MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

London Mayor Launches Knife Control Campaign

London's murder numbers now exceed New York's. But the new murders teach old lessons: Drug wars are bad and weapon laws don't stop crime.

London saw more murders in February and March than New York City (37 vs. 32), for apparently the first time. This has led to calls for both heavier policing and social media censorship. London's murder number total for 2018 so far is now over 53 (vs. 130 total in 2017), with at least 35 from stabbing, and its murder rate over the past three years has gone up nearly 40 percent.

News Syndication/MEGA / NewscomNews Syndication/MEGA / Newscom

The comparison between London and New York might be less about London becoming more of a hellhole and more about New York City becoming amazingly less of one. In 1990 that American city had 2,245 murders, and as the Financial Times reports, "In the 20 years to 2009, the number of murders, robberies and burglaries in New York was down 80 per cent, twice the US national average, and lower than it had been in 1961." While London has more and more relied on racially unbalanced stop-and-frisk searches to futilely cope with crime, New York has found that curtailing those practices, has not, despite law-and-order fears, led to increasing crime.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has sent 300 more police on the streets this month and threatened all knife-wielders, whether they've assaulted anyone or not, with "the full force of the law." (For all the good it has done them, London has banned carrying a knife in public without "good reason" for years already.) For many Londoners, carrying a knife in a dangerous city is an understandable matter of self-defense. But too often, the government doesn't consider your own self-defense a good reason to allow you to innocently carry a tool, both in London and in American debates over the right to carry a gun.

Some in London believe that a stronger public health/social services approach to curbing violent crime (which some claim helped cut Glasgow's murder rate in half from 2005 to 2015) might work where more policing might not, and some blame a national-level lowering in police funding and staffing for the rising murder numbers. But the relation between policing efforts and British crime is by no means clear-cut. According to The Guardian, a leaked report on policing and crime from the U.K.'s Home Office

says that it was unlikely that "lack of deterrence" was the catalyst for the rise in serious violence. "Forces with the biggest falls in police numbers are not seeing the biggest rises in serious violence."

Writing before the launch of her strategy to counter violence, [Home Secretary Amber] Rudd said in a Sunday Telegraph article: "While I understand that police are facing emerging threats and new pressures—leading us to increase total investment in policing—the evidence does not bear out claims that resources are to blame for rising violence.

"In the early [90s], when serious violent crimes were at their highest, police numbers were rising. In 2008, when knife crime was far greater than the lows we saw in 2013-14, police numbers were close to the highest we'd seen in decades."

While simplistic blame for London's murder problem is also aimed at social media in general and the rise of "UK drill" hip-hop in particular, one important lesson here is old and applies across the globe: Whatever weapons are or are not available, or legal, or used to harm others (acid attacks are also on the rise in London), keeping a desired commodity like drugs illegal and crammed into a black market with no legal recourse for conflict resolution is a terrible idea for domestic tranquility; and no amount of legal anathemas on mere tools, whether knives or guns or acid, is sufficient (or necessary) to reduce crime.

Photo Credit: News Syndication/MEGA / Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Just Say'n||

    Well, I'm just glad that the UK realized the source of the problem by focusing so much on prosecuting thought crimes. They've tightened their immigration system, too. If you fought for ISIS, you're cool to come back, but if you are Lauren Southern you are literally Hitler and should be banned for thought crimes.

    Let's be more like Europe

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    but if you are Lauren Southern you are literally Hitler and should be banned for thought crimes.

    Reason approves, I read the hit piece on that alt-right leader. Free speech and liberty don't have that much in common anymore I guess?

  • Kivlor||

    In all seriousness, did they ever do a write up at all on her or Pettibone being kicked out of the UK because they're far-right extremists who might interview someone?

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    No they didn't breathe a single word about that shitshow. They did write a mean and poorly thought out hit piece on Southern a few months ago. Again ever since daddy (the Washington Post) called them out, Reason quit the fight for free speech.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'd be curious to see where the violence is located. From what I have seen in the UK they have a tremendous amount of permanently unemployed, people all put into projects of some sort. These people have nothing to do all day, but exist and so I don't think it's surprising that they try to find stuff to do, and for some of them it descends into gang violence.

    But, shit, I don't know. I'm way too sleep deprived and should not be posting.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Up late? Did a new porn genre sprout last night?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Real talk? I'm going through a bit of low point in my mental health issues right now and my insomnia and other issues is coming back.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    As, shit, dude, sorry to hear that. Insomnia sucks. I can relate. Have you tried the ole melatonin + niacinamide + oelamide combo?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    *oleamide

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Tryptophan supplements are the bomb for depression and insomnia.

