Knife action

[stephanie]

Your going to have to eat with your hands there.:poke:

Published Date: 20 March 2007
Location: Yorkshire

View Gallery IN demanding tougher sentences for the perpetrators of knife-related crime, Britain's political leaders have, once again, sought a quick-fix when a more fundamental review is required.


The need to tackle this country's growing knife culture is self-explanatory following the recent spate of murders, and also growing concerns about the number of pupils attending Yorkshire schools equipped with offensive weapons.

However, this trend is unlikely to be halted by moves to increase the maximum jail sentence for carrying a knife in public from four to five years. Such tinkering is unlikely to serve as a deterrent when criminals know that the courts are powerless to enforce the strict letter of the law because of the prison overcrowding crisis.

Yet the political posturing over sentencing policy overlooks the fact that there should be absolutely no need for individuals of whatever age to carry a knife in public unless they are a tradesman.

Indeed, it is the failure of the police and Mpeg to recognise this reality which has created a climate where many young people either regard knives as a fashion accessory or as a means of self-defence.

However, the inevitable consequence of more dangerous weapons being in the public domain is an increased likelihood that they will be used to maim or kill.

Halting the sale and distribution of knives must, therefore, go hand in hand with tougher sentences.
Last Updated: 20 March 2007

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2133266&SectionID=104

[Hobbit]

I keep wanting this to be satire...

[5stringJeff]

Yet the political posturing over sentencing policy overlooks the fact that there should be absolutely no need for individuals of whatever age to carry a knife in public unless they are a tradesman.

Indeed, it is the failure of the police and Mpeg to recognise this reality which has created a climate where many young people either regard knives as a fashion accessory or as a means of self-defence.

However, the inevitable consequence of more dangerous weapons being in the public domain is an increased likelihood that they will be used to maim or kill.

Who decides whether someone "needs" to carry a weapon with them? Who gets to decide that one person's self-protection is OK, but someone else's isn't?!

Here's a hint to the Brits: the reason people are carrying knives is because you can't carry guns. If people were allowed to carry guns, the entire nation would see much less crime, because criminals wouldn't know if a potential victim was armed. So, repeal gun control, and you'll see the number of knives on the streets go down, and you'll get less crime.

[Gaffer]

Who decides whether someone "needs" to carry a weapon with them? Who gets to decide that one person's self-protection is OK, but someone else's isn't?!

Here's a hint to the Brits: the reason people are carrying knives is because you can't carry guns. If people were allowed to carry guns, the entire nation would see much less crime, because criminals wouldn't know if a potential victim was armed. So, repeal gun control, and you'll see the number of knives on the streets go down, and you'll get less crime.

Well said, I was thinking the same thing.