The looming knife crises of raw violence in London steadily descends above the serpentine mudflats and barge rush hour traffic of the nation’s most ancient and practical public thoroughfare. Meanwhile, Mayor Sadiq Khan and his bureaucratic minions hope and pray that the internal nuclear controversy of the Brexit affair overshadows the emanating violence spreading like a brutal fog of savagery and injustice across the island nation.
Failing to successfully navigate the political landmine of progressive legislation facilitating a stark deviation from parliamentary democracy and the implementation of controversial and reckless societal engineering efforts, the public servants of the UK must now face the daunting and nearly impossible task of reversing noxious laws codified through delusions of self-serving oversight and a malfeasance towards crippling basic individual rights. As the public has strained the panic needle on the crises meter registering general wariness and completely skipping over impassioned outcry and spiking at the first signs of hysteria, the unleashing of strict knife regulations has only led to tragedy in a flailing experiment based on the academic interpretation of philosophy, and not on logic and applicable metrics supporting evidence and a suitable grasp of reality.
Last year, in an improbable and harrowing miraculous execution of self-defense, an elderly London area resident was successfully able to thwart a violent robbery attempt on his home and saved the life of his wife by ousting two armed thugs. The 78-year-old man in the context of the unfortunate climate of a society with some of the strictest firearms restrictions in the first world, ultimately killed one of the intruders with a knife in the end result of a struggle, while the other perp fled the scene. In the aftermath of the deadly incident, the family of the fallen burglar responded aggressively and relentlessly, as the tendrils of disdain were extended through the criminal underworld, forcing the couple to go into hiding under official channels, or face the certain tortuous and fatal consequences of vigilance. The powerful metaphor defining the justified act of self-defense frames the important questions of what chance does a senior citizen stand against an emotional and reactionary element, without a suitable weapon for protection? The office of the mayor indirectly responded to the relevant inquiry and only managed to up the ante in further tying the hands of law abiding citizens by passing additional stringent knife restrictions, literally days after the elderly man exercised his limited rights in valorous fashion to effectively defend his spouse and home.
The participation trophy London Eye awarded for the careless and reprehensible detachment relating to the basic understanding of human nature displayed by Khan and associated dissidents, was presented in the form of a resounding proclamation, rather than a physical medal. In the days leading up to the defining burglary fiasco nullified with extreme discretion, word made the arduous North Atlantic crossing with the blink of the eye, that the crown jewel city of the former British empire, had surpassed the cantankerous and insufferable culturally inept bastard child of New York in rate of homicide, the alarming statistic an indictment to both failed policy and the ominous presence of procedural defeatism.
While the Khan dynasty currently explores a city wide ban on all knives, including utensils, scissors, corkscrews, and corn holders, the criminal element hordes the most vicious and effective killing rocks and boards with nails, in anticipation of a population brandished with only hand to hand combat and witty verbal retort mechanisms. In a testament to unbridled irony, as murders and assaults by stabbing continue to afflict the city, curiously trending emigration patterns point to an overwhelming bearish outlook on a reasonable level of personal safety. A number of immigrant families have responded to the devastating statistics by actually sending children back to East Africa, reports the BBC, a troubling and complex development, considering the depressed quality of life on a continent plagued by dictators, war, terrorism and periodic bouts of famine. If overtaking The Big Apple in violent measurables pierced the realm of the unacceptable, individuals gambling with the future fortunes of their progeny in the selecting the volatility and endless combat of Mogadishu over the historical sanctuary of London, transcends the polite definition of deniable deplorability. As millions risk their lives in escaping hell on earth for a space in the free world, the reverse phenomenon brewing in the UK not only defies common sense, but squarely puts the onus on radical politicians set on limiting and admonishing reliable methodologies of self-defense and displaying progressive tendencies in administering the policies of society. Allegedly, the prevalence of gangs and drug trafficking are key deciding factors in sending kids back to their native lands, two insidious components in a culture conducive to fundamental hand holding and a love affair with policing.
But in a modern nanny state constructed of sanguine ideals and where practicality is banished to the forced labor regions of a hideous ideological construct, tyranny is given free reign to propagate. Given the worldly perspective of the parents choosing the pathway to combat zones and unstable destinations for their children, and not the apparent free market approach to a prosperous life in an industrialized nation, at least supports the notion that at the current intersection snapshot rhetoric and results, the self-serving influence permeating from London may not be conducive to a sustainable level of sensibility. While reducing tools for self-defense is one issue, the politically correct approach to addressing crime in minority communities has met with disastrous results. However, it is still difficult to grasp the knee-jerk reaction of the parents, and what possible ulterior motives exist for head scratching decisions, in transporting the young people from a proximal battle ground to a war zone.
The horrendous and debilitating flow chart of disarming policy, which first eradicated the legal use of firearms and now is set in transferring the majority of the knife arsenal and the overall advantage to the proverbial bad guy, points to an orgy of violence and an costly future for tax payers, as the only viable solution offered with the narrow viewpoint of the average public servant is to spend hundreds of millions on a heightened law enforcement presence and activating more cameras. In a scenario that lacks the reintroduction of basic firearms rights, a modern police state can persist, where brutal crimes surge as there is no immediate concern of facing the ultimate consequence when accosting an individual or a home. At least a handful of immigrants are privy to this possible pending nightmare in selecting their demons over a bureaucratic abomination.
Read the BBC story here.
Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.
Jesse Tiede- Gunrunner says
Yeah, London is a really cool city, lots of history, and things to do. BUT, Brits, in general, have no real grasp on the Individual Right to Self Defense! When I was visiting London last year, I got into a philisophical discussion with a Tour Guide. He said that English drive on the left because in older times, knights would approach each other with their swords away from each other, so they could draw them out and fight to protect themselves, if necessary. Being a smart ass, Red Blooded American boy, I replied that Americans drive on the Right side of the road, not just because it’s “right”, but so we can use our non-shooting hand to fend you off long enough for us to draw our gun! Most of the tourists chuckled at my response, but, some dumbass Canadians got offended. I told them to pound sand for their satisfaction, and they shut up. Personally, I never brought a knife to a gun fight, but, a lot of Brits do, I guess…
Two paragraph story expanded to a small novel filled un- needed over descriptive wording. I think the author want us to know that he over paid for a creative writing degree. I’m sorry if this seems negative, but I had to say something
William Umstattd says
I second that.
I have to say I agree with you.
Joe hosephat says
I aggree whol heartedly!
exactly what I was thinking.what a pompous ass!
How about dumbing it down so the politicians can understand what you’re saying?
Well said Dale2. I was thinking the same but didn’t know how to say it. I had to dig out the point of the story that the writer wrote but buried with the goal of including as many “big words” as possible.
Joe hosephat says
I aggree whol heartedly!
Joe hosephat says
I aggree whole heartedly!
Joe hosephat says
I aggree wholeheartedly!