[tracker1]

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.

[defrost]

> You have yet to establish why the premise and effort itself isn't completely asinine at its core.

Reason to stop and question - in itself, not an issue.

> the implementations, the biases, the judgements, the feedback on appeals

Where the problems pile up - the biases of peace keepers, expectations baked into sentencing, resistance to review, etc.

> trying to justify giving everyone a participation trophy

that'd be your hallucination

Maybe wind back the nonsense and strawmanning?

What's your country / state or county that has shaped your outlook on all this?

[tracker1]

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.

[defrost]

  > USA, Arizona...

Kimberley region*, W.Australia - as a child, then much of the world, these days the Wheat belt, W.Australia.

  > we have pretty liberal (in the classic sense/definition) laws regarding gun rights here.

Umm .. sure, whatever relevance that has - we have guns also, we shoot them 5,000 yards* and we regulate them just as we regulate poisons, explosives, lasers, etc.

  > Again, what is the actual expected goal in terms of limiting access to knives at all?

That's the UK and the purpose of having knife regulation in the UK is to have a lawful reason to question people with knives.

  > 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.

Sure, you can likely choke someone to death with a dildo, let's take that as a given.

Also observed in the real world, if safety belts are introduced, car accident M&M improve - fewer deaths, lesser injuries. If guns and knives are regulated, shootings and stabbings diminish in number - not eliminate, just reduced in number.

  > Anyone with even a modest amount of combat training can articulate and demonstrate this.

Sure, any grunt seppo can demonstrate how to kill someone with a banana, there's an entire Mony Python sketch about this .. but that's not what we're tallking about here - the discussion is civil regulation to reduce shootings and stabbings by non militarily trained yut, bad apples, and village idiots.

* My neighbour, here in W.Australian wheat belt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE

* Kimberley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jejk-7I9Y6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmKxmxk6Gas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r10UavOenec