Thursday, August 02, 2012

When guns are outlawed...

The BBC always loves getting to sneer at underdeveloped barbarian nations with retrograde weapons-control laws. This time, however, it's not us at whom they're cocking a snook:
A teenager has killed eight people and wounded five others in a knife attack in China's Liaoning province, state media says.
If only the Chinese had civilised knives*.

Remember, kids: When murder is outlawed, only outlaws will murder!

*How long before Britons are reduced to using yarn scissors, wearing helmets to bed, and eating paste for entertainment? How quickly H.G. Wells' prophecies have come true: A race of globe-conquering merchant warriors reduced to a tame herd of soft, toothless Eloi in the span of a single human lifetime, with the exception of a small Morlock undercaste left to man the Forces and patrol the streets and wonder what has happened to their Sceptred Isle.


JohninMd(help?) said...

That hum you hear in the distance? That's just Winston Churchill spinning in his grave. they put an induction coil on the old boy, they could power England/Scotland for a thousand years.... find William Wallace an' they could juice the whole continant.

Old NFO said...

Didn't they already outlaw swords over there??? I seem to remember something about that.

homebru said...

Wondering if the incident in Liaoning was one of the dreaded "drive-by bayonettings" that BATFLSMFT is so concerned about.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, so stabbing is the only way a knife can be used as a weapon?

What are they going to do when the local barbarians remember that slashing is also part of a blades portfolio of weaponly uses?

Since they made those outlandish claims of how they couldnt be used as a weapon, does that leave them open to liability? Probably not,...


BEWARE of sharpened chopsticks!!!

Boat Guy said...

Having proudly associated with the "...small Morlock undercaste..." I'm convinced that (try as they may - and apparently do) their small numbers will not breed Great Britain back to existence...

Firehand said...

I posted on the 'pointless' knives a couple of years back, and made suitable noises about them, and actually got a comment from one of the people involved in that crap(God knows how he saw my bitching out of all the stuff out there); he was quite upset that I had a problem with such a 'necessary' matter, etc.

The land of Harry Flashman and Stamford Bridge come to this...

NFO, when Ewart Oakeshott was heading downhill in health he made arrangements before he died to get his sword collection to the US to a facility built to house it; otherwise, when he died the Brit government was going to seize it(Can't allow the family to keep such things, you know.)

Anonymous said...

Maybe all the Britons with balls got killed off in WWII?

RabidAlien said...'re not supposed to eat paste?

::quietly puts bottle back in lower left desk drawer::

Anonymous said...

In years past, when a medic in the 'hood, I recall few fatal stabbings. All the more surprising given that the average occupant of this burg was statistically more likely to meet an untimely end than a soldier in Viet Nam. When we were dispatched , the dulcet tones of the communications operator's voice generally requested our urgent presence at a "cutting" rather than a "stabbing". As it turned out, the most fatal of the edged weapons used in this particular city was the ubiquitous straight razor, and instrument not known for its pointy parts. Despite its lack of stabbing potential, it proved adept at draining formerly living things of their vital fluids at an alarming rate.

rickn8or said...

Anonymous, yep. Cut five ways: Long, Wide, Deep, Even and Often.

How long before bench grinders and files are licensed in that place where Great Britain used to be?

Anonymous said...

And 10 minutes with a hack saw and a bench grinder and we're back to pointy, and maybe double edged. Exactly how does this prevent the bad guys from getting pointy objects?

I also fail to see how this works the same in the kitchen. How do I get penetration into a melon squash or say a lobster with this knife? But like I said 10 minutes later, poof a workable knife not as safe for the cook as the one you can buy today mind you, but workable none the less.

Anonymous said...

And I should have checked between starting and posting. Sorry rickn8tor

Tim Ellwood said...

My fav part
"This is especially true of household products which are freely available to the very young and very old, and used by people who may be clumsy, short tempered, drunk or mentally or physically unwell. Most people fit into one or more of these categories at some time in their lives."

HerrBGone said...

Bench grinders and files make the job easier and faster. But all you really need is a scrap of metal and a rock to shape it. If you want to get fancy, switch to a 2 or 3 inch wide strip of leather to refine the edge. If you happen to have some jeweler’s rouge on hand so much the better. Wonderful results can be obtained using even the most primitive tools. Even the rock can be used as a bludgeon should you need to defend yourself before the knife is finished.

But then again, where Great Briton used to be all implements of this kind are obtained in stores which can be regulated by the control freaks from the government. So I guess it’s a moot point.

Able said...

Apt! Because as far as I remember the Morlocks were the descendants of the 'working class' minions forced to live/work underground to support their betters, the elite Eloi. The problem here is that a third class has been foisted on us, the unemployed, unemployable welfare class. That and the mass importation of all the third worlds (and EU, or do I repeat myself) dregs of society.

I alternate between utter disgust at what has happened to my country, to delight at how real British people continue to demonstrate their typical characteristics.

Don't laugh, but a knife of (blade length) longer than 3” is an automatic arrest here (don't even ask about swords, blowguns, shuriken, push-daggers, or … 'Dear God Protect Us' … guns). Much as your AWB the 'appearance' as opposed to it's effect is what our betters use to judge what should be banned (as someone who has treated multiple stab and slash wounds over the years, including deaths, where the wound channels is <2” I find it 'amusing'. Not of course mentioning that criminals ignore the ban - we had a box containing choice cleavers, machetes, spiked baseball bats, etc. confiscated from 'customers' during treatment at my last post, the guns were taken by the 'Old Bill').

The funny thing is, out of the multicultutral/elite enclaves (the cities), most older adults still carry a(n) (illegal) penknife or multi-tool. That with the growth of (rural) hunting, shooting (long gun only, unfortunately) and fishing tends to give me some hope that, like there, the presentation of this country by the brain-dead (MSM, politicians, etc. - sorry repeating myself again) isn't even close to the truth. Just because the elites and the welfare class are the most vociferous, and publicised, doesn't mean they're in the majority.

Hmm, just what is the best cooking method, and hot sauce, for politician?

Chris said...

Boiled in oil, add salt to raw flesh to taste. Or habenero sauce if it was a long-term office holder.

Anonymous said...

From the article:

"The first "anti-stab" knife will soon go on sale in Britain and has been designed to work as normal in the kitchen, but be ineffective as a weapon."

Because nobody over there owns a bench grinder, or a whetstone.

Mike James

Comrade Misfit said...

In a decade or so, a battalion of Germans, armed with nothing more than Kar98s, will be able to march through the Chunnel and conquer the entire island.

John said...

Solzhenitsyn report much the same sort of 'knife disarmament' as the Reds consolidated their grip and instituted the Terror. As well, career criminals were treated relatively leniently for such infractions, as their crime was not 'political'. They just were going about their oppressed-class daily work with the necessary tools.

But woe, and much worse, betide the counter-Revolutionary class found with a statutorily proscribed knife. Over 6" blade, I think - so the current Brits have exceeded the worst of the Russian Terror in their 'Auntie' zeal.

About a decade ago, a stock-boy was convicted of having TWO box-cutters upon his person, and the judge was pretty snarky about about NO NEED for having such a multiplicity of sharp things: obviously a person of possible low criminal character.

Yeah, I also do think that the two world wars did have an effect on the genetic stock over there, but not nearly as much effect on the vote, as the plain old Utopian song and dance.

Anonymous said...

"Just because the elites and the welfare class are the most vociferous, and publicised, doesn't mean they're in the majority."

Where were we talking about again?


Dr_Mike said...

Wait, I don't get the typo.

Did you mean Civilised Knives, or Chiselised Knives?

Because being attacked by a Civilized Knife, i.e. a butter knife, doesn't seem so bad.

But Chiselised Knives? My God, you want me to wake one evening and find Van Helsing pounding against the finest Craftsman screwdriver with a 5 pound sledge?

That would hurt! And wouldn't even kill because, you know, steel handles, vampires, etc... Teeth, right?

What a world...

Greg Tag said...

"...The UK, where Great Britain used to be...", a quote from Jeff MacNellys's cartoon, "Shoe", circa 1990.

