London Mayor Sadiq Khan calls for knife control

[Logic Over Emotionalism]

NYC has alot of gun control. They don't let just anybody have a gun there.

Never claimed otherwise. I only said in NYC you can still purchase a firearm not that there was no gun control. In NYC you can own firearms, while in London where guns are banned there is more violence.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/new-york/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsday.com/amp/news/region-state/new-york-gun-law-1.16886114

 

[jamesbond007]

London has some the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have prohibited handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles. Yet the violence is still higher then NYC where you can still purchase a firearm.

Actually New York is not relatively safe from the article below:

"Warring gangs have driven New York’s murder rate to an 8 percent spike through the first half of the year, authorities said Tuesday.

The city saw 147 murders through the end of June, an increase of 11 from the 136 notched to the same point in 2017.

Rape reports have spiked by 33.2 percent in 2018 — from 678 last year to 903 this year"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/07/10/nycs-murder-rate-rises-due-to-gang-violence/amp/

NYC compared to other large cities in the US:

http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/public_safety/crime-selectcities.htm

According to the article below we can see that TX with it's very relaxed gun laws is much safer then Buffalo, NY.

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/04/highest-murder-rates-us-cities-list/

Pfft. London has overtaken NYC. It has a higher death rate of gun and knife violence than NYC in 2018.

Moreover, NYC has enacted the toughest gun control laws in the USA since 2013. Andrew Cuomo and Obama year.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5963434/london-murder-rate-2018-city-highest-rate/

 

[FireDragon76]

Pfft. London has overtaken NYC. It has a higher death rate of gun and knife violence than NYC in 2018.

Moreover, NYC has enacted the toughest gun control laws in the USA since 2013. Andrew Cuomo and Obama year.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5963434/london-murder-rate-2018-city-highest-rate/

New York City is an outlier as far as homicide in the US goes.

Britain has more petty crimes and burglaries than the US, but homicide in the US is much higher.

 

[NW82]

YES! Outlaw knives so the people will not have them and stop the violence...because it worked for guns...oh, wait....

But, but, but outlaw guns so the people will not have them and stop the violence...because it worked for drugs...oh, wait....

Ignorance is the real problem. Criminals don't follow laws.

 

[dqhall]

Never claimed otherwise. I only said in NYC you can still purchase a firearm not that there was no gun control. In NYC you can own firearms, while in London where guns are banned there is more violence.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/new-york/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsday.com/amp/news/region-state/new-york-gun-law-1.16886114

For 2017:
London had 1.2 homicides per 100,000
NYC had 3.4 homicides per 100,000
Washington D.C. had 17 homicides per 100,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London

They were using one month's worth of statistics for the London - NYC increased homicide comparison. For the first six months of 2018, NYC murders outpaced London's by a wide margin.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/15/new-...higher-than-londons-new-figures-show-7717873/

Britain has a much lower nationwide homicide rate than the USA. They banned bump stocks and assault rifles in England, not in the USA. Some states have banned bump stocks, others have not.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

Supposedly from one of the other articles posted, two-thirds of gun violence are suicides and one-third are homicides. Also of the homicides mass shootings are less than two percent of deaths. Much of the violence and death are concentrated in certain areas, even within cities disparities exist; further concentrated specifically to those vulnerable to suicidal tendencies and gang violence.

Again why does it seem we continue to have this back and forth about broad support or opposition to guns? Obviously homicides and suicides are drastically raised by guns, but it's certain areas and people as the knife violence in the U.K. shows. I'd like to see agreement about what could be done specifically to address suicides and gangs.

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/04/highest-murder-rates-us-cities-list/

Mass shootings, though comprising less than 2 percent of all gun deaths, can skew a local murder rate so drastically that some cities decline to include fatalities from gun rampages when reporting their annual numbers to the FBI.

When you look at murders by how they were committed, the data shows that Chicago has a much higher rate of gun homicides, specifically, than Los Angeles or New York. For non-gun homicides, the cities’ rates are effectively equal.

Much of the homicides and fatal shootings are gang-related. Laws and policies first should address this issue if gun violence (other than suicides) are the concern. Why are communities plagued gangs and how do they come into existence? In the article it mentions the Dominican gang Trinitarios, using knifes and not guns to violently slay a young man. If you Google the gang it tells you the name comes from three Dominican revolutionaries. Seems culture and identify are major factors underlying the violence. What about drugs and poverty?

