when Dumbfuck Hihnsano posts his stupidity and he shrieks like a bitch in response.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

    The 'free speech' right to do so.

    There is no 'right' anywhere that one is free from the responsibility for one's actions, so it's best that, if you do yell 'fire', that there is one.

    Or people will get angry.

    Because there is no right to violate others rights.

    And that is what you have done if you set a false alarm. You violated the rights of others

  • Michael Hihn||

    Because there is no right to violate others rights.

    First you claim that it's not possible for rights to be in conflict.

    You get called out.

    You retract.

    Anything else?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know how the right to life and right to bear arms conflict.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping his gun ban again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fucking liar.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lying about pimping his gun ban again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    No proof?? (sneer)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks people can't read upthread. (sneer)

  • Michael Hihn||

    BAD bluff. Link to it. (snort)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks people can't scroll upthread (snort)

  • ace_m82||

    Hi, Hihn!

    Here's some stats from the CDC for you.

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o

    God Bless!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Correcting. Posted under the wrong comment.

    Here's some stats from the CDC for you.

    (laughing) How does that related to gun ownership being an absolute right ... which even Scalia ruled against?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates the fact the Scalia said that DC's handgun ban violated the 2nd Amendment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    As Scalia ruled, it's because handguns are the TYPE of weapon in common use at ratification, which are the only weapons protected by 2A (since 1939)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano called for a handgun ban here.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't realize that the weapons "in common use at the time" were of the same caliber, lethality, operation, and function as regular military firearms.

  • ace_m82||

    Well, you keep giving us (useless) stats. So I gave you better stats that actually apply to the issue.

    That you think that "rights" can be something other than absolute is your own issue.

    You have one right, the right to do everything other than aggress. One's right CANNOT, definitionally, conflict with another's right.

    And I care not what the evil Court says, see:
    Wikkard v Filburn, Korematsu, Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, etc.

  • Michael Hihn||

    EVASION .... PROOF of fuckup!
    How does that relate to gun ownership being an absolute right

    That you think that "rights" can be something other than absolute is your own issue.

    omfg!!
    THAT EXPLAINS YOUR FUCKED UP LINK!!!
    I'M THE ONE DEFENDING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS BEING ABSOLUTE ... ATTCKED BY 37 RIGHT-WING GOOBERS LIKE YOU.

    Boldface on defense of aggresion by a serial stalker .. and to highlight ridicule of his (latest) fuckup

  • ace_m82||

    EVASION

    How?

    How does that relate to gun ownership being an absolute right

    Again, you have one right, the right to do everything other than aggress.

    THAT EXPLAINS YOUR FUCKED UP LINK!

    Yes, it really messes up your concepts of gun control.

    I'M THE ONE DEFENDING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS BEING ABSOLUTE

    No, you're attacking them as "not absolute".

    Boldface on defense of aggresion

    Kindly showing you why you're wrong is not "aggression".

  • CE||

    So you propose to promote liberty but would allow governments to restrict the liberty of individuals to defend themselves with effective weapons? Isn't that a mixed message?

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing) How does that related to gun ownership being an absolute right ... which even Scalia ruled against

  • Michael Hihn||

    Isn't that a mixed message?

    Only to authoritarians who deny the core principle of unalienable rights. Why do you say you get to pick and choose?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't keep his stupid arguments straight.

  • eyeroller||

    All hands will be kept in an open configuration at all times. The manufacture and transportation of fists will not be tolerated.

  • John||

    Today in the UK, a Muslim can rape a child and the police will do nothing and call anyone who objects to that a racist. You can take your child to Switzerland to have them euthanized and the government will happily stamp your passport. But try to take your child to Italy to save his life and the police will kidnap him to ensure he dies and doesn't become a burden on the beloved national healthcare system.

    The UK is a sad and sick place.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    And a cautionary tale, for us. There seem to be a number of voices here who regard such places are a virtual utopia, though in reality they just wan't to be able to wield power over the rest of us backward looking bumpkins.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    It really is, and if your ideas are at all at odds with what the thought police deem unacceptable, then you will be detained upon trying to enter the country and interrogated and berated by border agents for many hours without any recourse to legal representation.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I'm waiting for someone in the Stupid Party (the GOP) to take everything Britain has done, from weapon laws to speech laws to leaked memos about using immigration to change the population and explicitly runs on "don't let the Democrats do to us what Labour did to the UK".

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    To be fair it has been a combined effort between the red and blue teams over the years, with a little help (or lack thereof?) from the yellow team when they had token authority. There are no options on the ballot in the UK dedicated to laissez faire liberty and simple freedom to live as one chooses. UKIP sort of paid lip service to it but were objectionable for a whole host of other reasons. The Lib Dems don't seem particularly liberal, in the classical sense. Apparently there is a "Libertarian Party" in the UK but when I checked their facebook page it was just a bunch of scaremongering about immigration and stank of sock-puppet. I actually feel like there could be a true renaissance in political thinking in the UK and a rejection of the totalitarian state that critically does not involve just replacing it with another one. However, when the most "libertarian" news source/comment comes in the form of a publication that used to be called 'Living Marxism' (spiked - friends of Robby Soave) you have to wonder what form it might take.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Oops, I forgot to turn off the italics. Now it's very emphatic.

  • damikesc||

    Holy shit, I feel REALLY emphasized.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "don't let the Democrats do to us what Labour did to the UK".

    Sounds like a winning platform.

  • albo||

    I love The Awl's term for the UK: Knifecrime Island

  • Longtobefree||

    "There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon; there are only dangerous men". - L. Long

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Eagerly awaiting the left claiming the Founders could have never envisioned the deadly power of a metal blade when they wrote the 2A. In other news, sushi now banned in Britain:

    How to make a shiv with hard, dried fish

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Eagerly awaiting the left claiming the Founders could have never envisioned the deadly power of a metal blade when they wrote the 2A. In other news, sushi now banned in Britain:

    How to make a shiv with hard, dried fish

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ramen noodle shanks.

    "She's trying to noodle stab me!" "My Chinese gang mates wanted to noodle stab me"- Lucille (Arrested Development)

  • JuanQPublic||

    There will be far less pushback in Britain, as Americans in general by comparison don't like to be micromanaged by the state on how to defend themselves, what they can/can't say, etc. Of course, plenty of exceptions, but this issue really shows where the cultures diverge.

