As long as we insist on blaming inanimate objects for the actions of the people using them, we're gonna keep getting silly laws like this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

snippets:

"A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing....The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all. They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.....The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established...."We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect." ......"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so. "An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place........."


I got this link from a friend, who recently retired from the police. His response reflects my feelings exactly and is worded far better than I could've...

In my years in law enforcement, I have seen people killed (first hand) with guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, brass lamps, rope, boots, a steel bar stool, screwdrivers, hammers and assorted other tools and things not originally designed to kill people. Following the British logic, they better ban just about everything except peanut butter sandwiches. Oh yeah... I forgot about peanut allergies and poisoning... oops...

Wouldn't they be better served to vigorously enforce existing law instead of making more laws? Here's an interesting thought... how 'bout people taking responsibility for their own actions? Now there's a new concept!

I don't see what's wrong in making sure people don't get accedd to the more efficient killing tools.

I'm not sure if banning knives is even possible, considering how many kinds there are around, but if it really happened, we could probably still handle our culinary needs with a rounded knife.

People that really want to kill will always find a way to do it. But by restricting the efficient weapons, we might stop some passion crime. It would be hard to stab your wife with the knife you were just using to cut tomatoes, if it was rounded. The knife is in your hand, she just told you she was cheating on you, you're mad, there's no telling what you could do on the moment with that knife in your hand.

Sometimes all it take is a second to do something you could regret all your life. I propose we do our best to make sure we don't get those seconds...

<font color = lightgreen>These statements are not directed at any person, whether here on in the off-line world.

I could kill you with a credit card. I could kill you with my keys. I could kill you with my ball-point pen. I could kill you with a washcloth. I could kill you with a handful of paper towels. Finally, yes, I could kill you with a peanut butter sandwich.

I am not kidding--I really do know how to do those things.

Thus, banning things which could be adapted into a lethal weapon is impossible, because everything is potentially a lethal weapon, if applied properly.</font>

But killing with those things take a lot longer and more thought. As I said, if someone really want to kill, nothing will stop him, but we can stop the passion crimes.

Well, I applaud the sentiment you express VulcanRider, it is crazy to try and ban everything.

Having said that, how many lives have been saved in the UK because guns haven't been available for crimes of passion - I think luvian has a point here...

I don't think so. Private handgun ownership was banned in England in 1997.

From Dan Rather reports on increase in English crime rate dated Nov 2002:

ON A JUNE evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back... But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials...The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

... The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent....


From Crime Statistics for England and Wales

This chart " 'Violence against the person' - Long-term national recorded crime trend" shows reported crimes rising steadily from 500,000 in 1998-99, to 990,000 in 2003-04. It doesn't look like banning firearms is helping, unless you're a criminal.

<font color = lightgreen>I'm not so sure passion crimes could be stopped. A crime of passion will make the person more likely to use objects not normally considered to be lethal.</font>

So, if I rip your arms from their sockets, and beat you to a pulverized death with your own arms then things are ok? Surely you wouldn't mind restricting access to those two lethal weapons you were born with would you?

Wake the heck up and smell the coffee! Then, put the SOB in prison, and forget about him, until his day with the executioner, period!

No longer >When guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns< work anymore. Liberalism has made it the victums fault, or the manufacturer's, or the next door neighbors fault, but anything, anybody, except the criminal's fault!

If that's what you want to do in the UK and Aussie land, then step right up and be counted. Just don't attempt to try it on me!

<font color = lightgreen>I'm not so sure passion crimes could be stopped. A crime of passion will make the person more likely to use objects not normally considered to be lethal.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I'd say that there are way more chance that you'll calm down in the 5 mins it would take you to kill someone while hitting them with a broom than it would in the split second it take to shoot or stab someone.

I'm pretty sure that the person would have more chance to survive being hit by a broom than a bullet or knife.

I'm talking about passion crimes, not planed cold blood murders.

People that are really determined to kill will find a way to do it, there is nothing you can do against it, but it doesn't mean you have to help them by giving them access to efficient weapons.

If a 13 year old kid dedice to kill his classmates, how will he do it if he does not have access to a gun? I'd say this would reduce his threat a lot...

I don't think so. Private handgun ownership was banned in England in 1997.

From Dan Rather reports on increase in English crime rate dated Nov 2002:

ON A JUNE evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back... But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials...The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

... The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent....


From Crime Statistics for England and Wales

This chart " 'Violence against the person' - Long-term national recorded crime trend" shows reported crimes rising steadily from 500,000 in 1998-99, to 990,000 in 2003-04. It doesn't look like banning firearms is helping, unless you're a criminal. </font>[/QUOTE]..Wow. Just wow. You can really tell an American gun lobbyist wrote that article, because no one could be that gullible to ignore any political and social trends and focus on a 1997 ban that didn't change all that much in the status quo whatsoever.
Hey, did you know that gun ownership had never been commonplace in modern day Britain in the first place? Did you know that if you really want to own a gun here in Europe, you still can? People just choose not to.
It's a basic difference in the British or even European psyche that makes comparisons between us and America grossly unfair. You can hardly justify American pro-gun views by comparing yourselves to a nation that willingly rejects the mass ownership of guns. This article is just trying to abuse rising crime rates for their its pro-gun propaganda, even though handgun use hasn't been anything close to common in Britain for the last 80 years or so - the law was little more than a formality.
Europe isn't the US. We don't have a gun culture. If gun restriction laws get tightened even more over here none but a few would even flinch or care. They hardly affect anyone, precisely for the reason that it's only confirming something that society itself had already concluded - we just don't need them.

"But wait, crimes rates are up in Great Britain you say? That's gotta be related to those tough gun restriction laws, like those evil commie-hugging liberals are trying to get passed!" Yeah right.
Yes, so crime rates are up in Great Britain. Could you manipulate statistics to make it look like it's all gun control's fault? Apparently you can, as demonstrated by the above person. She however didn't once mention the increasing social and economical problems that has struck parts of Britain and Europe. Someone on a different forum wrote a short response that manages to convey the point I'm trying to make in a better way than I would (I did take out some of his weaker arguments, however).

Also, just to give an example of dropping crime rates since tightened gun control laws, and to indicate that the "tighter gun laws lead to more violence" relationship that this Joyce Lee Malcolm seems to imply somehow doesn't hold in all cases, here are some statistics on Australia:
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

[ 05-28-2005, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]