posted
I did a search, but I couldn't find a topic about this. If there is one, though, I bet someone will tell me.
I've often heard the argument made that guns shouldn't be outlawed because they are a tool, and people can choose how to use them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And after all, knives, baseball bats, etc. can be used to kill people too. Do we ban any potential weapon, too? That's ridiculous, right?
Know the argument? I'm sure you do. I happen to use it sometimes myself. But that's not the point...the point is that someone has actually called for that next step.
quote:The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.
In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".
Exactly what do they propose that people use if they actually HAVE to cut a ripe melon? Sheesh!
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, perhaps. What do we use pointed knives for, really? And I say this as someone who really does like to cook. A pointed knife is for doing small work. It really isn't safe to do anything point related with a 10 inch knife- such as cut the eyes from a potato. A blunt tipped knife can still have a sharp edge and do most of the stuff you need it to do.
As to how this would be implemented, I'd say it would be similar to the guideline that playground equipment not be more than 6 feet tall. Of course, in britain there are playgrounds where the equipment was just sawn off at the ground and never replaced because they couldn't afford to. At least, that is what I heard from one schoolteacher over there.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we suggesting that the sharp edge of the knife couldn't be used to inflict harm and that an enraged person who grabs a knife would be deterred by the lack of a sharp point?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be a lot more difficult to inflict a lethal injury with the edge of a knife than with the point.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only slightly off-topic... has anybody seen Chris Rock's routine about making bullets cost $5000 dollars each (or something similar) instead of banning guns? It was quite hilarious. He made points like there would be no innocent bystanders and if you get shot you must have really deserved it.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain, I know which one you mean! "He must of desrved it they put $50,000 worth of bullets in him!" He also said people would come back to get their bullets too. "I believe you have my property!" Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, cutting melons? It really is much easier if you break the skin with the point of the knife, and then set the blade in the puncture and press down. It also makes it less dangerous, as if you don't have the cut started the melon is more likely to roll to the side when you press with the knife. I guess you could use two knives for the process. . .
Also, carving jack-o-lanterns. Tell me how you're going to get the top neatly cut so you can scoop out the guts without a big pointed knife?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
A lot of jack-o-lantern carving kits come with plastic knives, don't they? Not that they work, mind you...
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't really need a long pointed knife for carving a pumpkin though. A paring knife or one slightly larger does the job fairly well.
It sounds like they are distinguishing between a paring knife sort of thing and something the size of a cleaver but with a pointed end.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the plastic ones are for when you've got the thing hollowed out to a shell and you want to let your kid do the actual carving themselves. I don't think they would work too well for cutting the top.
But you're right, there are not many jobs that you use the point of a big knife for that you could not also use a small pointed knife for. Personally, I don't like switching knifes in the middle of a job, so if I'm doing something that requires a long bladed knife I will usually use the point of that knife for anything in the job that requires a point, even if if I was just doing the thing that requires a point I would probably use a smaller knife.
As far as I'm concerned, though, the real problem isn't with the knifes, it's with the people using them. Same as with guns.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knives have many ethical uses, guns have few - that's enough of a difference to justify banning one but not the other.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, anyone who knows even the basics of knife-fighting can do a significant amount of damage with just the edge.
Really, I think we(they) should be more concerned with eliminating the underlying causes of violence than forcing even the sane people to live in padded cells. What's next, frying pans?
posted
Regardless of this, do you really think that criminals can't make a point on the end of a blunt-ended knife? Prisoners regularly fashion shivs out of metal slats from heating ducts, pieces of metal beds, etc. Any small flat piece of metal can be shaped into a dangerous pointy-ended thing quite easily with not much in the way of tools. How would banning such things make them less prevalent among criminals?
Same holds true for guns, in fact. Anyone with a lathe can make a gun. The technology is not that complicated. Shall we ban lathes as well?
I mean we are having a hard time keeping people from making their own homemade nuclear reactors and bombs. I don't think we're going to have any luck on limiting firearms proliferation.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a matter of whether an argument results in minor injuries or death. I personally would be willing to get rid of my most stabby knives. If only they weren't a present from my husband.
And I never bought the "guns are a tool" line. A tool for what? For killing. Duh.
And I have cut myself accidentally a number of times with uselessly large knives. I guess I really injured myself with procrastinating washing the dishes.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guns are for protection from a tyrranical government--to keep them in check with a well-armed populace.
Have we grown so complacent that we trust so much in the sanctity and purity of our democratic republic? Do we really believe that the US is above tyrrany--from within or from without?
