previous post next post  

Essential Liberty, Temporary Security: A Knife To A Gun Fight

By Kat on January 25, 2008 | | Comments (14)

[Kat]

I've been trying, without much success, to write something on gun control and liberty that doesn't sound too fanatic. Considering the readership here, I would not like to come off as a rabble rousing renegade revolutionary (try saying that a ten times, fast) that needed added to a watch list.

As Fred Thompson has finally figured out, sometimes when you contemplate things for too long, events get ahead of you and the moment may pass you by along with people's interest or passion for the subject. I don't think gun control is one of those subjects exactly so I think I have a little time to discuss some exigencies before withdrawing and allowing the field to progress without me.

It turns on this report from the BBC: PM promises clampdown on knives H/T Arms And Law

Police in the UK's worst knife crime hot spots will be told to prosecute anyone caught with a blade, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

Not that we hadn't heard of this probability occurring. They've been making noises about it for sometime. I suggest that you read the entire article because it has some very good absurd comments along with an occasional brilliant insight such as you can't stop violent crimes unless you address other crimes like drugs, robbery and gang activity. Something Rudy figured out in New York a long time ago.

English law being the basis for our own laws and government, it brought to mind, once again, the question of how much power people are willing to give the government in exchange for "temporary security".

Now, in England, they can't even bring a knife to a gun fight. Scratch that. You can't even carry knife for personal use.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police's chief constable, has already ordered his officers to prosecute all offenders caught with knives, rather than issuing cautions.

So, if you're a construction worker who routinely carries a knife in his pocket or on his belt, you could be prosecuted. If you're an electrician, a warehouse worker (you know, someone who routinely opens boxes, cuts the plastic wrap or zip ties); someone who installs computer systems, servers and high speed cable (yes, when I did this I carried a pocket knife with a multi-edge blade for cutting zip ties, opening boxes and stripping wires); if you are a lawn keeper or florist or just some average Joe that carries a knife for personal use or on the way to go fishing and you have the bad fortune to jay walk, run a stop sign or loiter some where too long, you will now be prosecuted for the possibility that you might commit an actual crime with what amounts to a common tool.

And people buy that. I know because right now my (non-military) brother is telling me that fifth amendment rights don't exist under certain circumstances. I'll explain later, but suffice it to say, it is exactly why I keep talking about giving away essential liberties for temporary security. People are extremely willing to give up their rights in the guise of fighting crime.

Now he told me that rich people make the laws. And, don't commit a crime so you won't have to be worried about your rights being violated. Oh...it's for the greater good.

We're screwed.

Federalist Papers #10

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

Update: In comments, a supporter of the knife ban reflects upon the actual ordinance which he maintains does NOT in fact place a burden on those who must use a knife as a tool. He also notes that the ban is on knives that are more than 3 inches long. In which case, it jives with some laws in the US that says that knives more than 3 inches are considered illegal in some states and city ordinances. Though, in the US, the person will most likely only be prosecuted in relations to another crime and, as was the practice in the London Metro area, only be warned if it is simply on their person or in their possession during a routine stop, etc. As far as I know, and someone is likely to correct me, there are limited, if any, prosecutions for only having the knife, there being many numerous reasons and purposes for owning and possessing a knife more than 3 inches long and the actual act of a crime needing to be committed.

If I read the Brits correctly, the actual act of carrying the knife is a crime in and of itself that will be prosecuted. Corrections?

Plus, someone with a little more understanding of Brit law might want to expound on the differences between "cautions", "reprimands" and prosecution.

Share This Article:

Categories:

14 Comments

By John on January 25, 2008 4:45 AM
If they think, it is possible to reduce the number of violent crimes, just by prosecute the one who carrying the knife for their personal purpose, then they're 100% wrong. This is never going to work... Breakdown Recovery
 
By fdcol63 on January 25, 2008 7:02 AM
Every time I read the Federalist Papers (and the anti-Federalist responses), I continue to be amazed at the level of thought that occurred during those discussions. They indeed remind us of just how WISE and LEARNED the Founders were .... and that the issues we discuss and debate today are timeless. After a government bans KNIVES, what's next? Baseball bats? Pepper spray? Personal self-defense and martial arts training? One has a limited number of cheeks to turn.
 
