Gun-rights advocates used to joke that if gun control were implemented, paternalists would go after knives next.

It doesn’t sound so funny anymore.

A rash of knifings in London has led to a crackdown:

Knife crime among young people has sparked a widespread debate in recent weeks in Britain, where police say they have seen “a worrying trend” toward more severe knife attacks involving younger attackers and victims.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Thursday announced a crackdown on teenagers carrying knives, saying that those as young as 16 will be prosecuted for knife possession on the first offense. Previously, anyone younger than 18 generally received only a warning.

“Young people need to understand that carrying knives doesn’t protect you, it does the opposite—it increases the danger for all of us, destroys young lives and ruins families,” Brown said after meeting with top police and government officials at his 10 Downing Street office. “Recent tragic events have reminded us of that.” . . .

While overall knife crime has decreased 16 percent from last year, police say, the average age of attackers and victims has shifted from the late teens or early 20s to the early to mid-teens.

Of the 16 teenage homicide victims in London so far this year, police said, two were shot, three were beaten and 11 were stabbed. Of the 26 teenagers slain in London last year, 16 cases involved knives.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, the government official in charge of public security, said the government has also doubled the maximum sentence for knife possession to four years. And she said the government plans to spend about $6 million on an advertising campaign to steer young people away from knives.

Hang on just a second. According to the news story, nearly all gun ownership is illegal in Britain. But if guns cause crime, then what is causing the rash of knifings in Britain? Do all weapons cause crime? Or is there—and I realize this is just an absolutely crazy thing to say—maybe just a smidgen of truth to the theory that it’s the other way around: that weapons cause crime the way flies cause garbage?

I know. It’s nuts. Forget I said anything.

Susan - would you rather “feel” safer, or actually BE safer?

You might “feel” safer in Britain, but their violent crime rate has exploded in the wake of their gun ban.

The “progressive” socialists in England have turned common sense - and a centuries-old history of English common law - on its head.

Hey Susan, “bullet-giddy society”? How many of your co-workers, friends and family use a gun on a weekly or monthly basis? No one I know does. Yet on the 11pm news and morning Rich TD, we are exposed to those that ignore gun laws and do use them. Anyone you know? Not me.

So who lives in a “bullet-giddy” society? Do we see them on TV? Or would that be racist or accusatory or discriminatory or unfair or bigoted or, perhaps, identifying the perps.

And of course, in England they require registration of TOY guns and knives, as well:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/7196104.stm>

More on arms control in Knives part III.

Next there will be a ban on sticks and rocks, and ultimately clenching your fist will be a felony.

Feh.

And in Japan, a guy killed seven people by running his car into a crowd and then jumping out and randomly slashing like crazy with a knife.  Good thing guns are so controlled over there so they don’t have mass killings, like the “wild west” craziness over here in bloody America.

Gun violence. As though the gun was the doer of the deed. No it is the finger attatched to the person on the other end of that gun that does the damage. Until we can figure out a way to re-arrange man’s basic hard wiring there will always be murder and mayhem. I imagine it started with fists and progressed to rocks and clubs. Then some enterprising caveman discovered he could sharpen some bit of shale or something and lo and behold instant intimidation. A certain percentage of any population will not be content with theirs, they will want yours too and will be willing to hurt you to get it. Without the civilizing effect of laws and a willingness and ability to enforce those laws any society will degenerate to barbarian levels of behaviour. Think Lord of the Flies. To a great extent life is a series of cycles. Almost everything is cyclical. Human behavior is no exception. We just never seen to recognize it. Perhaps sometimes the cycles are too long for one lifetime to
include the beginning and the end of the cycle. There are periods of great upheaval followed by periods of relative calm and serenity. Small cycles occuring within larger cycles. Getting to the edge of disaster and pulling back before we all fall off the mountain. Each generation thinks that they have generated and retreated from their own disaster. Times change and technology changes and to a certain extent mores change but man remains constant. The same people you knew in kindergarten keep showing up during your lifetime. They may have different faces but they are the same.

This is one of those rare occasions where I believe all posters had darn good points to make.

Kudos to all. Well said.

Believe it or not R. Smith, the gunman in Tyler Binstead’s death was a gunPERSON—not a gunMAN! Let’s be gender sensitive here…

And she was a young too. A whole other topic & one that I’ve been trying to raise. The vast, overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed by slime ages 11-23. Yet—YET—it is this age group that gets the lightest sentencing!!! Oh, we’ve got the death penalty & no-parole alright...but look who gets the death penalty in Virginia—always some middle-aged clown who’s mentally retarded to boot.

The young criminals are the most dangerous and, by far, the most active. It is they who needs to be zapped. Well, if anything it is this young age group that must be impressed upon. But we’re not gonna be able to do that by continuing to give them powder-puff treatment in court—sentences that they merely laugh about.

Thanks spineless legislators & prosecutors. Thanks a whole helluva lot.

I don’t know why I left that first “if only” in there.

I went over and read the Kings College report on knife violence and it’s clear that they’re already falling back on the usual cliche’s about poverty and discrimination. I’ve said it a million times...there has always been poverty and far worse discrimination in both Britain and the US. Even so, people managed to make it thru without slaughtering one another on the scale we see today. What’s changed has been the culture and the willingness of supposedly responsible authority figures to make excuses for such behavior.

You can’t glorify and market thuggery, obscene violence and anti social behavior and then act surprised or run hide behind some half assed idea of “artistic expression\” when society devolves into violence. Eventually such high minded individuals are going to run out of ivy covered walls to hide behind. Then they’ll have to confront the consequences of their foolishness.

You touch on a good point Larry. If everyone agreed to mutually disarm then the police could rely on nightsticks like they have over in Britain...where gun violence is rising and select police units are being issued....guns.

Human nature dictates that people will always seek advantage. This is one reason why knives are becoming so popular in Britain. Getting caught with a knife carries less punishment but can be just as deadly and even more practical than a gun because they’re silent, don’t leave evidence in the victims body and easily disposed of.

And the Tyler Binstead (if only) argument is weak. If only the guy who shot him had been a decent human being. And guns have always proliferated American society. Everyone I knew growing up had them on the wall or in a drawer somewhere. What happened in the early seventies wasn’t a “proliferation of guns” it was the collapse of civil decency and the glorification of anti social behavior that is still heavily promoted today.

I’m willing to bet that the kid who shot Mr. Binstead, or the kids who shot the ice cream man, or the guys who butchered the Harvey family (with knives and hammers)didn’t spend a lot of time listening to the Beach Boys.

Good point made by Susan regarding the cold-blooded murder of Tyler Binstead. Knives cannot be employed in the same ‘trouble-free’ manner as guns can. If knives could easily be used in place of guns by murderers—as some claim—then knives would also be good enough for police officers & our military. Now how true is THAT?!

But I’d also like to say that g.c. opponents are partially correct with their argument—partially. I know a man who used to be a police officer in Richmond city, back in the early-1970s before guns proliferated here. He was sickened by the injuries he saw, and that resulted from people determined to do harm without a gun. Pencils and similar-size instruments right through the eye socket & embedded there. etc. He left the Richmond force and went out to the county as a result of seeing stuff like that everyday. So I guess if someone’s gonna get it, its a lot cleaner & less painful with a gun. Whatever concession that might be…

Post Your Comments: