The Dullards Are At It Again

The UK is a very, very safe place. Guns are only available to the military, special law enforcement and those handful of sport shooters willing to jump through all the legal hoops on their way to the gun range or grouse hills.

Except it isn’t, isn’t safe, that is. Solution? Ahh, yes. Ban the long knives:

[K]nifepoint robberies rose by 10 percent this year and there are some 60,000 stabbings each year. So the push is on to outlaw long kitchen knives. Once that’s done, surely utopia will be at hand.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

“Impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs.” So, we gotta get rid of the knives, but not the prompters? And, we’re doing nothing about impulse control? Doesn’t make any sense. But then, there’s no reason it should, is there? Ahh, when will we ever learn that the problem lies with people and not with property? It always has and it always will.

It’s not the stuff (be it kitchen knife, a Webley, or a Land Rover), it’s what we choose to do with it.


Here’s some lagniappe: Doctor killing patients in the UK at alarming rate. I wonder if banning the tall doctors would be especially helpful?

2 thoughts on “The Dullards Are At It Again

  1. The writer of this piece is rather (lets say) “selective” in his statistical analysis. The really interesting statistic is that non-firearm inflicted death and injuries (including those inflicted by knives) is not that different in the United States and the other advanced democracies. In fact, factoring out firearm inflicted injuries and deaths, the crime-rate in the US begins to look rather normal. But, for those living on planet “Far Right” this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we have about 300 million firearms – legal and illegal (both are equally efficient at killing and injuring people) floating around our unhappy land.

    I often wonder, given the fact the far fewer than 50% of Americans feel it necessary to own these things, and given the utter complete curtailment of freedom that is suffered by the many thousands of our citizens who are killed and maimed by firearms, where the balance of individual freedom actually lies.

    For a start (and after banning semi-automatics and large capacity magazines) gun-owners should be forced to carry insurance so that the victims of their madness, criminality, or negligence, could at least have some compensation for the loss of freedom inflicted on them or their dependents by the minority who indulge themselves with these toys.

    1. Speaking of statistics, it would be beneficial to see some that support the idea that “far fewer than 50% of Americans” support owning firearms. It would seem difficult to square that with a more than 50% approval rating currently enjoyed by the NRA.

      For those who live in Far Left land, and believe that only government employees are capable of acting responsibly with modern weaponry, there is no ban which will be sufficient short of everything. Insurance, as we all know, would simply have the affect of pricing the ownership of guns beyond the capabilities of many who are not independently wealthy–the very people who often live in the more dangerous neighborhoods and would most benefit from being able to protect themselves.

Comments are closed.