Now, what is the point of those bans? So people feel safer while not being safer?
I'm sure that's what the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster is absolutely going to do, spend 50 quid on a budget angle grinder and traipse around scrapyards for a lorry spring.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
Is there any *legitimate* reason why a child needs to be able to buy chef's knives?
UK (and Canadian, Australian, etc) weapon disposal schemes frequently land home made weapons eg: https://kk.org/streetuse/english-ownerbuilt-weapons/ from 2006 is barely a trickle of the flood that gets swept up by amnesty programs.
What are you going to tell them? That they're allowed a boning knife that'll easily cut every artery in a human but not a chopper because ooooh those are super duper scary? That they're not allowed any "chef's knife" but the steak knives for dinner are fine?
You know the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster can shave a shank on the sidewalk just as well, right? That a perfectly-capable-of-murder-and-menace device can be manufactured from just about anything? That a common 2x4 or bat or shoestring will do? And that preventing their committing crime with a larger knife is easier to police than a smaller concealable, right?
They are, they're just not allowed to go and buy chef's knives. My son is 6 and is actually pretty good at cooking - he can make pizza from scratch, but does still need his old dad to knead the dough, for now I guess, don't know how long that will last.
Can you think of anything you *wouldn't* want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission? USians are pretty weird about alcohol and pornography but equally weirdly permissive about weapons, and I've never heard of anyone stabbing someone to death with a jazz mag or stabbing them with a double vodka.
I can think of plenty, but I don't understand how "big knife" is worse than "medium size knife".
Not really (outside of those things that are only dangerous and have no other legitimate use like drugs, guns outside hunting rifles), because I don't believe it is the role of the state to decide what my child should be allowed to purchase. It is my job to raise them such that they don't do dangerous shit; to show them that brandishing a machete in public isn't allowed for anyone, regardless of age, and that threatening someone with a bat is the same as threatening them with a knife.
If the specific concern is "might be used in menacing or as a weapon" a large rock will suffice. Or a baseball bat. Or a sufficiently weighted wooden dowel. Or a crochet needle sharpened for 30 minutes. Or a hammer. Or fishing line. Or twine. Or a sufficiently thick plastic bag. Or a sock full of rocks. Or pantyhose. Or a torn up blanket/towel. If the goal is to eliminate the use of props used in crimes committed by children, you'll need to outlaw their ability to purchase more than half the items in the store, but even that doesn't prevent them from actually having the items. Does the child now require a written note from me to carry their baseball bat with them to practice? So that I get in trouble when they commit a crime with it? Or must they now have two bats so that they have one at the field and one to practice at home to eliminate their need to transport it? Must they be locked up like firearms to prevent any accidental practicing? Because, you never know when they stop practicing ball and switch to practicing crime. Best be safe, surely? Of course, this means that the child cannot practice hardly any hobbies given the large assortment of items that can be used in crime and should be banned, unless they have a supportive parent or there's a community program, but we know 100% of kids have those, so I guess that's no concern.
And what of non-violent crimes and accidents? Matches? Candle starters? Candles? Sewing needles? multi-meters? Soldering irons? Chisels? A printer? A computer? A phone? Hell, paints can be lethal in a closed space. If we're giving the government the task of preventing all injury and damages resulting from children purchasing things, we'd be better off just forbidding children access to purchasing in general than trying to cobble together some list that slowly chips away at the goal.
My child shouldn't be legally barred from purchasing any of the above, including a chef's knife or machete, because they have legitimate uses if the child has particular hobbies.
And my child shouldn't recieve some extra priveledged access to these items because they have a supportive parent rather than an exploitative foster parent.
UK approach is insane.
Like seatbelts they're not foolproof in making people safer, but they do act as a damper on knife crime.
1. People who decide to go on murder sprees are usually not high-functioning individuals, so even modest barriers can improve outcomes.
2. Fewer weapons in homes means fewer heat-of-the-moment acts involving these weapons. For example, there are very few firearm suicides in the EU, compared to the US.
As such, we see little raw change in human behavior. Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so (although, given the health complications of a failed hanging I question whether the ethics of this outcome are truly superior). So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that, when the method of suicide is independent of the reasons for suicide.
As for #1, cars are still widely accessible, and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.
As parent stated, these bans do not meaningfully change human nature, they simply give an air of safety. In fact, I would further say they create bad habits within society that criminals can and do exploit. Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment. Does your place of residence not allow for self-defense? Then that is a flaw in governance that must be addressed.
Its 40% more.
> As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.
It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes, it would be a factor in a dispute that turned into deadly one as opposed to not.
> Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so
They are also extremely convenient and instant.
> So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that
I don't think people are making that argument.
> As for #1, cars are still widely accessible,
Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.
> and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.
"But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."
"It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them."
- https://portside.org/node/28842/printable/print
> Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment.
That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.
Good job; you can do math. Care to interface with the rest of my argument that you ignored, discussing what that disparity actually means?
> It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes
That was my central point. There is nuance to the way gun legalization could take place in Europe that can help offset fatalities like this, rather than a blanket ban.
> They are also extremely convenient and instant.
Hence the “more fatal means to do so” that you quoted.
> I don't think people are making that argument.
That’s quite literally the entire discussion. “Good-faith” arguments for banning firearms. If you need a refresher of the context, I suggest starting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50125399
> Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.
They are practical for killing whoever is in front of them, physics permitting. They are far more practical than firearms for killing tightly packed groups, but little stops a massive block of metal from killing say a lone cyclist. Everything is situational; it doesn’t make it any less of a threat.
> "But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."
Firstly, defensive gun use is defensive gun use regardless of owning a badge. Secondly, this is not accounting for gun-free zones (bars, school campuses) where most mass shooters will target because of that power disparity.
“…while 36% of active shooting attacks have occurred in places where guns are allowed, almost half (42.3%) of those were stopped by people who legally carry concealed handguns.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3857331
> That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.
While I am happy you feel so secure, that is a privileged position. Just because you feel secure in your safety doesn’t mean those who don’t should be without self-defense, nor does it mean you should neglect your safety out of complacency.
Let's sit down and have a productive discussion about how we can actually move forward and do practical things to reduce gun violence. I have some ideas:
1. Reporting for lost and stolen firearms: stolen firearms go into the illegal market and make everyone more unsafe. If personal responsibility is the crux of safety, isn't this a no brainer?
2. Training for concealed carry: have you driven on the road with other people? Would you want those people aiming a gun at a crowd of people in a panic situation trying to get a bead on a shooter if they have only fired their weapon twice in their life?
What do you think? Let's drop the patronizing tone and the made up 'what if' arguments and talk about this seriously.