  • Flinch||

    Oh great... the imbeciles running London will arrest Wolfgang Puck on his way to work, and declare the law a success. I have a better idea: how about recalling the half wit mayor and be done with it? All of this is a distraction, to steer clear of the obvious: Islam is a system for political conquest, and is an unholy/inseparable marriage of state & religion. And that is why they asked for sharia courts in London. Those affronts to the rule of law are an affront to a fair number of significant people - such as the entirety of Parliament and the Crown. Time for pm May to wake up and smell the stench.

  • Nardz||

    May becoming pm was the deep state's punishment for Brexit.

  • Bearded Spock||

    What is really frightening about this is that just over a century ago these people ruled the world.

    How the Mighty Have Fallen, indeed.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Are you talking about Hihn? Because that was a lot longer ago than a single century.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Viel feind, viel ehr" (Translation: many enemies, much honour) — Georg von Frundsberg

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I dig this new messiah complex you've got going on. It's a good fit for the rest of your shambles of a personality.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's tumor giving him delusions of grandeur.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Ok, I get it. Your thrive on hate, directed at you. Is that similar to a borderline personality engaging in self mutilation? Are you an emotional cutter?

  • ||

    How will British politicians respond when terrorists begin murdering people with teacups or Guinness bottles?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    The knighting ceremony will now be performed with a blancmange. Carry on.

  • Stoli||

    Your idiotic politicians letting sharks into your pool and then trying to ban their teeth for biting you in the arse
    Aristotelian logic there on display
    Just ask Theresa May she will explain it all

  • Stoli||

    Here is a thought.
    How about war on idiots that run the country

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Hilda would agree that a war was declared on her, by a basket of deplorables or backward looking bumpkins. And it worked.

  • CE||

    Why not just ban murder?

  • ||

    There are also practical downsides to discouraging the public from possessing knives—one of the oldest and most useful tools ever invented.

    I got to visit my kids' elementary school for one of their projects. It wasn't realized until I was on my way out the door that I had a pocketknife, normally verboten, on my hip the whole time. I pitched it to the admins grumbling about my knife how a couple hundred years ago knifemaking was a skill and profession and how bizarre it would be if, 50 or 100 yrs. from now, kids weren't allowed to bring their pens to school for fear that they may stab someone, jot some notes, or even do some creative writing.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Kids don't need pens. They can type on their cellphones.

  • Mehitable||

    But they might hit someone with their cell phones or throw them at someone. The only safe answer is public handcuffs until they get back to priso....er....home.

  • Barry soetaro||

    So, Londonistan wants to ban knives along with the rest of the newly defeated nation. Good luck, boys. England is now part of the new caliphate.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    A knife; one of, if not _the_ oldest, and most useful tools humans have carried since the oldest known blades were fashioned from flint 1.4 million years ago. Not only supremely versatile, it is also embodies self-sufficiency; something at odds with the imposed dependence the state forces on it's citizens. The man is a little despot. I profoundly disagree with his virtue-signalling, victimhood-promoting, totalitarian agenda. I can think of lots of (non-violent) reasons to carry a knife.

  • kjunlandr||

    So, once knives are confiscated what about rocks? Cain killed Able with a rock. What about vehicles running down pedestrians? Drones dropping homemade explosive devices on crowds? A criminal slitting a victims victim's throat with piano wire, boxcutter?
    The problem is not the assualt weapon instruments of destruction, the problem evil and its spreading like a virus because mankind has abandoned the teachings of faith, hope and charity towards his fellow human beings.

  • tlapp||

    Guns are outlawed, no knives, then sticks and stones, they will people be required to have padding so their fists can do no harm or simply be handcuffed in advance unless authorized by the government to use them freely? Yes it is getting that silly.

  • ||

    Guns are outlawed, no knives, then sticks and stones, they will people be required to have padding so their fists can do no harm or simply be handcuffed in advance unless authorized by the government to use them freely?

    Even with gloves and handcuffs, I'm pretty sure I could shake or flail a great number of things pretty destructively. Probably best to just skip to punishing even trivial crimes by chopping the hand off at the wrist.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Just nuke the UK. It's the only way to truely prevent violence.

  • ||

    Keep giving attention to the Hoggs of this world and it will inevitably come to 'knife control' too at some point.

    Just look at how the anti-smoking campaign that hit its stride in the 1980s and where it's gone where a) our conception of science regarding it. For example, there's never been a conclusive link to cancer; just strong correlations. But we kept hammering at the latter to the point it's accepted as scientific. This opened the door to...b) abuse of civil liberties. We've gone from 'you're paranoid' if you think it would ever be legislated in the private sphere right to exactly that. Think of this when progressive lie about not wanting to confiscate guns. They absolutely do and that's the end game. They're just very good at misrepresenting their true intentions.

    Britain is exactly what you'd expect from decades of progressive ideology ruling a culture and nation.

    Knife control. We used to joke about this and now it's a thing.

    That's how stupid politicians and left-wingers are.

  • CE||

    there is never a reason to carry a knife. -- Somebody who got elected mayor?

    Unless you need to cut something, or defend yourself, or whittle wood to pass the time, or open a box, or a letter....

  • axioma||

    Folks, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION to "indicators" and the "natural progression" of your loss of rights to mobilize and feed yourselves.

    (1) GUNS and KNIVES are on the PC hit list (on both sides of the Atlantic).
    (2) Self-driving cars are on the horizon because governments do NOT want future generations to have the ABILITY or the RIGHT TO DRIVE THEMSELVES!
    (3) Governments WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN that eventually, THEY ALONE can determine where and when people can congregate.
    (4) The "right" to drive PERSONAL VEHICLES has ALREADY been banned in "city centers" across the globe.
    (5) Governments FAVOR BUSES as the alternative to personal vehicles! (They even put the Royals, and society groups, on BUSES to make them appear cool.) NORMALLY RESISTANT FOLKS will feel foolish complaining if the Queen herself sees value in taking a bus.)

    Now that you are "confined to quarters" HOW will you eat without knives?

    Eventually, you will receive government "food boxes" that will contain MEAT already chopped (for stir fry; uses the least amount of energy or fossil fuels) and the vegetables in the box are all chopped (in government kitchens).

    We are being "conditioned" by Jennie Craig, Weight Watchers, Nutri-system, Meals on Wheels, and Blue Apron; also pizza and Chinese!

