[johnisgood]

Yeah, but knives have a wide range of use, whereas guns do not.

You cannot buy a kitchen knife because people MAY use it cause harm.

It is like forbidding the use of roads because it MAY be used to <insert illegal activity here>. Uses (usage?) of roads are even more broad than uses of knives.

I think it is easier to argue in favor of knives (or against the prohibition of ... of knives) than guns, for this reason alone.

[bradleyy]

According to the CDC, guns are used to prevent at least 500,000 violent acts per year in the USA.

Why is "wide range of use" being used as the metric rather than "societal good"?

While there are downsides, there's more to it.

[paulryanrogers]

> guns are used to prevent at least 500,000 violent acts per year in the USA.

Doubt. More like 70K. Far fewer than incidents where guns were used to cause harm.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-...

[johnisgood]

I was not arguing against guns though. I just tried to say that it is a bit more absurd to ban knives to prevent violence.

[olddustytrail]

> You cannot buy a kitchen knife because people MAY use it cause harm.

Yes I can. I have knives I bought recently in my kitchen.

How could you possibly believe that people in the UK can't buy knives? Do you realise how foolish that sounds?

[johnisgood]

> Do you realise how foolish that sounds?

The irony.

Just as foolish as these ways are to prevent violence.

These criminals might switch to forks, better get your Government get one step ahead of them.

And no, you cannot buy kitchen knives if you are under a certain age, it is ought to prevent a lot of crimes, I am sure.

[subscribed]

If you were to carry sharpened pencil and stopped by police claimed it's for self defense, you might get arrested: https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=fefeb701-3a75-ed11-81ac...

No spray, no airgun, no folding mace, absolutely nothing can be used in self defense.

Except for the alarm.

[giantg2]

The part that baffles me is that there is a right to self defense that the courts seem to acknowledge, that some cases find a person justified in using a weapon/tool that just happens to be at their disposal at the time of an attack, but having a similar tool/weapon for the purpose of defense is not allowable, even something as simple as spray.

[Nursie]

Because you’re then routinely going about the place armed, and more likely to be the cause of violence or escalation.

In the wake of the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff I remember Americans saying that going armed to a protest (not just that guy but others) was reasonable and routine because you might need to defend yourself if things go bad. In much of the rest of the west the general idea is that if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go.

[giantg2]

"and more likely to be the cause of violence or escalation."

Is there some research on this? Not just talking about guns, but even things like pepper spray.

"if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go."

I generally agree with this. I do wonder how this fits in the overall system. This assumes there are places that you could need a weapon, or where weapons could be used against you. It also assumes you always have a choice to avoid the area. If these high risk areas exist, how does the entire population avoid them? If that were even possible, the threats would also redistribute. Examples like Rittenhouse might be textbook for easily avoidable situations that turned bad (hence the news coverage), but I'm not sure it's representative of the full range of situations (the stuff that doesn't make the news).

[hluska]

In most countries, the default is whether the person had a lawful reason to be carrying the weapon used and that the defense is proportional to the attack. There’s nothing insane about that - there’s zero reason to arm yourself and millions of reasons not to.

[giantg2]

"whether the person had a lawful reason to be carrying the weapon used"

But that's the point - if the courts have found that defense is lawful, then it becomes a question of why it's possession (not even use and proportionality) would not be. Then you end up in a weird state where people can make up reasons to have a hammer or something else on them rather than have something potentially more reasonable/effective like pepper spray. Allowing some limited non-lethal tool seems reasonable if defense is actually something to support.

[CalRobert]

Why isn’t self defence a reason?

[johnisgood]

Criminals are not known for telling the truth, however.

[olddustytrail]

I see, so when you said "You cannot buy a kitchen knife" it's in the same way as if you live in the USA "You can't drive a car".

[johnisgood]

Not quite, because they prohibited this purchase to prevent "knife crime".

[subscribed]

What do you mean? I cna buy kitchen knives in IKEA or literally any supermarket or online shop.

Care to explain?

[johnisgood]

I think you've lost the plot. I did say "under age", in fact, I was called out for not having been specific in my initial message, to which I said that the two are not comparable because the prohibition of selling knives for people underaged happened at the time they were starting to fight "knife crime".