Though people are rightfully voicing concerns about gun violence and homicides, it'd help understanding what's happening in context. Overall the trend is less crime despite the recent spike in gun violence and homicides. Won't help to argue either extreme, that it's out of control must ban guns or it's the worst ever more guns for everyone. As for rape according to the article the spike is attributed to increased awareness and reporting, but it's possible lack of arms/tools for self-defense could lead to higher cases. Again I think it's mainly a people problem, for rape specifically addressing it to men educating us early and through life.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/10/nycs-murder-rate-rises-due-to-gang-violence/

“When it comes to the homicides, it’s around 30 percent [gang-related],” said NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan. “When we come to non-fatal shootings, it’s around 40 percent where there’s some sort of gang nexus. And those are the ones we know about.”

Despite the troubling homicide spike, overall crime reports are down 1.8 percent on the year, including drops in robberies, felony assaults, and shootings, officials said.

Rape reports have spiked by 33.2 percent in 2018 — from 678 last year to 903 this year — but Monahan attributed much of the hike to sexual assault in the news, as well as increased reporting of domestic attacks and previously unreported incidents from years past.
past.

 

[NW82]

For 2017:
London had 1.2 homicides per 100,000
NYC had 3.4 homicides per 100,000
Washington D.C. had 17 homicides per 100,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London

They were using one month's worth of statistics for the London - NYC increased homicide comparison. For the first six months of 2018, NYC murders outpaced London's by a wide margin.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/15/new-...higher-than-londons-new-figures-show-7717873/

Britain has a much lower nationwide homicide rate than the USA. They banned bump stocks and assault rifles in England, not in the USA. Some states have banned bump stocks, others have not.

Assault is an action, a verb. There is no such thing as an assault rifle. There are semi-automatic, automatic (already illegal unless you have a specific license), bolt action, etc., but no assault rifles. Get specific and stop using terms that aren't accurate.

 

[dqhall]

Assault is an action, a verb. There is no such thing as an assault rifle. There are semi-automatic, automatic (already illegal unless you have a specific license), bolt action, etc., but no assault rifles. Get specific and stop using terms that aren't accurate.

as·sault ri·fle
noun

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

In this case the assault rifles that are legal are not fully automatic unless you add a bump stock to them. They were designed for military and police use and are a threat to public safety. They exceed 14th Amendment (1789) provisions for those who had served in the American revolution to keep a musket for home and farm use.

Nations with stricter gun control laws had lower murder rates.

 

[jamesbond007]

New York City is an outlier as far as homicide in the US goes.

Britain has more petty crimes and burglaries than the US, but homicide in the US is much higher.

Too simplistic for a complex comparison.

 

[NW82]

as·sault ri·fle
noun

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

In this case the assault rifles that are legal are not fully automatic unless you add a bump stock to them. They were designed for military and police use and are a threat to public safety. They exceed 14th Amendment (1789) provisions for those who had served in the American revolution to keep a musket for home and farm use.

Nations with stricter gun control laws had lower murder rates.

That term was added out of political correctness. Merely quoting it doesn't diminish my point. The right to hear arms is to protect the people against the government. Period. Bump stocks are a crap excuse. No matter what you put on a weapon, short of altering the fire mechanism will increase its firing capability...semi automatic means on bullet per trigger pull, a bump stock doesn't change that. A military weapon like you describe with your assault rifle definition are already illegal for public use in the US, without a specific license, so the argument is still invalid, as criminals still don't follow laws.

 

[JoeP222w]

London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City's homicide rate for the first time.

"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law."

In Britain, it is currently illegal to carry a knife longer than three inches in public "without good reason" and illegally carrying a knife can be punished with up to four years in prison and an "unlimited fine."

Self-defense is not listed among the examples of "good reasons to carry a knife."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/500328002

It turns out that when you pass laws disarming people in an attempt to prevent violence, criminals who habitually disregard all laws don't make exceptions for the new rules. In London, crime still thrives despite the U.K.'s tight gun controls and the British political class is now desperately turning its attention to restricting knives.

