If someone wants a 14" blade, one can fetch some steel from a junkyard and apply an angle grinder to it. Best results with leaf springs. Then wrap one end with electrical tape and it'll chop an arm or a head off no problem. A bit more effort with the grinder and you get yourself something like a gladius.

Now, what is the point of those bans? So people feel safer while not being safer?

▲

defrost 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The specific use of the bans is to provide a law that allows the questioning of people carrying knives and the seizing of those knives from those that appear to have no legitimate reason to be waving them about in public.

Like seatbelts they're not foolproof in making people safer, but they do act as a damper on knife crime.

▲

socializer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Eh. I don't like these bans, but I think there are at least two good-faith arguments you can make:

1. People who decide to go on murder sprees are usually not high-functioning individuals, so even modest barriers can improve outcomes.

2. Fewer weapons in homes means fewer heat-of-the-moment acts involving these weapons. For example, there are very few firearm suicides in the EU, compared to the US.

▲

tourmalinetaco 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Naturally there are less suicides via firearms when firearms are verboten. Firearms may be more fatal than hanging (the most popular method in the EU), but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different (and in fact some EU countries like Hungary and Belgium outpace the US avg dramatically, Idk what is happening in Hungary but it’s comparable to our ‘Suicide Belt’). From what I read, hanging has a 70% mortality rate while firearms have a 90% rate, so when adjusted for failed attempts (since I cannot find the actual numbers of attempted suicides) we get 15.5 in USA vs 14.3 in EU per capita. As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.

As such, we see little raw change in human behavior. Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so (although, given the health complications of a failed hanging I question whether the ethics of this outcome are truly superior). So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that, when the method of suicide is independent of the reasons for suicide.

As for #1, cars are still widely accessible, and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.

As parent stated, these bans do not meaningfully change human nature, they simply give an air of safety. In fact, I would further say they create bad habits within society that criminals can and do exploit. Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment. Does your place of residence not allow for self-defense? Then that is a flaw in governance that must be addressed.

	▲	Eisenstein 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different Its 40% more. > As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes. It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes, it would be a factor in a dispute that turned into deadly one as opposed to not. > Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so They are also extremely convenient and instant. > So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that I don't think people are making that argument. > As for #1, cars are still widely accessible, Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them. > and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense. "But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer." "It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them." - https://portside.org/node/28842/printable/print > Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment. That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.

▲

ErroneousBosh 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If someone wants a 14" blade, one can fetch some steel from a junkyard and apply an angle grinder to it.

I'm sure that's what the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster is absolutely going to do, spend 50 quid on a budget angle grinder and traipse around scrapyards for a lorry spring.

Yeah, that makes total sense.

Is there any *legitimate* reason why a child needs to be able to buy chef's knives?

▲

defrost 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe wind the misplaced sarcasm down several notches please, it's unseemly particularly as knife making is easily one of the more popular goto shop projects in high school (outside the STEM nerd and theatre kids circle, I know) and that "wannabe gangsters" even in their teens have easy access to stolen goods at a discount or often five finger their own.

UK (and Canadian, Australian, etc) weapon disposal schemes frequently land home made weapons eg: https://kk.org/streetuse/english-ownerbuilt-weapons/ from 2006 is barely a trickle of the flood that gets swept up by amnesty programs.

▲

goodmythical 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why isn't a child allowed to practice cheffing on their own? Say kid in a halfway or foster facility where the place doesn't have the knives and no one will buy them for them.

What are you going to tell them? That they're allowed a boning knife that'll easily cut every artery in a human but not a chopper because ooooh those are super duper scary? That they're not allowed any "chef's knife" but the steak knives for dinner are fine?

You know the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster can shave a shank on the sidewalk just as well, right? That a perfectly-capable-of-murder-and-menace device can be manufactured from just about anything? That a common 2x4 or bat or shoestring will do? And that preventing their committing crime with a larger knife is easier to police than a smaller concealable, right?

▲

ErroneousBosh 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Why isn't a child allowed to practice cheffing on their own?

They are, they're just not allowed to go and buy chef's knives. My son is 6 and is actually pretty good at cooking - he can make pizza from scratch, but does still need his old dad to knead the dough, for now I guess, don't know how long that will last.

Can you think of anything you *wouldn't* want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission? USians are pretty weird about alcohol and pornography but equally weirdly permissive about weapons, and I've never heard of anyone stabbing someone to death with a jazz mag or stabbing them with a double vodka.

	▲	Dylan16807 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Can you think of anything you wouldn't want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission? I can think of plenty, but I don't understand how "big knife" is worse than "medium size knife".