133
134

Spotted in the UK (x/post - r/guns) (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by balle-balle

all 35 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]Beast_and_the_harlot 12 points13 points ago

That's not a knife, this is a knife!

That's a spoon...

...I see you've played knifey-spoony before.

[–]Senor_Wilson 1 point2 points ago

I don't know where this is from, but I'd like to know

[–]werdan 1 point2 points ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJcMDG8zjoc

[–]howtospeak 13 points14 points ago

I already feel safer.

[–]Jayru 11 points12 points ago

My family is from Jamaica, and the thought that you can't own a machete is just weird. How else can you "open" a coconut? My 80 year grandmas still run around doing gardening with a machete.

[–]DevilsCandyCane 2 points3 points ago

Does anyone under the age of 18 ever buy cutlery anyway?

[–]ainrialai 3 points4 points ago

This law has been on the books for 78 years, and this is the first time one has tried.

[–]saltyxdog 1 point2 points ago

I moved out at 17 and had to buy silverware...

[–]kwapz 13 points14 points ago

It gets even more absurd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCRamTAJEY&feature=youtu.be&t=3m

(A guy basically getting arrested for owning a Russian-style hat).

[–]Ullallulloo 0 points1 point ago

Arrested for posting a picture of himself holding something illegal.

[–]Swrdfshtrmbns 8 points9 points ago

That's not absurd? It was a wooden slat.

[–]Ullallulloo -2 points-1 points ago

Yeah, arresting someone for that's still absurd, but it's better than a hat.

[–]Swrdfshtrmbns 1 point2 points ago

What do you mean by better? Better in terms of legal strength or better in terms of a photo of a wooden slat being a compelling enough interest for police to spend time arresting people?

[–]BurningSock 2 points3 points ago

So true. If we ban "assault weapons", we're fucked. The government will roll right through us with whatever they want.

[–]titykaka 1 point2 points ago

It's true, I live in the UK and it is a daily struggle to find usable cutlery. Restaurants cannot serve steak due to the dangers of steak knives and barbers were banned in 1998 for using tools which were excessively dangerous.

[–]Senor_Wilson 1 point2 points ago

Do you guys sell sheet metal? Knives are super primitive... I could make a machete in less than an hour.

[–]titykaka 1 point2 points ago

Metal of any kind is closely monitored by the government, I have no idea how one would find a piece of sheet metal without smuggling it in from abroad.

[–]LeftyGunNut -1 points0 points ago

You jest, yet given the circumstances it's almost hard to tell...

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 0 points1 point ago

What? Really?

Even then, I'm sure you could get your hands on sheet metal and make anything out of it without the government knowing.

What happens when someone builds a metal fence?

Do they watch those and make sure no one utilizes the fact that those can be made with metal poles?

[–]Dave_Hedgehog 0 points1 point ago

They aren't allowed to build fences out of anything that can be made "sharp". They have to be flimsy so no one can fashion dangerous items out of them or hurt themselves on the fence.

Same with doors etc.

[–]Senor_Wilson 0 points1 point ago

Well pretty much all of England is under CCTV, so I'm sure they'd see you steal stuff.

[–]harpomeh -4 points-3 points ago

I can't even contemplate how to respond to such a stupid comment.

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 3 points4 points ago

Ugh.

Banning "assault weapons" will do nothing.

None of these laws would have prevented Sandy Hook.

Connecticut has an "Assault Weapon" ban right now. They have had it since '94.

If you are for banning a gun based on the certain aesthetic features it has, then you are ill-informed.

We are already seeing the slippery-slope here in America.

For example,

  • First politicians invent the term "assault weapon" and they ban them for 10 years. Several states kept the ban, including Connecticut and New York.

  • They also invented that any mag above 10 rounds was "high capacity" and they banned the future production of such. 20-30 round mags are standard.

  • Now, in New York, they have expanded the definition of the phrase they invented. So now an "Assault Weapon' has been expanded to include many, many more guns.

  • Now New York has banned any mag with more than 7 rounds. These do not exist. People do not make or use 7 round mags. Many guns are now defunct. Any mag greater than 10 rounds must now be surrendered. 10 round mags cannot be made or transferred but those already owned may be kept. However, it is illegal to load more than 7 rounds in the 10 round mag.

  • Now if I accidentally put in an 8th round, rather than a 7th round, into my mag then I am committing a crime. One that can land me in prison. Great.

  • All "assault weapons" must now be registered. There can be no transfer, even between many family members. (perhaps all family members)

  • All ammunition sales require a background check for each sale. Do you really think stores can easily comply to this? Especially when many people get their ammunition from a chain store like Walmart.

  • No more online sale of ammunition. Well, now I have to spend a whole lot more money now since I cannot buy ammo online, and now each sale requires a background check.

  • If you buy "too much ammo" you will be put on a special list. Yes the law explicitly states this.

So please, I'd like to hear how you respond to such "stupid comments".

The slippery slope is here and being experienced. California is another great example.

[–]Jayru 1 point2 points ago

Honestly, I'd include the original NFA back in 1934 where the term "sporting purposes" was introduced. People argue certain guns have no sporting purpose (i.e. AR-15s). Now it's morphing into "semi-automatics and magazines with X capacity have no legitimate civilian (sporting) uses."

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 0 points1 point ago

I agree.

There has been no "compromise" in stripping away gun rights because there is never anything offered to the gun owners and citizens.

It's only been taking away since day one.

[–]superjeffbridges -1 points0 points ago

I'm always confused by reddit. Everybody's incredibly liberal but nobody wants to do anything about gun regulation. What.

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 1 point2 points ago

Ugh.

Banning "assault weapons" will do nothing.

None of these laws would have prevented Sandy Hook.

Connecticut has an "Assault Weapon" ban right now. They have had it since '94.

If you are for banning a gun based on the certain aesthetic features it has, then you are ill-informed.

We are already seeing the slippery-slope here in America.

For example,

  • First politicians invent the term "assault weapon" and they ban them for 10 years. Several states kept the ban, including Connecticut and New York.

  • They also invented that any mag above 10 rounds was "high capacity" and they banned the future production of such. 20-30 round mags are standard.

  • Now, in New York, they have expanded the definition of the phrase they invented. So now an "Assault Weapon' has been expanded to include many, many more guns.

  • Now New York has banned any mag with more than 7 rounds. These do not exist. People do not make or use 7 round mags. Many guns are now defunct. Any mag greater than 10 rounds must now be surrendered. 10 round mags cannot be made or transferred but those already owned may be kept. However, it is illegal to load more than 7 rounds in the 10 round mag.

  • Now if I accidentally put in an 8th round, rather than a 7th round, into my mag then I am committing a crime. One that can land me in prison. Great.

  • All "assault weapons" must now be registered. There can be no transfer, even between many family members. (perhaps all family members)

  • All ammunition sales require a background check for each sale. Do you really think stores can easily comply to this? Especially when many people get their ammunition from a chain store like Walmart.

  • No more online sale of ammunition. Well, now I have to spend a whole lot more money now since I cannot buy ammo online, and now each sale requires a background check.

  • If you buy "too much ammo" you will be put on a special list. Yes the law explicitly states this.

The slippery slope is here and being experienced. California is another great example.

[–]superjeffbridges -1 points0 points ago

I'm not for banning a gun based on it's aesthetic features, I'm for banning a gun based on how efficiently it kills people. I'm not saying gun violence would go away completely, I'm saying it would decrease. You honestly think that making effective killing machines harder to obtain would do absolutely nothing to gun violence in America?

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 0 points1 point ago

So far they've been banning weapons.

And yes, they are being banned on aesthetic and arbitrary features.

We had an "assault weapon" ban for 10 years. It had no effect on anything.

Like I said, none of these new laws in New York would have prevented sandy hook.

Connecticut has strict gun laws and an "assault weapons" ban since '94.

Criminals already have guns and they will always get them. This is where our gun violence is.

Even at that, gang members are going to find ways to kill each other and carry out murders. The same goes for junkies.

99.56% of firearms are used for their intended purpose.

There are estimations that guns are used 2.5 million times a year to legally defend oneself.

Of that, guns are used about 200,000 times a year by women to stop sexual assaults.

Furthermore, the second amendment is about the defense against tyranny. The SCOTUS has also ruled that this applies to the inidividual and in conjunction with the 14th amendment, everyone has a right to self defense.

Therefore, I think it's foolish to be for banning certain guns and certain aesthetic features and accessories.

[–]Patchacho 0 points1 point ago

I think I figured it out. There is a lot of trolls and keyboard warriors on reddit, these people are essentially weak people who want to seem tough, guns are naturally the next port of call.

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 1 point2 points ago

Ugh.

Banning "assault weapons" will do nothing.

None of these laws would have prevented Sandy Hook.

Connecticut has an "Assault Weapon" ban right now. They have had it since '94.

If you are for banning a gun based on the certain aesthetic features it has, then you are ill-informed.

We are already seeing the slippery-slope here in America.

For example,

  • First politicians invent the term "assault weapon" and they ban them for 10 years. Several states kept the ban, including Connecticut and New York.

  • They also invented that any mag above 10 rounds was "high capacity" and they banned the future production of such. 20-30 round mags are standard.

  • Now, in New York, they have expanded the definition of the phrase they invented. So now an "Assault Weapon' has been expanded to include many, many more guns.

  • Now New York has banned any mag with more than 7 rounds. These do not exist. People do not make or use 7 round mags. Many guns are now defunct. Any mag greater than 10 rounds must now be surrendered. 10 round mags cannot be made or transferred but those already owned may be kept. However, it is illegal to load more than 7 rounds in the 10 round mag.

  • Now if I accidentally put in an 8th round, rather than a 7th round, into my mag then I am committing a crime. One that can land me in prison. Great.

  • All "assault weapons" must now be registered. There can be no transfer, even between many family members. (perhaps all family members)

  • All ammunition sales require a background check for each sale. Do you really think stores can easily comply to this? Especially when many people get their ammunition from a chain store like Walmart.

  • No more online sale of ammunition. Well, now I have to spend a whole lot more money now since I cannot buy ammo online, and now each sale requires a background check.

  • If you buy "too much ammo" you will be put on a special list. Yes the law explicitly states this.

So please, don't call us all trolls, keyboard warrior, and people trying to be tough. We're reasonable people who know what's happening.

The slippery slope is here and being experienced. California is another great example.

[–]kingdom_of_heaven 0 points1 point ago

Sweet Arizona... :)

[–]SuperInternet 1 point2 points ago

Slippery slope man. Once you sell a butterknife to a 17 year old you start selling guns to babies.

[–]NedStarksHorse 1 point2 points ago

A few years back i got ID'd and refused service for a pair of kitchen scissors in Poundland (I'm a student dammit, don't judge!) I was over 18 aswell, i was told i had to be 21 or some such nonsense.

I can drive a car, drink booze (not at the same time), but you don't trust me with a crappy blunt pair of kitchen scissors?!

[–]Gorillaz_Noodle 1 point2 points ago

IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, CITIZEN!

Now buy the non-sharp, extra-safety-safe, shitty kind that the pre-schoolers use. You know, the one's that can't fucking cut anything.