The stupidity of the quote is the idea that knives cause knifecrimes and the idea of a knife as some sort of seperate assault weapon.
The most common knives used in crime are kitchen knives. They are cheap, sharp enough and durable enough, while most importantly, available. There are idiots and thugs that will buy special military/martial/hunting knives. But the thing is that while these are better for combat than kitchen variety, they are not exponentially so. Especially on a one-use factor. Combat knives are primarily about being tougher, not necessarily deadlier. Thing is, if a kitchen knife brakes when it is stabbed into a person, they are already stabbed. There is no "musket versus assault rifle" argument to be made here.
Then there are stuff like machetes and long knives, even swords. There are reasonable laws that can be enacted about such however, with laws that probably already exist.
The thing is that unlike guns, knives are genuinely tools, especially the pocket variety. Why do you think they make pocket knives? Are we going after boy scouts now? Farmers?
The counter-point as far as I can see it run 'criminals don't obey the law' and 'We need our own knives for self-defense!' While I can see the appeal of wanting to defend yourself while on the other hand I really do question the effectiveness. Like people attacked are going to go all action hero and busting to a perfectly choreographed fight sequence to defend themselves, as I see it, there's not much difference between being stabbed in the back having a knife in your pocket or not. The attackers always got the advantage of initiative right?
The problem is that it is a false equivalency and possible false comparison with guns.
Against a gunman, the most practical defense is taking cover and/or getting out of the gunman's line if sight. For a civilian, the best weapon is another gun because shooting down the gunman will disable them (this is not always possible as seen in Las Vegas killer). The only tools to take down tend to be either very bulky things like ballistic shields (or outright tanks) or special stuff like smoke grenades. Or simply more & bigger guns, with more people to wield them. Look into much effort it can take to take down a sniper, lot more guys or overwhelming firepower.
The best defense against a knife-wielder is to not let that person in stabbing range, either disabling them before they attack or keeping them out of their range (again, running away). Another knife is a stupid defense because the most you can do stab the person back or, if you are lucky, serve it as a deterrent. A long stick is better because you can attack the person before they stab you. Even pepper spray is good because the knife-wielder will be blinded. Which means that more serious weapons than knives are required to defend against a knife-man.
If two people have a knife and fight, there is a legit chance that they'll stab each other or one walks away bleeding to death. Deterrence is questionable because of conceal-ability and anyone attacking you with a knife is already likely making irrational choices. The possibility of both winding up dead is good, barring hospitalization. Knife fights are messy and chaotic affairs with reason, something most martial artist will have a serious respective fear for and avoid if they can.
If the attacker is determined to kill you (or genuinely does not fear you), then it is very difficult to stop them from stabbing you. Unless you have serious martial arts training and genuine practice (there is a lot of bullshit about anti-knife defense), you are unlikely to stop a knife-wielder by hands alone. However it IS possible and not every knife-wielding thug actually know what they're doing. Even if you have the martial arts, things can go wrong.
Am I just silly and/or naive?
The thing about this silliness is that you are wholeheartedly importing the American gun non-debate talking points into a very different situation. Knives are not guns. Guns are not knives. Guns are almost exclusively weapons. Knives are not.
The problem is inter-city gang violence. The problem is thugs and such that want a weapon and in Britain, the most they can (usually) get is a knife. These people will get anything they can conceal. Trying to take away their knives or go after their knives is not completely without logic but rather desperate. Not to making policy a "guilty until proven innocent" situation that practically asks for police abuse and racial profiling.
The solution is better policing and going after the criminals rather than their tools, if not the root cause of the actual violence. But that cannot be done in a soundbite.
Oh I agree with that and said so myself. I just don't see a problem with treating a symptom for short term relief while going after the root cause.
And what if there is NO relief from the law? What if the law is passed purely as a politician's effort to shine themselves and give empty reassurances, while actually making law enforcement's job more difficult and direct their efforts away from the actual root cause?
