"it's not a slippery slope" my left foot

[BlaqueKatt]

Sorry had to saw this and knew it would be fratching worthy-

this is what happens when you ban guns----knives are next

""Tackling knife culture, especially among young people, is paramount to the safety of our communities, and I am determined to reduce the devastation caused by knife crime," then Home Secretary Charles Clarke said in the spring of 2006.

Since then there has been a knife amnesty, numerous government initiatives and photo opportunities, with ministers slamming home the same message - that knives will not be tolerated.

But still the deaths caused by knives go on. "

Article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7421534.stm)--and no this is NOT satire, it is from the BBC


pretty soon we'll be down to pointy sticks and rocks, what will you ban then?---some people are just violent banning different weapons WILL NOT change that. They'll just move onto the next weapon.

[crazylegs]

we already have more than sufficient laws re knives, The offensive weapons act is very specific about what you can and cannot possess

[BlaqueKatt]

think you missed the point-these are the same things that was said about guns-now the criminals are moving on to knives(now the problem/focus has merely shifted to another type of weapon)-and the article states most are using standard kitchen knives. The point is the only thing banning guns does is makes criminals move on to other weapons and law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.

most of the "guns should be banned" people in the US are claiming that banning guns will not start a "slippery slope" to banning other items----now that "gun culture" is out of England they are focusing on "knife culture", that is the very definition of "slippery slope" argument. The US has tons of laws on guns, just like England has tons of sufficient laws on knives. Criminals don't care how many laws are passed, or what is baned or illegal to own---they are by definition criminals.

Slippery slope argument:
If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.


A has already happened(banning guns)
B has started(more knife crime)
C Banning knives is the next logical step

D-criminals move on to another weapon-and the cycle continues.

[rahmota]

Exactly boozy. That is something we in the NRA have been trying to get across to people for a long time now. The forces who would see every law abiding citizen reduced down to a cowering unarmed victim will always try and frame any tool people try to defend themselves with as the worst evil thing on the planet. After knives then will come rocks and sharp pointy sticks (which technically could be a pencil you know) will be demonized.

Crazylegs just a reminder about criminals. Criminals are criminals because they ignore or do not obey the law. Do you think making MORE laws against weapons is going to suddenly make that certain kind of person into a law abiding upstanding citizen? If so then i shall meet you in the place where there are no shadows.

[Greenday]

Crazylegs just a reminder about criminals. Criminals are criminals because they ignore or do not obey the law. Do you think making MORE laws against weapons is going to suddenly make that certain kind of person into a law abiding upstanding citizen? If so then i shall meet you in the place where there are no shadows.

This is the main argument that tips the scale for me. I mean, criminals will have weapons no matter what. What good are the laws then? De-arming those who would properly use these things be it for whatever legal activity it is? So now the only people with weapons are the military, the police, and criminals. Man are the law-abiding citizens screwed...

[AFPheonix]

Because those laws regarding weaponry pile more years onto the bad guy's sentence when he finally gets his ass nailed to the wall. Furthermore, that argument holds about as much water as "well, why bother making murder illegal? Criminals are going to ignore the law and murder anyways."

[Boozy]

Exactly boozy. That is something we in the NRA have been trying to get across to people for a long time now.

I think you mean, "Exactly BlaqueKatt." :p

For the record, I agree with AFPheonix on this issue.

[Slytovhand]

think you missed the point-these are the same things that was said about guns-now the criminals are moving on to knives(now the problem/focus has merely shifted to another type of weapon)-and the article states most are using standard kitchen knives. The point is the only thing banning guns does is makes criminals move on to other weapons and law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.


You are aware that this argument actually justifies the ban? If said criminal wasn't able to get their hands on a gun, and now they can't get their hands on a knife, then they'll have to try using some other less lethal weapon... one which potential victims or witnesses in the area will be more capable of removing and overpowering the attacker...

Ok... they get down to a rock... nowhere near as deadly as a knife or gun...

makes perfect sense to me :D


Slyt

[rahmota]

I think you mean, "Exactly BlaqueKatt." Oops sorry about that the both of you. Got used to coming back to the board here and seeing boozy having made several good points on things as well as wasnt exactly paying attention to things.

You are aware that this argument actually justifies the ban?
Actually no. Laws are only obeyed by law abiding citizens. You outlaw firearms, knives anythign a law abiding citizen can defend themselves with the criminals will still have firearms, knives and things they can attack, kill, and maim citizens with. What should a citizen dfo trust that the cops will be able to protect them? Ha might as well ask for the tooth fairy to help out for what most cops are worth when it comes to protecting individual citizens.

And while a rock may take longer to get a large crowd of people a rock can still be quite a leathal and effective weapon when uzsed properly just ask a guy named goliath...

Because those laws regarding weaponry pile more years onto the bad guy's sentence when he finally gets his ass nailed to the wall. Yeah right sure. Let me tell you somethign with a good lawyer and parola and all if all you have is a weapons violation then the guy will be out in 1/2 the time you might think. I was in jail with a guy who was on his 7th weapons violation and was only serving 60 days in jail for that. He was facing according to his papers up to 5 years for the assault charge that came down with it but on the weapon charge no added time whatsoever....

[Pedersen]

Ok... they get down to a rock... nowhere near as deadly as a knife or gun...

You are so correct! Rocks have never been sharpened, wrapped in leather, and (effectively) turned into a knife before.

Nor have they ever been attached to the end of a very long stick, and made into spears.

Nor have they ever been attached to the end of shorter, thicker, sticks, and used as an axe.

Nor have people ever bent sticks, put strings on them, and attached rocks to other short and thin stick to make a bow and arrow.

And, most importantly of all, all of those are incredibly weak weapons. Wars were unable to be fought with them, because the enemy just didn't fall down or die should somebody use them. Trees were unable to be felled, and wild animals didn't have any fear from them, since they were so weak.