  • croaker||

    Or you could just eat more turkey.

  • silver.||

    Naw bro, gotta go bulk 5-HTP powder. Poop your brains out.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's fine. It will get better, it tends to.

  • Libertymike||

    You could try reading all of the regulations of the Bureau of Utility Cutting Services.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Or the latest D&D rulebook

  • silver.||

    Got some oleamide a few months ago. Haven't remembered to use it much, but when I have it's worked well. The king is still the Unisom with doxylamine.

  • Juice||

    Or CBD oil you can order online.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Or, you know, weed.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Over-saturation of "news" can't help, I know I had to step away for a bit recently.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    There's your half virtue. Welcome back half vice...

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Look, there is an easy solution here that will kill two birds with one stone. Outlaw all knives and create a governmental Bureau of Utility Cutting Services (BUCS). If you need something cut, chopped, or sliced, just stop by your local BUCS office. Just think of all the jobs this will create.

  • Fairbanks||

    Hmmmm, where else have I seen BUCS?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They best not franchise over here, I got a trademark damn it.

  • ||

    No blood aluminum for oil IP! No aluminum for oil IP!

  • croaker||

    "Only Cowards Carry"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Uh oh, those gun grabbing laws seem to be utter bullshit at preventing crime.

    While gun grabbers cannot provide a single crime that was prevented by gun control, gun supporters can point out crime after crime where the victims could have possibly defended themselves with guns in the UK.

    In the USA, there are thousands of incidents where people defended themselves from criminals with guns. Even more incidents that are not reported because the criminal ran away after the almost victim pulled a gun.

  • ||

    Oh FFS, this article was comparing NYC to London, two cities with radically similar gun laws.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All sorts of New Yorkers have guns even with all the restrictions. New Yorker also has the 2nd Amendment to protect their rights to have guns.

    Unless you work for government in the UK, you don't get to have a gun in London. England has no such protection of arms.

    You people crack me up with you blatant lies that NYC and London are similar in gun laws.

  • ||

    The situations are facially the same. London criminals use knives due to easy access. It is illegal for Londoners to carry knives for self defense. The same is true in NYC, substituting guns for knives. Thus, given that things are facially the same, you cannot make the case that deterrence is the differentiating factor between NYC and London murder rates.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    FFS, you got your lie about guns exposed. Those two cities on gun laws are nothing alike.

    You will need to cite because you are talking out of your ass. It is not illegal for anyone in the USA to have knives. If a city has restrictions on switch blades or specific kinds of knives, they are still legal under the Constitution but may have not been sufficiently fought in court.

    This is what London's official policy on knives are: "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law," Khan tweeted Sunday.
    No folding knives? No hunting knives? No folding knives?

  • Zeb||

    There is always a reason to carry a knife. What if you need to open a box, or cut something?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm curious of the assault rates. What's the rate of stabbing versus shooting, for those who both die and survive. I don't have a great idea of which is more survivable.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Funny think about the British Office of national Statistics is that they don't really differentiate between violence and murder via knives. They do for guns.

    I can only assume this is because gun crimes happen but are rare, so they can fool idiots into thinking England is safe because of gun laws.

    In reality knife violence has so gone up that even the English are scared. Add in the British government refusing to make those stats you are looking for easy to find...and presto! You get super safe UK.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That's pretty funny. Very dry, British type of humor.

  • Zeb||

    That's an interesting question. Bullet wounds and stab wounds are both pretty nasty, but in pretty different ways. Someone was saying the other day that something like 80% of gunshots (maybe just from handguns?) are not fatal.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Sometimes you don't need to shoot or stab. A good old-fashioned pistol whipping will do the job and the blunt end of a knife makes a fine bludgeon when someone is shitting their pants at the sight of a Buck Knife.

  • gormadoc||

    I expected you to crow something like: "You don't see what Sadiq Kahn is doing! HAHAHA! He's just appeasing the liberals with this talk to get their money and win reelection! He's not going to do it it's a ploy! n-D chess!"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who?

  • gormadoc||

    London Mayor Sadiq Khan has sent 300 more police on the streets this month and threatened all knife-wielders, whether they've assaulted anyone or not, with "the full force of the law."
  • Cousin Avi||

    Don't go to England.

