Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds
If we are talking about "mass" murder events, in comparison to firearms yes. If we are talking about overall loss of life (at least in Canada) no.
Don't you want to reduce the amount of people killed each year?
You have me all wrong. I'm not advocating for guns, I'm advocating for banning knives. They meet every "acceptable" metric for being banned, correct? Made for killing, you don't need one, we can have a registry, central storage, mental screening, works for other countries, think of the kids.
Reducto adsurdum would apply; if only knives and firearms were as rare in civilian hands as nuclear material.
|
I'm willing to argue that eliminating access to knives at an increased rate would not reduce murders. Things like bats would be substituted in these types of incidences.
We also have laws banning knives that aren't used as tools and can be easiliy concealed because we recognize that intelligent regulation makes sense and that each of these tools needs to be regulated independently and in different manners to manage the risk that each provides.