    Eventually, the government will CONTROL WHAT YOU EAT and you won't need a single knife (or gun to hunt) since the government does it all!

  • Mehitable||

    What makes you think they'll contain "meat". Vegetarians are so much less aggressive. A nation of soy boys!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Reuters reported earlier this month. "In the latest bloodshed, a 17-year-old girl died on Monday after she was found with gunshot wounds

    Wait, what?

  • MikeyParks||

    Human intelligence has apparently reached its nadir in England. It's against the law to defend yourself? But in a country that doesn't even trust its police to have guns, what can you expect? I have to say they deserve what they get; they voted this guy into office and worse, allow him to stay in office after this display of extreme bad judgement.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Poundland

    That was the colloquial name for my bedroom in the 80s.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So, I take it Hihn wants those kitchen knives confiscated STAT.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So, you're a total wacko also?
    I've never called for confiscating anything.
    But right-wing snowflakes attack inconvenient facts just like the left-wing snowflakes.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimps a gun ban, thinks that isn't confiscation.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimps a gun ban, thinks that isn't confiscation.

    I never "pimped" a ban .. and a ban is NOT confiscation.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lying again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Here again are the data that over 2 dozen of the Authoritarian Right is punishing me for posting

    Inconvenient facts (fully documented) (ignore the screeching guntards)

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN)
    Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?

    FACT: England's 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher
    Are those YOUR values on "sanctity of human life?"

    Authoritarian Left - Authoritarian Right = Zero

  • damikesc||

    Hmm, any ideas why the stats in Asia are so uneven in terms of homicide rates?

    Phillipines is far higher than ours, for example.
    Ditto Iraq (Asia in your link officially)
    Ditto Qatar
    Mongolia
    Laos

    Why does South America have such frighteningly large rates?

    You keep mentioning this so I assume you have some thoughts on this...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Ditto Iraq (Asia in your link officially)

    More bullshit. There is no "Asia."
    The UN data reports Asia in five different regions: Western, Eastern, South-Eastern, Southern., Central.
    Iraq and, Qatar are in Western Asia
    Mongolia is in Eastern Asia
    Laos is Southeastern Asia

    Shame on you. You can't read even a simple table ... and/or know nothing of world geography ...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't understand what he's arguing against.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    So by that logic there is no United States. We have a Western US, Eastern US, Southeastern US, Southern US, and Central US.

    Shame on you. You have no logic and know nothing of this country's geography

  • Michael Hihn||

    The issue is what is in a table of UN data.
    He lied.
    You fucked up.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still arguing against the strawman he made up.

  • ace_m82||

    Hi, Hihn!

    You must have missed this very interesting study done by the CDC. I say you must have missed it, because it looks like you responded to everyone except me.

    Here it is again:

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o

    God Bless!

  • Michael Hihn||

    You must have missed this very interesting study done by the CDC

    (laughing) I ridiculed you, asking how it related in any way to gun ownership NOT being an absolute right .. .as confirmed by even Scala. But it posted under the wrong comment.

    Thanks.! I'll correct the original ridicule.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    His name was "Scalia", not "Scala". You could extend at least some minimal respect to the dead, much as you and your leftist acolytes abandoned simple respect with respect to Barbara Bush.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If you think I'm a leftist, you're even crazier than I thought,

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You are a retard, so there's that, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • ace_m82||

    Well, you keep giving us (useless) stats. So I gave you better stats that actually apply to the issue.

    That you think that "rights" can be something other than absolute is your own issue.

    You have one right, the right to do everything other than aggress. One's right CANNOT, definitionally, conflict with another's right.

    And I care not what the evil Court says, see:
    Wickard v Filburn, Korematsu, Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, etc.

  • Michael Hihn||

    FAIL ... EVASDION .,... MASSIVE FUCKUP

    That you think that "rights" can be something other than absolute is your own issue.

    I NEVER SAD THAT

    PAY ATTENTION.

    One more time.
    1) All fundamental rights are absolute.
    2) How would YOU resolve when two such rfights are in conflct ... BOTH BEING ABSOLUTE?

    WHAT ... DOES ... YOUR ... LINK ... HAVE .. TO ... DO ... WITH ... THIIS ... WHEN .. IT'S ...A DIFFERENT ... TOPIC?

    AND HOW IN HELL DID YOU FUCK UP AND STATE THE EXACT OPOPOSITE OF MY POSIITION?

  • ace_m82||

    Me: That you think that "rights" can be something other than absolute is your own issue.

    Hihn: I NEVER SAD THAT

    Literally the post immediately before this one:

    Hihn: I ridiculed you, asking how it related in any way to gun ownership NOT being an absolute right .. .as confirmed by even Scala.

    So, you lie. Constantly.

    How would YOU resolve when two such rfights are in conflct ... BOTH BEING ABSOLUTE?

    Definitionally impossible.

    WHAT ... DOES ... YOUR ... LINK ... HAVE .. TO ... DO ... WITH ... THIIS ... WHEN .. IT'S ...A DIFFERENT ... TOPIC?

    You bring gun control stats. I responded with better gun control stats. Tit for tat.

    AND HOW IN HELL DID YOU FUCK UP AND STATE THE EXACT OPOPOSITE OF MY POSIITION?

    You constantly deny your own position! You're like a Trump prototype.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Um, how are you being "punished"? Is merely disagreeing with you some form of "punishment"?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Is merely disagreeing with you some form of "punishment"?

    No. Silly question. Anything else?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban!

  • ||

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?

    I wouldn't. Especially if the alternative were semi-detached loud-mouthed lunacy. I might even knowingly choose to live in my insular bubble rather than fall in with such, obviously benign, zealotry.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?

    I wouldn't.

    That explains THIS fuckup and the three others
    Crawl out of your deep partisan cave into the daylight of ... knowledge vs.robotic manipulation by puppet masters

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Speaking of fuckups, Dumbfuck Hihnsano fucked up his link. (giggle)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks! Now corrected

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks he won an argument where he got blasted out of the water.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means"

    Again with this nonsense? That is NOT what "unalienable" means. Clearly you are incapable of learning anything, so I'm not going to try to explain it to you again, except to say that "life" is protected in the Bill of Rights under the 5th Amendment, denying government the right to deprive a person of life without due process. The right to keep and bear arms stands alone as protected by the Second Amendment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Again with this nonsense? That is NOT what "unalienable" means.

    WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
    (SMIRK)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't even know!

  • SoWhassup||

    Subtract the statistics for the 5 largest leftist controlled cities and our stats drop precipitously. Let's ban the Leftists and keep our freedoms!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Subtract the statistics for the 5 largest leftist controlled cities and our stats drop precipitously

    Relevance of your fascism?

  • roughman998||

    For the life of me, I cannot understand how the once proud English People have permitted their government to so totally control them.
    Frighteningly, there are those in the USA who want the same thing to happen here. Were it not for that MAGNIFICENT document, The United States Constitution, it would have.
    This is a cautionary tale. The Constitution has already been subverted to a remarkable degree, by the monsters in both parties.
    Better wake up, or we shall be in the same pathetic situation as our friends the Brits...

  • Mehitable||

    Apparently to many in Britain "1984" was not a cautionary tale, it was a blueprint.

  • Michael Hihn||

    For the life of me, I cannot understand how the once proud English People have permitted their government to so totally control them.

    Libertarians have been explaining that for decades.
    People have been manipulated for centuries, by power-seekers who generate total hysteria ... or an invented crisis ... that ONLY the fuhrer can save humanity from.

    In the US, it's the Christian Taliban, SCREECHING about a war in Christianity (that they invented) for their goobers.
    Or New Dealers, SCREECHING about INEQUALITY (that they invented) for their goobers.

    Puppets dancing on a string.
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Marie Donno||

    Pretty soon they will outlaw knitting needles. This is what happens when a once powerful country falls victim to PC nonsense and socialists. Iraq citizens can have 1 Kalashnikov each. Great Britain is no longer great.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which PC nonsense? Lefty goober or righty goobers?

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The same bunch that want to ban the oldest and most useful tools ever invented also want to ban the oldest and most useful discovery: fire. Think about it; it's literally true. They also deny the oldest and most useful dichotomy ever recognized by humanity and have essentially abolished the oldest and most useful institutions of humanity.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "THE SKY IS FALLING! .... THE SKY IS FALLING!!"

    Left - Right = Zero
    Robotic minds manipulated by false hysteria.

  • John Galtt||

    "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law,"

    Now THAT is embarrassing. You pitiful Brits CAN'T BE TRUSTED with a knife! Not a pocketknife, not a steak knife, not a utility knife. Just exactly what do you all DO over there, anyway? Draw pretty pictures of maidens by the sea?

  • ||

    My 8yr old carries a knife, (not to school mind you) however everywhere else.. ps..it's the Muslims

  • Michael Hihn||

    You also a Sharia Law wacko?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Of course, the man who said this is an ardent defender of Muslim radicals. So there's that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Muslim Taliban = Christian Taliban

  • Mehitable||

    There is NO Christian Taliban. There is NO Christian country where the same behavior is being done as Muslims are doing, in the name of Christianity. This is equivalency nonsense that will destroy Britain & Europe.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Brainwashed one. Both Talibans seek a religious dictatorship. That's what it means. Like the (un)Holy Inquisition that was committing moral atrocities at our founding -- also in the name of God. Education trumps bigotry (no pun intended)

    In THIS country ... and a few Muslim ones .. we have a Wall of Separation.
    Christian puppets are brainwashed to say, "Those words do not appear in the Constitution."
    AS IF THEY HAD TO! (OMG)

    So who do we believe on this, the first three Presidents, the Treaty of Tripoli and the unanimous Senate in the 9th year of our Republic or ... NOBODY?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his paranoid hysteria.

  • buybuydandavis||

    First they came for the guns
    Then they came for speech
    Now they come for knives

    Never ever give up guns

  • ||

    So of the 13000 knife incidents.. something like 11000 we Muslims? So how is this ok to the Englishman and Englishwoman? There are 56 million more of you then them, granted they hold office in many many cities and towns, and out breed you.. I'd say it high time to take your society back..

  • Michael Hihn||

    Can you stop drooling long enough to provide a source?

    (Does he also think Sharia Law can be implemented in the US without amending the Constitution? That Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, who said "We are no longer a Christian nation?" That we're holding space aliens in Roswell, New Mexico? That the Bible does NOT order the immediate killing of all infidels?)

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Do you think Islamic radicals give a shit about the Constitution?

    And if you don't understand the structure and historical nature of the Old Testament, I suggest you take a class or at the very least read a book. Your constant recourse to false equivalency betrays the emptiness of everything you have to say on the subject.

    Back to your hole, troll

  • Michael Hihn||

    LEARN THE BIBLE, HERETIC.

    Worshiping Other Gods Deuteronomy 13
    If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" …. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death…
    (if) Troublemakers have arisen among you … saying, "Let us go and worship other gods then … you must certainly put to the sword to all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely both its people and its livestock

    Anything else, Gomer?

    REDEEM YOURSELF, BLASPHEMER. REJECT THE ANTI-CHRIST WHO HAS CAPTURED YOUR SOUL. ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR. FALL ON YOUR KNEES. BEG HIS FORGIVENESS.

    You shame Our Lord Jesus Christ.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieking his cheeseboard lunacy.

  • SoWhassup||

    So, the Muslims have a new testament where they repudiate the violent statements of their faith or are you merely practicing al Taqiyya (lying,deceiving,illusion) by representing the old testament as current church dogma?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Did I say it was current church dogma? Or did I call out a bullshitter. Your turn.

    Would that be the "current church dogma" where the Christian CRUSADERS committed the First Holocaust, SLAUGHTERING thousand of Jews (Christ-killers) ... in GERMANY (Rhineland Massacres)?

    Current Christian dogma OPPOSES any right to self defense. Learn the Sermon on the Mount. Or will you now smirk hat CHRIST is no longer current?

    38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles

    Would YOU submit to aggression, as commanded by Christ?

    Now your ignorance of the Koran The entire western concept of self-defense traces to Mohammed. Including NAP. The "kill the infidels" that you were SUCKERED with, is IF the infidels attack the temple. -- and do NOT pursue them when turned away -- which is no longer self-defense.

    Do you know the Koran is the 3rd book of the Islam Bible -- following the to Christian testaments? That Christ is a revered prophet in Islam?

    Anything else this atheist can teach you about your Holy Book?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't decide if Christians are aggressors or submitters.

  • ace_m82||

    And, here is THIS lie, told by the same liar.