  • gaoxiaen||

    -1 John Bull. As English Bob said, "Why not shoot a President?" Alas, that was long ago.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So police can threaten people but people violate the law if they threaten other people?

    What a great example of the law only applies to the serfs.

    England has become a shithole.

  • croaker||

    It gets worse. A 78-year old pensioner was arrested for murder after three thugs broke into his home, beat his wife, and beat him. He took one of the thugs' screwdriver away and killed him with it.

    The UK makes it clear that you have no right to self defense and you will be punished for violating the OSHA regulations protecting criminals.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    *rage vomits blood*

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That's the left for you. Providing violent criminals legal rights to protect them from their victims.

  • BigT||

    They've shit on the Magna Carta!

  • gaoxiaen||

    "Who's the owner of this shithole?"

  • gaoxiaen||

    Yeah, I just watched "Unforgiven" again today.

  • gaoxiaen||

    And I'm reading Moby Dick again, so don't be surprised at my comments.

  • croaker||

    Sadiq Khan is the front man for an Islamic invasion who wants the teeth pulled on all defenders.

  • BigT||

    The Wrath of Khan!

  • silver.||

    I saw this on another site a few days ago and some folks were saying that the police force was recently reduced by nearly 1000, so even with the additional 300 cops there is a net decrease of over 700. I don't know much else about it, but it's one of the ways this crime spree is being rationalized. Anything to distract from the failures of weapon prohibition.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In the USA, we don't have much knife violence because people have guns.

    In states that abide by the right to have guns, we don't have much gun violence... because people have guns.

  • BigT||

    More than half of US murders are due to the drug war and gang wars. Legalize drugs and Poof! USA safe again!

  • ace_m82||

    1. Yes, more arms means more armed bad guys. It also means more armed good guys. If you criminalize carrying arms, then only criminals will have arms (definitionally true). And, we also know that "an armed society is a polite society". And "appeal to nukes" won't work well in your case, notice how few world wars there have been since nukes came into existence?

    2. Let's look at Britian:

    www.theguardian.com/uk-news/20.....e-officers

    Oh. Well, there goes that idea.

    The US has always been more "frontier" than other western countries and had a higher crime rate. And, as the people were more armed, it was only natural that the police would be more armed.

    3. Why does it matter? At worst, it will be just as bad as it now is. And, if the teacher is shot first, there are more of them who may be able to stop it.

    Now, I'm an An-Cap, and this is all a hypothetical discussion to me. Government is twice an initiation of force, once when it taxes, and again when it enforces its monopoly on force.

    How to solve the evil armed person problem? Wait for them to try to shoot someone and shoot them.

    How to solve the police officer problem? Government shouldn't do that anyway. Private security (still) works.

    How to solve the teacher problem? See my last answer.

  • ace_m82||

    May I interrupt with reason

    "Gun rights" don't really exist, per se. They are fully encompassed in the one right to do anything other than initiate force. Ergo, "rights" can never, ever, come into conflict. If you think that "rights" come into conflict, I'll point to one party that's attempting to initiate force.

    As for your first set of "facts", they are basically meaningless for two reasons. The US has always had a higher rate of (recorded) intentional homicides than those countries, even when Britain, Australia, and Canada had basically the same gun laws (more or less none). Second of all, the countries track them so differently that the "differences" are (at best) suspect.

    As for your second set of "facts", does it matter if 1 person is killed at a time or 10? Does that somehow make the 1 person more moral or feel better? "Mass shootings" are meaningless. Secondly, why does it matter if it's shooting or stabbing, beating, bombing, or vehicular manslaughter?

    If life were truly seen by the majority to be that important, then we would ban government, the biggest mass murderer of them all.

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

  • ace_m82||

    Why ask such a silly question? Mass killings ... 30,000% HIGHER is in-con-veeeen-yent to your political agenda?

    Because then mass killings are no worse than individual killings of the same number. So any % difference is meaningless. Also, your stat was on mass shootings, not mass killings.

    But, regardless of your purposeful obfuscation:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    Are you drunk, Hihn, or do you not see the response I already made to that?

  • ace_m82||

    your "one right" has been obsolete for 50 years, for the moral barbarities summarized elsewhere on this page

    No, it hasn't. Nolan isn't a "god". And those "barbarities" (refusing to initiate force?), I've already refuted that objection.