If we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides, anyone who knows even the basics of knife-fighting can do a significant amount of damage with just the edge.
But what percentage of the population knows the basics of knife-fighting? Approaching zero.
How many can deliver a lethan injury with a stab from a chef's knife? A very high percentage.
Not that I agree with the doctors that we should try to remove the capability for violence from our lives. After all, there is no virtue in turning the other cheeck if you don't have a choice.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If only they weren't a present from my husband
Your hubby must be very secure in the fact that you will not get drunk and stab him (as the article suggests).
This is just insane. I come from a family of chefs and there is just no way they would willing give up their nice big kitchen knives. My brother has his own briefcase thing for his set and he carries it to family get togethers.
There is the idea of having leverage with a larger knife; the way it rocks on the cutting board when you use it. Just watch Food TV sometime.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You shouldn't sharpen your pencils so sharply. You can write just as well with a dull point. Sure, it's fuzzier--but think of the children.
And frankly, the fact that we have sharp corners that children or the clumsy could bump into is a little scary to me, too. I think we definitely need to round all corners. I have a friend who actually had this done when they were building their house because she was clumsy.
And we joke...but I have this fear of being hit in the head with a baseball bat and it smashing my skull. This is a very real possibility if my house is ever broken into, especially if the criminal doesn't have a gun or knife because they're illegal. Instead, he'll bring a baseball bat and break my head. But if we make baseball bats illegal, he won't have one and then he won't be able to break in because he doesn't have a weapon.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You shouldn't sharpen your pencils so sharply. You can write just as well with a dull point. Sure, it's fuzzier--but think of the children.
I agree. I tell my students standing at the pencil sharpener that they are writing, not performing surgery. But that is more that I just want them to hurry up and quit making noise with the pencil sharpener.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And frankly, the fact that we have sharp corners that children or the clumsy could bump into is a little scary to me, too. I think we definitely need to round all corners. I have a friend who actually had this done when they were building their house because she was clumsy.
Can we just have everything in the entire world made out of beanbag chairs and that gel stuff like in the wrist-cushion part of my mousepad? I'm not requesting this for safety reasons, I just think it would be really fun.
posted
This is the first I've heard about this knife thing too. I thought guns were pretty much totally illegal in the UK as it is - banning pointy knives seems a bit overzealous. Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
It's a novel peppered liberally with true historical events.
Read the front and back flaps and customer reviews at Amazon. They've already said anything I would've.
Be warned, though, it's a 900 page book. It took me forever (about 4 days) to read it.
IP: Logged |
quote:Guns are for protection from a tyrranical government--to keep them in check with a well-armed populace.
Have we grown so complacent that we trust so much in the sanctity and purity of our democratic republic? Do we really believe that the US is above tyrrany--from within or from without?
If this were true then we need WMDs, not guns. No gun is going to protect me from the sort of military technology our government possesses today.
Do we have a right to bear Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one has the right to bear WMDs. Governments or otherwise. We have them because other governments have them..it's a vicious circle and it is stupid and, right now, unavoidable.
But I don't accept the validity of your comparison. An armed populace has to do with defending your family/town/city/whatever from armed military troops. A government that would use WMDs on it's populace is looking to annihilate them, not rule them. You can't rule ashes. So a WMD as a tyrranical weapon on the masses is ineffective and doesn't really need to be protected against.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[EDIT: this was in response to Tresopax] Actually, that's not really true. My husband is in infantry school as we speak, and they have a section on urban warfare. He said that the expected casualty rate urban fighting is 80%, on the part of the invaders.
In a wide-spread revolt, armed citizens would have the advantage of holing up in buildings and firing on anyone who comes near. Unarmed citizens have no recourse if the government were to suddenly decide to become a dictatorship.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Knives have many ethical uses, guns have few - that's enough of a difference to justify banning one but not the other.
We could say that your freedoms of speech and religion have few ethical uses. Let's ban them.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain: the response was meant to point out the subjectivity of labeling someone else's freedoms as "having few ethical uses" and jumping from that opinion straight to the use of government force to compel obedience. Human rights do not exist only so long as a majority thinks they're a good thing.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.
I just love this reasoning from the article. Cause you know how many teens love to carry around...kitchen knives?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: [EDIT: this was in response to Tresopax] Actually, that's not really true. My husband is in infantry school as we speak, and they have a section on urban warfare. He said that the expected casualty rate urban fighting is 80%, on the part of the invaders.
In a wide-spread revolt, armed citizens would have the advantage of holing up in buildings and firing on anyone who comes near. Unarmed citizens have no recourse if the government were to suddenly decide to become a dictatorship.