Yep, got to agree with you: Guns and knives of all varieties are wrong. We should just outright ban them all.

And scissors, too. Oh, forks as well. Grapefruit spoons. Sporks. Steel toed boots. Wire, too, almost forgot: Wires were used to make garottes. Can't have any wire around. Ohhh, computer cases. Take the cover, bend it enough, and it will come apart, and leave a nice jagged edge. There's a blade in the making in every computer case ever sold.

Hammers, too. Especially claw hammers. Chainsaws. Band saws. Oh, snap, I forgot garbage disposals. Could subdue a person, force their hand into a garbage disposal, and turn it on. Nasty stuff, there.

Gotta go, I see some large pieces of metal hurling down the roads at high speeds, and it looks like there are people actually inside of them, possibly even directing where these things go and what they do. How can we not ban them? Gotta go try to stop them!

[crazylegs]

Crazylegs just a reminder about criminals. Criminals are criminals because they ignore or do not obey the law. Do you think making MORE laws against weapons is going to suddenly make that certain kind of person into a law abiding upstanding citizen? If so then i shall meet you in the place where there are no shadows.

You forget what I do for a job.

The entire point about my thread was that we already have sufficient legislation and that we don't need anymore, I was agreeing with the OP...

[protege]

You are aware that this argument actually justifies the ban? If said criminal wasn't able to get their hands on a gun, and now they can't get their hands on a knife, then they'll have to try using some other less lethal weapon..

Actually, that's not always the case. Many times, you have the cash, you can get what you need. Didn't the US try to ban some types of assault rifles--AK47s IIRC--not long ago? Didn't stop them from hitting the streets. It's not uncommon to hear rapid fire at night in certain areas of Pittsburgh...

And before we start bashing cops...consider this. Where I live, we literally have no crime. The occasional vandalism, but that's pretty much it. Because the borough I live in is tiny (2 square miles) and everyone knows everyone, not very much goes on. Most of the cops are pretty decent guys. Sure, there are a couple of assholes on the force, but that's true everywhere. Whenever something happens (fire, accident, etc.) the cops are usually there pretty damn quickly :) Only thing that bugs me, is because they're so visible, crime is pretty low--because of *that*, there's not really much for them to do...but set up speed traps.

[aniwahya]

Rocks? Hell in prison toothbrushes are lethal, please don't give them rocks!

As far as weapons go, it is ridiculous how at risk we allow ourselves to be made. Criminals don't care how many weapons laws they break. Look at how many people on parole carry a gun.

Secondly, I carry a knife on me at all times. Not because I feel it makes me safer as a weapon. Personally, I'd rather bludgeon someone to death with my cane, or use my belt as a flail, choke them unconscious (submission hold or improvised garrote) than stab them. Blood is messy dammit, and I hate doing laundry. I carry a knife because it is one of the essential things you need in a survival situation that cannot be easily replaced or improvised. It also gives me an edge (pun intended) if someone is trying to restrain me, but doesn't search me )happens more often than you'd think).
My 2cp

[Slytovhand]

Actually no. Laws are only obeyed by law abiding citizens.

If you re-read my post, it was that the argument ..."these are the same things that was said about guns-now the criminals are moving on to knives(now the problem/focus has merely shifted to another type of weapon)-..." justifies the ban... if you ban the guns, the criminals move to knives. If you ban the knives, the criminals move to...?

You are so correct! Rocks have never been sharpened, wrapped in leather, and (effectively) turned into a knife before.

Nor have they ever been attached to the end of a very long stick, and made into spears.

Nor have they ever been attached to the end of shorter, thicker, sticks, and used as an axe.

Nor have people ever bent sticks, put strings on them, and attached rocks to other short and thin stick to make a bow and arrow.

And, most importantly of all, all of those are incredibly weak weapons. Wars were unable to be fought with them, because the enemy just didn't fall down or die should somebody use them. Trees were unable to be felled, and wild animals didn't have any fear from them, since they were so weak.

I'm totally surprised with you Pedersen.

You've shown a lot of knowledge over a broad range of subjects, so I'm totally flabbergasted that every single point you made here is actually incorrect! :wow:

History has, in fact, shown us that all of the above....oh...sorry.. you were being sarcastic.... :p



Yep, got to agree with you: Guns and knives of all varieties are wrong. We should just outright ban them all.

And scissors, too. Oh, forks as well. Grapefruit spoons. Sporks. Steel toed boots. Wire, too, almost forgot: Wires were used to make garottes. Can't have any wire around. Ohhh, computer cases. Take the cover, bend it enough, and it will come apart, and leave a nice jagged edge. There's a blade in the making in every computer case ever sold.

Hammers, too. Especially claw hammers. Chainsaws. Band saws. Oh, snap, I forgot garbage disposals. Could subdue a person, force their hand into a garbage disposal, and turn it on. Nasty stuff, there.

Gotta go, I see some large pieces of metal hurling down the roads at high speeds, and it looks like there are people actually inside of them, possibly even directing where these things go and what they do. How can we not ban them? Gotta go try to stop them!



How about... claw hammers, chainsaws, garbage disposal units... and machetes, grapefruit spoons etc... have a time and place for them. Carrying them into a nightclub is not one of them.

As Crazylegs mentioned, there are already laws in place... and I presume when it comes to knives in particular, carrying a concealed blade over a certain length and description in public would be banned. So... I wonder what the MP's are trying to do with the laws to make it tougher.. would be nice to have some specifics given.

I was going to say on another thread (and still might) that the best 'defence' in society against crime is a more community minded attitude... where neighbours know each other, respect each other and the police force.. hence the thread relating to the Pakistani mother and her child... (would you agree Crazy??)


Slyt


(oh.. you forgot fresh fruit. Being attacked by a criminal armed with a banana is pretty serious!....)

[crazylegs]

I was going to say on another thread (and still might) that the best 'defence' in society against crime is a more community minded attitude... where neighbours know each other, respect each other and the police force.. hence the thread relating to the Pakistani mother and her child... (would you agree Crazy??)