[Anonbrit]

Under 16s in the UK can't buy kitchen knives, and that's an ok balance for me

[johnisgood]

Yeah, but does it really prevent knife crimes?

Additionally, it is OK for you, because it might not be of interest to you, but given that the UK is doing all sorts of absurd stuff, what would happen if they did something absurd with regarding to the thing you like?

[paulryanrogers]

> Yeah, but does it really prevent knife crimes?

It likely reduces knife crime. Much as denying sales of lighters and flamable fluids to minors makes fires started by children less likely. (This deeply offended me as an adolescent who enjoyed burning things.)

Is there a benefit to society of allowing minors to buy knives?

We don't have laws to make bad things like murder completely impossible. We do it to make them less likely.

[johnisgood]

Okay, but not selling knives to kids really reduces knife crime? I wonder by how much, if at all. I am having difficulties believing it does.

Fires though, I can definitely believe it does prevent some arson.

> Is there a benefit to society of allowing minors to buy knives?

The default is "no ban". You need an argument the other way around. I think it is a silly question by itself. Is there a benefit to society of allowing people to skydive?

[DrScientist]

You can buy a kitchen knife - just not if you are under age. Not it's perfectly legal for an adult to buy one for a budding cook - all the age ban does is put a 'responsible' adult in the loop.

You also can't carry one in public without reasonable cause - which in the end is decided by a judge.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Chefs can typically get away with carrying their knives (they get very possessive over the care of their own knives and so won't leave them in the kitchen) if they're in a knife roll and in a backpack or similar.

[DrScientist]

Of course - most judges are reasonable ( unless the chef has the wrong social background or skin colour of course ).

[BirAdam]

A gun can stop an attacker whether human, ursine, or large feline.

A gun can be used for recreational shooting.

A gun can just be an historical collectors' piece.

A gun can be used in researching bullet proof vests and other equipment for a startup looking to sell to law enforcement/military.

There are many reasons for gun ownership. Ultimately, the reason should be that the individual is free to do as he/she chooses so long as he/she doesn't initiate a violent interaction.

The most often cited reason for banning firearms is the prevention of school shootings. For some reason, everyone is focused on the gun and not the fact that students wish to do violence at schools. What is it about the modern educational system that students wish to perpetrate violence in the schools to other students and teachers? Why isn't the mental health of the American youth at the center of this conversation?

[hluska]

Yet strangely, Canada has almost the exact same media and near identical mental health statistics and the country has a tiny fraction of the school shootings in the United States. Like it or not, the availability of military grade weapons sure seems to increase the likelihood that a kid will get killed at school.

[johnisgood]

I think there is more to it than availability.

If a kid really wanted to hurt another, could have done it through other means. Could it be that more kids in the US have violent tendencies for whatever reasons? It would be nice to figure out those reasons.

[deaddodo]

Hurting one kid with a knife is drastically different to hurting thirty with a gun or rifle.

It’s almost like gun enthusiasts are, conveniently, completely incapable of processing the concept of “force multiplication”.

[johnisgood]

I am not saying it is not different, and I mentioned this in another comment that guns and bombs are definitely useful to "hurt as many as possible", but I think my question still stands regardless of this. In fact, it might make even more sense to ask the question.

[paulryanrogers]

Let's fund and destigmatize mental healthcare! And also ban guns!

Guns are more likely to cause accidental death or suicide than to save your life. Big cats and bears can be dealt with using sprays and other measures.

A bit of sport shooting isn't worth having to train kindergartners in active shooter drills.

[johnisgood]

I do not disagree. It should be focusing on the fact that a student wanted to cause violence. It could have been done through a gun, a knife, a fork, and a thousand different items. In fact, a fist may suffice. Or an item that is readily available at schools. Any item. That said, guns are especially good at "harm as many as possible". Just like bombs are.

[brokenmachine]

I should be free to do whatever I want with my Javelin missile as long as I don't initiate a violent interaction.

[sp0ck]

You are right. Polish Head of Police had one in his office[1]. He launch it in his office without violent interracion.

[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/polands-top-cop-accidenta...