    And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." - Luke 22:36-38

    Now, why did they need swords? Because Christ would soon die, and not be there to protect them, so they must protect themselves.

    So how does one explain this with "turn the other cheek"? Well, a strike to the cheek was an insult, an attempt to get you to respond, and not a major assault. But, when the opponent attacks with deadly force, then Christ recognizes your right (and responsibility) to defend yourself.

    Now, Hihn, I've given you these verses on several occasions. You won't learn. You hate God, hate the Scripture, and will never know either as well as those who love them will.

    You make yourself a fool by speaking about something you know nothing about.

    But, regardless of your repeated lies and hatred:

    The Lord bless you
    and keep you;
    the Lord make his face shine on you
    and be gracious to you;
    the Lord turn his face toward you
    and give you peace.

  • ace_m82||

    That old lie?

    "These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess--as long as you live in the land." - Deuteronomy 12:1

    You see, the Israelites and God had a contract, that the Israelites voluntarily entered into, that they would follow ALL of God's commands while in HIS land:

    "The land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners and tenant farmers working for me." - Leviticus 25:23

    These laws only applied to ancient Israelites, as long as they lived in Palestine.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sorry, I forgot. The ancient Jews had every right to commit the only known mass genocide of an entire culture -- the Canaanites -- beause God commanded them to. God could do so because it's His land ... the sane land he allowed the Canaanite to possess, until he changed His mind (which Gods may do) and decided THAT is where He wanted the Jewish Homeland should be established ... just slaughter all the Canaanites -- who were among the most advanced civilizatons on earth (aka Phioenicians) who had resided there since 3000 BC

    But you still haven't answered, if God commanded you to kill everyone in your home's block (or neighborhood) ... to seize their home ...because, it is His land, after all ... would you do it? While beating your chest and chanting "NAP Uber Alles?"

  • ace_m82||

    The ancient Jews had every right to commit the only known mass genocide of an entire culture -- the Canaanites -- beause God commanded them to.

    "The land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners and tenant farmers working for me." - Leviticus 25:23

    If you have squatters on your land, and they won't leave, and are sacrificing their children in FIRE while there, do you not have right to drive them off and kill them if they don't leave? After all, the references to Israel taking the land all say "drove out" the peoples who were there, not killing all of them!

    www.biblegateway.com/quicksear.....ersion=NIV

    But you still haven't answered...

    Because you've yet to ask...

    if God commanded you to kill everyone in your home's block (or neighborhood) ... to seize their home ...because, it is His land, after all ... would you do it?

    Assuming he'd say that, and if he claimed the land, and ordered ME to do it (for some reason), I'd probably be as hesitant as Moses was. I'd better be as sure as heck that it was God talking!

    But, we already know that's not what would happen, now don't we? After all, all our sins have been paid for, on the Cross, by God's own Son. So, all their sins have already been paid for! So God WOULDN'T ask that. And, "vengeance is his" (Deuteronomy 32:35).

    So, regardless of your Biblical illiteracy and incomprehension of libertarianism, God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Assuming he'd say that, and if he claimed the land, and ordered ME to do it (for some reason), I'd probably be as hesitant as Moses was

    But you'd still slaughter your equivalent if the Canaanites.

    But, we already know that's not what would happen, now don't we?

    It did before. You defended it,

    So, regardless of your Biblical illiteracy

    Now you deny the mass genocide of the Canaanites ... which you first defended ... then DUCKED if YOU were ordered to slaughter people ... saying it would never happen ... because God told you he'd never again be so barbaric?

  • ace_m82||

    But you'd still slaughter your equivalent if the Canaanites.

    And he wouldn't. After all, we have the end judgement foretold, and humans don't do it.

    It did before. You defended it,

    Yes, it did. Just as property owners can do. They can delegate their "driving off" to others.

    Now you deny the mass genocide of the Canaanites ... which you first defended

    It wasn't genocide. It was driving them off private property.

    then DUCKED if YOU were ordered to slaughter people

    Lie.

    because God told you he'd never again be so barbaric?

    Is it "barbaric" to kill people who are sacrificing their children in the fire, under the assumption they don't get off your land first?

    Of course not, but only the great and powerful Hihn thinks otherwise!

    You are a Biblical illiterate, and you show it every time you respond. You will NEVER know as much of the Bible as I do.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (pees pants laughing)

    Now you deny the mass genocide of the Canaanites ... which you first defended

    It wasn't genocide. It was driving them off private property.

    1) BY KILLING THEM!
    2) "Private" property???

    ........BEND OVER ......

    You are a Biblical illiterate. You will NEVER know as much of the Bible as I do.

    (sneer)
    Deuteronomy 20, BLASPHEMER

    But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee

    THAT IS GENOCIDE ... REJECT THE ANTI-CHRIST

    Cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    cont'd

    Just a few more of your shameless moral depravity

    In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and animals.

    In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.

    In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

    In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.

    In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they are allowed to rape as spoils of war.

    In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them.

    Deuteronomy 13 may be the most barbaric of all

    Why did God shit on NAP, repeatedly?

  • ace_m82||

    In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and animals. (and so on)

    Yes, the Creator has the right to what he created, right? He is just, to kill that which removed itself from the life-giver (God). Is the book of Revelation wrong? Is killing the evil ones bad? Do you DARE think you deserve the life your Creator gave you? The hubris of man!

    Why did God shit on NAP, repeatedly?

    Did you Create yourself? Did you make the Earth to stand on? The air to breathe? The Sun for heat?

    No? You didn't? So, if God takes from you the life you were GIVEN or the means to sustain it he allows you, is he somehow unjust?

    No, he isn't. He'd be fully just to strike me dead right now. Why? I've earned nothing I use, I made none of the nature I take for granted, nor the reason I think with.

    Read Jonah 4:5-11 about being mad at God for taking what he gave. Read Job 38-42 for the folly of questioning the Creator about his Creation and his justice.

    Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
    Let him who accuses God answer him!
    ...
    Would you discredit my justice?
    Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

    May God save you from your Hubris, Hihn!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Diversion from proven lie. With NEW lies.

    AND ........ Now ..... claims ... the ..... entire ..... earth .... is ..... "private property" ...

    You may THINK you own your home, but the Anti-Christ says no.
    Scary

  • ace_m82||

    AND ........ Now ..... claims ... the ..... entire ..... earth .... is ..... "private property

    Yes, if God made the Earth, then the Earth is his.

