To ban crossbows & Military style knives in UK?

[StarryIsabella]

First time poster, long term reader!

So I've been following the horrific news today about the monster who killed his ex partner, her sister and mother yesterday in Enfield (London).

Louise Hunt- (25) Hannah Hunt- (28) Carol Hunt- (61)

Reports state that he used a crossbow and other weapons (mainly knives) apparently he killed them in quick succession all at once at their home yesterday.

It shocks me how someone can obtain a weapon like a crossbow that fires arrows rapidly with immense force that can easily break through bone and kill. It's literally a gun, it loads and fires to kill if that's your intention.

Does anyone think these kind of weapons should be banned? What purpose do they serve? If it does serve a purpose then at least install a licence to own one where they can do background checks and interview the person for their reasons to owning one.

Alas! Another woman who wanted to be independent was brutally murdered along other her sister and mother for it.

Just a quick edit: killings with crossbows have happened before in the UK

In 2010, 40-year-old Stephen Griffiths killed 3 women in Bradford that he didn't know. He later admitted he was obsessed with killers and had a hatred for women. All 3 women were complete strangers to him.

Population figures!! You can't compare.

We could take various directions in helping to solve the problem.

• ban on weapons
• a life sentence meaning a life sentence
• raising awareness etc...

I think there are a few killings by crossbow but not many in comparison to guns. There was a mass killing in Norway a few years ago

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/13/1045739010/several-people-were-killed-or-injured-in-a-bow-and-arrow-attack-in-norway

We all know that! But at least it makes it harder!

I'm not really sure what your point is @Sillystrumpet? Yes those items can also be used to kill, anything can if someone really wants it too. And tbh you don't KNOW for sure it wouldn't save a life to have it regulated, woman, man or child. No one can know that.

Why are you shocked. People are pointing out if someone wants to kill banning crossbows won’t make one iota of difference, that’s the sad truth;

the women who died yesterday did not die because cross bows are not regulated. They died because a man wanted to kill them. It wasn’t made easier for him as he had a cross bow.he wasn’t incentivised as he had a cross bow. They’d not still be alive if he hadn’t had a cross bow.

i don’t see how that’s shocking.

Should we ban hammers too?

Remember the Russell murders in 1996. Mum and daughter killed, and the other daughter survived the hammer attack.
Random attack. He wasn't known to the family.

You didn’t mention the US but you said that you thought a society where people are armed is a polite society. I was just pointing out that the US would seem to be an exception to your rule.

As for differences between States- it would be interesting if someone looked at the reasons behind that. Population size? Average education level? Poverty? Other crime rates? Generational trauma and criminal activity? Meaningful employment? Rates of substance misuse? Mental health statistics? It seems simplistic to assume that strict gun controls= more violence; lax gun controls= less violence. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation (see ‘Ice cream sales vs shark attacks).

I agree with the many posters that the real issue here is male violence- of course it is. I too would like that tackled, obviously, but so far no one seems to have come up with any solutions. And yes, people can do a lot of harm with a kitchen knife or a car if they want to. But we don’t have to make it any easier for violent men to harm others by giving them guns and crossbows. Or if you’re going to allow those, just let them have tanks and missiles too, why not?

I’m glad that after Thomas Hamilton ruined hundreds of lives at Dunblane that we didn’t all shrug our shoulders and say ‘Well, men are always going to do shit like that, banning guns won’t make a difference’.

I'm not in favour of banning something that apparently 299,999 other people seem to do mostly legally and without incident.

Zombie knives, machetes, bayonets are all banned because they were increasingly involved in all spiraling knife crime problem. Banning them probably saves some lives and there's no legal uses to consider

People call for firearm bans or restrictions in America not simply because of guns but because lots of people do die from guns in the USA. There are other countries with high gun ownership and low murder rates, it's a pretty uniquely American illness

Wyoming and Chicago really cannot be compared. If people in Wyoming came into contact and conflict as often as people in Chicago do then there’d be a lot more violence in the former. You can’t even begin to compare the geography and population density of the two.

Technically I own a cross bow (albeit a very small, lightweight stone bow, so it couldn’t do any noticeable damage, and doesn’t shoot sharp bolts). It’s a nice piece of history (replica, but it’s the mechanism and style than interest me), but it’s more of a toy than a weapon.

The trouble with banning things is that it doesn’t deal with the actual problem - that a lot of men think women are there for their pleasure and deserve to be punished if they won’t comply. If a man wants to find a weapon, they will. We can’t ban kitchen knives, and all the other legitimate potential weapons in the UK.

Regulating crossbow ownership isn’t the worst idea in the world - I believe you can’t own one in Ireland without licensing, for example - but I doubt it will make the world noticeably safer for women.

Banning things won't make a difference, like I said previously. The only way you're ever going to stop people hurting/maiming/killing other people or even themselves is to put everyone in straitjackets and lock them up in padded cells.

Not every incident like this is squarely down to men. To single out an entire sex like this is misandry, in my opinion. The suspect is a man, the keyword there being 'suspect'. Based on what is currently known, there is active suspicion that he murdered those women. In all likelihood, yes, he did end those women's lives.

However:

Was there intent? Can it be proven?
Was it premeditated? Can it be proven?

Leave it to the police to gather evidence and to the courts to bring the appropriate sentencing.

But instead we're swinging an axe to crack a walnut and wanting to ban everything that can be turned into a weapon.

@FourLeggedBuckers I’ve seen mention that crossbows have been used a number of times in recent crimes, including in acts of violence against pet animals. That piece of shit who murdered three women on Tuesday had a crossbow- had he ‘only’ had a kitchen knife or even a baseball bat, the women would have stood a slightly better chance as there were three of them and only one of him.

I would ban crossbows actually, purely because they are so often abused by horrible kids to shoot cats. And recently near where we live, by small gangs of men to shoot deer.

But in relation to the recent brutal murder of Carol, Hannah and Louise, this is not the conversation we need to be having.

Ive just turned the radio off in anger after calls for a phone in about banning crossbows. Siting an incident in 2018 as the most recent example of such a crime. Not one single word about the absolute tsunami of VAWG every bloody week! Why do so called journalists not raise this?

@VolvoFan I completely disagree with you re legislation around weapons, and regarding what you see as ‘misandry’ so there’s no point me engaging any further as I find discussions frustrating where there is no hope of agreement.

That's no problem. Have a nice day.

And you @VolvoFan

Ban them. 99.9% of crossbows will be in the hands of ‘never do wells’ and manboys with brains firing below capacity.

Would he have chosen a kitchen knife to murder three women though? Or would he have chosen something equally legal and more damaging - an axe, for example, used in a home attack like this one would likely result in the same outcome.

The point is that licensing cross bows won’t prevent people from owning them, and thus won’t prevent occasional violent incidents - much as with legitimate gun ownership in the UK. I don’t think it will make any noticeable difference to violent crime statistics, and I think fixating on banning cross bows undermines the real problem, which is the misogynistic undercurrent in society, and the violent outbursts that provoked.

I really find it interesting that people are using the same argument some Americans use to keep guns!

The fact that he owned a crossbow in the first place is horrendous. He owned a weapon that could kill someone within a few seconds without him even physically touching the victim.

I understand if a man wants to kill a woman then he has many options.

But we need to take as many of those options away. Ban on all weapons and life means life in prison.... Etc..

This is not a one solution fits all... Various steps need be taken to at least make it harder for them to kill.

I’d also like to point out that it is already illegal to hunt with a bow (crossbow or otherwise) in the UK.

There seem to be a lot of people on these threads saying that it’s a legitimate use, or that licensing crossbows will prevent this - if someone is willing to break the law, further regulation is unlikely to affect their behaviour.

It would be a good start to publicise the laws around bow ownership and use in the UK - so that people can understand and report infringements and hopefully the laws that already exist could be better enforced.

Noone is fixating banning crossbows!! We are discussing multiple steps to try and protect women.

• educating in schools on the signs of domestic violence etc...
• take a life, receive a full life term in prison.
• advertising to constantly keep awareness in society
• easier access to domestic violence register for women to access
• educating men in calling out other men when they encounter their friends and family doing it.

These are just a short few I can think of, obviously there are many more steps we can take. My point is this requires many steps.

Very true!

I mean, it’s literally your thread title, and the main premise of your OP…

Apologies for the misunderstanding, I was genuinely wanting to discuss weapons due to the nature of the case. But I fully acknowledge that there needs to be changes in mens attitudes, law and education etc...