Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Adam, Toronto, Canada on May 24, 2008:

Of course banning pointed knives is patently ridiculous, particularly given their occasional necessity and frequent utility in the kitchen - not to mention a plethora of other long, sharp, pointed tools that are frequently found around the house. A significant point, however, is often overlooked in any argument about violent crime and weapon control: few people consider the relative lethality of the weapons being discussed. The UK has a higher rate of violent crime than the US, true, but their murder rate is about a quarter that of the United States (per capita, of course). Banning guns is unlikely to have any significant impact on crime rates, but it is undeniably more difficult to kill someone with a steak knife than a 9mm pistol. I suspect - having not read the article in the BMJ I cannot of course speak authoritatively - that the writer would not object to the points on paring knives as much as those on 10 or 12 inch butcher's blades.

---

My summary story indeed quotes that they're after the "long, pointed knife (emphasis added). -rc

Posted by Jason, Dallas Tx on May 24, 2008:

My only point is this, banning guns (or pointy knives) is (pardon the pun) Pointless. In the end all it does it disarm the law abiding public. 80 million gun owners in the US are not running out and shooting someone every day, nor are the vastly superior numbers of knife owners out stabbing people every day. LOL

Criminals don't seem to care about laws, so they don't follow them. The only place you need to look for that is the "war on drugs". Trust me, they (drugs) are EASY to get. That tells me that "banning" things, or making them illegal only really serves to prop up the bankrolls of politicians and the govt. agency's. Creation of jobs, etc. Ever since Nancy Reagan said "just say no" thousands of jobs were created to fight a war they have no intention of winning.

I will always stand that a gun should be legal. Yer right, its much harder to kill 16 kids w/ a bat. At the same time its much easier for a 110 lb woman to defend herself from a 300 lb man intent on rape. (for the record i'm a guy) ... oh and the person who said it would be harder to do the shooting in Scotland with a shotgun (i was stationed there at the time) is goofy, they don't call it a "room sweeper" for nothing, and a cut off shotgun (if he's gonna shoot someone does he care about legal length?) with a pistol grip is REAL easy to hide under a jacket. Its still about a person, planing to do something illegal, and evil.

In the end it comes down to people, and people will shoot people, bigger people will beat down smaller people, men will beat women, people will buy/do drugs etc. All of those things are illegal now. Yet they are still done unfortunately. You cant legislate being nice. I can google to my hearts content, but i will never find a court case "US vs. Some 9mm" because like knives they don't jump up and shoot someone by themselves.

Posted by Rob, Indiana on May 25, 2008:

By this same logic, hands should be illegal. You can strangle somebody with your hands, and you can use your hands to fire a gun or stab with a knife. THIS is the root of all evil; HANDS! Government-enforced hand removal will start this Tuesday. Have a great day, everybody!

Posted by Fred Slater - not the USA on May 25, 2008:

There is a severe illness in the American psyche over their obsession with weapons. Time to grow up and heal yourselves.

---

Why are you afraid to say you're in Australia?

But here's a thought: how about taking some effort to understand the concept, rather than look down your nose at it? England has banned weapons, and now look at what has happened there. Meanwhile, state after U.S. state have adopted laws to allow people to carry concealed weapons, and the result has been that violent crime has been sharply reduced (see just one discussion of the subject). Yes, we do have an issue with violence -- and by "we" I mean humanity, not America. Ignoring it hasn't made it go away. Dealing with it has helped. How is Australia dealing with it? -rc

Posted by Mike Los Angeles on May 26, 2008:

Decades ago I read somewhere that Christopher Columbus learned a rumor that his crew were planning a mutiny. One of the things he did was to round off the points of knives, thus giving us the dinner knife. And it must've worked -- he DID get to America.

Somebody wanting to kill, will; but making it harder to do may save some lives.

Gun control? I dunno. We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals -- but if they're banned, and only the government has them, how do we protect ourselves against a military dictatorship? I've never resolved this in my mind.