    The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it,
    the world, and all who live in it;


    Psalm 24:1

    You may THINK you own your home...

    I didn't know you made the inputs to your home, such as the wood, metal, gravel, asphalt, and even the ground your home sits on!

    If God made [A], then [A] is his. If he takes [A] from you, he is just as he doesn't owe you anything.

    Regardless of your constant rejection of logic, reason, and honesty:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Michael Hihn||

    MOAR LIES AND EVASION ... NOW DENIES THE HOLY BIBLE ... SHAME ON YOU

    AND ........ Now ..... claims ... the ..... entire ..... earth .... is ..... "private property

    Yes, if God made the Earth, then the Earth is his.

    MOAR EVASION
    WHY DO YOU CALL IT PRIVATE PROPERTY?

    WHY DID YOU LIE ABOUT THE CANAANITES NOT BEING SLAUGHTERED.
    If you were IGNORANT ... fine .... by why do you now KNOWINGLY lie about THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD?

    thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them

    How can you LIE about that being genocide?

    You keep PROVING you are the Anti-Christ.

  • ace_m82||

    MOAR LIES AND EVASION

    I answered all of your objections directly. You are either obfuscating or lying, take your pick.

    WHY DO YOU CALL IT PRIVATE PROPERTY?

    Because it's God's property. Leviticus 25:23 "The land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners and tenant farmers working for me."

    WHY DID YOU LIE ABOUT THE CANAANITES NOT BEING SLAUGHTERED.

    Lot's got killed, true, and more left. Hence the "drove them out" references. Maybe they should have obeyed God's laws while on his property.

    why do you now KNOWINGLY lie about THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD?

    Seems to me I keep answering you with reason backed up with Scripture. The better question is why do you keep arguing about something you know nothing about?

    How can you LIE about that being genocide?

    It isn't. It's driving squatters off of private property. "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it,
    the world, and all who live in it;" Psalm 24:1

    You keep PROVING you are the Anti-Christ.

    No, YOU keep proving it! Of course you don't know this Scripture either!

    "I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." 2 John 1:7

    Why do you bother, Hihn? Do the voices in your head keep tormenting you to keep it up? You know you won't, you can't win, so why bother with the lies?

  • ace_m82||

    1) BY KILLING THEM!

    No kidding! Get off (God's) front lawn!

    2) "Private" property???

    Yes, the Creator has the right to what he created, right?

    Deuteronomy 20, BLASPHEMER...
    THAT IS GENOCIDE

    No, it's killing the trespassers who won't leave.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You pathetic piece of shit stalker

    You DENIED they were all killed.

    Now you deny the mass genocide of the Canaanites ... which you first defended

    It wasn't genocide. It was driving them off private property.

    The Holy Bible PROVES you a liar and a fraud, so .... YOU DEFEND THE KILLING THAT YOU DENIED.

    As Christ weeps in silent shame.

  • ace_m82||

    You DENIED they were all killed.

    Most of the Canaanites likely left (that's what you do when people who are taking over start winning). Hence the "drove off".

    The Holy Bible PROVES you a liar and a fraud

    No, the Scriptures show that the nations were driven out.

    www.biblegateway.com/quicksear.....ersion=NIV

    29 references to the term in the NIV.

    As Christ weeps in silent shame.

    And now you're using God's name in vain. You are truly proof of the depravity of man, Hihn.

    But regardless of your lies about great and wonderful things you don't understand:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Michael Hihn||

    MOAR BULLSHIT!

    WHY DO YOU CALL IT PRIVATE PROPERTY?

    Because it's God's property.

    WHY DO YOU CALL IT PRIVATE PROPERTY?

    WHY DID YOU LIE ABOUT THE CANAANITES NOT BEING SLAUGHTERED.

    Lot's got killed, true,

    GOD COMMANDED TOTAL ANNIHILATION

    and more left.

    O M F G

    MOAR LIES ABOUT THE WORD OF GOD.

    Disgusting. Self-Righteous. Liar

  • ace_m82||

    "WHY DO YOU CALL IT PRIVATE PROPERTY?"

    Because God made it. It's his. Are you daft?

    "GOD COMMANDED TOTAL ANNIHILATION"

    God told them to kill all the ones that were there. He didn't tell them not to let them leave. He "drove them out". Use a Bible concordance if you dare.

    "MOAR LIES ABOUT THE WORD OF GOD."

    You know nothing, and refuse to learn when given the references. You are a fool.

  • Mehitable||

    You are absolutely right, of course, and the Brits will ignore this advice at their peril. Along with the rest of Europe. The Muslims WILL NOT assimilate into Western culture. Their goal is to infiltrate our countries and convert them eventually to Islam. That IS the goal. Ignore and you will die out. They have been trying to conquer the world for 1400 years and only active warfare from Europeans - generally Eastern Europeans and Spaniards, has stopped them. It's time for all of Europe to unite and drive them out again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Shame on your hatred, in DEFIANCE of Jesus Christ. And you ignorance. of history, precious snowflake.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks everyone he doesn't like is a Christian.

  • vek||

    It's not his fault current Muslim societies are all backwards, ignorant, and savage. Christians certainly had their bad periods too! Thing is if some group of people moving to your country skyrockets the murder, rape, assault, etc rates... Uses public assistance at multiple times the rate of natives... And generally doesn't give a fuck about any of your social norms, political customs, or anything else... Why in gods name should you let such troublesome people in?

    To prove how virtuous you are? Fuck that. By all metrics basically every ethnic group that isn't from Asia is a net negative for any western nation. PERIOD. That's by the real hard numbers. So I say only let in a small fraction, the cream of the crop, from shitty places. Upper class people from any society will not have the same problems that lower class trash from the third world will. It's just common sense.

  • Mehitable||

    You are absolutely right, of course, and the Brits will ignore this advice at their peril. Along with the rest of Europe. The Muslims WILL NOT assimilate into Western culture. Their goal is to infiltrate our countries and convert them eventually to Islam. That IS the goal. Ignore and you will die out. They have been trying to conquer the world for 1400 years and only active warfare from Europeans - generally Eastern Europeans and Spaniards, has stopped them. It's time for all of Europe to unite and drive them out again.

