Regulate, not ban, not working knives (chef, ropemaker, tech, <reason>), but "zombie" knives and other "flash" used to swing in public and intimidate (subject, say to specific performance reasons, etc.)
Love it, hate it, it's a different mindset to the US approach and ultimatelty falls back on judges using "reasonable behaviour" of common citizens on ominbuses as a yardstick.
Also from the comment section:
"knife crime, knife crime, it's ain't about knives"
You're saving that banning/ demonizing locking folding knives when almost all crimes are committed with a common kitchen knife wasnt the solution?!? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
Heh, great track. I mean it's no Linton Kwesi Johnson dis but it is what it is and that's enough.
Look, no one's a fan of the village idiot juggling lit dynamite on a unicycle in the packed shopping mall, and it's no good for anyone if the bad apples* aren't given a route to better things to do so Roman Law countries tend to have any old excuse laws to give cause to have people questioned as to why they're doing whatever the heck it is that they're doing .. my grandmother pulled up kids all the time like that.
The upside of such things is actually problematic and questionable bahaviour can be shunted in one direction and chefs of any colour, langauge, borough address can walk on proud and free with their knife rolls.
The downside is the watchers and guardians can get a bit enthused and selective in their choices of collar, they can develop little clique's of weirdness and corruption, and the judgy types can get a bit overly judgy about all the wrong things.
The challenge for any community is dealing with all that and having better control over the system .. takes time and focus, 'taint easy.
Well, sure, you could certainly have a crack at it, you wouldn't be the first to try.
You did rather miss the point of why, and the devil's less in having reason to address potentially violent individuals and groups, far more in the implementations, the biases, the judgements, the feedback on appeals, community support, rehabilitations, restitutions, and that dull stuff.
You have yet to establish why the premise and effort itself isn't completely asinine at its core. All you've done is spout a stream of progressive gibberish that doesn't consist of a coherent thought as to why banning or limiting knives is a good idea at all. Banning tools won't stop tools from being misused for violent intent, people will only misuse other tools.
> the implementations, the biases, the judgements, the feedback on appeals, community support, rehabilitations, restitutions, and that dull stuff.
What the hell does that even mean? It sounds like an AI hallucination trying to justify giving everyone a participation trophy and straight top grades to go through school even if the individuals don't actually participate or grasp the material being tought.
USA, Arizona... we have pretty liberal (in the classic sense/definition) laws regarding gun rights here.
Again, what is the actual expected goal in terms of limiting access to knives at all? How does this pass any kind of sanity check?
If someone wants to kill someone else, even opportunistically, the removal of knives won't significantly reduce said crime... there are lots of opportunistic weapons that can be used to kill. You cannot child-proof the world. Even reducing the surface or pointy part of knives doesn't significantly reduce the effectiveness as a weapon.
Anyone with even a modest amount of combat training can articulate and demonstrate this.
Love it, hate it, it's a different mindset to the US approach and ultimatelty falls back on judges using "reasonable behaviour" of common citizens on ominbuses as a yardstick.