By Sly2017 on January 25, 2008 11:43 AM
I used to think my t-shirt that said, "If they take away our guns, can we use chainsaws?" a joke. Now though........ *sigh*
 
By kat-missouri on January 25, 2008 1:54 PM
I have two more (or more) posts on the subject that are coming along. One is a recount of a conversation with an ex-pat American in Sweden lamenting our "gun culture" in the US (says its one of the reasons he left detroit for Sweden...LOL) On a similar vain, I once replied to him "Cain killed Able with a Rock. I can't wait 'til we live in a rockless society". Wait for the story I am about to recall from my youngest brother on what the fifth amendment means. It will blow your mind. Though, I imagine some will be agreeing with him on the circumstances of the original argument, the entire discussion broke down to whether you have the right not to incriminate yourself.
 
By rikkochet on January 25, 2008 2:34 PM
Taking away our pistols completely stopped gun crime in the UK, so stopping people carrying knives is another step in the right direction. It seems that having a short memory is a prerequisite for our politicians.
 
By kat-missouri on January 25, 2008 2:54 PM
Heh....rikkochet, that dry British sarcasm nearly got me as I read the first paragraph. The last line cleared that up. Yep. The brits seem to be going towards disarming the entire society of every arms or tool for the sacred security of society. Pretty soon it will be only the military and the criminals along with a few select police units that will be armed at all (pretty much the way it is now, but I imagine worse soon). No one reads the statistics in Parliament or the Metro Police apparently. Or, if they do, they are terrible analysts.
 
By Matt W on January 25, 2008 3:31 PM
Background: you can legally carry a knife in the UK if it is a requirement for your job or activity (eg a chef can take his cleaver to and from work, a scuba diver can have a divers knife). A "knife" is a fixed blade more than 3 inches long (so Swiss Army knives and multi-tools are OK and so are the tools that construction workers routinely carry) You can't legally carry anything that's designed as a weapon NOT a tool (there's an extensive list, but that's basically the bottom line). Previously, If the Police found that someone was carrying a weapon/knife, they had the option to "caution" , rather than arrest them. Or "reprimand" them if they weren't adults [see these link for what that all means] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/ http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/cyps/youngpeople/youth_offending/exeter_yot_reprimand.htm Now - in 12 urban areas - the PM says that the Police don't have the option to caution or reprimand. They must proceed to prosecution. 27 teenagers were killed in London during 2007. This is part of the continuing attempt to reduce gang violence
 
By fdcol63 on January 25, 2008 3:47 PM
Why do images of Malcolm McDowell and Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" come to my mind whenever I hear about British attempts to "reform" their criminal justice system?
 
By kat-missouri on January 25, 2008 3:58 PM
thank you, Matt, I'll make a point of linking your comment. though, I will say something that seems rather cold. Though their deaths are lamentable and certainly gives an unmitigated grief to their families and friends, it is always the question of "law and order", of justice to balance out the liberty of a majority against the immediacy of a minority. Further, such powers to, in a real sense, prosecute for crime when a crime has not been committed (ie, murder, assault, rape, robbery, damaging property, etc at knife point) accept to have a tool (even knives with blades longer than 3 inches can be a tool; I have a skinning knife and a filleting knife that are certainly longer than 3 inches) in your possession is tantamount to prosecuting a thought crime. Minority Report. Let me re-iterate the comment from the report wherein its stated that the reduction in violent crimes must be related to the reduction of other crimes. Otherwise, you are simply providing a tool to add charges to potential or actual criminals. that can only be accomplished through better police presence and actually prosecuting actual crimes, giving out appropriate sentences, stop treating teenage criminals as misunderstood children who only need love, provide the police with the tools and equipment necessary to secure themselves against criminals, etc, etc, etc
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 25, 2008 4:21 PM
Matt - perhaps a simpler way of expressing it is... how does this affect anyone but the law-abiding? And what will the response be when the gangs just start beating and kicking people to death/serious injury? Ban workboots with steel toes without a permit? The point being is that these kinds of laws don't really address the core issue, they address a symptom. The gang violence is a symptom of the gang problem, but isn't the problem itself, and I rather suspect the rule change will only make a useful difference if you actually put the gang-bangers away, for significant amounts of time. Which was one of the approaches we took with long sentences for violent offenders. Of course, that crowded the prisons, and now people are agitating to let the perps go with lesser sentences (and there are some smarter approaches being explored too - such as not putting non-violent offenders into prison... save that space for the true menaces to society). Of course we have to give up our societal affair with the "Drug War" to make that happen. Kind of like giving a cancer patient morphine for the pain, but not attacking the cancer. All too often on this side of the pond, laws like this allow the politicos to say "See! We did something!" without actaully really doing anything than further restricting the law abiding.
 