(oh.. you forgot fresh fruit. Being attacked by a criminal armed with a banana is pretty serious!....)

Indeed it is, the strongest communities are those that stand united against criminals. If you go out on your own to confront a group of delinqunits you'll probably lose, if every householder in the street goes out, you'll win. (I'm not talking in a physical fight type scenario either, that typ of show of strength is normally enough to dampen the spirits of any would be hoodlum)

You can make a plastic cup into a weapon (the disposable water fountain cups) as well as the disposable plastic food trays. Shall we ban those too?

[Pedersen]

I'm totally surprised with you Pedersen.

--SNIP--

....oh...sorry.. you were being sarcastic.... :p

I know. My sarcasm tends towards the subtle side. It can be hard to detect. I'm working on making it more visible :)

How about... claw hammers, chainsaws, garbage disposal units... and machetes, grapefruit spoons etc... have a time and place for them. Carrying them into a nightclub is not one of them.

According to the laws that crazylegs mentioned, I'm a criminal. You see, I carry a leatherman super tool, which has two separate blades, each of them 3.75in long. It also has a very small saw blade (surprisingly useful, never thought I'd use it, and yet it's very helpful).

Dangit, I'm not sure where the reference was, but those laws state 3in blades are the limit.

Anyway, back to my point: The leatherman is somewhere around the most useless weapon ever invented. It's less useful than a roll of quarters when it comes to being a weapon.

Hell, if I were attacked, and I tried to use this as a weapon, it'd be a skit worthy of any comedy show if the attackers stayed back while I got this blade out. And I'd still be more likely to harm myself, since there's no guard to keep my hand from sliding forward over the blade.

Now, back to my point. I carry this tool on my belt in a carrying case. I carry it all the time, everywhere I go. I don't even think about it, it's just there. But, with those laws, I'm a criminal because I'm carrying this blade.

Every single knife you want to mention can be justified as being either a useful tool or a work of art as well as a weapon. Every single one of them.

It's actually kind of funny to even have this debate, since this is exactly what gun advocates have warned would happen. Here it is, in all its glory. This is the slippery slope.

And we will wind up being completely defenseless in front of any who would choose to attack us. The next step would be to outlaw any form of martial arts, since that can be used to kill, too. Even though it can be an excellent fitness regime, it can be lethal to anybody who is attacked with it.

This just means that I have to ask you two questions: Why do you want us defenseless against those who do not care about the law? Why is the criminal's life so much more valuable than the law abiding person's life?

(oh.. you forgot fresh fruit. Being attacked by a criminal armed with a banana is pretty serious!....)

The banana doesn't frighten me. Not yet ripe apple in a sock? Yeah, that would be serious.

[crazylegs]

According to the laws that crazylegs mentioned, I'm a criminal. You see, I carry a leatherman super tool, which has two separate blades, each of them 3.75in long. It also has a very small saw blade (surprisingly useful, never thought I'd use it, and yet it's very helpful).

The laws do state that you may carry them for a useful purpose, so if you're a mechanic and have a multi tool then you can justify it under UK law. I'm sure you can think of other professions but that was the first to come to me

[Slytovhand]

Slippery Slopes... (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slippery)


I don't know the exact law they were after, but as I said, there should be an element of 'appropriateness'... otherwise chefs and butchers are going to have a bit of a problem with their jobs.....

I didn't recall the 3" rule, though... seems a bit small... unless you are referring to those small blades that fit through your fingers...????


Anyway... your 2 questions...

1. No - but I do believe in deterrence, and also the restriction on damage being done. The problem ... or really, the entire debate, basically comes down to... personal safety Vs responsibility. Certainly with guns, it's a very big call on the responsibility side. On the knives, less so, but I'm inclined to think that some should be on the 'watched very carefully' list - particularly if you see some of them in the photos... I mean... who needs to be walking around the streets late at night with a machete???

2. Good question... new thread?




The Loganberry.... The loganberry-wielding attacker.......


Slyt

[Pedersen]

I'm sure you can think of other professions but that was the first to come to me

That still leaves me in a bind. I'm a computer programmer, some time systems administrator. I don't have to have it on an hour to hour basis. However, I do carry for a useful purpose. It seems to find use at least a few times a week.

And yet, still a criminal if I carry it in the UK. For now, since I'm in the US, I'm safe (well, on that count anyway).

Slippery Slopes... (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slippery)

Simply because it is listed as a fallacious argument on someone's web page does not make it a fallacious argument. After all, I can find web pages where people claim to enjoy eating feces (for an extreme example). Does that mean that feces is now gourmet food?

Yes, I know that it can be. This time, though, we have a very clear cut case of this not being a slipper slope. The UK has outlawed gun ownership except in specific circumstances. It is now looking to do the same with knives (or has already done so). This is exactly the same situation that gun advocates here in the USA are warning about.

So, this time, we are not talking conjecture, nor are are we talking fallacious arguments. We are talking about a specific slippery slope situation.

I don't know the exact law they were after, but as I said, there should be an element of 'appropriateness'... otherwise chefs and butchers are going to have a bit of a problem with their jobs.....

Unfortunately, that will be irrelevant with the next bit of the slope. After all, kitchens everywhere have 10" chef's knives (of varying qualities). That's a big blade. Very useful in assault. Which will mean that, unless we prevent the ride down this slope, people will eventually have to give up those knives in the name of protecting society.

After all, guns have appropriate uses, too (especially for hunters).

1. No - but I do believe in deterrence, and also the restriction on damage being done. The problem ... or really, the entire debate, basically comes down to... personal safety Vs responsibility. Certainly with guns, it's a very big call on the responsibility side. On the knives, less so, but I'm inclined to think that some should be on the 'watched very carefully' list - particularly if you see some of them in the photos... I mean... who needs to be walking around the streets late at night with a machete???

