Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Knives are too Sharp and Filing Down their Points is Solution to Soaring Violent Crime, Judge Says

posted by martyb on Friday June 01 2018, @04:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the pointed-question dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

A judge has proposed a nationwide programme to file down the points of kitchen knives as a solution to the country’s soaring knife crime epidemic.

Last week in his valedictory address, retiring Luton Crown Court Judge Nic Madge spoke of his concern that carrying a knife had become routine in some circles and called on the Government to ban the sale of large pointed kitchen knives.

[...] He said laws designed to reduce the availability of weapons to young would-be offenders had had “almost no effect”, since the vast majority had merely taken knives from a cutlery drawer.

[...] He asked: “But why we do need eight-inch or ten-inch kitchen knives with points?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/27/knives-sharp-filing-solution-soaring-violent-crime-judge-says/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Knives are too Sharp and Filing Down their Points is Solution to Soaring Violent Crime, Judge Says | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 251 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:12PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:12PM (#688860) Journal

    If it detects, it isn't deterrence.

    Deterrence is a complex process which does many things, including detection. You can't deter, if your deterrence process doesn't understand what crime is. You can't deter, if your deterrence process can't detect crime. This is silly to continue.

    Once again, your argument is semantically invalid. You are claiming that perfect deterrence is imperfect and then giving a bunch of irrelevant reasons why. A perfect process is not a real world process, and thus doesn't follow those rules. It is not constrained by anything you can come up with - by definition. You're not even wrong here.

    Your definition is a contradiction

    Keep in mind this whole thing started because someone started babbling about "perfect deterrence" in the first place.

    I was going with a different meaning of 'perfect deterrence', where it instead means it cannot be made any more effective. Such a system would not reduce crime to zero, for the reason I've repeatedly stated.

    Words have meaning.