Today’s Mass Stabbings

[arthwollipot]

What part of "I refuse to answer on the grounds that is a stupid question" was unclear?

Tell you what. I'll answer your stupid question if you'll answer mine. Do you dispute that if they had used guns, they would most likely have killed more people?

 

[Warp12]

What part of "I refuse to answer on the grounds that is a stupid question" was unclear?

Tell you what. I'll answer your stupid question if you'll answer mine. Do you dispute that if they had used guns, they would most likely have killed more people?

Clearly it is not possible for us to have a reasonable debate on this. I am asking entirely pertinent questions to this knife attack. This includes commentary on mental health, criminal justice system failures, and weapons restrictions on knives (as implemented in the UK). You are focusing almost exclusively on guns.

 

[arthwollipot]

Clearly it is not possible for us to have a reasonable debate on this. I am asking entirely pertinent questions to this knife attack. This includes commentary on mental health, criminal justice system failures, and weapons restrictions on knives (as implemented in the UK). You are focusing almost exclusively on guns.

You're asking me, specifically, about weapons restrictions on knives. That's the question that I consider stupid. You have also asked a perfectly valid question about mental health and criminal justice system failures, which I have answered.

 

[Warp12]

You're asking me, specifically, about weapons restrictions on knives. That's the question that I consider stupid. You have also asked a perfectly valid question about mental health and criminal justice system failures, which I have answered.

I don't understand why those are stupid questions. As I have mentioned, increased knife restrictions have been legislated in the UK. And we have even seen some effort to market knives that are less capable of stabbing.

I am simply asking if you think these measures are an effective solution to the problem, and if you would endorse them more universally.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't understand why those are stupid questions.

As I have said, I consider it a stupid question because it's a distraction from the real issues and only ever raised as an anti-gun control straw argument. It's in the same rhetorical ballpark as swimming pool restrictions and household chemical restrictions. And by the way, it was completely predictable that someone would bring it up in this case. If not you, someone else.

As I have mentioned, increased knife restrictions have been legislated in the UK. And we have even seen some effort to market knives that are less capable of stabbing.

I am simply asking if you think these measures are an effective solution to the problem, and if you would endorse them more universally.

I see that you are as determined not to answer my question as I am not to answer yours. I've explained my reasoning why I won't answer your question. Will you explain why you won't answer mine?

 

[Warp12]

As I have said, I consider it a stupid question because it's a distraction from the real issues and only ever raised as an anti-gun control straw argument. It's in the same rhetorical ballpark as swimming pool restrictions and household chemical restrictions. And by the way, it was completely predictable that someone would bring it up in this case. If not you, someone else.

I see that you are as determined not to answer my question as I am not to answer yours. I've explained my reasoning why I won't answer your question. Will you explain why you won't answer mine?

Because I don't see where it is relevant to the stabbings that we are discussing. And I have already stated that I am not against further restriction on guns.

As I am sure you are aware, knife crime is very significant, statistically. And there is intent involved. It is not comparable to a swimming pool accident or accidental poisoning.

 

[arthwollipot]

Because I don't see where it is relevant to the stabbings that we are discussing. And I have already stated that I am not against further restriction on guns.

Guns have been part of this discussion since the OP. And your first post in the thread was the one that introduced the "knife control" straw argument. I was just responding to that.

As I am sure you are aware, knife crime is very significant, statistically. And there is intent involved. It is not comparable to a swimming pool accident or accidental poisoning.

I don't think it is all that significant, statistically.

 

[Warp12]

As I am sure you are aware, knife crime is very significant, statistically.

I don't think it is all that significant, statistically.

According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime's 2019 Global Study on Homicide, knives were the weapon of choice in 97,183 homicides in 2017, a full 22% of the world's total.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country

I would say that 22% of total homicides is significant.

 

[zooterkin]

So, how many other mass stabbings have occurred since this one, and how many mass shootings in the same time?

 

[arthwollipot]

So, how many other mass stabbings have occurred since this one, and how many mass shootings in the same time?

Exactly.

 

[Warp12]

So, how many other mass stabbings have occurred since this one, and how many mass shootings in the same time?

What is your point? I am not claiming that there are more mass stabbings overall…although that is undoubtedly true in some countries. I am saying that knife-related homicides are statistically very significant. And, I am asking, what levels of knife regulation should be implemented? Consider:

In North America, firearm deaths were responsible for roughly 76% of all homicides, with knife-related homicides accounting for less than 20%. However, the numbers are reversed in Europe, where guns account for barely 20% of homicides but knives are used nearly 40% of the time. In fact, the United Nations identified sixteen countries in which knives and sharp instruments were used in more than half of the country's homicides.

And again, this isn’t a debate about gun control. It is about what are we going to do to limit these knife crimes? What are the primary contributing factors? Is "knife control" an avenue that should be pursued more aggressively? If not, why not?