A prophetic statement. There is an entire class of people in UK that has never had a job, but has lived on the dole for more than 2 generations; apparently some are unhappy with the size of their welfare checks its not FAIR that folks who work have more money than they do.

As for self-defense ? Manly Britain has been reduced to a giant sheepfold. The sheep cant even bite back.

I wanted to buy a real Made in Scotland skinh dubh, to wear with my ancestral kilt - in browsing the catalog, I found numerous examples described as " without blade", " in full compliance with the knife control laws", " soft blade incapable of taking an edge"....and so on. I contacted the supplier and told them, no , I didnt want a silly plaything, a pretend knife, I wanted a legitimate , real weapon, the small fighting knife my ancestors carried as a "backup backup".

The response I got was one of horror, and disdain and they noted from my home address that I must be an American and a Texan (meaning of course, a barbarian).

I said " yes indeed".

Thank God my ancestors came here and we have avoided at least some of the emasculation the nannies have performed on men in the UK, particularly in Scotland, where it is unlawful to defend oneself. Dont want the thugs to be hurt.

Stupid, spineless morons. Truly, the heros of El Alamein and Tobruk have not sufficiently reproduced. I weep for Scotland.

Hooray for Texas.



Derfel Cadarn said...

Tam is absolutely correct. Regardless of the weapon used,anything can be a weapon,killing people is still against the law. In most places killing others is the most heinous of crimes if you are willing to breach that barrier what concern would be breaking a much lesser code of weapons possession. There is NO coherent thought process at work in any prohibition laws.

Boat Guy said...

"In a decade or so, a battalion of Germans, armed with nothing more than Kar98s, will be able to march through the Chunnel and conquer the entire island. " In a decade they probably won't NEED the Mausers - though they might in the parts that will be ruled under sharia. If, indeed, there would be any part of the UK that wouldn't be Islamist.

Ed Foster said...

Friend Able, I truely commiserate with you, as there are, perhaps were, many things about the (mostly rural) British character I remember fondly.

As for the urban types, in all fairness it must be remembered that, other than portside grog shops, the Napoleonic War's pressgangs mostly worked the southwest, from Cornwall through Devon and Dorset up to Chester. All areas where one variety or another of Welsh was spoken until well into the 18th century.

British armies were mostly small to near nonexistent and filled with short term mercenairies from just after the War of the Roses to the Cromwellian "Civil War", and fleshed out with warm bodies from Scotland and Ireland whenever needs required in the Lowlands or Spain, all the way up to the Crimean War.

Even the Boer War was fought disproportionally by ethnic minorities, from Ireland and Scotland to Australia and India.

The typical Home Counties or Midlands sort, other than otherwise unemployable junior sons of the gentry, went almost three centuries without having to worry about military service, and fell apart in the trenches of France during the 'teens because of it.

Any culture, no matter how long removed from combat, will have a small minority of people who can flesh out elite units. Italy produced fine mountain troops during World War Two, along with deathlessly brave and skilled fighter pilots, and the best frogmen ever produced. Google up HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant for reference.

Britain produced the RAF, equal to the Luftwaffe in individual competence for the first three or four years of the war, along with the SAS, SBS, and Royal Marine Commandoes.

But it is no accident that the SAS/SBS was started by Irishman Paddy Mayne and Scot David Sterling, or that the Royal Marine Commandoes were so heavily Scot that they went in to battle in Normandy with kilted bagpipers, lead by a maniac swinging a Highland Broadsword.

After all the prewar trained professional British soldiers surrendered at Crete, Singapore, Tobruk,and Rangoon, the regular British army of WWII was restaffed by marginally competent 2nd raters, who needed overwhelming air and artillery superiority to function even minimally.

Our History Channel tends to rerun British shows on WWII, and it is painfull to see all the reenactments of British Sherman platoons rolling obliviously down the road, using themselves as bait for hidden Tiger tanks, and losing three Shermans to take out one German heavy.