---

My BS-o-Meter gonged at the Columbus story. I didn't really research it, but this site says Louis the XIV "invented" them (if you will). -rc

Posted by Craig Minnesota on May 27, 2008:

Guns are tools. Like any tool they can be misused. The problem is that guns are the most deadly tool your average human can get their hands on. Sure I can run you over with my car, if you're stationary. Sure I can attack you with a bat, unless you're faster than me. Or a knife, unless you're more than arm's lengeth plus knife lengeth away. An untrained person, who needs help can walk into a crowded public area and kill many people, especially if they don't care about their own life. Give that person a knife instead and how many lives are saved? Give the Colombine kids knives, or that Virginia Tech guy a knife. How many of those killed would've survived?

The reson I'm fine with Police and military personnel having guns is because they go through special training. How much training does it take for me? Almost none. Hell in Minnesota I can take a 3 and a half hour class and a 6 hour class for $325 total and carry a concealed weapon into almost any public area in the state (unless they properly display a correctly worded sign forbidding it). Less than a grand and two evenings and I'm suddenly Sheriff Craig.

Plus the "defend ourselves from our government" argument no longer holds water. Lets say the trend continues and all civil rights are vacated. How exactly are you going to defend yourself against a STEALTH BOMBER or a M1A2 ABRAMS with your collection of pistols, riffles and shotguns? Face it if a single person, or group of people, could convince the armed services and police forces to join their banner we are done f'ed.

Posted by Kermit, Washington State on May 27, 2008:

Even after pointing it out, I see that many posters miss one point - they don't want to ban firearms, they want to feel safer. There are a number of assumptions implicit in asserting that seriously limiting legal ownership of firearms will do that. For those who weren't around 88 years ago, may I review alcohol Prohibition in the US? We as a people largely agreed that alcohol consumption was associated with many problems, and some folks thought that banning it altogether was an effective solution.

After Prohibition was enacted: per capita alcohol consumption went up in the US; many police were corrupted (they were offered large amounts of money to look the other way for behavior they were indulging in months earlier); criminal gangs were well-funded, and gang warfare over lucrative customer territory broke out; young folks went on dates to speakeasies and learned that it was cool to hang out with gangsters; alcoholics could not easily seek treatment from their ministers or doctors - they'd have to admit that they were routinely committing felony offenses; and respectable folks had to give up their careers (brewers and bartenders) in tough times or become criminals.

The consequences of the law were not what the proponents of it were expecting. Some folks press for certain laws so hard and so long they forget what they really want from it.

---

And the worst part? We're still feeling the effects from Prohibition. "Organized crime", once it was "organized", didn't just go away when Prohibition ended; it simply moved to other vices (drugs, anyone?) Saying "Oops: we made a mistake" (ending Prohibition) wasn't enough. -rc

Posted by Anddrea, Virginia on May 27, 2008:

Written into the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. Look at the history when it was written. At that point they had been protecting themselves against the government of the time (British Monarchy). They felt it important that people be able to defend themselves against an unjust and corrupt government.

But people don't want to think that it might come to blows in the end. The founding fathers also believed in State Sovreignty where each state has the right to override the Federal Rule which has also fallen by the wayside in recent events (eg: CA voted down gay marriage act twice and federal government over turned it and allowed it). Its frustrating to think that people are actually pushing for the government to take away the same rights to be a self governing people that were given by those who fought so hard to provide us with it in the first place. It is truly tragic.

Posted by Beth in Maryland on May 27, 2008:

I don't remember where I first heard this, but it seems to fit this discussion... "When seconds matter, police are only minutes away."

Posted by JEQP, Mexico on May 27, 2008:

I used to think that many problems would be reduced by banning guns in America, but then I saw a Michael Moore video which put forward a very convincing argument that it wasn't the number of guns in America that was the problem, but the culture of America and the psychology of its people.

Posted by: Felix, California | May 20, 2008 1:24 AM
You make some good points, but it sounds a bit like a straw-man argument. You put up a couple of arguments as being common -- and they well might be -- but then after refuting them you imply the debate is over, as if they were the only two arguments being raised. And personally, I've never heard anyone use them.

---

American doesn't have a problem with violence, humanity does. Take a look at what started this thread: it was a story from England.

As for Felix, he presented two points and discussed them. I sure didn't take it as a complete exploration of this rather complex subject. Not sure why you thought it was. -rc