Nebraska Mall Shootings

[Dancing Mustard]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.

Yeah? Is that right? I honestly I doubt I'd be 'out of my depth' when discussing the subject of UK Criminal Law with any member of this forum. I mean, unless you'd like to reveal the fact that you're a top QC...

But hey, let's go examine your 'points' to find out just how 'out of my depth' I really am:

Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.

I'm afraid you're not quite right there my verbose little friend; but don't worry, people who attempt to cite random legalese they found on the internet despite the fact that they have no legal knowledge tend to be.

Let's see what the House of Lords has to say on the subject of 'intent':

According to the judgement of Lord Lane in R v Simpson 78 Cr.App.R 115, S.1 is referring to any tool designed for, adapted for, or intended for, causing injury.
As for a definition of 'intended for' we need look no further than R v Edmonds [1963] 2 QB 142 where we find that this intent is satisfied by an intent to use the article to cause fear, and that the intent to use the article as 'offensive' is assumed where no useful and immediate task for the item can be cited by the accused.

So I think we can rather safely conclude that a pocket-knife can indeed be classified as an 'offensive weapon' regardless of its length. Whether the CPS would regard a prosecution as being in the public interest is another matter, but the fact is that you're just plain old wrong about pocket-knives not falling within the scope of S.1. It's that simple.

rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving f*ck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

Proving fuck-all? Not so much kiddo.
Trying to sound clever? Nope, I was just providing an accurate answer to another member of the forum... it was you who started the 'brain measuring contest' when you began ranting and raving because you hoped you'd scare me into admitting that I was somehow in error.

In conclusion, I'm afraid that you just don't know what you're talking about, and no amount of vitriolic ranting is going to change that. Trust me, I know an awful lot about UK criminal law, and you're not going to win this one, no matter how hard you dredge wikipedia.


Really though, It's a shame Nappy, this debate was going so very smoothly until you got into a little tiz and started trying to flame me. How about you take yourself a time-out and come back when you're prepared to stop acting like a hypocrite?

[comic boy]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.
Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.
As we know, they are often not. So, rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving f*ck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

Your views frankly deserve no respect !

My views deserve no respect?

Who is being intolerant now?

How dare you call me an intolerant bigot then simply make that assertion without bothering to contribute to the debate?

Pompous as well !

[dcowboys055]

Are you people for real right now? 9 people are dead and more are injured and your cracking jokes? Grow up and show some respect.

HAHAHAHA! ucabears telling people to grow up!

[Blastshot]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.
Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.
As we know, they are often not. So, rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving f*ck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

Your views frankly deserve no respect !

and until you get out of the fucking backseat and do something for this thread you have no respect from me(or many others i assume), or right to post of this thread. All you have done is spam, and insult people in this thread.

And now, did anyone even read my 2nd quote?

The publication, Small Arms Survey 2007:Guns and the City, includes estimates of civilian gun ownership for many of the world's countries. But as the program's director, Keith Krause, pointed out to reporters, "There is no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence".

And for the person who said that semi-automatic handguns should not be legal, i do not agree but see your point. Laws should be stricter about getting handguns.

I ask you, what where knives made for? They were made for killing, many thousands of years ago. We let them find many different uses over those many thousand years, but they are designed to cut, guns are designed for recreation-Airsoft guns, paintball guns, BBguns, all the way up to the 50cal. they are designed for pleasure.

And from now on i will only reply to people who do not insult others. I will not debate with people who insult people for beliefs, that is childish, immature,and utterly pointless.

The Hunter and the NRA are not exactly unbiased are they

And yes, NRA is baised, but so are you.

[Frigidus]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.

Yeah? Is that right? I honestly I doubt I'd be 'out of my depth' when discussing the subject of UK Criminal Law with any member of this forum. I mean, unless you'd like to reveal the fact that you're a top QC...

But hey, let's go examine your 'points' to find out just how 'out of my depth' I really am:

Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.

I'm afraid you're not quite right there my verbose little friend; but don't worry, people who attempt to cite random legalese they found on the internet despite the fact that they have no legal knowledge tend to be.

Let's see what the House of Lords has to say on the subject of 'intent':

According to the judgement of Lord Lane in R v Simpson 78 Cr.App.R 115, S.1 is referring to any tool designed for, adapted for, or intended for, causing injury.
As for a definition of 'intended for' we need look no further than R v Edmonds [1963] 2 QB 142 where we find that this intent is satisfied by an intent to use the article to cause fear, and that the intent to use the article as 'offensive' is assumed where no useful and immediate task for the item can be cited by the accused.