A flurry of recent headlines reveal that London now has a higher murder rate than New York City, a metropolis of nearly identical population and one long considered more vulnerable to crime. "London police investigated more murders than their New York counterparts did over the last two months," Reuters reported earlier this month. "In the latest bloodshed, a 17-year-old girl died on Monday after she was found with gunshot wounds in Tottenham, north London, a day after a man was fatally stabbed in south London."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/archives/2018/04/24/londoners-embrace-knife-control/amp

For more on this law go to:

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

When you follow such logic, it leads down the path of outlawing the following items:

knives
razors
axes
hatchets
butter knives
steak knives
clubs
baseball bats
cricket bats
tennis rackets
batons
cudgels
sticks
canes
poles
portable radio antennas
yard/meter sticks
pool cuesticks
wire rods
tire irons
wrenches
hammers
screwdrivers
rocks
etc



Anything can be a weapon. The problem is the human heart, not the object.

And exactly right, when you outlaw weapons, that does nothing to stop criminals (including government criminals) but simply disarms law abiding citizens.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I doubt it since England has alot of Sikhs and usually their knives aren't even sharp, they are ceremonial only.

They are more worried about hoodlums and gangs carrying around large chef's knives.

I can't see how that excuses the London Mayor's obvious religious intolerance.

 

[FireDragon76]

When you follow such logic, it leads down the path of outlawing the following items:

knives
razors
axes
hatchets
butter knives
steak knives
clubs
baseball bats
cricket bats
tennis rackets
batons
cudgels
sticks
canes
poles
portable radio antennas
yard/meter sticks
pool cuesticks
wire rods
tire irons
wrenches
hammers
screwdrivers
rocks
etc



Anything can be a weapon. The problem is the human heart, not the object.

And exactly right, when you outlaw weapons, that does nothing to stop criminals (including government criminals) but simply disarms law abiding citizens.

Nobody in England is talking about banning butter knives. Mostly the discussion is about large chef knives.

A chef knife is not a particularly good defensive weapon, however it's adequate for ambushes. Which is how they are used in London.

Large chef knives are not needed by the typical person in their kitchen (I don't have one). And carrying one around in public is certainly an anti-social act.

 

[lesliedellow]

I can't see how that excuses the London Mayor's obvious religious intolerance.

Religious intolerance. One of the first thing he did after becoming mayor was to attend a Jewish ceremony in remembrance for holocaust victims. He got brownie points even from his political opponents for that.

 

[usexpat97]

Londoners of all people should know that knife control would be of little consequence in London. They need van control. Good luck banning all trucks and vans. Funny thing is, downtown London already has taxes which come pretty close to doing just that.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law."

Unless of course you need to cut something like a box, a rope, a wrapper...

 

[InterestedApologist]

Nobody in England is talking about banning butter knives. Mostly the discussion is about large chef knives.

A chef knife is not a particularly good defensive weapon, however it's adequate for ambushes. Which is how they are used in London.

Large chef knives are not needed by the typical person in their kitchen (I don't have one). And carrying one around in public is certainly an anti-social act.

(1) your claims about large chef’s knives doesn’t stand up to the tweet that started this discussion.
(2) Chef’s knives are the most versatile and useful blades made for anyone who cooks. If you don’t feel they are needed, you clearly don’t cook in any significant quantity or quality.
(3) let’s say they ban Chef’s knives only. Once done, every cook in London is now a criminal. Do you think any gang member is turning their knives in? Will there be a buyback?

Where does this foolishness stop?

 

[lesliedellow]

(1) your claims about large chef’s knives doesn’t stand up to the tweet that started this discussion.
(2) Chef’s knives are the most versatile and useful blades made for anyone who cooks. If you don’t feel they are needed, you clearly don’t cook in any significant quantity or quality.
(3) let’s say they ban Chef’s knives only. Once done, every cook in London is now a criminal. Do you think any gang member is turning their knives in? Will there be a buyback?

Where does this foolishness stop?

So far as I know, no knives are illegal in Britain. What is illegal is carrying them in a public place without good reason.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

So far as I know, no knives are illegal in Britain. What is illegal is carrying them in a public place without good reason.

That is working out splendidly now isn't it. Imagine, criminals not obeying laws....

 

[FireDragon76]

(1) your claims about large chef’s knives doesn’t stand up to the tweet that started this discussion.
(2) Chef’s knives are the most versatile and useful blades made for anyone who cooks. If you don’t feel they are needed, you clearly don’t cook in any significant quantity or quality.

I mostly use a santoku. Chef knives are traditional but they are hardly the only choice now days.

(3) let’s say they ban Chef’s knives only. Once done, every cook in London is now a criminal. Do you think any gang member is turning their knives in? Will there be a buyback?

They've already talked about doing knife buybacks.