Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Knife Crime, or how a short sharp shock is not the answer
Posts
You could easily get an artery if you slash at the neck, which is probably where someone would aim if they couldn't stab (exposed skin etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
Yes, but that's also a really bad idea because it leaves your torso (and, to a lesser extent, neck) wide open.
So is your argument based on it being easier to defend against slashing weapons with your own slashing weapon?
or your own stabbing weapon.
Or any weapon really, especially if it gives you greater reach than your opponent.
I accept its an issue that needs addressing, but for gods sake this isn't the US - cant the BBC take a slightly less alarmist view of things?
Isn't it because that although overall figures might be falling, they're being heavily concentrated in a few areas/age groups. That and no-one really knows how reliable the statistics are because of the changes made to how crimes are recorded.
Actually, no. You have to penetrate a certain amount of flesh to get to a vital organ and make enough of a hole to cause bleeding/rupture, otherwise you gotta stab several times or open up a major artery. A little pocket knife or table knife isn't easy to kill with. You can still do it... it's just a lot harder.
I don't know how short a knife were talking about here. Every household kitchen I've been in has at least a 6 inch carving knife to slicing roasts and turkey. That knife could easily deliver fatal stabs.
With smaller knives it really depends on the strength and knowledge of the knife wielder. That being said, your average 16 year old dumbass teenage boy could easily kill you by stabbing you once in the chest with even a 3 inch knife. A punctured lung is no joke.
You could aim just below the sternum/rib cage and go in&up. There would not be much resistance, and you could even push a blade past the hilt. And as you point out, a little knowledge goes a long way.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's a Katana, combat knife, kitchen knife, or a shiv. There is no point in banning a knife. They are too many practical applications for a total ban, and a partial ban is not likely to be effective as it will be a pain in the ass to enforce.
Absolutely. That was what I as trying to point out. All those items could be hit by a sub 3 inch knife as well. Or a pen, if you shove hard enough. And anything that doesn't have a point can easily be made to have a point.
No, because axe fights are too awesome! I call Dibs on predicting increased axe fatalities following the knife ban and the release of diablo 3 (or a similar game which will take all the blame)!
Hmm, on second though it might be hard to swing a good excuse for carrying an axe, isn't most of Britain a little scarce on tree's you allowed to cut down? (sorry I couldn't resist!)
Apparently Teddy Boys were big fat racists.
I think the BBC feels it has to follow along with the rest of the media because if the Mail et al. turn on them and accuse them of being biased towards the government they're in deep shit. Same as how they've been going along with treating Brown and Darling far more harshly than they actually deserve.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621013.stm
EDIT: Okay, maybe there is hope. But when I see stories like this I just instinctively assume that someone over at the Home Office has finally lost their head for good.
You mean boxcutters... but yeah you can do a lot more damage to a person with a screw driver.
I think this is all utterly stupid. I have to cut through things serveral times a day. So I keep a kabar knife I had in the military at my desk, cuts things just fine. I also keep a pocket knife on me because you might need one of the tools on it.
No it does not. A stabbing tool is pretty simple, stick it in the other person. With a knife you can slash, not going to do much though. Either way it matters not.
I can kill you just as fast with "random heavy object sitting on the road" as fast as I can with a knife.
Que Crocidile D "that's not a knife, now that's a knife"
And here we see why I resist most anti-gun measures, and call anybody suggesting a ban an absolute idiot. It's not a slippery slope argument...we have a concrete example of where that road actually leads. Which is to say, into no real change in crime (given year-to-year stats within Britain) and even more absurd policies.
Only police need guns, only chefs need pointy knives*, only licensed professional contractors need claw hammers**, and so on, and so forth. And oh no! Videos and movie posters with guns scare people! Those gotta go too.
Seriously, Britain, grow a pair.
* - Actual argument heard from Brits
** - Not so much, just referring to incident on Philly subway.
But if we allow guns, they'll eventually be made mandatory, and then shooting people will be made mandatory in honor of Dick Cheney!
Actually, direct threats were apparently already banned. I'm not finding a lot of details as to what constitutes "displaying weapons with the aim of intimidation" in this context...can you help out with this? Like, maybe another story or a more detailed description of the policy?
EDIT: I guess the impression I get from this is that it's about restricting videos of actions that aren't directly against the law but which might upset people who are more scared of guns on average. But yes, my view is going to be biased by the fact that this is coming from the country where "olol only chefs need pointy knives" is taken seriously as an argument.
edit: This is literally the only quote on the matter:
If you want, then you can interpret the bolded as banning film scenes, but you'd have to be blind to the context this amendment to YouTube's policies comes in.
There's a good article by Eugene Volokh called Beyond the Slippery Slope which discusses specific real-world situations in which a slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but a legitimate concern, which examples taken directly from the gun control debate. An excerpt with citations removed:
Who carries a knife for 'cred'? I carried a knife back in the day cause I was a pussy scared shitless of getting robbed (but at the same time, not wanting to just wimp out let people take shit from me). It never happened, and the knife never left my back pocket.