  • ace_m82||

    "HOW SILLY IS THE LIE .. that he IGNORED? DOZENS OF TIMES. FOR SO MANY MONTHS?"

    I'm not sure that makes sense even to you. Try again.

    "You say it DOES initiate force to deny a marriage license (gay or inter-racial)?"

    By force of arms? Yes.

    "deny women's suffrage?"

    There is no right to vote, but assuming there were, then yes.

    "deny segregated votng? deny a property title?"

    Yes.

    "IGNORING SOMEBODY MEANS INITIATING FORCE!"

    Definitionally not true.

    "IF WE'RE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER .. AND I CLOSE MY EYES ... HAVE I BULLIED YOU?"

    No.

    "YOU are the enabler for the KKK"

    No, I just don't use force against them until they initiate it against others.

    "you PROVE by defending the Christian Taliban's New Inquisition"

    Telling you you're wrong isn't saying others (who were not in the discussion) are right. False dilemma.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is shrieking for a gun ban again.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Michael", if you can understand that guns save lives, then you aren't fit to be here. Given your excessive trolling, you probably won't be king for this site anyway.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Britain had a lower violent crime rate than the US even back when neither country had much in the way of gun laws. And the imposition of increasingly restrictive gun laws in Britain has done nothing to keep violent crime rates there from increasing steadily over the years. But of course, fewer guns are used to murder people in Britain, which makes the victims feel better about it I suppose.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    None of your "original source data" addresses what Wahoo said, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Duh!

  • Eidde||

    Look, just ban knives, ban that hippity-hop music, censor social media, increase welfare, and the crime rate will be reduced in no time.

  • JP88||

    Don't forget to open the boarders!

  • gaoxiaen||

    Why would I disembowel my paying renters?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Organ harvesting.

  • Kivlor||

    In all seriousness, banning no-fault divorce might actually help.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Alternatively we could just allow unhappy client to shoot lawyers.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Has any considered just banning crime? That seems like the obvious solution.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That would affect the criminals in the Parliament and other government positions.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Their crimes are legal. They passed laws that make it so.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No go. Koch brothers pay everyone off to prevent the ensuing peace as I assume the Koch's are arms dealers.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Off topic, is this anyone you know?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    (I assume there are only like 9 people in Arizona).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    First of all, there are 14 people in Arizona.

    But no, that happened in Maricopa, 10 people live there. The other 4 of us live down in Pima county. And we do not choose to interact.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Recipe, please.

  • esteve7||

    The solution when progs inevitably fuck up is to always prog harder...

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Check out the knife laws in GB:

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

    I particularly like the one about Zombie knives: zombie knives - a knife with a cutting edge, a serrated edge and images or words suggesting it is used for violence

    It's the intent, apparently.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    There is no good reason to own a zombie knife.

  • Rhywun||

    Especially one with the little thing that goes up.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I guess that you're talking about my GF's ex.

  • Rich||

    Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include: if it'll be used in a demonstration

    OK, that's my reason.

  • DenverJ||

    I saw that the other day, and commented about blow guns being banned. Which is crazy- unless the darts are poisoned or somebody loses an eye, those things are as harmless as a rubber band gun (which can also hurt eyes).

  • gaoxiaen||

    I have a friend from Old Blighty who did six months imprisonment for hitting someone in the eye with a coaster. He fucked up when the guy next to him said, "Good shot!" and he replied that he was aiming at his nose. That guy turned out to be a key witness.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    They've really turned into a nation of outsides. Same fags are trying to do the same ting here.

  • Rhywun||

    While simplistic blame for London's murder problem is also aimed at social media in general and the rise of "UK drill" hip-hop in particular

    Obviously these things don't cause crime but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to notice that they are a sign that much if not most of this crime is gang-related (in both London and NYC). In the NYC the gangs are - for whatever reason - less influential now. In London, the opposite is true. The arguments over guns, knives, number of cops... that's all hand-waving. And it's not just the drug war fueling these gangs, either. Otherwise, how do you explain the massive drop in crime in NYC?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gangs tend to find footing in areas where people are unemployed or low income, people use gangs to "even the odds" against other powerful gangs, and where average people do not have other avenues to resolve disputes.

    The UK has just let in tens of thousands of non-English who are mostly unemployed and don't have much in common with their host country.

    It really is a surprise to see Syrian gangs getting worse in England.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Open borders has worked so well there.