Except the debate is not just talking about banning people walking around with these items. It's about banning them wholesale. These are tools that can be used for good or ill.

A couple weeks ago I got myself a nice little scare (related, I promise). I stay up late, like 2am late. My wife goes to bed by 10pm. My sexist pig side speaking here: I feel I have an obligation to protect her to the best of my ability.

Anyway, 1am (roughly), I hear a very loud bang from downstairs. I have a couple of swords, so I grabbed one and started looking through the house. Turns out it was nothing (a child gate had fallen over). While doing this patrol, though, I was scared out of my mind.

I'm not a physical fighter. If someone had been in the house, and I had been completely unarmed, I would not have been able to protect my wife, and I know it. At least with that sword, I stood something of a chance. Going by the arguments I see here, I could easily see myself being deprived of one of the few means of self-defense I possess on the grounds that somebody else might use it to commit a crime.

I have never understood the mentality that says it is okay to punish the majority for the actions of a very small minority. And even less do I understand it when it comes to potential actions of that minority.

2. Good question... new thread?

Yeah, I started to debate whether it should be, and then realized that, if it takes me more than a paragraph to justify, then it's going too far off.

[aniwahya]

In the US blade length laws vary. Commonly, anything more than 3 inches is illegal to carry. There are exceptions to this, like in Chicago where a blade larger than 2.5 inches is illegal. Whereas other cities in Illinois consider anything larger than 3 inches illegal.

Oh, more people are killed by kitchen knives than any other single type of knife*. Oh and for people who are afraid of knife wielding maniacs, you might want to be aware that the most common weapon of opportunity are common household scissors.

*http://www.housewareslive.net/news/news.asp?id=5048&title=Kitchen+knives+are+behind+most+knife+crime
and
http://www.silobreaker.com/DocumentReader.aspx?Item=5_863083530

[Rapscallion]

The laws do state that you may carry them for a useful purpose, so if you're a mechanic and have a multi tool then you can justify it under UK law. I'm sure you can think of other professions but that was the first to come to me

I've got a small knife I use in the warehouse. It folds into itself and has a blade perhaps an inch long or so. A clip inside holds it in place when out. I usually leave it in my back pocket and it came in very useful last night when trying to open one of those packets of salad cream.

How legal is that?

Rapscallion

[Difdi]

You are aware that this argument actually justifies the ban? If said criminal wasn't able to get their hands on a gun, and now they can't get their hands on a knife, then they'll have to try using some other less lethal weapon... one which potential victims or witnesses in the area will be more capable of removing and overpowering the attacker...


Using nothing more than found objects around the average house (using the places I and my relatives have lived in to produce the average, YMMV), I could produce a single shot firearm in about a day of work. And that includes the bullet and the gunpowder. It wouldn't be a very fancy gun (black powder zip gun :D) but it would propel a chunk of metal hard enough to kill people with. And that's just bare hands and improvised tools, mind you. Drop me in the mountains, with the items and gear I go camping with, give me a year, and I'll hand you a flintlock musket at the end of it.

Given access to the sort of tools I have at home, I could do the same in an hour for a gun, and about 3-4 for the powder (much faster for a grenade, which doesn't have to survive the first bang). With access to my tools at work, I could turn out a zipgun in about 10 minutes, or a actual revolver in about 8 hours. The revolver would be pathetically underpowered by modern standards, but would fit in just fine in the 1880s.

I am not a gunsmith.

Give me just found household objects and I can make a knife in about an hour, or a sword in a day. They won't be very good, but they'll work. Drop me in the mountains as in the above example, and I'll give you a broadsword in 4-6 months.

I am not a blacksmith.

Want poison gas or high explosives? Give me five minutes in the average cleaning closet for the former, and about half an hour for the latter.

I am not a chemist.

Given time and access to a junkyard, a second hand store and a machine shop, I could, with a little luck, build an atomic bomb. Radiological dispersion bombs are easy, by comparison.

I am not a nuclear physicist.

I know how to make the rocket motors you find in model rocketry kits. There is absolutely no reason you can't build one large enough to launch a car into the air. Would take access to a high school chemistry lab and about a month to tool up.

I am not a rocket scientist.

What I am, is a well-educated adult, who tinkers with technology as a hobby. I have no formal training in any of the above examples. You want to ban weapons, so that criminals can't get ahold of them? Good luck, you will DEFINITELY need it. Given a little formal training, any of the above examples become vastly easier. You can't ban technology, even the stone age had weapons. And as long as technology exists and people are educated to use it, someone will decide that black market money is just too good to resist, and make weapons for the people who want them, regardless of what the law says.

[Slytovhand]

Simply because it is listed as a fallacious argument on someone's web page does not make it a fallacious argument. After all, I can find web pages where people claim to enjoy eating feces (for an extreme example). Does that mean that feces is now gourmet food?

Yes, I know that it can be. This time, though, we have a very clear cut case of this not being a slipper slope. The UK has outlawed gun ownership except in specific circumstances. It is now looking to do the same with knives (or has already done so). This is exactly the same situation that gun advocates here in the USA are warning about.

So, this time, we are not talking conjecture, nor are are we talking fallacious arguments. We are talking about a specific slippery slope situation.

Unfortunately, that will be irrelevant with the next bit of the slope. After all, kitchens everywhere have 10" chef's knives (of varying qualities). That's a big blade. Very useful in assault. Which will mean that, unless we prevent the ride down this slope, people will eventually have to give up those knives in the name of protecting society.

After all, guns have appropriate uses, too (especially for hunters).

Except the debate is not just talking about banning people walking around with these items. It's about banning them wholesale. These are tools that can be used for good or ill.


