That’s a good question and one I haven’t really heard anyone address. Seems to me that upping the funding and force levels back to previous levels is an option with more utility. I mean, it’s jobs plus the police are there for more than just one, vertical issue, they can address all the other crime going on as well as all the other stuff police do. Hell, I’m not sure if it would even cost more, as I have no idea what it would really cost to force companies to retool to sell only blunted knives, or how that would impact the public as a whole.
I’m not advocating for the knife ban but I can so no reason why you couldn’t do both. It’s not like this knife ban will cost so much money that policing can’t be increased.
Things that are UK government policy: increasing police numbers.
Things that are not UK government policy: banning pointed kitchen knives.
This has been an interesting thread, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the pointy knives ban is just a proposal by a pressure group.
Yep, this was pointed out several times in the thread. I’m talking about the hypothetical. I didn’t, however, know that they were increasing police numbers…that seems like a good step. I’m not surprised that wiser heads went that way. Thanks for the info!
For me, increasing police numbers is only the half of it. The programme of austerity the UK has been following for the past 9 years has enforced cuts on a whole swathe of services. Law enforcement is necessary to address knife crime but the most successful approach to a culture of violence is to treat it is a public health problem. The Violence Reduction Unit in Glasgow has achieved huge success over the longer term by using this approach. It’s complex and difficult work and by no means a quick fix but going in and addressing the root causes of the violence will eventually pay off. However, it’s easily painted as “soft” and quickly cut by politicians looking for an easy win.
I imagine other first responder type services have also been cut, which probably means poorer service for fire fighting and the whole gamut of other related operations and services. I didn’t realize this was why the police had been cut, but it makes sense I guess. I’m not sure that would have been my choice if I was cutting budgets, but I imagine other things would have had other issues, and probably been even less popular with the public.
There have been huge cuts to UK spending since 2010. Two of the biggest areas (c.40% spending cuts) were central funding for local government (which would include things like elderly care, social work, maintenance of public spaces, libraries etc.) and Justice (which means that our court system is barely functioning and government prosecutors barely have the resources to bring cases to trial). As many warned at the time, this reduction in services was only going to have a one-way effect on crime.
London has established its own VRU, based on the Glasgow model, so hopefully over the next decade or so it will bear similar fruit.
Yes, I hope so. As long as it’s allowed to stay up and running that long, I’m sure it will.
Strangely, your cite mentioned that study.
also here’s the conclusion of your cite:"Summary: Empirical research on the causal effects of firearm availability on the risk of suicide is consistent with the claim that firearms increase suicide risk, but this research cannot yet rule out some other explanations for observed associations between guns and suicide. There are, however, theoretical or logical arguments for believing firearms elevate suicide risk that are sufficiently compelling that individuals and policymakers might reasonably choose to assume that gun availability does increase the risk of suicide."
That is so wishy washy that it could mean anything.
As you Australia, your Very own cite sez:. Other relevant international evidence is reviewed in the essay on Australia’s experience banning certain firearms through its National Firearms Agreement. However, that law also does not provide strong evidence of a causal effect of gun prevalence on suicide risk. As we conclude later in the report, although there is some evidence that the 1996 agreement reduced firearm suicides in Australia, studies also found significant reductions in nonfirearm suicides at the same time, calling into question whether the reductions in firearm and nonfirearm suicides were caused by the new law or some other concurrent events.
Which exactly concurs with my statement that “Experts differ widely” on the effect of Australias gun ban on suicides. It may or may not have had a effect.
Also there is this from your cite: Available empirical research does not provide strong causal evidence for the effects of gun prevalence on suicide risk.
Do not personalize your arguments in this fashion. If you feel you must, the Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
I know. I read that, then summarised that point in the post you quoted. Go back again, read what I said my cite said, and ask yourself why you rushed in to say that experts differ on Australian gun laws and suicide and who you thought they were differing from.
I am not in disagreement. Why do you think I am?
No, no, not at all. You’re just helpfully quoting back to me excerpts of my own cite, the clear gist of which I’d already summarised in the thread. And bless you for it.