There is also a correlation between gun owners or the possibility of someone being armed and crimes being halted or never even attempted, too bad the pointy heads we employ with our tax dollars don't even attempt to track that data.
......
I just finished an interesting book, Freakonomics and at the very least, it was excellent food for thought. In it, if I recall correctly, they might have questioned this correlation or at least the existence of viable data to support it. However I think they did agree with the premise. They also pointed out the distinction between correlation and cause/effect relationships.
When I said there was a correlation between knives and knife crimes, I meant it in almost a tautology; by definition a knife crime involves a knife. If there were no such thing as a knife then there would be no such thing as a knife crime. There is no indication though that the previous knife crime might not have become a pie cutter or garden shovel crime in the absence of knives. Granted there is perhaps a difference in opportunity but still the point remains and supported if the motive remains.
In the mentioned book, they point out that if a home owner has small children and also owns a gun as well as a swimming pool in the back yard that the probability of harm coming to the children from the gun is way much less than the probability of harm from the swimming pool. In many cases, there may be gun lock laws in place but none regarding enclosures or impediments to keep the children out of the pool. I got the sense that these guys argued that we need to look at actual causes and if laws are written, they need to focus on the causes themselves and not the instruments used in the cause.
In the case of a crime, you have motive, opportunity and ability to carry out the crime. It would seem that the proposed ban is based on the assumption that this would have a meaningful impact on the ability to carry out a crime? It seems to me that:
A) the ban is unlikely to keep these tools, if they really are so great in providing the needed ability to the criminal, from the criminal. They could indeed bring to life additional crime in a black market of supply.
B) Again assuming that these knives are so great as weapons, they are now not available to law abiding citizens intent on having a means of self defense but likely available to those with disregard for the law and intent on criminal behavior.
C) I am confident that the intended crime could be carried out with the use of some other tool in lieu of the banned knife.
D) if this ban is as wide in scope as assumed and discussed here then the retractable box cutters and folding box cutters should be included. If that were to be the case, I expect there to be more harm among the population by accidental and self inflicted wounds resulting from exposed and sharp blades in the work areas. More blood may flow and more harm resulting because of the ban.
To anyone curious about the mentioned book, I won't get into it here as it is likely a topic for the underground but these guys make a strong case (indirectly) for the consideration that Roe VS Wade has had much more impact on the crimes this ban is addressing than any ban on knife design is likely to have!
That is a major component of the issue many of us have. If we allow "them" to take one freedom from us today, what will "they" try to take away tomorrow? Where does it end? What is too much and by the time "they" reach that point will we still have enough rights and freedoms left to tell them "no" ?