No... no they aren't going to ban all knives..wholesale. THAT'S the Slippery Slopre fallacy! The presumption (or argument) that because 15" knives in public will be banned, then, eventually, so will all knives in all situations...including the kitchen. Slippery Slope argument presented here is that next, sticks and rocks will be banned. Also, that the only reason for such bans is because the one previous was. In this case, there is a valid reason for the ban (albeit - debatable)... it's a lethal weapon.

(yes... it is a post on a website... it's because I happened to have done a search for Logical Fallacies through google, and that was a good page. I have the same or similar list in my Logic textbook for philosophy. Feces isn't going to show up in a cordon bleu cookbook).


Yeah, I started to debate whether it should be, and then realized that, if it takes me more than a paragraph to justify, then it's going too far off.

I do my posting at work, and I was going to start one, but my time was up. But I was going to call it "What rights to criminals have?"

That's my reply to this bit...

Now for my reply to the debate itself...

[Slytovhand]

Knives, as a form of 'self-defence' is bloody pointless!

Firstly, you have to get close enough to someone to use it... and that's way too close for being smart!

Secondly, unless you actually know how to use it, it's a waste of time, and pulling one out to someone who has already decided to do you serious damage isn't going to help all that much (further argument about this in a tick...). At the very least, the assailant already has decided that by carrying a knife themselves, they've got the guts, if not the experience, to use their knife better. So by pulling your knife, you're only going to escalate the situation, and if you escalate a simple 'Give me your iPod', then it turns into 'you bastard, you wanted to stab me...'.

Thirdly, pulling a knife doesn't stop an attacker, your willingness to fight does....


Thus.... what's a good way to defend yourself, without making matters worse (such as killing someone) according to me....?

Attitude and Awareness. This Link (http://forums.yellowworld.org/archive/index.php/t-1919.html) is specifically about rapist, but much of the information relates to general self-defence. Here is a small, but relevant, paragraph...

Several defense mechanisms he taught us are: If someone is following behind you on a street or in a garage or with you in an elevator or stairwell, look them in the face and ask them aquestion, like what time is it, or make general small talk, I can't believe it is so cold out here, we're in for a bad winter. Now you've seen their face and could identify them in a line-up, you lose appeal as a target.

Criminals don't want to get caught. By increasing their chances of getting caught, they are less likely to do something stupid (or violent)... or criminal. Too many times I walk around and see women (in particular) with their heads down. That's victim mode. If you walk around with your head up and looking around, that's taking control of your area, and you are far less likely to be a target. Also, your willingness to defend yourself has far more 'threat' value that how you choose to defend yourself. Any criminal wants their crime to be over and done with as soon as possible, and as painless as possible. If you're going to fight (however that may be), you prolong the crime (increasing the chance of someone else coming along) and increase the chances of the assailant getting hurt as well (not to mention easier to catch later).

Tazers... nice, quick, effective. The ones with the 2 wires that shoot out give you range. They hurt and immobilise in 1 hit. Only real disadvantage is that you only get 1 shot at it... multi-shot tazers would be good :D

Retractable batons. Again, will hurt like hell when you get hit, takes minimal training to use, and even the sound of one will make an assailant think twice. Again, non-lethal!

Mace/pepperspray etc. Hopefully, enough said! Cops use it, so it can't be that bad. If you carry pepper spray (this instructor was a huge advocate of it and carries it with him wherever he goes), yelling I HAVE PEPPER SPRAY and holding it out will be a deterrent.

Martial Arts... obvious!

There's a small device you can get that emits really high-pitch siren type thing (can't find a link :( )... doesn't do a lot of damage and all, but is also a good deterrent... because it could attract people to come... not what the criminal wants.


So... I'm not against defending yourself. I am against putting yourself into a situation where the chances of killing someone (which may easily include yourself) is greatly increased.

Those kids (200) who were searched and found to be carrying knives, and also those few hundred who were killed by knives, weren't chefs on their way home from work. They weren't you and I carrying a small multi-purpose blade. They also weren't law-abiding citizens carrying a self-defence mechanism. They were carrying a weapon with the express purpose of doing greivous bodily harm to somebody. As I said, carrying a 12" kitchen knife under your hoody at 2am down the street isn't for personal protection (unless you are intending to get into a fight).

You don't need a 12" bowie knife to be safe. And pulling a switchblade against a 12" bowie knife isn't going to help you much anyway...


Slyt

[BlaqueKatt]

IOh and for people who are afraid of knife wielding maniacs, you might want to be aware that the most common weapon of opportunity are common household scissors.

Yet the fear-mongering media claims guns are-interesting that




Tazers... nice, quick, effective. The ones with the 2 wires that shoot out give you range. They hurt and immobilise in 1 hit. Only real disadvantage is that you only get 1 shot at it... multi-shot tazers would be good :D

Retractable batons. Again, will hurt like hell when you get hit, takes minimal training to use, and even the sound of one will make an assailant think twice. Again, non-lethal!

Mace/pepperspray etc. Hopefully, enough said! Cops use it, so it can't be that bad.


Nice thought but all three of these are illegal in my state(unless you are a police officer)-and as a law-abiding citizen I can't obtain them. The police here(in a midwestern city of around 200,000-mainly college students, businesspersons, and hippies) take 30 minutes to an hour to respond to an attempted break in call-and won't leave their cars unless you're outside waving to them that it's safe-yes I'm dead serious. They won't respond to burglar alarms unless the property owner has searched the premises first(unarmed of course).


We recently had a murder where the victim called 911 from her cell phone, the attacker knocked the phone from her hand(you can hear screams on the 911 tape)-and the girl was found dead from multiple stab wounds over 10 hours later by her fiance-the police here did NOT RESPOND TO A 911 CALL FOR A MURDER.

[Slytovhand]

Oww.. suckies BlaqueKatt...

I think they are illegal over here too... but I was just pointing out that there are 'better' options that either guns or knives... and since the arguments on here are about what the law 'should' and 'shouldn't' allow, I was putting in that the law could do with a change (and that you are allowed to defend yourself) - just not with the first option being with lethal force.

