Stabbing in Japan--Ban Knives?

Great Debates
41

Mr. Z, I don’t see how your response answers my question. I want to know how powerful is the movement to take away the right to own guns–how many Americans support it compared with, say, the movement to take away the right to abortion.

If we’re going to do some ratio analysis, how about comparing the ratio of number of stabbing deaths to sharp knives owned to the number of shooting deaths to guns owned.
(I’d also be willing to bet that a person who is stabbed is less likely to die than a person who is shot.)

You seem to be saying that there shouldn’t be any resrictions on guns because the point of those who support them–that guns are deadly weapons–is inconsistent with the point that knives shouldn’t have the same restrictions even though they are also deadly weapons. But in the legislative process, you can’t always carry a single point forward to it’s logical conclusion because you encounter other complicating points along the way.

Background checks, waiting periods, registration, etc. would be extremely impractical because knives are easy to make, widely distributed, exist in every kitchen in their bllions, and seldom carry serial numbers. Similar controls on guns are more practical, more likely to affect the body count, and inconvenience fewer people.

Huh? What costs? Compare the costs-per-death of cars.

42

I once got into a furious argument with a manager at work. He seriously believed that the police should not breath-test suspected drunk drivers, or even prosecute them. His reasoning was that tired drivers kill people, yet the police do not have campaigns to stop tired drivers, or prosecute tired drivers as harshly. He believed that no standard was better than double standards.

Taken to an extreme, this attitude would claim that gun control is inherently flawed and unjustifiable since knives are used in crime and are less tightly controlled.

Mr. Z, where do you stand on this? If arguments from utility or lethality leave you unmoved, what do you think regulation should look like? Do you only support minimal (or non-existent regulation) or would you support equally restrictive controls on guns and knives?

43

Matt:

Out here in Monterey County, the cops do have media blitzes regarding tired drivers.

Regarding knives being lethal weapons: Baseball bats and automobiles can also be lethal weapons.

44

Cite please. I’d like to see some numbers on the lethality of swords, before I accept this at face value.

Let me see what I can dig up tonight. What I suspect I’ll find is that the vast majority of all people support more vigorous enforcement of current gun laws, rather than new restrictions or outright bans. That, of course doesn’t tell us what only the gun-control proponents would like to see. However, there is significant anecdotal evidence in the form of quotes and sound-bytes from the major spokes-figures in the leading gun-control institutions and even the U.S. Congress, to suggest total, or near total, bans are indeed their ultimate goal. If you can’t take their word for it, I don’t know what else to tell ya. If you’d like, I can dig up a number of those quotes, too.

Monty, I’m not speaking as a moderator here, but whatever your personal opinion is in regards to JET, this comment is out of line in this particular debate, but thank you for placing the remainder of your, ummm, editorial, in the Pit. JonScribe? Consider this to apply to yourself, also.

Absolutely! I’ve been trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to make this point on this message board for some time now. This is the only legitimate and moral basis to restrict the rights of the nominally free Man, whatever the intent of any law. The benefits to society must outweigh the costs. In my informed opinion, the gun control groups have not done that yet. Nor do I think they can at this time. Especially when you consider the falling violent crime rates the U.S. is now experiencing (and has for quite a number of years now) along side the rapidly increasing incidence of gun ownership.

Well, I don’t think it’s the location of the line so much, as the mobility of it. Gun control advocates attempt to move that line with every piece of new legislation they sponsor. When is enough, enough? Especially since there’s some pretty good evidence out there indicating the availability of firearms does not cause crime.

Perhaps. If you disregard suicide. Which, according to gun control advocates is not legitimate. They routinely point to the number of gun suicides and claim many of these would be preventable with a reduced supply of, or more restricted access to, firearms.

45

I want solid poll numbers or at least actual quotes from leaders of major gun-control organizations, not vague suspicions.

The anti-abortion movement is absolutely unequivocal in its goal of banning all or most abortions, and poll numbers show a strong plurality support this goal (depending how the question is worded). We should be able to see the same kind of thing wit the gun-control movement.

46

Sorry, can’t find one. I personally still believe this is the case but I’ll withdraw the statement if you prefer. If I find a decent cite I’ll post it later. I remain convinced that swords lack the range and reusability (by which I mean the ease of use as a weapon against more than one person) of firearms, though.

47

What I find obscence is that in your quest to support guns you would use anything to support your position. Just like I find sickening and obscence those photos of so called aborted fetuses that pop up every now and then during the abortion debate. Besides you’ve never debated me about gun control, I am not a vehement supporter of gun control. I do support some forms of control. Problem is we aren’t enforcing the laws we have already. I can’t see where it would do us any good to enact laws we do not intend to enforce. I do however find it wrong headed to suggest that we cannot attempt to put restrictions on the type and amount of arms we can own. Should we prosecute people who are found breaking these laws, you bet ya’. Should we hold accountable people who are careless with guns, in some cases yes.

