So they shouldn’t be knife ?
Why allow them knife if their own fucking religion doesn’t mandate knife ?
And since when it s fair to have exception based on religion ?
You don’t. Basically most don’t use one that meets the legal definition of a prohibited knife. If someone is trying to claim religious exception you tell them its a non starter as their religion does not require an actual knife. They are likely the kind of person who you don’t want to have one as they are obviously trying to imply something that is not true (that their religion requires them to carry an actual long and or sharp knife) As for exceptions based on religion I don’t think there should be but in the us they certainly have it (not for knives but for other things. knives again is a non issue as no religion requires and actual sharp knife). This is one of the reasons devout pastafarians insist on wearing a collander on their head for all official id pictures.
Well someone litteraly got killed by one that meet the legal definition of knife.
Also
What does the law say?
Under UK law a person can possess a kirpan for religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons. But, like any bladed article, a kirpan can become an offensive weapon if it is used unlawfully.
The government says it is up to a court to decide if a person has a good reason to carry a knife or a weapon if they are charged with carrying it illegally
So they are litteraly allow to carry one just not to do something stupid with it.
I find that an exception like this to be allowed to be extrely revolting, unfair and undemocratic. The fact that a court must decide allow them to claim anything as having a ceremonial utility and it s just ok sir have a good day. That s fucking stupid.
But thanks for being the most reasonable one so far. I can t even believe some ppl here try to justify that kind of stuff
that is dumb. the kirpan does not need to meet the legal definition of a knife. there is no reason to allow someone to carry one like that and I don’t know why it would ever be allowed. I mean sure they should be allowed to carry a kirpan but again not a type that is legally a prohibited knife.
yeah kinda crasy that it was allowed in the first place and sad that we had to get one preventable death to even think how this law was ever allowed to exist.
they can keep their kirpan all they want if they arent abble to kill somone with it
I mean technically you might still be able to just like you could possibly kill someone with a butter knife but the religion does not require it be sharp and it does not have a size limit.
oh yeah and again no religion actually requires that. I mean at least not recognized you always have individuals or small churches with extreme types who will insist on something but they can pound sand.
So they shouldn’t be knife ? Why allow them knife if their own fucking religion doesn’t mandate knife ? And since when it s fair to have exception based on religion ?
You don’t. Basically most don’t use one that meets the legal definition of a prohibited knife. If someone is trying to claim religious exception you tell them its a non starter as their religion does not require an actual knife. They are likely the kind of person who you don’t want to have one as they are obviously trying to imply something that is not true (that their religion requires them to carry an actual long and or sharp knife) As for exceptions based on religion I don’t think there should be but in the us they certainly have it (not for knives but for other things. knives again is a non issue as no religion requires and actual sharp knife). This is one of the reasons devout pastafarians insist on wearing a collander on their head for all official id pictures.
Well someone litteraly got killed by one that meet the legal definition of knife.
Also
What does the law say?
Under UK law a person can possess a kirpan for religious, ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons. But, like any bladed article, a kirpan can become an offensive weapon if it is used unlawfully.
The government says it is up to a court to decide if a person has a good reason to carry a knife or a weapon if they are charged with carrying it illegally
So they are litteraly allow to carry one just not to do something stupid with it. I find that an exception like this to be allowed to be extrely revolting, unfair and undemocratic. The fact that a court must decide allow them to claim anything as having a ceremonial utility and it s just ok sir have a good day. That s fucking stupid. But thanks for being the most reasonable one so far. I can t even believe some ppl here try to justify that kind of stuff
that is dumb. the kirpan does not need to meet the legal definition of a knife. there is no reason to allow someone to carry one like that and I don’t know why it would ever be allowed. I mean sure they should be allowed to carry a kirpan but again not a type that is legally a prohibited knife.
yeah kinda crasy that it was allowed in the first place and sad that we had to get one preventable death to even think how this law was ever allowed to exist. they can keep their kirpan all they want if they arent abble to kill somone with it
I mean technically you might still be able to just like you could possibly kill someone with a butter knife but the religion does not require it be sharp and it does not have a size limit.
technically you can without anything. Just let s agree on having an exception that doesnt regard the dangerousness of a waepon cause religion, is bad.
oh yeah and again no religion actually requires that. I mean at least not recognized you always have individuals or small churches with extreme types who will insist on something but they can pound sand.