So I think we can rather safely conclude that a pocket-knife can indeed be classified as an 'offensive weapon' regardless of its length. Whether the CPS would regard a prosecution as being in the public interest is another matter, but the fact is that you're just plain old wrong about pocket-knives not falling within the scope of S.1. It's that simple.

rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving f*ck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

Proving f*ck-all? Not so much kiddo.
Trying to sound clever? Nope, I was just providing an accurate answer to another member of the forum... it was you who started the 'brain measuring contest' when you began ranting and raving because you hoped you'd scare me into admitting that I was somehow in error.

In conclusion, I'm afraid that you just don't know what you're talking about, and no amount of vitriolic ranting is going to change that. Trust me, I know an awful lot about UK criminal law, and you're not going to win this one, no matter how hard you dredge wikipedia.


Really though, It's a shame Nappy, this debate was going so very smoothly until you got into a little tiz and started trying to flame me. How about you take yourself a time-out and come back when you're prepared to stop acting like a hypocrite?

OK, yah, you aren't fucking 12.

[Napoleon Ier]

He's got to be way under 10....

I can't believe he doesn't understand the basic idea that a flick knife is not considered an offensive weapon. If it is used as such, it is naturally possible to prosecute.

[comic boy]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.
Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.
As we know, they are often not. So, rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving f*ck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

Your views frankly deserve no respect !

and until you get out of the fucking backseat and do something for this thread you have no respect from me(or many others i assume), or right to post of this thread. All you have done is spam, and insult people in this thread.

And now, did anyone even read my 2nd quote?

The publication, Small Arms Survey 2007:Guns and the City, includes estimates of civilian gun ownership for many of the world's countries. But as the program's director, Keith Krause, pointed out to reporters, "There is no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence".

And for the person who said that semi-automatic handguns should not be legal, i do not agree but see your point. Laws should be stricter about getting handguns.

I ask you, what where knives made for? They were made for killing, many thousands of years ago. We let them find many different uses over those many thousand years, but they are designed to cut, guns are designed for recreation-Airsoft guns, paintball guns, BBguns, all the way up to the 50cal. they are designed for pleasure.

And from now on i will only reply to people who do not insult others. I will not debate with people who insult people for beliefs, that is childish, immature,and utterly pointless.

The Hunter and the NRA are not exactly unbiased are they

And yes, NRA is baised, but so are you.

Do you not know the difference between having an opinion and bias ?
I trust those backseat remarks were not aimed at me

[Dancing Mustard]

He's got to be way under 10....

I can't believe he doesn't understand the basic idea that a flick knife is not considered an offensive weapon. If it is used as such, it is naturally possible to prosecute.

Wrong again my bumbling friend. Two propositions made, both entirely false...

"Flick Knives" are explicitly defined as being 'offensive' weapons (regardless of the purpose for which they are held), and Gibson v Wales is your go-to case.

Furthermore, the fact that an article is used 'offensively' does not of itself make it an 'offensive weapon'; we know that because R v Jura [1954] 1 QB 503 tells us so. Indeed, the decision was very recently followed in the case of C v DPP [2002] Crim.LR 322

Any more erroneous remarks you'd like to make regarding UK Criminal Law? I hope you're making notes about this, unless of course you're determined to continue demonstrating your immense ignorance about this topic?

Come now, if I'm so 'out of my depth' against your professed expertise in this field then you should have no difficulty citing legal precedent to contradict me here...

Or of course, you could just admit that you're 100% wrong and that you've been acting like a conceited ass for the entirety of this exchange?

[Blastshot]

Unfortunately for you Nappy Ire, my quote is also current UK legislation; I found it in a book called 'Archbold Criminal Evidence and Proceedings', with which I am sure you are familiar. Just in case you're not though I'll tell you what it is, it's the foremost criminal practitioner's manual in the UK, in other words, it's the book that judges read the law from.

What this boils down to is this: I'm right here, and you're talking out of your gaping rectum.

No, I am quoting legislation correctly, you have quoted it incorrectly. You are out of your depth.
Section 1 of the CPA is refering to weapons intended for offensive use, which you can't actualy prove, a pocket knife could well be simply used for utility.
As we know, they are often not. So, rather than using misquoted legisltation to seem clever whilst in fact proving f*ck-all, go read, think, intellectually mature, then come and debate. Or at least have a respectful tone.

Your views frankly deserve no respect !

and until you get out of the fucking backseat and do something for this thread you have no respect from me(or many others i assume), or right to post of this thread. All you have done is spam, and insult people in this thread.

And now, did anyone even read my 2nd quote?

The publication, Small Arms Survey 2007:Guns and the City, includes estimates of civilian gun ownership for many of the world's countries. But as the program's director, Keith Krause, pointed out to reporters, "There is no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence".