  • colorblindkid||

    While the Drug War may have created the gangs that spawned gang culture, it is clear that gang culture is a largely independent phenomenon. I want to end the Drug War (at least decriminalize all drugs) as much as anybody on this site, but it will only make a dent in gang violence, which has unfortunately transformed into deeply-embedded cultural norms within certain communities.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you limit black market profit makers like drugs, prostitution, and illegal gun running by legalizing them, the gangs cannot earn enough money to keep large gangs going.

    Its expensive to buy burner phones, buy safe houses, launder money, etc for gangs to operate as criminal enterprises.

  • colorblindkid||

    I fully agree. I just think that gang culture has long been largely independent of actual black market gangs, and is more of a social thing now. Many typically gang-related murders now are simply personal beefs between young men and have less to do with actual drug running.

    Legalizing everything and eliminating black markets will stop a lot of murders and gang violence. I'm just saying that because of how long it has taken for people to realize this, the underlying cultural attitudes where murder and violence are accepted and often glorified will be harder to end.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Still, more profitable.

  • ||

    I'm commenting on Hit & Run in order to buy sex.

    Anybody got a problem with that? I'm asking you, FOSTA/SESTA!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I know you weren't asking me, but I have a little bit of a problem with it.

  • ace_m82||

    Funny, I'm a Christian "Fundamentalist" (why adhering to the "fundamentals" of something is a bad thing confuses me), but I'm an An-Cap.

    This is the problem with saying "many seek...". It's always true, and is absolute tribalism. Its only purpose is to create an "us vs them" mentality.

  • ace_m82||

    "Many" are the exact opposite.

    More tribalism.

    Yes, they do.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    But you defend the Christian Taliban

    If by that you mean statists who call themselves "Christian", then no, I don't.

    Which are the aggressors/statists?

    You are, you Nazi defender!

    (The following are actual quotes of Hihn.)

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • ace_m82||

    "He's too fucking STUPID to know that Hitler WANTED the Jews to leave .... IT'S CHEAPER THAN GAS OVENS WHICH TOOK TROOPS AWAY FROM THE WAR EFFORT. DUH."

    This just in, the Nazis didn't want to kill the Jews, just deport them. It was cheaper. The mass murder was just a mistake!

    "AND I HAD ASKED OF HE SUPPORTED CHRISTO-FACSISM IN AMERICA."

    An-Cap. Do you understand the term? No government!

    "CAUGHT
    RED-HANDED ... STATIST"

    You quoted yourself! Yes, your statism is quite obvious to any reader!

  • ace_m82||

    "Did you think Hitler wanted them to stay? THAT WAS A GERMAN SHIP .. YOU IDIOT."

    German =/= Nazi. No, he wanted to kill them.

    "YOU DEFEND THEIR DEATHS ,.. for your INSANE political bullshit."

    Lie.

    "Why is he RETARDED enough to post his own MASSIVE fuckup here ... THINKING IT IS AN ATTACK?"

    You. Defend. Nazis. As libertarians. Because the were elected. You still are.

    Hihn honestly thinks that government is voluntary! Let's see how many people "volunteered" to be killed by their government in the 20th century:

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

    262 million.

    Yep. Voluntary.

    God Bless you, Hihn! May you live forever as a warning as to what hubris does to a man!

  • ace_m82||

    "Calling out your bullshit."

    How?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Come on guy. We ain't taking the bait.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    What if he offers you twenty bucks more? That always works in the porntubes.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I wonder what other news is going on in London, eh Reason?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

  • gaoxiaen||

    Baby owls are so cute. You can buy them in China for fifty or sixty dollars US. Exporting and importing them is another story. Same with slow lorises.

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    Oi Bruv, got a knoife I can borra?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

  • Rich||

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Considering the reason given for the assault, there is no need to mention it. It's just pure domestic abuse.

  • DenverJ||

    acid attacks are also on the rise in London

    LOL Those zany Brits.

  • Flinch||

    Such hideous posturing by the ponce of London. I suppose they are prepared to arrest all halal butchers now [on account of their craft no longer is "good reason"]? Just a thought...

  • cc2||

    The fact that one cannot defend oneself in England without a prison sentence is even more scary than the crime rate.

  • Zeb||

    And something tells me those facts might be related.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Quick, somebody find a picture of an assault knife so we can march against those.

  • ByteRot||

    No, we don't need pictures. Just lists of arbitrary functional and cosmetic features that are a disjointed mix of so broad they apply to nearly every knife in use, and specific and scary-sounding but absolutely irrelevant to the majority of violent knife crime.