By Heartless Libertarian on January 25, 2008 4:34 PM
You can't legally carry anything that's designed as a weapon NOT a tool
Weapons ARE tools. The dichotomy is thus self-contradictory.
 
By Justthisguy on January 25, 2008 6:50 PM
If nobody has any weapons, my ass could be very easily kicked by anyone who is bigger, younger, stronger, and meaner than I am. Those words define a depressingly large number of people, I'm sad to say. I'm a little guy. I'm old. Don't pick a fight with me, I don't fight fair.
 
By Trias on January 26, 2008 7:10 PM
Actually Heartless Libertarian weapons are a subset of tools so the sentence is sufficient. When gun control was discussed before I looked at two extremist sites on the matter in the US. Australia doesn't discuss this matter, it's just not interesting to us to you really have to look in the US for anything on the matter. One was a report site Brady and one called NRA. I think it's quite fair to say both sites displayed an enormous degree of bias. The NRA made several totally false claims about Australia with statistical manipulation tricks. We did have a very significant gun ban/buyback (on 'automated' weapons). We most certainly did not experience an increase in crime from it. There was a very marginal reduction in the more violent kinds of crime. I have said to many US citizens before embroiled in this apparently endless argument that crime source and prevention has less to do with weapons including guns and more to do with other factors. Which means gun control or gun freedom doesn't really make a whole lot of difference to crime rates. The US is glossing over real stuff that matters in crime while focusing on the gun issue. I am personally for gun freedom as a matter of freedom in general but believe there should be effort in gun education, training and some bans on specific people that have shown evidence of misuse.
 
By John of Argghhh! on January 27, 2008 9:16 AM
Trias - I pretty much agree (which gets me in trouble...) Heh. The NRA as extremist... you should read Gun Owners of America or Jews For The Protection of Firearms Ownership (GOA and JFPO respectively) if you'd like to see the "extremist" version of pro-gun in the US. GOA pretty much sees the NRA as a hopelessly compromised sell-out on the issue (Yes, I'm a Life Member of the NRA). Some of the language used in the debate is a result of our politics - where in order to have a position from which you can compromise, you have to take an extreme position - else your "moderate" position is perceived as the base from which a compromise will come. Okay, all that said - I'd like to see your analysis of the NRA data from the perspective of trickery. Not because I disbelieve you, but simply because you made the assertion, and I'd like to see the analysis to support it. I have probably used the NRA arguments before, so I'd be interested in seeing your take. Full disclosure, I have a pretty good buddy in Oz who is an international militaria dealer who is continually fueding with governmental agencies (and the gov't agencies aren't looking good, just from reading their *own* letters), so my interest in the subject has a personal tinge, too. Besides, he just shipped me an WWII Ozzie 4.2" mortar, which is safely in the states and on it's way to his agent in the US, where I'll go pick it up. *Note to ATFE/LEO: Already passed Customs at the Port with a personal eyes-on inspection of the container and it's contents, and will get another at final destination, all demilled to US spec, natch!*