And for the person who said that semi-automatic handguns should not be legal, i do not agree but see your point. Laws should be stricter about getting handguns.

I ask you, what where knives made for? They were made for killing, many thousands of years ago. We let them find many different uses over those many thousand years, but they are designed to cut, guns are designed for recreation-Airsoft guns, paintball guns, BBguns, all the way up to the 50cal. they are designed for pleasure.

And from now on i will only reply to people who do not insult others. I will not debate with people who insult people for beliefs, that is childish, immature,and utterly pointless.

The Hunter and the NRA are not exactly unbiased are they

And yes, NRA is baised, but so are you.

Do you not know the difference between having an opinion and bias ?
I trust those backseat remarks were not aimed at me

yes, and you are mistaken, those are intended for you.

[comic boy]

In that case I think you should actualy read the whole thread before making yourself look a complete prick, it was me that brought up the topic of gun control you imbecile :lol How exactly do you come to the conclusion that I didnt contribute to the debate ?

[Guiscard]

He's got to be way under 10....

I can't believe he doesn't understand the basic idea that a flick knife is not considered an offensive weapon. If it is used as such, it is naturally possible to prosecute.

Wrong again my bumbling friend. Two propositions made, both entirely false...

"Flick Knives" are explicitly defined as being 'offensive' weapons (regardless of the purpose for which they are held), and Gibson v Wales is your go-to case.

Furthermore, the fact that an article is used 'offensively' does not of itself make it an 'offensive weapon'; we know that because R v Jura [1954] 1 QB 503 tells us so. Indeed, the decision was very recently followed in the case of C v DPP [2002] Crim.LR 322

Any more erroneous remarks you'd like to make regarding UK Criminal Law? I hope you're making notes about this, unless of course you're determined to continue demonstrating your immense ignorance about this topic?

Come now, if I'm so 'out of my depth' against your professed expertise in this field then you should have no difficulty citing legal precedent to contradict me here...

Or of course, you could just admit that you're 100% wrong and that you've been acting like a conceited ass for the entirety of this exchange?

Well done.

Anyway, the main point about knives is that if I, as a mentally unhinged psycho, decide to kill as many people as possible before topping myself I couldn't cause the carnage we've seen recently.

[Napoleon Ier]

He's got to be way under 10....

I can't believe he doesn't understand the basic idea that a flick knife is not considered an offensive weapon. If it is used as such, it is naturally possible to prosecute.

Wrong again my bumbling friend. Two propositions made, both entirely false...

"Flick Knives" are explicitly defined as being 'offensive' weapons (regardless of the purpose for which they are held), and Gibson v Wales is your go-to case.

Furthermore, the fact that an article is used 'offensively' does not of itself make it an 'offensive weapon'; we know that because R v Jura [1954] 1 QB 503 tells us so. Indeed, the decision was very recently followed in the case of C v DPP [2002] Crim.LR 322

Any more erroneous remarks you'd like to make regarding UK Criminal Law? I hope you're making notes about this, unless of course you're determined to continue demonstrating your immense ignorance about this topic?

Come now, if I'm so 'out of my depth' against your professed expertise in this field then you should have no difficulty citing legal precedent to contradict me here...

Or of course, you could just admit that you're 100% wrong and that you've been acting like a conceited ass for the entirety of this exchange?

It is legal to carry a blade under 3 inches if it is not intended for offensive use.

You've entirely missed the point....

[The1exile]

Flick knives = switchblades?

Also, DM, are you in serious business as a lawyer?

[muy_thaiguy]

Flick knives = switchblades?

Also, DM, are you in serious business as a lawyer?

I was thinking pocket knives, but switch blades makes more sense.

[Guiscard]

Flick knives = switchblades?

Also, DM, are you in serious business as a lawyer?

I was thinking pocket knives, but switch blades makes more sense.

The law Nappy is reffering to pretty much only relates to swiss army knives. Has to be a blade of less than three inches which 'flicks' out by you pulling it out of the handle. You're not allowed blades which are mechanically released by a switch or 'gravity' blades which can be 'snapped' out through a quick flick of the wrist.

But Mustard has quite rightly pointed to legal precedent where even those blades are pretty much illegal to simply carry. You have to have good cause basically. Self defense isn't good cause. If you're going camping they're not gonna arrest you for a swiss army knife, but they are if you're carrying it out on the town on a Friday night or whatever. I know a few people who have carried knives for self defense on the estates and got picked up for it. Some quite harshly punished. I strongly doubt any criminal could argue they were carrying it for non-offensive cause and no-one's posted any precedent to the contrary so far.

[Dancing Mustard]

It is legal to carry a blade under 3 inches if it is not intended for offensive use.