I realize that there is a prevailing attitude, especially here on this board, that we should be free from government control in every aspect of our lives as much as possible. Well, that sounds wonderful in theory but it just isn’t very practical. The important thing we keep forgetting in this kind of debate is that we pass laws to ensure our own safety, preserve our resources, and enhance the quality of our lives. We need to remember that when we disagree about issues such as this it serves us better to try and salvage a bit of our own humanity. (Besides I’d never use Colombine or any of the other school shootings as an example for a debate on gun control. These tragedies are incidental to the issue given their relative isolation. There is enough everyday gun violence in this country that better supports the argument.)

Needs2know

48

I missed this the first time, or I would have addressed it sooner.

Beer, buddy, I love you man. But . . . you’re putting me on, right? Are you really trying to fight this, or are you being disingenuous for a reason?

49

I’ve been unable to find any poll numbers of gun control advocates. However, here’s a number of “actual quotes from leaders of major gun-control organizations,” and a few of federal legislators. I say, let their words speak for themselves.
[ul]
[li] “Only the police should have handguns.” – Bill Clinton, MTV’s Enough is Enough, March 22, 1994[/li][li] “If I could hav gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them: 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS’s Sixty Minutes, February 5, 1995[/li][li] “My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for police and military use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things we can do with legislation.” – U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, Chicago Tribune, December 5, 1999[/li][li] “No, were not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Senator Howard Metzenbaum[/li][li] “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” - Senator Joe Biden[/li][li] “I will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of hand-guns except in a few cases.” — Senator John Chafee, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992[/li][li] “… the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensend gun collectors totally illegal.” – Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus of Handgun Control, Inc., The New Yorker, July 26, 1976.[/li][li] “Yes, I’m for an outright ban on them (handguns).” – Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus of Handgun Control, Inc., Sixty Minutes interview[/li][li] “We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily—given the political realities—very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the law, and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make posssession of all handguns and ammunition, with few exceptions, totally illegal.” – Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus of Handgun Control, Inc., The New Yorker, July 26, 1976.[/li][li] “I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Sarah Brady, Chairperson for Handgun Control, Inc. Hearst Newspapers Special Report—“Handguns in America”, October 1997[/li][li] “Handguns should be outlawed.” – Elliot Corbet, Secretary for the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy.[/li][li] “… any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” – Josh Sugarman, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1999[/li][li] “We urge passage of federal legislation to prohibit the private ownership of and possession of handguns.” – American Civil Liberties Union Report on Policy #47 of the Board of Directors, 1976.[/li][li] “We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmamemt will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people.” – Patrick V. Murphy, Former NYC Police Commissioner, Testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime Commissions.[/li][li] “I think there should be a law—and I know this is extreme—that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” Rosie O’Donnell, Spokesperson for the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999.[/li][/ul]
Fixed italics tags - UB
[Edited by UncleBeer on 06-12-2001 at 02:17 PM]

50

Umm, no, I’m not being disingenuous in the least. I’m suggesting the murder rate associated with the criminal use of swords may be equal to the murder rate associated with the criminal use of guns. It’s an unsubstantiated allegation at this point. And I’m asking because I couldn’t find any data on it, not to simply be contrary. I poked around the the CDC site for at least a half an hour before asking for a cite. Couldn’t find squat beyond the category “cutting/piercing” deaths. They don’t seem to break down the method of death any further. However, they do say that about 93% of cutting/piercing deaths are intentional, but without more specific data that’s almost meaningless.

On the face of it, my objection might seem ridiculous, but … a person compelled to use a sword as an offensive weapon would certainly seem to have a greater desire, or drive, or inclination, or something, to do harm than a person with a handgun. It seems they would also be more likely to inflict more than a single wound, too. And finally, a sword wielder may also be more likely to “loose control.” Therefore, I suspect, the actual murder rates might be much closer than would seem possible with a prima facie inspection. But I don’t know.

51

You remember that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, right? Where the dark-eyed warrior of the sands demonstrates his lethal skill with the scimitar before Indy draws and kills him dead from across the square? If I told you you were going to be involved in a real-life recreation of that scene tomorrow, which role would you be hoping for?

In Japan, a nutter walks into a school classroom with a kitchen knife and kills 8. 24 kids get away wounded, I’m not sure how many fled unscathed. Assuming none did, we’re looking at a kill rate of 25%.

Dunblane. Nutter walks into a school gym and proceeds to kill 21 children, and their teacher. No child escapes, wounded or otherwise. Kill rate = 100%.

Tell me you can see the difference Tell me you can see that the damage here was mitigated by the nutter’s limited access to lethal weaponry.

52

no, NO, NO! The problem is not the knife. Nor is it the security (well, not entirely). The problem is the wacko that did it! Why doesn’t anybody understand that? Too bad Japan is too civilized to have the death penalty. Well, for criminals, anyway. The victims got a death penalty, at least. Everybody is so concerned about the rights of the killer, but nobody cares about the violations of the rights of the victims.

Ugh. No wonder I’ve been avoiding gun debates lately.