 

[Thermal]

I know TSA took my Swiss Army knife (again) on my last flight, and got all mad because I broke it before giving it to them. The bastards sell them on eBay. That's some knife control I'd like to see have the choker tightened on.

 

[novaphile]

Weirdly enough, we do have 'knife control' laws here in South Australia.

If you are found carrying a knife, without 'lawful excuse' in certain public places, you have committed an offence.

Chefs can carry their knives to and from work, but thugs can't carry them to and from licensed premises.

Seems to be working fine.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is "knife control" an avenue that should be pursued more aggressively?

Okay fine. I'll answer your stupid question. No.

If not, why not?

Because a knife is a legitimate tool that is used for a huge variety of different functions other than injuring or killing. It would make no more sense than to restrict hammers, or screwdrivers, or 2x4s. All of which can be and have been used to enact violence, but which have vastly more utilitarian uses.

Lots of objects could be used to kill. But the vast majority of times that they are used, they are not, and they should not be restricted on the off-chance that one day someone might use them in that way. I'm pretty sure that given the right circumstances, I could kill someone with a ballpoint pen. Should "pen control" be pursued to ensure that I do not?

If you're wondering why I'm finding this conversation frustrating, review this older thread, in which someone tried to argue that I should be supportive of restricting 3-d printers. That was a ludicrous proposition for exactly the same reason.

Landmark Legal Shift Opens Pandora's Box for DIY Guns

 

[Warp12]

Weirdly enough, we do have 'knife control' laws here in South Australia.

If you are found carrying a knife, without 'lawful excuse' in certain public places, you have committed an offence.

Chefs can carry their knives to and from work, but thugs can't carry them to and from licensed premises.

Seems to be working fine.

I believe another restriction that was implemented in the UK was a restriction on mail-ordering knives. I'm interested to see how much these enhanced laws help reduce knife-related homicide and other crime.

 

[Warp12]

Okay fine. I'll answer your stupid question. No.

Because a knife is a legitimate tool that is used for a huge variety of different functions other than injuring or killing. It would make no more sense than to restrict hammers, or screwdrivers, or 2x4s. All of which can be and have been used to enact violence, but which have vastly more utilitarian uses.

Lots of objects could be used to kill. But the vast majority of times that they are used, they are not, and they should not be restricted on the off-chance that one day someone might use them in that way. I'm pretty sure that given the right circumstances, I could kill someone with a ballpoint pen. Should "pen control" be pursued to ensure that I do not?

If you're wondering why I'm finding this conversation frustrating, review this older thread, in which someone tried to argue that I should be supportive of restricting 3-d printers. That was a ludicrous proposition for exactly the same reason.

Landmark Legal Shift Opens Pandora's Box for DIY Guns

I wouldn't exactly put a knife on the same level as a hammer or 2x4. Some knives are definitely killing tools, in the right hands, and soldiers carry them for close combat.

https://www.knifecenter.com/shop/combat-knives

So then, you are saying that knife restrictions are a ridiculous way to address the problem of knife killings/violence? What do you think would be much more effective areas of focus?

As far as a restriction on 3D printers, I agree, that is just stupid.

 

[Thermal]

Weirdly enough, we do have 'knife control' laws here in South Australia.

If you are found carrying a knife, without 'lawful excuse' in certain public places, you have committed an offence.

Chefs can carry their knives to and from work, but thugs can't carry them to and from licensed premises.

Seems to be working fine.

In NJ USA, you have to have a "legally justifiable purpose" for carrying a knife. While that doesn't mean much, it gives construction guys an out.

 

[arthwollipot]

I wouldn't exactly put a knife on the same level as a hammer or 2x4. Some are definitely killing tools, in the right hands, and soldiers carry them for close combat.

Sure, knives have been carried by soldiers for literally millennia. But after WW1, they use their guns a whole lot more often. Knives are carried because they are useful tools, not because they are effective weapons.

So then, you are saying that knife restrictions are a ridiculous way to address the problem of knife killings/violence? What do you think will be much more effective areas of focus?

I'm saying that while there is a certain amount of sense in reasonable restrictions on carrying certain kinds of knives in public, as novaphile has addressed, the idea of "knife control" as a response to mass murder is a dumb straw argument that makes no sense at all.

 

[Warp12]

I'm saying that while there is a certain amount of sense in reasonable restrictions on carrying certain kinds of knives in public, as novaphile has addressed, the idea of "knife control" as a response to mass murder is a dumb straw argument that makes no sense at all.

What kind of knife restrictions do you think could have prevented this event, or made it less likely to occur?

And if no such restrictions would have mattered, why not?

 

[arthwollipot]

I answered your first dumb question under duress. I'm not going to respond to your bombarding me with more. "Knife control" remains a red herring.