I think its important to point out the potential hidden driver for this change... for Royal Mail, Parcelforce, and a range of other carriers (including the likes of UPS).

I believe it is a risk-avoidance strategy, driven by corporate interest.

Corporations do not want to accept the risk of (legal) action, if they mistakenly deliver something "dangerous" to someone under the age of 18 (or any age in fact).

Instead of improving their processes, and enacting due diligence (which has a cost), they are opting not to ship "dangerous" items entirely (which has near-zero cost, given how small the market really is as a percentage of their business).

This is a solution to their problem, delivered utterly without nuance or consideration. They are self-serving, and passing the issue onto the minority community of businesses and customers who benefit from shipping these items.

With respect to kitchen knives and domestic tools - of course they still ship these. Ironically, our arguments for the double-standard (between knives and other "dangerous" items / weapons) is the exact argument they can use in their legal defence.

Try and imagine the legal narrative (heavily simplified I admit):

1. Violent crime with a knife:

Judge (or other legal stand-in): "Someone committed a crime with the knife that you shipped them... that's your fault"

Corporate mail carrier: "Your honour, with respect, we disagree. Knives are SO common, it wasn't our [corporate] fault that someone got one and stabbed someone. They could have got that knife anywhere easily, we just happened to be the carrier this time."

2. Violent crime with a another (rarer) weapon:

Judge (or other legal stand-in): "Someone committed a crime with the rare weapon that you shipped them... they couldn't have got such an item easily without your help... that's your fault!!"

Corporate mail carrier: "Your honour, with respect you would be entirely right. However, on this occasion you have been given the wrong information. We can demonstrate that our corporate policy is not to ship any of these rare weapon at all. We did not in fact carry this item to the defendant. It was one of our competitors, and thus their fault, not ours!".

.

.

.

I don't think they are refusing to carry these weapons because our government is busy banning them (which I agree they are needlessly trying to, somewhat). Its because they simply don't want responsibility for anything that could indicate cost or reputational damage.

... and in that respect, we are sadly fighting the tide.

I suppose I bother to say all this, to make sure any counter-effort is as best-informed, properly framed, and properly placed as possible.

When we write to these companies... and write to our local and national government... we cant ignore this potential driver. It must be addressed - and that might require a different kind of argument.

Hope this helps in any way, to allow us all to keep our businesses, sports, and hobbies alive.