• HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • HubertManne@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.