As for your story...that totally sucks! why oh why did that happen?? (that they didn't respond??) - except that the cell phone may not have been traced, and an address not given?? I'm just hoping there was some really good reason for it!


Slyt

[aniwahya]

There are a couple of things I want to comment on, but I didn't want to post the Slyts whole post and add it to what will most likely be a long post of my own. Slyt if you feel that the quote is misrepresenting your post somehow let me know and I willl put the whole thing in, er, somehow.

"Thirdly, pulling a knife doesn't stop an attacker, your willingness to fight does"
Slytovhand

Before I get into the specifics I think it is important for me to clarify where I come from in terms of self defense and weapons. Most people don't sit and think through what " willingness to fight" means to them. If you can't handle hurting and/or killing someone in self defense, then it is probably a good idea to reevaluate what you need a weapon for. Intimidation is a best case scenario, and a great many criminals will run when challenged at all. Then of course there are also a great many criminals who at any sign of resistance will just get pissed off, kill you, and do whatever the hell it was they wanted to do. So if you can't use a weapon in your own self defense, don't try using one to scare people.

First. I agree that knives are not a great choice of self defense weapon. Knife fighting, even trained knife fighting, is messy and dangerous. I love knives, and I carry them for utility, but they are not the first thing I reach for as a weapon when threatened since a knife is more of a "well I am gonna get hurt anyways so I might as well do as much damage as I can in a small period of time and hey, I may get lucky" kind of weapon.

"Thus.... what's a good way to defend yourself, without making matters worse (such as killing someone) according to me....?" Slytovhand

"Tazers... nice, quick, effective. The ones with the 2 wires that shoot out give you range. They hurt and immobilise in 1 hit. Only real disadvantage is that you only get 1 shot at it... multi-shot tazers would be good" Slytovhand

Tazers are a great self defense weapon, however there seems to be a lot of misinformation being spread about them. People see cops use them and they feel that makes them safe (which is ironic because a lot of cops use them incorrectly*). A tazer is by no means harmless to people with certain medical problems, medical problems that you don't find out about until the person is dead. Now I have zero compunction about killing another human being in defense of myself, so I have no problem with tazers as a self defense weapon. I just get really sick of the being told that tazers are perfectly safe; it is a dangerous weapon just like any other dangerous weapon.

"Retractable batons. Again, will hurt like hell when you get hit, takes minimal training to use, and even the sound of one will make an assailant think twice. Again, non-lethal!" Slytovhand

This just isn't true. Retractable batons, in addition to being illegal for civilians in the majority, if not all of the states in the US (pay no attention to this is you are not a US citizen :p), are as lethal as using a lead pipe to beat someone. Truly, this sentence would work if you replace "retractable baton" with "kubaton". Retractable batons, while what I consider the easiest of self-defense weapons for a novice, are extremely likely to break bones and with an untrained person wielding one, kill someone. When law enforcement wield batons, they are limited to hitting well muscled areas (like the upper thigh)*, as opposed to areas that would take someone down more effectively and efficiently. Again, using a retractable baton is akin to using a lead pipe to defend yourself, and in the US you will be held accountable for using an illegal weapon.

"Mace/pepperspray etc. Hopefully, enough said! Cops use it, so it can't be that bad." Slytovhand

Argh, I actually lost brain cells on this one! :(
Mace, and mace-like defense items are not a bad choice, but awareness is key. One, it will not stop every attacker, and those it doesn't stop it most likely won't even slow. Also, what most people don't get is that depending on where you use it, or how close the assailant is to you, you will end up being hit too. It is of vital importance that you make sure that you can use pepper spray without incapacitating yourself.

The second part of this probably wasn't meant as badly as it sounds, but still comment I must. Assuming something is safe because you see cops use it, is going to cause you all kinds of trouble. For one, cops are people doing a job, regulated by the same morons in management as everyone else. Second, cops are trained in when it is appropriate to use force and what type of force is least likely to kill someone. Thirdly, weapons used by cops, and how they use them, can change based on the information compiled by people who try to find more effective weapons. They follow strict guidelines on when force is appropriate, and how much force is appropriate.

"Martial Arts... obvious!" Slytovhand

Taking a class at the YMCA is not going to make you a lethal weapon. Nor will studying at a dojo, depending on who is teaching you. It is important to keep in mind that physical combat is sudden, messy, unstructured and people fight dirty. Common practice among martial arts classes is to teach that the methods you are learning can maim or kill people. This often leads martial arts students to hesitate, over estimating their ability to harm an attacker and underestimating the attackers ability to hurt them.
I am not saying martial arts are useless. What I am saying is learning a martial art and practicing a martial art are different things. Someone who has been in full force, fighting for your life confrontations is going to be infinitely more prepared than someone who has merely studied something (unless the person who has studied has sparred with real combat specifically in mind). Note, I am not talking about the kids who get a gun and think they are teh shit. Rather who I am referring to are people who have done hard time, veterans who spent actual time in war zones or other dangerous areas . There is simply no way in hell to simulate those experiences. All of the above information also applies to the classes that advertise teaching women how to defend against rapists and murderers.

I am not aware of the effectiveness of the noise makers, having never used one. I would definitely be prepared for it to not work, or not work well. Testing it on a friend/family member (or having them test it on you, which is much easier to find volunteers for :().


"So... I'm not against defending yourself. I am against putting yourself into a situation where the chances of killing someone (which may easily include yourself) is greatly increased." Slytovhand

Slyt, I am not attacking you, I just can't not try and refute some of the things you've said, because if you approach a confrontation using the things that you have said, then the most likely result is that you will get seriously hurt.

