26 December 2012

Notes from the Bowl, Christmas Edition: Yes, It's Come to This

To those who may have pointed out in answer to the puddle-thin logic of the gun controllers that a kitchen knife or baseball bat could be considered an assault weapon, here ya go, from Merry Olde England (And, no, this isn't an Onion story):

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call 
 
Knife
Doctors say knives are too pointed
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
 
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings. 

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon. 

The research is published in the British Medical Journal. 

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. 

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. 

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs. 


Knife wound
Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds
In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon". 

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives. 
[...]


The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime. 

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime. 

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect." 

[...]

5 comments:

Elizabeth said...

Oh. My. Gosh. This isn't a joke?

Latinmassgirl said...

The best way to prevent violent crimes is to get big government out of the role of dad, and let the dads take responsibility for their children. Boys raised without dads have a much higher crime rate. Why isn't that talked about? And how about replacing prayer in the schools and real morals? Getting rid of the same sex marriage talk, and bringing back values. Abortion cheapens life - to kill an innocent baby in the womb. Trickel down immorality. . .

Bsdouglass said...

Don't worry, Sen Feinstein has just announced a plan to save all of the children who are wanted to be born by their parents! NFA registration of all guns that have at least one scary feature and magazines that hold the normal amount of ammo! Soon there will be peace in this country and no one will be shot that the One doesn't want shot via drone.

Anonymous said...

As a former farm kid and military veteran, I have to admit I'm a bit dubious about "assault weapons" (if "assault weapon" is given the very specific definition of "a semi-automatic weapon that can be converted to full automatic via kit") and high-capacity clips/magazines in private ownership. After all, since the Second Amendment says only the right to bear "arms", on what constitutional grounds are private citizens denied hand grenades? Yes, knives can be very dangerous (a man in China managed to stab 22 schoolkids in the same week as Newtown), but guns allow carnage to happen so much more quickly. Further, to say that since we can't ban/control numerous other means of murder, we shouldn't ban/control a particular one is a risky argument.

On the other hand, the Second Amendment reads fairly clearly (while it talks about a well-regulated militia, no doubt the Founding Fathers wanted the populace to be familiar enough with guns to form that militia in the first place, not to mention hunting and self-defense), and culture probably plays the predominant role in the problem (I doubt Switzerland has nearly our murder rate, even though men are mandated to own a gun until age 30 there). I fully agree that our devaluation of life and of fatherhood provide ample gasoline for the violence in our society.

Perhaps a compromise is for individuals to be able to own "assault weapons", but they must be stored at the local shooting range. Or perhaps all such weapons should be required to have a lock when not on the owner's person. I don't really know.

Ironically, I think there is a case to mandate employer subsidy of hunting rifles. After all, millions draw enjoyment from the lifestyle choice of hunting, not to mention the benefits of fresh air, walking, and lean meat. Yes, there are occasional accidents and even malevolent use, but we tolerate that in other activities in life. In fact, the refusal of employers, including conscientious objectors like PETA and the Brady Campaign, to subsidize hunting rifles constitutes a denial of hunting rights, virutally a "war on hunters". Someone should alert Secretary Sebelius right away. (I admit the analogy I'm making here is imperfect - the health benefits of hunting are much more demonstrable.)

Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis

Jane Chantal said...

I'm with ya, Latinmassgirl. And of course, the importance of fathers isn't talked about because it challenges the gospel according to radical feminism, with which we are still being beaten over the head and which has enabled the other toxic treats now being served to our kids.