Could banning pointy knives reduce crime in long term?

[wit>trope]

Well, if the federal government ever becomes a dictatorship, good luck defending your freedoms with shotguns and handguns. Forget it, that only made sense when the Constitution was written. At that time there wasnt a great disparity in armament between the government and the people. Today its just a joke.

Well the amendment doesn't say guns; it says "arms"; so that would include not only bazookers and machine guns but also tanks and armed jets. Since we don't want to allow private citizens to have such firepower and we also don't want to just make up the constitution as we go along, the solution is to make a constitutional amendment like I suggested.

 

[Double Barrel]

Lock up the VIOLENT PEOPLE and most of the violence in society would disappear.

Studies reveal that almost 90% of violent crime is perpetuated by incorrigible repeat offenders.

Attack the disease itself, not the symptoms.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Cierdan, let me see if Ive got this straight. You propose that each state of the Union have its own army, so they can defend themselves from the evil federal government? You cant be serious. If you spend a grand total of 1 minute thinking through the implications of what you suggest, youd realise its a 'non-starter', to put it mildly. Anyway, we're supposed to be discussing pointy things

 

[Keshik]

Yes, but there are other forces at play:

1. The police were given guns, which meant criminals felt threatened and needed to carry gun in self defense.

2. Popular culture idolises guns and prides criminal activity.

Banning guns had no effect on these two major issues except to bring them to eveyone's attention.

The reason criminals use guns is that they are afraid of the police guns? I never knew that.

 

[Keshik]

Well, if the federal government ever becomes a dictatorship, good luck defending your freedoms with shotguns and handguns. Even a bazooka wouldnt be of much use. If they feel like it, through a variety of means, they can pinpoint your location within a few feet and launch a Hellfire missle from an unmanned drone. Or just arrest you and make you dissapear. Forget it, that only made sense when the Constitution was written. At that time there wasnt a great disparity in armament between the government and the people. Today its just a joke.

It's not a joke to those of us who choose to defend ourselves from violent criminals if need be. Should my home be invaded by a crackhead threatening my wife and son, I will use my gun.

 

[IglooDame]

You know, after thinking about it, England is right to ban big sharp knives - I mean, what if a burglar were to break into an English home, find a knife in the kitchen, and use it to kill the residents? I'm sure there are studies somewhere that find that knives are much more likely to be used to cut or stab a family member rather than an intruder.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Keshik: If the intruder is gov'tal forces, your gun won't stop them. Hell, they'd flatten your house killing everyone inside it before you noticed if they felt like it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It's not a joke to those of us who choose to defend ourselves from violent criminals if need be. Should my home be invaded by a crackhead threatening my wife and son, I will use my gun.

Fear of crime is a much better argument for keeping guns legal. Its a real issue, unlike the absurd idea of fighting against the 'jackbooted government thugs'. First of all its impractical for the reasons I stated above, and second, most Americans love their country and their system of government, and viewing it as an enemy is strange and bizarre.

You know, after thinking about it, England is right to ban big sharp knives - I mean, what if a burglar were to break into an English home, find a knife in the kitchen, and use it to kill the residents? I'm sure there are studies somewhere that find that knives are much more likely to be used to cut or stab a family member rather than an intruder.

Absolutely. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by family members, or close friends, not strangers, regardless of the weapon used.

 

[IglooDame]

@Keshik: If the intruder is gov'tal forces, your gun won't stop them. Hell, they'd flatten your house killing everyone inside it before you noticed if they felt like it.

...similar to what they're doing in Iraq...

 

[wit>trope]

Cierdan, let me see if Ive got this straight. You propose that each state of the Union have its own army, so they can defend themselves from the evil federal government?

A potentially tyrannical federal government. And that's actually what the constitutional amendment says already:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It was designed to be for the security of the states as a counter to the federal government. I just want to have it be amended to get rid of the right of private citizens to bear arms (they may still have that right based on the respective state constitutions however of course or have it as a result of statutory laws). This way we could not only get rid of guns but also the "pointy things" in the hands of private citizens.

 

[cidknee]

alright, this just shows me how bloody silly the british really are.....now most crimes are impulse crimes. They will use whatever they have infront of them, bottles, guns knives, crabcakes. yes crabcakes. A father choked his son, at the dinner table cause the kid took the last crabcake.Im NOT kidding. Pointy knives.... give it up

 

[IglooDame]

A potentially tyrannical federal government. And that's actually what the constitutional amendment says already:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It was designed to be for the security of the states as a counter to the federal government. I just want to have it be amended to get rid of the right of private citizens to bear arms (they may still have that right based on the respective state constitutions however of course or have it as a result of statutory laws). This way we could not only get rid of guns but also the "pointy things" in the hands of private citizens.

Thirty-five states (Minnesota just added last week) now are "shall-issue" and recognize a citizen's right to carry a concealed firearm, absent cause for denying it. If you're a celebrity or a politician you can get a concealed carry license pretty much anywhere except Washington DC. I suspect we are far more likely to see an amendment to clarify and enunciate the right of private citizens to bear arms, rather than to get rid of it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Ceirdan, the states arent free in the same sense they were when the Consitution was written. The Civil War settled that particular argument.

 

[ummmm........]

I have a twelve inch chef's knife I use for quartering pineapples. It lets me do it longways so there's less risk of torquing and ending up with uneven pieces.

I imagine that wouldn't be necessary if I was better with knives though . . .

 

[Jeff Yu]

It is interesting for me to watch pushes like this in England and Australia for big sharp knives/swords to face criminal legal restrictions and then listen to people in the US say "we are reasonable, we only want to ban ___ (fill in here) types of guns".

That IS reasonable. Look at crime statistics for inner city gangs and then compare the number of drive-by stabbings with the number of drive-by shootings.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Could banning pointy knives reduce crime in long term?

Could banning spoons reduce obesity in long term?

 

[IglooDame]

That IS reasonable. Look at crime statistics for inner city gangs and then compare the number of drive-by stabbings with the number of drive-by shootings.

...and then note that Australian gangs are turning to swords since guns are more difficult to get.

But anyway, you've managed to completely misinterpret what I said - unless you think that those gangs will refuse to start using revolvers if high-capacity semiautos were banned.

 

[jonatas]

post deleted

 

[Rambuchan]

No they shouldn't ban 'pointy' knives [edit]and no it wouldn't reduce crime in the long term, although it may makes crimes less dangerous[edit]. But we need our knives so .

They should deal with the reasons why kids feel the need to carry them in the first place, now that would reduce crime in the long term.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I carried a knife for a while in junior high precisely because it was verboten.

The moral, I suppose, is that teens are fools.