    Here, like this:

    An assault knife is hereby defined as a blade:
    * Having a sharp edge, or an edge that can be modified to a sharpened edge with commercially available whetstones
    * Having serrations
    * Having quillions or a basket hilt designed to protect the hand from strikes from an opposing knife
    * Having a weighted pommel
    * Having a sheath or folding design that enables it to be readily carried about in a concealed fashion without cutting the carrier
    * Having intimidating-looking holes in the blade

  • Morrowind542||

    You're two years too late

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

  • BlueStarDragon||

    Ban on Knives hmmm. That's how kung-fu got started in China about a thousand years ago if I remember right.

  • hardcorps||

    karate in okinawa

  • BigT||

    If Left - Right = Zero, what does Left + Right = ?

  • vek||

    Yeah Hihn, and remove our Black and Hispanic murders and the USA has a LOWER murder rate than Europe or almost anywhere else.

    Brown gang bangers are the ones who kill almost everybody in the USA. Doesn't have anything to do with guns or anything else bro. Now please go off and have a heart attack or something.

  • vek||

    Yeah, and the funny thing about that is that NON WHITES commit almost ALL the murders there! Funny that... Europe is just catching up to us in the dysfunctional minority department, but they're going after it like gangbusters!

  • ace_m82||

    Non Sequitur.

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, Non Sequiturs would be used most often by the stupid.

    They say the first step is admitting you have a problem, Hihn...

  • vek||

    I don't believe in gun control period... I believe self defense is a right all people have. But by the logic the left uses, we WOULD eliminate 50% of murders in the USA if we banned blacks from owning guns, knives etc.

    Keep in mind that's genius left wing logic, NOT my logic.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I don't care very much about other people. I care about what happens to me.

  • ace_m82||

    There is only one right, the right to do anything other than initiate force. "Rights" cannot come into conflict.

    1. Yes, more arms means more armed bad guys. It also means more armed good guys. If you criminalize carrying arms, then only criminals will have arms (definitionally true). And, we also know that "an armed society is a polite society". And "appeal to nukes" won't work well in your case, notice how few world wars there have been since nukes came into existence?

    2. Let's look at Britian:

    www.theguardian.com/uk-news/20.....e-officers

    Oh. Well, there goes that idea.

    The US has always been more "frontier" than other western countries and had a higher crime rate. And, as the people were more armed, it was only natural that the police would be more armed.

    3. Why does it matter? At worst, it will be just as bad as it now is. And, if the teacher is shot first, there are more of them who may be able to stop it.

    Now, I'm an An-Cap, and this is all a hypothetical discussion to me. Government is twice an initiation of force, once when it taxes, and again when it enforces its monopoly on force.

    How to solve the evil armed person problem? Wait for them to try to shoot someone and shoot them.

    How to solve the police officer problem? Government shouldn't do that anyway. Private security (still) works.

    How to solve the teacher problem? See my last answer.

  • ace_m82||

    David Nolan rejected that BULLSHIT 50 years ago.

    Nolan is a human. Humans are often wrong.

    It does NOT initiate force to deny marriage equality

    Define. To use force-of-arms to prevent it? Then yes, it does. To say "I disagree", then no, it doesn't.

    Paleos think extreme social conservatism is the norm in a fully free society

    I'm not one, so I don't really know.

    anarchism, because NO defense of individual liberty is needed

    Lie. Private defensive organizations have, do, and will still work.

    excuses the Christian Taliban

    If by that you mean statists who call themselves "Christian", I do not.

    And, anarchists can be authoritarian, by DENYING the right of people to form governments as voluntary associations

    Twice wrong, by calling those who refuse to initiate force "authoritarian" (Orwellian much?) and claiming that governments are voluntary. If they were voluntary, they wouldn't send men-with-guns to steal from me.

    Hihn's history of "voluntary government"

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • ace_m82||

    "Yes, FUCKUP, MILLIONS of Jews were allowed to leaved Nazi Germany ... on German ships ... WHICH WAS CHEAPER THAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS! (gasp)"

    And? All Germans weren't Nazis. Why did the Nazis kill so many if it was CHEAPER (as you put it)? Why, because they wanted them DEAD!!!

    You continue to defend Nazis as "libertarian" because they were elected. No-one should listen to you.

  • ace_m82||

    "It does NOT initiate force to deny marriage equality ... or inter-racial marriage .. or woman's suffrage ... or segregated voting ... or property rights ... or ..."

