And I thought California was bad...

Maybe someone who lives there can provide an opinion...

knife control in the UK

BTW, I picked this up from www.drudgereport.com (beware Mozilla immune pop ups there).

I'm reminded of a statistic a few years back where the primary weapon resulting in fatalities during domestic disputes was.... wait for it .... cast iron frying pans.

I kept waiting for a ban on cast iron.

I wonder why we don't have that problem here? Oh, Yeah! Here we can get guns, swords, rifles and frying pans.

Realistically, human nature dictates that some folks will get angry, and some will lash out. As each weapon is removed from their reach, another will come into play. Broken bottles, forks and heavy cookware all can be (and have been) used in a pinch.

This reminds me of the house insulation sales pitch. If you have insulated the atic, they will show that 90% of all your heat leakage is through the walls. If you have insulated the walls, they will show that 90% of all your heat leakage is through the roof.

Take away the sharp knives, and there will be a new "most used" weapon. They'd get better reults if they required anger managment training after the very first domestic conflict report.


Daniel

[ QUOTE ]

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.


[/ QUOTE ]
I like that language. It reminds of me some of the nutty things you can do to "reduce" the odds of cancer - since it's important to fundamentally change your lifestyle in order to reduce the 0.05% overall risk of some obscure cancer by another 20%.

I'm also reminded of an exchange from the Archie Bunker show:
"Did you know that 90% of all murders are committed with guns?"
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they were pushed out of windows?"

It's a bit like interdicting the supply of illegal drugs without effecting the demand - the effects on consumption are minimal.

My (quite limited!) understanding of UK laws is that the right to self-defense has nearly been eliminated. Society will protect you - only a barbarian would use violence!

Citizens of the UK can feel free to interject.

Cars by far are the most dangerous day-to-day weapon there is my opinion says. 2,000+ pounds coming at 35 mph+ is doing to be a LOT more devastating on a bystander than a 230 grain weight bullet coming at 800 fps.

And most folks on the roads drive like maniacs, I rarely see responsible gun owners take the same risks with guns.

I'm not speaking for or against guns, but in 357's post the comparison just does not work.

For instance....
It's hard to sneak into your house with my F150 pickup truck. It's hard to conceal my Prius hybrid as I stalk you at the mall, waiting for an opportune moment to attack. I probably would have a hard time hitting you 6 times in a row at 35 MPH.

However....
I can sneak a 357 into your house, conceal it on my way through the mall and shoot it 6 times before anyone is likely to stop me. Ignore the fact that I'd probably miss.

Of course, I can do the much the same thing with a knife, taser, rope, wrench and broken bottle. It's silly to single out any single type of weapon.

Daniel

Add one more...the toilet tank cover. Was told of a case where somebody was done in with one. In a lighter vein,(Jugular?) A friend's brother and his wife got into it, and he was REALLY mad, so he tried finish his lady love off, using a genuine CHAMPEEN fighting rooster. As a club, I think a 3D Mag would be much better. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

A properly trained person can easily kill with their bare hands as quickly as shooting a gun. Granted, it takes much longer to learn how than it does to just pull a trigger, but the point is that if a person wants to do someone in, they'll find a way.

The real question we should be asking is what is it about our way of living that wants to make people kill each other? There have been societies where murder is practically unheard of (Tibet is or at least was one such society if memory serves me correctly). We answer that and we'll accomplish more than all the gun or kitchen knife control in the world. Weapons control is a mere bandaid for a larger societal problem.

That's essentially what I was hinting at, jtr.

California has pretty leniant knife laws (as opposed to the State's gun laws). So, what does California have to do with the UK? I'm guessing it's a comparison b/w the two (to remedy my sarcasm).

At least California wasn't spelled with a "K."

-dan

first guns, then knives....soon to be cricket bats

Phillips screwdrivers should be registered...at first.

Dano, it really wasn't a comparison between the two, it was just my surprise at the UK official mindset combined with a little nudge at our California gun laws, especially our continuing, ever growing, retroactive, and unbounded bans on "assault" weapons and high capacity magazine (even after Federal laws were repealed... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon8.gif).

California knife laws are OK (..4" blades, 2" switchblades...).

BTW, I was in Singapore once where guns are of course completely illegal (my associates found it astounding that I had my own collection...). However when I asked about knives, I was told (Singaporeans please correct me if I'm wrong here) that knives up to 6" were OK. They also said that some of the Malay type people were very, very expert with knives, so it's not like you can't get hurt there. It's more like the Singaporeans have a culture - some might say a rigid culture - of everyone OBEYING THE LAW, and that culture, more than the limitation on weapons, is the reason for their low crime rates. Also a no nonsense judicial system with real punishments, i.e. if you use a gun in a crime, they tack 5 years on, if the gun goes off, it's life, if anyone is hurt as a result of the gun going off, it's death (and they aren't kidding like us when they say death).

At least parts of that sounded good to me... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif.

California has progressed from a very liberal state where tollerance was the rule to a state where the laws are fairly restrictive. You need all sorts of permits to do just about any kind of business. You need to pay all kinds of strange fees from time to time.