American (and Russian) units used the dramatically superior speed, reliability, and the marvellous cross country and fording capabilities of the Sherman to hammer German units from the side and rear, and the Buick Hellcat tank destroyers were recklessly aggressive, along with the equally assault oriented American infantry.

If the Battle Of The Bulge had been fought by British infantry, I suspect the outcome would have been disastrously different.

Essentially, most of the English and Lowlands Scots have been Eloi for centuries, so present developments aren't all that suprising.

Able said...

Ed Foster

I think I agree to an extent but must point out some differences.

Yes there have always been Scots, Irish and Welsh in the British military, and to an extent greater than their populations would indicate (mainly, as in this area, due the scarcity of jobs). The majority of the British military has always been English though, the vast majority from the Northern section of the country. Count the numbers of regiments if you disagree (not that there are many left now). Whilst there are quite a few Celts in The RM, SAS/SBS etc. the overwhelming majority are English, I guarantee it.

As with the US the bulk of sailors, soldiers and airmen come from more rural areas (of which there is a dearth in the south-east).

I often despair of the presentation of British military in the media (and yes that includes the History channel). It's amazing, considering all the supposed faults, that Britain ever conquered and kept an empire, won wars or even could manage to fasten their boot-laces.

I for one am a little tired of the MSM (and, let us be honest here, the American MSM in the main) who present the wars as having been fought and won exclusively by Americans (with the odd walk on part for an officious incompetent Englishman, of course). That is not to understate the bravery and contribution of all those Americans who fought and died, but they didn't do it alone. they weren't even the majority. The Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders Indians, Dutch, Belgians, etc. and yes even some British (you know the country that had mobilised most of it's population and had fought for years before America decided to come 'save the day'.

I have served in the military and I have nursed some of the aged survivors of WWII and feel Americans (in the main) total dismissal of their contributions is, quite frankly despicable. Why, are you really that insecure?

Oh, and you might want to consider what experts in countries other than America (and Britain) think about the war, it doesn't all paint you as the military geniuses you feel you are. I suspect you've fallen for both your own patriotic fervour and propaganda a little. just Sayin'.

Personally, I think your anti-English penchants is showing Ed ;-)

Ed Foster said...

We're 20th century immigrants to America. Irish Protestant (squireens) and Scot for ancestry, with most of them wearing red coats for a living over several centuries.

Relatives of mine served under Benedict Arnold during his Virginia campaign, and followed Wellington from Oporto to Salamanca. Also Royal Navy service by various relatives in both World Wars.

But, without demeaning the suffering of individual soldiers, I do think England "shot it's bolt" after the Somme. After the regulars were used up, training became sketchy at best, with soldiers trained for little but holding a trench.

Going back further, the 18th century saw the depletion of Scotland's manpower in Britain's wars. The comparatively small island of Islay alone sent 10,000 men to military service during the 1700's, virtually every male born there. That was typical of the Highlands and islands.

Lord North wanted to halt the Highland Clearances because it was depriving Britain of "The flower of it's military".

During the Napoleonic wars, one third of all British regiments were recruited in Ireland, with another 15% or so, the "Scratch" units (Duke of So-and-So's this, Duchess of Bumdiddle's Own etc.) being recruited in the Irish slums and stews of every British city.

The established County regiments of England and Wales were 30% Irish born, with another 10% British born of Irish parents. In Scottish units the ratio of Irish to Scot was 60/40. Until the 20th century, Scottish nationality wasn't a requirement to join a Highland regiment, only a height of at least six foot, good teeth, and a knowledge of spoken Gaelic.

No less an authority than C.S. Forrester put the Irish in the Royal Navy at the time of the Nore mutiny at 30% of all crews.

Add in the Scots, Welsh,Cornish, Indians and West Indians, and I suspect Anglo Saxons might well have been in the minority even in the senior service.

I remember reading once that American units in WWII Europe had three times as much artillery and five times as many trucks as British units, which certainly must have hindered mobility. But nobody seemed to worry about it.

The modern British army is a remarkably professional force, individually as good as any on the planet.

But there are only 100,000 of them, and only a bit over half are in combat units. The Pakistani who owns Harrods won't even allow British officers inside his store if they're in uniform.