Defending yourself from an attack, goes beyond brandishing a weapon and hoping your attacker will go away. There is always the risk that they are going to call your bluff, and if you have everything riding on them being scared off, what are you going to do then? Or, suppose you are confronted by a hooded attacker wielding a knife. After tasering them you find out they are a 14 year old with a heart defect who is now dead. You may not feel remorse in the sense of being sorry someone attacked you died, but chances are you will now be charged with premeditated murder, since bringing a dangerous (illegal in most of the US) weapon is considered premeditation (at least in every state i have looked up the law in). How would the situation end up differently if they would have had a partner just out of sight? Or if the taser malfunctioned, or you fumbled with it in panic and missed? All of the reasons you listed for not using knives apply to every other self defense weapon you listed.

I have more to say but it is probably better that I either add it later or post again.

*I do not agree with the current legislature regulating when a cop can and cannot use a taser. So when I say incorrectly I am not talking about the fault of the cop, but rather the laws regarding when they should and should not use them. Though I have seen an occasional case where it was the cop's fault, that hardly reflects the competency of law enforcement in general.

Oh, and where do <anyone who posts here> you live that you can *legally* carry bowie knives? It IS illegal (again in the US) here for people to carry any knife with a blade larger than 3", and oftentimes cities and counties have legislation prohibiting anything larger than 2".

[Slytovhand]

Aniwahya... no - what you said is cool.

My post is mostly about viable alternatives to a defence that a knife (or gun) is always a good, if not the best, form of defence. So, no issues with what you've said when it relates to that. At the very least, there are non-lethal options available that are (or at least, can be) effective... And also, though they may be illegal, they were still options I was just exploring... not considering whether they were legal or not (although, I suppose that should have been an obvious thought... but if we're talking about what should or shouldn't be legal, it fits in nicely).

So - no, you're not 'misrepresenting' what I said, just pulling out a lot of specifics that I left out... that works for me! :D

And also... when it all boils down...NOTHING is 'safe'. They're just options that may work...which may or may not help you out - depending on the situation.

Yep - training with all of the above would be a basic requirement (should almost have been a caveat to all of what I wrote...).

Tazers... yeah - true... but then, why are you in a position to have to use one anyway? It falls into the 'tough luck to the assailant' category for me...

Batons... ok.. shouldn't have put the 'Non-lethal' tag at the end. Perhaps, 'less likely to be lethal compared to a gun or knife'? If you decide to beat them to death, or are fairly unlucky when you hit (like a bad head blow), then it'll damage, but not likely kill. An arm hit with a knife can rupture an artery... Realistically, anything can be lethal...

Mace etc... yeah - bad on my part with the "Cops use it"... sort of line I normally cringe with :D As for the first bit... just buying and putting in your bag isn't enough... training!!!!

Martial Arts... most definitely agree with your points!

And also with your end statements... which is very true... the problem with the whole discussion is that nothing works all the time, and we can't really generalise situations.

The only real reason I went with what I posted was what I said above... here are some options which are less likely to take someone's life...

Bowie knives?? Dunno... but that's the slippery slope that apparently we're on...:P


Slyt

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm just hoping there was some really good reason for it!


the dispatcher "didn't feel like calling back to check" she thought "it was probably a prank"---and yes she still has a job.

[Slytovhand]

the dispatcher "didn't feel like calling back to check" she thought "it was probably a prank"---and yes she still has a job.

Ah shit... what can you say? That's bad....

I sort of hope that there's serious problems with funding in the emergency services areas.... otherwise I can't imagine any other 'real' reason why that should be an acceptable response....

[aniwahya]

That actually happens more than people would like to think, probably because a lot of counties don't feel like investing that much time in making sure their dispatchers are competent.


Question! Since knives seem a hot topic, well until they are hot until you quench 'em (i kid, i kid), I was wondering who here has ever been attacked by someone wielding a knife, or been involved in a confrontation involving a knife? I have two I'll share to start.

One I was a little kid playing with some bigger kids. This chick decided she didn't want to play with me anymore. Her solution, you wonder? She walks inside her house, goes to the kitchen, grabs one of her mom's steak knives comes outside and tells me she is going to stab me. My solution, you wonder? I ran like a bitch back to my house, she actually chased me 2/3 rds of the way still holding the knife. Guess it was a good thing I was faster than her.

The second happened a few years ago. I had a younger friend who had some problems, and on top of those she had some anger issues. Her mother, who had issues of her own did not understand when it was time to back the hell off. Chaos ensued, culminating in a dangerous moment when my friend in a fit of angry desperation grabbed a 10" serrated kitchen knife. Her mom and my mom grabbed her arm, I was in another room. The friend, while being a tiny little shit, was a strong little shit, a crazed strong little shit in this case. She nearly cut off one of my fingers before I choked her out. I even ended up in the ER with it when it was still bleeding 9 hours later, I ended up being pretty lucky since the blade was serrated it tore up my knuckle pretty good.

I shared these stories, and ask others who have stories to share them. How has knife violence directly affected you, and how has it changed your view on which weapons should have more legislature, and why?

[Zyanya]

If I decide I want to kill you...

...then you are going to die.

I do not need a gun, or a knife, or a sword, or anything else classically thought of as a 'weapon'.

Taking these things away from me would not make you safer. Not if I actually wanted to do you harm.

However, YOU having these items AND a willingness to use them would probably be sufficient to stop me.

Just the fact that I could be killed in the process of trying to kill you would be an effective deterrent.

So here I am, in your house, willing to hurt you. The police are 15 minutes away. I am stronger than you, and quite probably armed. I am quite possibly hyped up on something that gives me more energy and limits the amount of pain I will feel, even if it is just adrenaline. Your children are 20 feet away, asleep.

What are you going to do?



Yes, the odds are in favor of it never happening to you. Only 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted.

But your number has come up.

What are you going to do?

[Boozy]

If I decide I want to kill you...

...then you are going to die.

I do not need a gun, or a knife, or a sword, or anything else classically thought of as a 'weapon'.

Actually, criminals don't really think that way. They would much prefer to have a weapon of some kind, since it minimizes their risk. Even so-called "crimes of passion" or "crimes of opportunity" tend to have a criminal at the centre who came to the situation armed and prepared for anything.