    By force of arms? Yes, it does. Stop Strawmanning.

  • ace_m82||

    "Arms have NEVER been needed."

    Government is arms. Arms are always needed to deny others liberty.

    "Just say "no" at the license bureau. YOU LOSE"

    Cause they have lots of guns.

    "WTF?"

    Look, I said that to the "marriage equality" question (if you had any reading comprehension skills, you'd realize that). I'm saying that if I deny that what homosexuals are doing is "marriage" but do NOT use arms (read: government) against them, I am not denying them their "rights" (their right to do everything other than initiate force).

    "STOP STALKING ME"

    I'm not. You continue in your error, and keep trolling here, so I keep proving you wrong. If you don't like it, you have two options, quit trolling here or quit being wrong.

    If you want to keep telling us the Nazis were libertarian and that government is the savior of us because it's the only one trustworthy with guns, go ahead. That's within your right. It's within mine to point out how ridiculous your beliefs are. Deal with it.

    You know I will win this argument, so why do you even bother?

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (NOT advocating gun grabs

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies again.

  • ||

    England is just a sad....I don't even know.

    We used to joke it would come to this as far back as the 90s.

    And here we are....

  • Zeb||

    It's really pretty sad. They used to be very much not that. It's pathetic.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The British people should rise up and violently overthrow their government. Then they should expel most of the Muslims immigrants from their country. Those two things could save them.

  • vek||

    Sooooo I heard in passing that 85% of the murders in London are committed by Ethnic minorities... Maybe they should just kick out all the Pakis and methinks their murder rate problem will be solved?

    It's funny how all these super safe European countries that never had minorities like we have always had in the USA are suddenly having crime rates spike, especially murder and rape, now that they magically have minority populations that are less than the USA had throughout our whole history. I love how some countries, like Sweden and some places in Germany, are now refusing to report the race/ethnicity of criminals in crime stats too! Wouldn't want the locals to realize that 10% of the population is committing half the crime or anything! People might not want more refugees to move in if you did that!!!

  • Fearless Truthteller||

    For a site called Reason the comments on this web blog sure are awfully Hitlerian!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Why is it Hitlerian to even discuss statistics like that? Are you the thought police? THAT would be Hitlerian.

  • Fearless Truthteller||

    "Maybe they should just kick out all the Pakis" You figure it out. My rough anthropological estimate is that 85 percent of Reason readers are members of the local Nazi party or Klan chapter. Heil Trump!

  • ace_m82||

    Your fallacy is "Appeal to Stupidity".

  • TxJack 112||

    Sadly since as it was before the American revolution, the British approach to controlling "problems" remains focused on the suppression of individual rights. You can be jailed for hate speech, must have a "good reason" (at discretion of government) to carry a knife and the Mayor of London just keeps trying to strip away more and more freedom. When someone argues the Bill of Rights is archaic and no longer needed in this country, point to London and show them exactly why it was written and why it is more important than ever.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I call GB a cautionary tale for that exact reason, and yet you often hear a chorus of voices extolling how much better they are than us.

  • GamerFromJump||

    That should totes fix the problem, insh'allah.

  • ace_m82||

    Why is that phrase usually said to mean "Whatever" or "If it's not too hard"?

  • turco||

    It does? I always took it as equivalent to the spanish Ojala.

  • ace_m82||

    Well, that was more or less the meaning of it in Haditha circa 2007. At best it would mean "I'll try", at worst it would mean "If everything goes absolutely perfectly and I feel like it".

  • Fearless Truthteller||

    Actually, basically all evidence shows that control of weapons strongly reduces murder rates. I'm sure you would have included some evidence to the contrary if you had any.

  • ace_m82||

    Actually, it doesn't. I'm sure you would have included some evidence to the contrary if you had any.

    What happens when only the state is armed? It can do this:

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

    262 million UNARMED people killed by government... in only 100 years.

  • Fearless Truthteller||

    Uh, thanks for the non-sequitor. Look at the murder rates pr any country with gun control compared to ones that don't have it. There is no need for me to send you links to well-known information.

  • ace_m82||

    Yeah, I did. And they look pretty bad for the gun controllers, unless you count the really authoritarian ones, and those are much worse.

    If the goal is to reduce total murders, then gun control is fatal. Once again, when it comes to evil, the government greatly outperforms the private sector!

    Show me your stats!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online