I have fond memories of time spent on a friend's farm in Shropshire, a bit north of Shrewsbury, and I never met a nicer collection of people.

But, quite simply, military service fell on most Englishmen by accident in the 20th century, a gift from the Kaiser and Mister Hitler, after several centuries of small armies and little threat from enemies on the other side of the channel.

It makes sense politically. Keep the majority group at home, working and paying taxes, while using up the unreliable conquered populations whenever cannon fodder was needed.

Nothing against the English, who are usually quite charming as individuals, and it is history.

To a European that expression means "It's what formed me". To an American it means "It's water over the dam", something to study quickly and then forget.

Honest, I'm an American.

Able said...

Sorry Ed but I'm not sure where you're getting your facts.

Military service, up until the post national service 'voluntary only' era, has always fallen on the 'scum and dregs' of British society, meaning the poor working class. That some may have been Irish and Scots is beyond doubt. That it was a third Irish is a blatant falsehood. You feel an (C18) army of 3 Household cavalry, 3 Household Foot, 81 foot and 77 Cavalry and 40 artillery regiments were recruited only from Scots and Irish. If so, there'd be no one left in either country.

Much like the building of canals and railways, yes there was a massive influx of Irish and Scots navies for the work but the majority was English. Just as the clearances whilst millions of poor Irish and Scots left to find a better life (driven out by rich Irish and Scots landowners who amazingly by having money and doing a bad thing suddenly became English) but so too did millions of English poor (quite a lot of Anglos in America, and they all didn't go first class you know).

The reason poor training and equipment was the norm in WW1 was due to the death toll, and the demand (go to any small town village anywhere in Britain and you'll see the memorials. Not one tiny hamlet escaped the loss of a major fraction of it's young men. Consider the effects on training of almost every trained man dying within the first few weeks.

As to quoting an author (if a good one) and a propagandist (professionally), Mr C. L. Smith, as an authority on the military is stretching things a bit, surely?

Put it in perspective. The relative populations of Ireland, Scotland and England. The total population of either is about the same as one English city (e.g . Manchester). Did they contribute, hell yes. Did they do it all, Hell no!

The one thing Scots and Irish have always done better than we English is construct a myth. Just Sayin'

Sorry Tam! I'll try not to hog your threads with tangenital topics from now on (please please no groinal flames)

Anonymous said...

Actual headline:
"Boys, age 7, 10 and 12, brutally
beat mentally-disabled woman with
rock, potted plant and toilet plunger after breaking into her house to rob"

My advice; stock up on all the rocks, potted plants, and toilet plungers you can before they are legislated out of existence for our protection.

Ed Foster said...

Able, check Burke's Landed Gentry for the figures on the Napoleonic war enlistments. Even the very English and Anglophile author of the Richard Sharp series comments on Wellington's army being mostly non-English (including the German cavalry used in the Iberian campaign).

The pivotal point is that the British military before the First World War was actually quite small, and anything resembling national service was non-existent until the 20th century.

As to the Irish being primarily oppressed by wealthy Irish, touche. I mentioned that I was a "Squireen", native Irish who adopted English and turned Protestant to maintain their property and right to arms, along with most of the property of their dispossessed Catholic relatives.

But most Squireens were modest landholders, who made their primary living as agents administering the massive holdings of absentee landlords in London.

The shift from a mostly meat diet to potatoes and dairy was forced onto the grazing Irish after the oak forests were cut down to build the Royal Navy and rebuild London after the Great fire. Potatoes were an amazingly profitable crop, needed to feed the urban mill workers in England, driven into the cities by the enclosure acts.

Please note that said enclosure acts were almost entirely in western England and southern Scotland, entirely Celtic areas. The Home counties were almost entirely safe from that particular abuse.

Also, in 1790 the population of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales was more than half that of England, and the second biggest city in Britain was Dublin.

Ed Foster said...

One is mindful of the quotes of another "Anglo-Irish" gent, George Bernard Shaw, who said "The only way to end the trouble between the Irish and the English is to make a study of Irish history mandatory in England, and illegal in Ireland".