We have a group of reactionary legislators. They have fallen into the habit of making laws to prohibit specific actions. They can't seem to write general laws that stand up in court.

So here in California, Assult is a crime. Asssult with a knife adds penalties, and more for assult with a gun. Assulting a judge or police man is even more punishable. And if it's with a "saturday night special" there's more penalties. And it goes on and on. In short, California has some silly, poorly written laws that react to single (and sometimes unique) crimes.

One of my favorites examples is the school+assault rifle law. A guy killed a lot of kids at a school with a rifle. They passed a law saying it's illegal to have an assualt rifle within some distance of a school. I guess the multiple murder charges just weren't enough.

So that's what California has to do with the the suggestion to outlaw sharp kitchen knives in the UK.


Daniel

Yesterday, in San Diego, a robber entered a pharmacy to rob the place (for a second time in two months.) He was shot dead by an employee. I quote Lt. Kevin Rooney, San Diego Police Department, "If someone feels their life is threatened, they are allowed to defend themselves."

I can't say it any clearer than that. Criminals in California, you've been warned.

Here is the story:

SanDiego.com

[ QUOTE ]
...An employee recognized the man as the same person who allegedly robbed the business of prescription drugs at gunpoint on April 11, Rooney said.

The man again demanded drugs, and reached for the butt of what appeared to be a handgun protruding from his waistband, according to Rooney.

As the man placed his hand on the gun, the employee who recognized him pulled a gun and fatally wounded the suspect, Rooney said.

The suspect collapsed near the pharmacy's front door and the employee called police. The suspect died at the scene, Rooney said.

It turned out the man's gun was a plastic replica revolver, according to Rooney. The employee involved in the shooting was questioned and released...

[/ QUOTE ]

So far--in most of the US, you still have the absolute right of self-defense. Even if the robber is dumb and carrying a plastic gun.

But, the shooting is still being investigated:

[ QUOTE ]
...homicide team will investigate the shooting and present its findings to the District Attorney's Office...

[/ QUOTE ]

-Bill

Yes, it will be investigated. The law is not quite as easy to understand as it should be. In California, I understand that it's only justifiable if you fear for you life and have no way to escape. If the bad guy says "I'll be back" and turns around you may have problems if you shoot him as he leaves.

Of course, only a lawyer would expect you to be able to make such a distinction while scared half to death.

I don't even pretend to understand the laws we live under. I've taken speed reading courses and can't imagine going through all the laws that are on teh books here.

Me think's that Florida got it right:

Florida OKs new self-defense law

[ QUOTE ]
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 a.m.
By Manuel Roig-Franzia
The Washington Post

MIAMI — It is either a Wild West revival, a return to the days of "shoot first and ask questions later," or a triumph for the "Castle Doctrine," the notion that enemies invade personal space at their peril.

Such dueling rhetoric marked the debate over a measure that passed the Florida Legislature so emphatically that National Rifle Association backers plan to take it to states across the nation over the next year. The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street.

Gov. Jeb Bush signed the legislation yesterday....

[/ QUOTE ]

I never believed that the crook had the right to make a victim (me) run or risk prosecution by the law if I stood my ground--Though, I understand that many will think that this law is nuts.

-Bill

Here is another article with some history on self defense:

Perspective

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, we all should want Florida's streets to resemble neighborhoods in the Old West. A little research would explain why. Historians Richard Shenkman and W. Eugene Hollon have written about real violence in the frontier West, noting, for example, that in 1878 — the heyday of cattle-drive boomtowns — Dodge City recorded just five homicides.

In a February 2004 essay appearing on lewrockwell.com, Colorado policy analyst and Internet columnist Ryan McMaken noted that "All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885. Dodge City alone saw 15 people die violently from 1876-1885, an average of 1.5 per year."

Compared with the landscape between Tallahassee and Miami, the real West was comatose. People actually left their doors unlocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Dodge City" is American short hand for for a deadly "wild west" town...

In Oakland CA (right across the SF Bay from me), they have the highest murder rate in California (2002):

California's murder rates up in 2002

[ QUOTE ]
But Oakland had 108 killings, a 28.6-percent jump. Across the bay, San Francisco's figure was unchanged at 62 homicides.

[/ QUOTE ]

108 vs 1.5 people killed in a year. One they ignore, the other they write books about. Something is very wrong.

-Bill

You really have to look at the per-capita violence rate. Salinas Ca (a small farming community of about 150,000 people) had almost as many shootings as Oakland. In 2002 Oakland had 400,000 people.

That means that you are safer in Oakland, where your chance of being the target is 1 in 400,000. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dodge City's population was only 10,000 in 1950. I found the following quote at the Dodge City historical society web page.

[ QUOTE ]

In 1876 the population was 1,200 and nineteen businesses were licensed to sell liquor.

[/ QUOTE ]

1.5 deaths out of 1,200 people? That's still only 1.5 in 1200 as opposed to Oaklands 108 in 400,000 (works out to 1 in 3703).

Per-capita, Dodge city was a dangerous place by modern standards. Dodge city also had "a population that varied with the seasons", so the actual populatoin was hard to track.

Daniel