--Mel
Yep. Ever hear of the Warsaw Ghetto? Think it couldn't happen here? Take a look at this:
quote: In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender "immediately."
Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.
The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the "Brady II" proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994.
Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law's requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a "hunting" or "sporting" type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world's first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.
Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.
quote: The law initially required a five-day waiting period for customers purchasing firearms or handguns, and mandated a national criminal background check on purchasers buying handguns from ATF-licensed dealers. Private party sales, or sales by dealers who are not federally approved, were not effected as the federal government has no jursidiction to restrict intrastate commerce. The provision which mandated that local law enforcement officials carry out the background checks was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997 as an unfunded mandate. The waiting period provision was set to sunset in 1998. In the interval the so-called "instant-check" system, still used today (2005), was developed by the FBI. The "instant" check still requires a wait of three business days in instances where the system fails to positively approve or deny the applicant. Most states have some form of alternative to the background check such as concealed handgun permits or mandatory state or local level checks.
quote: In order to stem the flow of handgun violence, America needs a national system of handgun owner licensing. Handguns should be treated like cars in that owners would be licensed and handguns would be registered. Congress would establish minimum standards for the licensing system, which would be implemented by the states. Without a national system, gun traffickers will continue to make mass purchases of handguns in states with weak laws and sell them into the illegal market across the country. Minimum national standards will help to stop interstate gun trafficking and ensure that everyone who buys a handgun in this country is qualified to own one.
Licensing and registration - on a nationwide basis - are needed to curb the trafficking in guns that is responsible for the easy availability of guns on the streets of our nation.
And who enforces these laws anyway? Why, the ATF, of course. And why are they in the gun control business? Ask the IRS.
See, the very first law concerning guns in the US, besides the second amendment, was the National Firearms Act.
quote: National dismay over the weaponry wielded so conspicuously by organized crime during Prohibition led to passage in 1934 of the National Firearms Act, followed in four years by the Federal Firearms Act.
(from the ATF's website linked above)
Sounds good, right? The problem?
quote: The Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, repealing Prohibition, achieved ratification with unanticipated speed by 5 December 1933
Also from the exact same page. Ex post facto?
Okay, here's the kicker. The biggest part of this law, and the reason the ATF was even involved: TAXES. It was a revenue raising law, not a ban.
When this law was challenged to the SCOTUS, it was upheld, not because it was constitutional, but because the judges were lied to. Read about it here.
...now I forgot the point of all this...
Oh, yes, frog-in-a-pot syndrome. If you don't think the second amendment protects the rest, you've got your head in the sand. That's my opinion, and I'll get off my soapbox now.
IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, I'm assuming you didn't mean ex post facto in a legal sense, because that's not even close the definition. And there's absolutely no logical problem with seeing professional gangs use lots of dangerous weaponry on citizens and each other during a certain period in time, then passing a law after that period has passed which prevents the use of those weapons in the future.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
Yes, I know ex post facto in the law means to charge someone with a crime for something they did before the law was a law. I meant it as what it means: after the fact.
I have to get to bed. I have an early day tomorrow, but I'll try to come back to this thread tomorrow.
IP: Logged |
posted
It seems a bit of a stretch (not to mention a fine invocation of Godwin's Law) to propose that because the Nazis were able to use a law to nefarious ends, any law resembling that one should be avoided. Isn't it rather like saying that because the Nazis used school registration records to expell Jewish children from the schools, we shouldn't keep records of our students?
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: [EDIT: this was in response to Tresopax] Actually, that's not really true. My husband is in infantry school as we speak, and they have a section on urban warfare. He said that the expected casualty rate urban fighting is 80%, on the part of the invaders.
In a wide-spread revolt, armed citizens would have the advantage of holing up in buildings and firing on anyone who comes near. Unarmed citizens have no recourse if the government were to suddenly decide to become a dictatorship.
--Mel
This is much like the tactics the colonists used against the British during the Revolutionary war. We were able to win so many battles because we hid behind rocks and trees and wore dark clothing and the British wore bright red coats and marched in straight lines.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:t seems a bit of a stretch (not to mention a fine invocation of Godwin's Law) to propose that because the Nazis were able to use a law to nefarious ends, any law resembling that one should be avoided.
I don't see it so much as proof that gun control regulations are bad so much as supporting evidence for those who advocate an armed populace as a possible check on government. I've many times seen people call those statements paranoid. Examples are a good way to dsipense with the argument that it can't happen.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