I apologize for coming across irrationally. It’s been a frustrating day, and this is a frustrating topic at the moment.

But I want to throw my full agreement behind mrblue92 when he says this:

To me, the bottom line is that Mr. Zambezi’s point is valid. He isn’t saying that knives should be banned, or are equivalent to guns. He is pointing out the stupidity of the reasoning used by the anti-gun lobby. These same ridiculous arguments and emotionalizations are used to overshadow the facts, convincing people (who will cry over the idea of a cute puppy getting spanked) to outlaw any item that could possibly be used to cause “the children, oh, the children!” to suffer. It’s a common propaganda trick, but a cheap one. And one that the public falls for consistently. The same tricks are used to demonize cigarettes and smokers, and to sell tires and insurance.

53

I tend to think he was looking for harder data than a scene from a movie.

54

Hey, that’s great, amrussell. Post a single instance of extremes. Beautiful debating tactic. You, of course, know I could churn out a buncha the same kinda useless stories showing gusy with guns who’ve killed far less than eight and caused far less than twenty-four injuries, in the course of thier rampage, don’t ya? All of which would prove exactly nothing. Just what point are you trying to make? This here ain’t whisper down the lane, we try deal in facts and sustainable opinions, not anecdotes and hearsay. Unless I see you provide some numbers to back up the claim that swords are more lethal than guns, I’m gonna assume you can’t.

And just to clear things up for ya, there’s a significant difference between swords, which is what I was discussing, and knives, which appears to be what you are talking about.

55

Now that’s a line that merits being quoting in all future gun control debates.

56

I agree, but surely for different reasons. Do you have any idea how many people have died over the years to provide you with the freedom to sit in your chair and smugly mock the opinions of these so-called “gun nuts”? A hell of a lot more than 13,000.

If you think the (dubious) safety provided by way of having the government dictating every detail of your life is more desirable than freedom and liberty, then you disgust me.

I’d imagine that would disgust Benjamin Franklin, too:

57

I also agree. Another thing to consider, is the number of deaths and injuries prevented by honest gun-wielding citizens. It’s even possible that by allowing private citizens to possess firearms, we have a net gain. That is, the number of law-abiding people who have prevented their own death thru defensive gun use may be greater than the number killed by offensive gun use (which are mostly criminals engaged in criminal activity, so they’ve made their choice). Now, allow me make my choice.

58

. . .and that number is? :wink:

59

But is this a remotely fair characterization of the “gun control” movement? The impression I get is that the majority of Americans:

  1. support additional measures such registration, making it harder for criminals to obtain/use guns and easier for police to catch them.
  2. oppose banning or confiscating guns

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

UncleBeer, that’s a good list of quotes (I didn’t doudt you’d find some like that), and it does indicate that there is some support for banning guns, but not enough to pose a significant threat. It’s very easy for a politician to have an opinion, but implementing it in the face of legal/political realities is something else. To persist in my comparison, the anti-abortion movement is much more powerful than any gun-ban movement (how about we maintain a distinction between “gun-ban” and the vague catch-all “gun-control”?). And yet despite the much shakier constitutional grounds their opponents are on, and the ease with which the abortion clinics could be shut down, they remain stymied.

Go ahead and disagree with and vote against those who actually want to ban guns. I would. But quit going ballistic over the most innocuous forms of “gun control”. And quit shadowboxing.

60

That is why those of us who believe in a more literal interpretation of the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment, must remain ever vigilant. We must keep on our guard and continue to promote our side at every oppotunity. Simply assuming it won’t happen is not a prudent course of action. It would also be interesting to find exactly what the majority of the constituents of the individual congress members who advocate near and total bans (listed on the previous page), believe to be a reasonable position on gun control. I suspect the vast majority of them do not wish to see near or total bans. Congress members are supposed to vote their constituents interests, not their own. A congress critter who consistently votes his own interests over those of the majority of the people (s)he represents should be publicly and loudly labelled a misfeasor and un-elected ASAP. This is yet another reason for people like me, and Freedom, and Joe Cool, and ExTank to contiune to stick to our guns, so to speak.

Great. I’m all for it. You guys done “controlling” then? If not now, when? You’ve got over 22,000 legally-enacted “controls” in place already. This, by any sane reasoning, would seem to be far in excess of a fair definition of “the most innocuous forms of gun control.” That’s the burning question, sqweels, what is enough “control?” If our (gun rights advocates) slippery slope argument is indeed a fallacy, just when are the gun control proponents going to roll up the carpet and go home? They’ve shown no sign of calling off their game since they the National Firearms Act of 1934 was placed on the books, and probably even prior to that. Since 1934, there have been constant, and more strident, calls for more, and stricter, gun “control” legislation. When is enough, enough?

Ah, fuck it. This thread is polluted enough. I’m gonna start a new one; look for it soon. I want you gun control advocates to finally state clearly and unequivocally, just what you wish enacted before folding up shop. Failure to do so cogently should prove the slippery slope is not a fallacy. It’s time to finally put that bone of contention to rest.