  • Mehitable||

    You are absolutely right, of course, and the Brits will ignore this advice at their peril. Along with the rest of Europe. The Muslims WILL NOT assimilate into Western culture. Their goal is to infiltrate our countries and convert them eventually to Islam. That IS the goal. Ignore and you will die out. They have been trying to conquer the world for 1400 years and only active warfare from Europeans - generally Eastern Europeans and Spaniards, has stopped them. It's time for all of Europe to unite and drive them out again.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Point taken, but good luck with sharpening rebar against a rock -- or against anything, for that matter.

    Knives in whatever configuration are as old as human history itself. The Vikings, used the same knives, swords and axes in battle that they used in working their farms. Peasants and farmers in Okinawa found ways to develop "legal" edged weapons for farming to get around the Japanese proscription against weapons and used them in battle against the Japanese.

    Knives are generally the most useful and adaptable tool we have. We have multi-tools, stub knives and choppers. As Gibbs constantly reminds his crew: "never leave home without a knife". I don't, unless I am walking into a place with a metal detector, in which case I usually just leave it in my car until I'm back. If you don't have a multi-tool, get one and see how regularly you put it -- not just the blade -- to use. Some knives like throwing knives are largely for sport and target practice (at least in civilian life).

    To those who really believe all this is about societal safety and not disarmament of the people, give all this some thought. They'll be banning forks next.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing)

  • SoWhassup||

    Well, if you're willing to exist on the government pablum, you don't even need a spoon! It's much safer than tose sharp edged soylent green crackers!

  • ||

    Knives are killing one at a time, why not ban vans that are killing 5/6/7 at a time? Vans and trucks are killing more people so why not do something about them?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you realize you said something that stupid in public??

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano projecting like a 25-screen movie theater.

  • freda||

    Yes, assault vans are terrible and should be banned.

  • drisco304||

    With knives safely banned, knuckles will be next. Not brass knuckles. Just knuckles. All knuckles will be responsibly sheathed in a glove or similar whilst passing through the city.

  • Longtobefree||

    Padded glove.
    For examples of how this makes knuckles safe, watch any Rocky movie.

  • Ajax999||

    Politicians are government workers, and as such are not accustomed to actually making things work. Therefore they will implement policies, such as banning knives or other weapons, knowing full well that doing so will not stop violent criminals from harming people. But this futile act will permit the politicians to get on the news announcing how much they care and that they have taken action against violence.

    This type of response will get the politician through a recent news cycle or possibly an election cycle, convincing their feckless voters that something is being done against crime. This sort of deceitful and cynical response from our elected officials is not at all unlike politicians who are bankrupting America with the national debt while going on TV and announcing that they support cutting wasteful government programs, without ever reducing the budget by a single penny.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Oh.

  • freda||

    Are the British Pols going to ban sharpened sticks? Battery acid? Broken bottles? Women's spiked heels? Everything and anything is a weapon.

  • nolcon||

    Please don't ban spiked heels... they're hot!

  • SoWhassup||

    Next will be their cricket bats, "petrol", building lumber ad infinitum. They surrendered their freedom and testes long ago.

  • Mehitable||

    Virtually anyone who's been to prison knows how to make a knife. You can make a shiv out of anything. Everyone knows what the real problem is in London and the rest of Europe. It's the large population of MUSLIM immigrants & refugees who have not and will not assimilate into our Western culture. They will ALWAYS remain a violent problem, just as they are in their native lands. Everyone KNOWS this but WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY IT IN PUBLIC. Censorship and political correctness will not change or end it.

  • nolcon||

    You are precisely correct! Most people are just not brave enough to say it.

  • Bisley||

    The leftist politicians are just as demented in the UK as they are everywhere else. The problem with violent crime is the evil and mentally defective people who do it, not whatever implements they may use. Unless the police are good enough to catch most of the criminals, and the laws and courts impose sentences harsh enough to be a deterrent (with the option of the death penalty for particularly violent crimes), it will continue to get worse.

    The law-abiding public should be encouraged to carry arms, and defend themselves. There isn't one violent encounter in a hundred where police are near enough to intervene before it's over. It's up to individuals to provide for their own defense, and they should have the option of carrying arms to do it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The leftist politicians are just as demented in the UK as they are everywhere else

    Left - Right = Zero
    Brainwashed goobers, reciting memorized soundbites for the political elites.

  • Tamfang||

    Fresh fruit!

  • tommhan||

    Well I guess the next to go will be forks, hammers, bats, baseballs and when all that fails they can always cut off all hands.

  • MikeLP59||

    How about a war on salad forks? Get them off our tables! They're unnecessary and confusing. Think about how many lives could be saved.

  • nolcon||

    Love it!

  • daddy warbucks||

    UK, Australia, Canada (everybody under the British royalty's thumb) take your self respect back, mobs with pitchforks and torches did it many times in the past.

    ...life for the commoners:

    The UK: RISE of the Anarcho-Tyranny STATE

  • daddy warbucks||

    The UK: RISE of the Anarcho-Tyranny STATE
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/KUEOmlPM08A

  • Johnniebgoode||

    Easier to police the law abiding these days

  • Philster7656||

    These actions are very worrisome to me. Sure, its fine to ban the knife, but what about the spork? The spork is responsible for almost as many deaths as the knife, especially the assault spork. There is no reason for any citizen to have an assault spork. When will politicians wake up to their responsibility to keep us all safe? Ban the spork immediately!

  • AlexAlexander||

    In a nation of sheep one wolf with a gun or a knife will make them all kneel.

  • ace_m82||

  • Mannie||

    All weapons of any kind are banned in prisons, with severe penalties for possession. I guess that's why no one is ever stabbed or cut in prison.

  • DoctorJ||

    What a pity. UK residents should instead declare war on British politicians.

  • nolcon||

    This is really dumb! I carry a gun 24/7 in Texas... I'm not a cop and haven't shot anyone... don't want to. I do go to church on Sunday though.... Hmmm...

    I sure hope no one kills anyone with a screwdriver... lot's of handymen need that.

  • SamHell||

    I've talked to a number of UK residents on reddit who defend these knife laws saying that there isn't a total ban on them. Your allowed to carry a pocket knife if your hiking or at work or in the kitchen - that if your found with a knife and have a good story for it than it's at the officers discretion weather to ruin your life or not. Other than the minor inconvenience many (on the r/knives subreddit no less) brits see no problem with giving up control. When pressed on "isn't self defense a valid reason to carry?" most seem to become mortified that you would want to harm your attacker. One guy even tried to tell me I could be murdering some poor kid thats just going through a phase.

  • Nicholai Hel||

    Well now that you have banned guns, acid, and knives, the Muslims will have no choice but to bludgeon you people in London to death with hammers or run you over with trucks.
    It would not surprise me if you people elect the leader of the Hezbollah for your next mayor, bring in another million jihadists and continue to write more absurd articles about your skyrocketing murder rates. Hilarious.

  • MarioLand||

    Yeah right and they should ban vans and trucks and everything else while they are at it. They are never going to get its the person not the object, the mad will use any object they can banned or not they will find a way. Knifes are not the only things that are sharp.... The law makers are just as mad as the mental committing the crimes....

  • willard3rd||

    My gosh, just reading this should show the stupidity and ignorance of supposedly educated people.
    "Guns cause violence- ban them. Knives cause violence- ban them." What's next- sticks and stones? Why not just arrest everyone?- they will be safe in jail! (sigh).
    You don't change a criminally bad person into a saint by taking away his/her weapons any more than you change a dog into a cat by calling him "whiskers"!
    "There's no reason for anyone to carry a knife"; Words of wisdom from the very people who's actions have done nothing but disarm the law abiding person who should have the right to protect themselves? Is there any reason the politician needs a body guard, while the people are left to defend themselves alone? Is this why they care not for acting as mommy and daddy to the people who are perfectly aware of this condescending treatment?
    If these lawmakers think disarming is the answer- why don't they disarm their military to make the country safer? After all, getting rid of weapons should mean world peace- shouldn't it? But wait- that would mean the other countries would have the weapons and could easily invade your country! Why does it work for them and not the people? Hmmmm.
    What BS! What Morons that run countries!

  • SamHell||

    I think the idea is wrapped up in eliminating cultures that are fixated on an object, "gun culture" and "knife culture" are phrases that seem to imagine cult like worship of weapons. The weapon worship is driving them to kill, sort of like how Dungeons and Dragons turned teens into devil worshipers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You don't change a criminally bad person into a saint by taking away his/her weapons

    Nobody says that either.
    Chill.

  • libertynugget||

    I demand Congress make edged objects in American prisons illegal!

  • BigAl45lc||

    Since I can make an edged weapon from a stone, are rocks next?

  • SomeDude68||

    Soon... you won't be ALLOWED (by the $TATE) to wear boots (increased instances of kicking). And due to the deadly clubs, no more Badminton, Ping Pong, Cricket, or Tennis.
    -- Horseback riding is currently under review, due to the possible trampling carnage.

  • Michael Hihn||

    THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano mocks hyperbole, thinks gun bans are peachy.

  • ||

    Whenever our leftists say they only want "common sense gun control", remember that their counterparts across the pond are seizing peoples' knives.

    This is a long game to them. They will never be satisfied. They will continue adding small restrictions to us forever until we wake up as total slaves without ever having noticed it happening.

  • vek||

    Anybody who has ever looked into the stats knows that the overwhelming majority of crime in the UK is committed by non whites, mostly Muslims in the UK. These are hard facts.

    The same is true throughout the European countries that have let in lots of low education immigrants in recent years. They're responsible for VASTLY disproportionate percentages of all crimes. Sweden is going from being a dirty socialist, but incredibly peaceful and well ordered society, to a total shit hole. Europe is finally getting a taste of what America has had to put up with since the civil war ended!

    Broken cultures are broken cultures... And you don't want them in your society. Other than Asians, no other non white group on earth has ever shown themselves to be able to live peacefully and productively in a western society. So I say fuck 'em, stop letting them in period. Or at least only let in the 1% of them straight from the top of their dodgy societies. Upper class people tend to not have issues with crime whatever their culture.

  • vek||

    Mass immigration from broken places will only break your civilization. The theory that after decades, or generations, of being a HUGE net negative to your society, they will eventually become average and normal is a HORRIBLE excuse for why we should put up with the carnage and increased taxes in the short term... We have ZERO obligation to fuck up our society for some foreigners benefit. PERIOD. The facts with welfare rates, crime rates, etc speak for themselves. High education immigrants, and Asian immigrants in particular, are a solidly good bet... Everybody else is a proven failure. So why keep trying a failed experiment? It's madness.

    It saddens me to no end that all of the great western European nations have decided to destroy their ancient and amazing societies for the delusional utopian pipe dream of multiculturalism. All that will happen is the destruction of Europe. Eastern Europe has been keeping it real... But I just can't get as into Poland or Hungary as England or Germany. Poland is cool, I've been there... But they're just not quite as awesome in my book. But the east may be all that remains of European civilization in a few decades. What a tragedy. :(

  • Michael Hihn||

    The United States has had a negative replacement birth rate for nearly a decade.
    Without immigration, our population would be declining. Sharply.
    Why would you double the FICA taxes on your own children and grandchildren?

    This has been happening worldwide. If the present trends continue, the birthrate will be negative worldwide. The ONLY economies who prosper will be those with best COMPETE FOR IMMIGRANTS. This was foreshadowed in the Reagan administration, ridiculing the right-wing zombie-fucks who were then screeching we'd soon have only 2 workers per retiree. "Any economy cannot function with so few workers. Long before that happened, we would ... INCREASE IMMIGRATION."

    Common sense can be SO inconvenient.
    When coupled with knowledge of the facts.

  • vek||

    Actually you're full of shit Hihn... As usual.

    There are pros and cons to having negative birth rates. Japan for instance has actually been doing JUST FINE on the per capita GDP/income front... WHICH IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

    We can grow our overall GDP by importing half illiterate foreigners who never integrate, but that doesn't increase quality of life for anybody here. One benefit of a shrinking population is it puts downward pressure on real estate prices. They've been falling in the suburbs of Tokyo for years. The core of the city is still stupid expensive, but you can literally score basically free houses within commuting distance in the burbs now. That sure ain't the case in NYC! Yet it must be nice for the young Japanese families who don't want to live in the city anyway...

    As for the government ponzi scheme programs, those are the only semi legit argument... But the thing is they're failing with or without immigrants. So we should just eliminate them or alter them to be sustainable.

    I'm down with high skill immigration, but these low skill people are a NET NEGATIVE drain on the current Americans because they're all low income. THEY ARE NOT NET PAYERS.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online