I have no point as it pertains to the greater debate, but I did want to share what I know about criminal psychology.

[Slytovhand]

Well... since I have 'anything else classically thought of as a 'weapon'', I'll have my auto in my back pocket, baton and sword on the table next to me, pull out the mace and have the taser ready.

I'll yell at you to GTFO of my home... and if you advance, I'll mace you and give you another chance to retreat. If you approach, I'll grab the baton and tazer you. If you're still coming towards me, you get a nice battering with the baton. (nah... don't bother with the sword... that's just for show :D - besides, I'm not going to waste a $7000 sword on you when I've got all the rest*)

If that's not enough, then I'm seriously wondering what sort of drugs you've been doing, and why those steroids are so available... and also think "Crap, is the .357 I'm about to unload on your butt going to do much??"

If that doesn't do it, I'll grab the kids and bolt... trip the 'open pit' switch, set off my flamethrower traps, and set the auto-destruct on the thermo-nuke....


ok... so I'm exaggerating.... but the first options I'd go through... still doesn't justify either owning a gun in the first place (note the first options I chose), nor carrying a deadly weapon in public - which is what my issue is with the 'banning of knives' is about... have (almost) what you like at home, but not in public... (as per my other post...)


Btw... 1 in 4 is not a nice stat, and obviously needs something to be done about it. Problem with the stat is - how many are legitimate, how many are as per the 13 year old entrapment girl, etc... and how many are perpetrated by the same person (25% of males would justify extreme weaponry and self-defence measures... .00002% of men doesn't).

But society as a whole seriously needs some readjustment...


Slyt


*no..unfortunately I don't own that $7000 sword, but there is a limited edition Stormbringer I'd get if "YOU having these items, then WTF not?? :D

[crazylegs]

For all those people who are stating they'll be using their bladed instruments as weapons take a look at these images

WARNING!! GRAPHIC WOUND IMAGES

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=153328&in_page_id=34

[BlaqueKatt]

For all those people who are stating they'll be using their bladed instruments as weapons take a look at these images


the third one is NOT a knife wound-knives do not have tread-that is a tearing wound from being run over-(flesh will rip like that if you are run over by a vehicle)

[Slytovhand]

For all those people who are stating they'll be using their bladed instruments as weapons take a look at these images

WARNING!! GRAPHIC WOUND IMAGES

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=153328&in_page_id=34

Ewww... gross!

You made me lose my pizza!!

You should have warned me - I'm going to SUE!!!



(oh - sorry - wrong thread :p)

[rahmota]

Well I have been involved in a bar fight where a guy lost a major portion of his ear to a knife, another time a guy got a major gash across his forarm to the bone from a knife. A knife when wielded properly can be quite effective. One of the reasons theya re still useful and handy and the military even still issues them.

Crazylegs. Yeah thanks for the images. So what? You get hit by a weapon you are going to have a wound. Big deal. Hit someone with a rock, or a steak knife. A car. (yeah knives dont usually have tread on them is right), a tire tool, a chair leg, beer bottle, brass buckle off a belt, brass knuckles, screwdriver. The list of thigns a determined enough person can do damage to you would take longer than what fratching would allow me to post if I wanted to try and make it conclusive. Its just plain retarded to try and nerf the world. Stop the government being a nanny state grow some balls and let people have whatever weapon they want just punish them if they use it improperly.

[ditchdj]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_13_22/ai_n24989605?tag=artBody;col1

----Oh that's real intelligent. Funny that I read about this right after I was a show about prison in which prisoners actually show you how to make a knife out of PAPER! Just fashion it into a stabbing point and coat with some kind of homemade paste and bingo, you got an "illegal" weapon to stick someone with.

[crazylegs]

I would like to point out at this time that (with the exception of London) not a single child has been presented to hospital in the south east of england with a stab wound this year.

Having done some digging it's all a load of tosh, we are not in a knife 'epidemic', for christs sakes the Mods and Rockers were busy slashing each other over 40 years ago but it is only with the advent of mass media and a TV in (virtually) every house that more and more people are actually aware of what is going on.

People are always very suprised when I tell them that <my town> has about one knife crime incident a month. That's not stabbings, that's not murders but possesion in a public place/(very rarely) threats. I honestly can't remember the last time someone in this town was actually stabbed but people think that every other person is packing a bowie knife.

It's more a media frenzy than anything else.

[BlaqueKatt]

already started this one here (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=475)

[Boozy]

I've gone ahead and merged the threads.

Many members have already made points on the topic, so I think it will be easier to reference them if we're all dealing with the same thread.

[Rapscallion]

The media frenzy is fairly obvious on the other side from that article - it's dripping with bias. I wondered for a moment what the aim of such an article was - opinion about actions in another country that won't affect the readers of the piece? They also chose their subject matter with care, since the Sun is not a serious newspaper. It's a scandal-mongering attempt to get the public on its side, whatever its side happens to be today. We're talking about a tabloid that encouraged its readers to stick two fingers up in the direction of France at the same time, one day.

The purpose of that article? I reckon it's more than likely written by someone interested in the NRA or similar - makes people think of the thin edge of the wedge in their own country.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Yeah - I noticed it was dripping with sarcasm (which is something I'm certainly not averse to :D), but such things do seriously put me off when they're trying to put across 'information'.

I like facts and figures to back up an argument or stament - and that article was fairly bereft of them.. and because of that, I felt I could completely ignore it.

Similarly also, I feel I can ignore a lot of cries who want to argue morality or ethics over that of the medical staff and other authorities who have to deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis...

[BlaqueKatt]

The media frenzy is fairly obvious on the other side from that article - it's dripping with bias. <snip> They also chose their subject matter with care, since the Sun is not a serious newspaper.


My link(from the original thread) is actually from the BBC news-not the sun

Just to clairify