You've entirely missed the point....

No I haven't missed the point, that appears to be your modus operandi not mine (ha ha, crime pun!).

The point you don't seem able to grasp here Nappy-Rash is that it isn't legal to do any such thing with a sub 3-inch blade if it is the opinion of a court of law that you don't have a 'good and immediate' lawful purpose that you intend to put the blade to. And contrary to your loudly held opinion, that makes the carrying of such blades a crime. I can't understand why it's proving so difficult to impress the state of the law on you, but let me repeat one more time: just because it is always illegal to carry blades longer than 3 inches doesn't make it always legal to carry blades shorter than that.

How much harder do I have to hit you with the facts? You're just plain wrong here.

Now little Nap-Nap, I've provided a great deal of evidence for my proposition that it is illegal to carry knives in the UK (which is correct), but you appear to be either too blind to see it, or too stupid to understand it. Simply typing your erroneous and unsupported proposition in bold type isn't going to make it right. Either come back with some real legal precedents, or just shut up and accept that you're wrong.

In other words: I win. You lose. Good day.



PS. Guiscard is spot on with what he is trying to say about the impossibility of a person perpetrating a mass public homicide with only a bladed instrument.

[Dancing Mustard]

Flick knives = switchblades?

Yes, I think that's what they call them across the pond. Guiscard's description of 'flick knives' was pretty accurate to be fair.

[The1exile]

Flick knives = switchblades?

Yes, I think that's what they call them across the pond.

Was just recalling watching 12 Angry Men,which featured one wuite prominently as an illegal weapon (in what, the 50's?).

[muy_thaiguy]

Flick knives = switchblades?

Yes, I think that's what they call them across the pond. Guiscard's description of 'flick knives' was pretty accurate to be fair.

And what about the handy little tool, the pocket knife? Not the Swiss one, not the switch blade, but just a normal pocket knife?

[Napoleon Ier]

DM, I've tried reasoning with you, it isn't working. Let's just agree to disagree?

I think the original idea was to prove that oulawing the ownership/carrying a weapon for self-defence is outrageous. I want to feel safe in my own home, or in the streets. Frankly, guns probably save more people in the states, where yes, I think various social factors have cumulatively caused a more violence-prone society, but nonetheless, the majority of these incidents come from gang warfare. there are equally good examples(Israel, Switzerland) which show gun-control is a bad thing :

again I maintain

"cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscriptes catapultae haberunt"

[Dancing Mustard]

Flick knives = switchblades?

Yes, I think that's what they call them across the pond. Guiscard's description of 'flick knives' was pretty accurate to be fair.

And what about the handy little tool, the pocket knife? Not the Swiss one, not the switch blade, but just a normal pocket knife?

Not without 'good and immediate' purpose.

Basically the answer is always no...

[muy_thaiguy]

Flick knives = switchblades?

Yes, I think that's what they call them across the pond. Guiscard's description of 'flick knives' was pretty accurate to be fair.

And what about the handy little tool, the pocket knife? Not the Swiss one, not the switch blade, but just a normal pocket knife?

Not without 'good and immediate' purpose.

Basically the answer is always no...

Well that sucks. Good to know though.

[Dancing Mustard]

DM, I've tried reasoning with you, it isn't working. Let's just agree to disagree?

Bollocks.

You haven't tried anything of the sort, all you've done is yell an erroneous proposition several times with absolutely no evidence to support it. You've also ignored a great deal of legal precedent that contradicts your ridiculous opinion and failed to argue against it in any valid way.

Basically you can get shagged you pompous prick, you've behaved like a spoilt child this evening and defied all appeals to logic and evidence (by me and others). There's no agreeing to disagree here, you're just plain wrong. It's that simple.

Now grow up and accept it like an adult, instead of trying to save your severely battered face.

[Napoleon Ier]

DM, I've tried reasoning with you, it isn't working. Let's just agree to disagree?

Bollocks.

You haven't tried anything of the sort, all you've done is yell an erroneous proposition several times with absolutely no evidence to support it. You've also ignored a great deal of legal precedent that contradicts your ridiculous opinion and failed to argue against it in any valid way.

Basically you can get shagged you pompous prick, you've behaved like a spoilt child this evening and defied all appeals to logic and evidence (by me and others). There's no agreeing to disagree here, you're just plain wrong. It's that simple.

Now grow up and accept it like an adult, instead of trying to save your severely battered face.

I quoted the damn law at you and you go and come out with your garbage, its all irrelevant and not exactly intellectually stimulating, you can quote cases which probably dont prove shit, good for you, lets move on little child.

[Napoleon Ier]

and why the hell did I waste a 600th post on you...