It's official, british Govt. bans knives !

[redguru]

what makes you say that? escalation without a gun usually leads to a broken head, not a corpse. guns reduce the killing theshold, simple as that

In manslaughter cases, I would tend to agree. But in the case of premeditated murder, I disagree.

 

[JayC9]

The point is, of those 71% that used guns, how many of them would have happened without a gun? I say a vast majority would still have occured.

You're suggesting that the death would have occurred whether a firearm was used or not. In answer, I can't see how that can that be proven so I honestly don't know? If one person is determined to kill another person regardless of the consequences then what can be done to prevent them from going through with it? Very little! There are far too many external factors and variations involved to go down that line of argument. All I'm stating is that statistics dictate that countries which allow the ownership of firearms will have a higher rate of deaths caused by firearms than countries that do not allow the ownership of firearms.

One of the main arguments being used in this thread (and referenced article) justifying the right to own a firearm and also the logic behind preserving firearm/weapon ownership for the purpose of self-defense is "criminals don't abide by the rules". Of course this statement is correct because criminals by definition violate and ignore laws however in this context the question really is, would a criminal find it easier to obtain a firearm in the UK or the US/Canada? The answer is obvious, the reason being because of the differences in the laws governing the availability of firearms. Would that criminal have trouble finding an alternative weapon (e.g. knife) in either country? No, because there are practical limitations to what a governing body can do to stipulate, define and enforce a law.

Here we must pause to examine the fundamental difference between a weapon of consequence and a firearm or weapon designed specifically for killing. An object which is designed primarily for peaceable use, when used for the purpose of killing is abused by the individual for the purpose of committing that crime. A firearm though is designed only for one purpose, to kill and it fulfills that purpose very efficiently.

The knife amnesty the UK government is launching is not aimed at table or butter knifes, its aimed specifically at knives designed for stabbing (flick-knives, switchblades, automatic knives, gravity knives, stealth knives, disguised knives, push daggers, butterfly knives, swords) or knives of a length that could kill a human in one stab the same as a gun can with a single bullet.

This is not a new law in the UK! It's simply a push by the government in response to the increasing violent crimes (particularly stabbings) and pressure from the UK public to take action to remedy and put an end to this type of crime. As a matter of interest legislation in the UK restricting the use, sale and carrying of certain types of knives has been in effect dating from 1959, so this is certainly nothing new by any stretch of the imagination.

In my opinion: Stepping back and looking at world patterns concerning the manufacture and use of weapons, I will say that I understand the whole concept of peace and security based on the mutual ability to kill one another as not only a negative despondent cycle but also completely mindless, born of survival rather than of any hope of rectifying the situation.

 

[silverbackn]

Butter is not good, will make you fat. Butter will be banned so its not an issue anymore comrade.

Agreed! We need the government to protect us from our own free will and intelligence! We need communism to make a comeback. This democracy thing is just a fad.

 

[SlimJim52]

Gun related deaths in 2002 - UK: 81, Canada: 816, US: 30,242

In 2002 Canada still had 10x more gun related deaths than the UK whereas the US had a stagering 373x more deaths. The UK has approximately twice the population of Canada so would it be fair to say (based solely on those statistics) that allowing people to own guns increases the chances of gun related deaths by at least twenty fold? Vice versa could it also be said that not allowing people to own firearms would save lives?

If true then broadly speaking one might reason that restricting the availability of a certain weapon has a direct effect on the number of deaths caused by that weapon.

You might consider that gay but in my eyes it makes perfect sense.

The State of Vermont has more guns per capita than any state in the US.

It also has the least violent crime rate than any other state in the US. You just know they will shoot your sorry ass.