Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Kath]

If kids are now reduced to attacking each other with potato peelers I see that as going in the right direction.

A giant game of whack-a-mole.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Who are you and where is the real GCF?

Well, sometimes I’m just right. I do re-think it though.

You can’t possibly think through this and see it as a good thing, though. It will not stop here.

I haven't seen enough information about this case to make a decision on it.
On reading around there does seem to be a case to be made that kids are finding new ways to get around knife laws, like certain types of peelers.
I see two opposing ways of looking at it.
One side thinks the only way to deal with violence and murder is to make sure everyone is tooled up like a private army.
The other side thinks that trying to restrict people from carrying weapons around in public is the way to go.
If kids are now reduced to attacking each other with potato peelers I see that as going in the right direction.

You can’t measure the value of legislation by the immediate effects. Think longer term.

Because laws do not go away easily, once they’re passed.

Also, has the overall danger level been lowered enough to justify restricting even the most mundane tasks of citizens? Especially when you consider that this could (and will eventually) be used to prosecute anyone and everyone at will?

[Montegriffo]

If kids are now reduced to attacking each other with potato peelers I see that as going in the right direction.

A giant game of whack-a-mole.

Maybe, but at least each new mole will be slightly less lethal than the last.

[BjornP]

Or... it's about discouraging kids from carrying stabby things around in public.
shrug/

What about slightly less sharp, but still dangerously gougy things? Like...fingers? And you can kill someone by stepping on their throats, so...ban legs?

Seriously though... should crime be determined merely by what someone can/might do with any object? You might bludgeon a kid to death with a smartphone, doesn't mean you will. If we're talking objects singularly designed to kill other people, sure, make laws restricting public use... but everything else that may be used to kill, maim, hurt other citizens...? Silly.

Just like you don't need to ban rocks because a criminal inflicted injury or death upon his victim using a rock, you don't need to ban kitchen implements because someone may use them for crime. Instead, just punish the actual attack/assault/killing act.

[nmoore63]

Or... it's about discouraging kids from carrying stabby things around in public.
shrug/

Dear Lord, please let me live long enough to see Britain outlaw "the stick"

[Haumana]

The sad part is that you don't know you are already in a police state.

Right? Almost downright dismal if one were to really ponder the mindset and how easily it slowly becomes normal to some.

[Montegriffo]

Especially when you consider that this could (and will eventually) be used to prosecute anyone and everyone at will?

Why would that be the natural conclusion? No profit motive in our penal system.
This is aimed at de-escalating gang warfare in a few inner cities. This is not going to effect British Kath on her way to a dinner party with her favorite potato peeler just in case she has to help out.

[Haumana]

Why would that be the natural conclusion? No profit motive in our penal system.
This is aimed at de-escalating gang warfare in a few inner cities. This is not going to effect British Kath on her way to a dinner party with her favorite potato peeler just in case she has to help out.

Why not? All that would need to be done is a tighter enforcement of existing laws. You can't see the forest through the trees.

But the water is so warm.

[Montegriffo]

Or... it's about discouraging kids from carrying stabby things around in public.
shrug/

What about slightly less sharp, but still dangerously gougy things? Like...fingers? And you can kill someone by stepping on their throats, so...ban legs?

Seriously though... should crime be determined merely by what someone can/might do with any object? You might bludgeon a kid to death with a smartphone, doesn't mean you will. If we're talking objects singularly designed to kill other people, sure, make laws restricting public use... but everything else that may be used to kill, maim, hurt other citizens...? Silly.

Just like you don't need to ban rocks because a criminal inflicted injury or death upon his victim using a rock, you don't need to ban kitchen implements because someone may use them for crime. Instead, just punish the actual attack/assault/killing act.

What?
Nobody is banning kitchen utensils.
Sure you can wait till someone is stabbed then punish the attacker or you could try to prevent the stabbing by having fewer people carrying knives about.

[Kath]

Nobody is banning kitchen utensils.
Sure you can wait till someone is stabbed then punish the attacker or you could try to prevent the stabbing by having fewer people carrying knives about.

If I can get arrested for being in possession of a kitchen utensil, for all intents and purposes, that kitchen utensil is banned.

"It's not illegal, you just can't have it in your possession."