Paul
Ibrahim
Read Paul's bio and previous columns
July 14, 2008
Do Stabbings Mean We Need More Knife Control?
Almost exactly one year
ago, a carload of assailants took to the streets of Calgary and randomly
slashed at five pedestrians, killing one of them.
A few months later, a
crazed man in New York violently attacked an elderly dog-walker and a
restaurant worker, “chopping” at them “like a sword” before being killed
by police. Only days later, a Salt Lake City man also went on a stabbing
spree.
On March 23, 2008, a
Japanese man carrying two knives stabbed eight people in the city of
Tsuchiura, simply because he “just wanted to kill anyone.” And he did.
At around the same time, an Alaska teenager butchered four people to
death with a five-inch knife.
Last month, a Japanese
man stabbed 18 people in Tokyo, killing seven of them. He told police he
had come “to kill people.” A couple of weeks ago, a man stabbed 10
security personnel in Shanghai, killing six police officers and injuring
four more.
Only days ago, the
stabbings of two French students in London rocked Europe. The two had
250 stab wounds between them. Also in the past few days, a Japanese
woman made news when she saved her and her daughter’s life by calming
down a knife-wielding assailant and offering him iced tea.
As these unfortunate
events show us, knives of all types – short blades, long blades, kitchen
knifes, switchblades – can be dangerous, dangerous weapons. Does that
mean we should ban knives?
Knife control certainly
sounds like a ludicrous concept. But it becomes less ludicrous when you
consider the regulations and bans that have been launched at another
product that could be dangerous – the gun.
Like the knife, the gun
can be dangerous when used recklessly or with criminal intent.
Somewhere, however, someone decided that the government should regulate
the ownership and carrying of guns. Not knives, crowbars, baseball bats,
nunchucks, spears or ninja stars. Just guns.
Yet ironically,
although all of these weapons can be as dangerous as guns, only guns can
provide adequate self-defense for victims. Think about it. If neither an
assailant nor his female victim is armed, the assailant is most likely
going to overpower the woman. If they are both armed with knives,
crowbars, and baseball bats, physical superiority would still be the
major factor in the confrontation. Even mace necessitates sharp
coordination and a close distance between the two.
Indeed only a gun can
give the victim an advantage if her assailant is carrying any other
weapon. If he is carrying a gun, they will at least be equals. Or she
could even have the upper hand if she has practiced her shot more than
he has. More likely, a criminal would be completely uninterested in
attacking an armed victim or burglarizing a house that is possibly home
to armed residents.
So why ban guns?
Recently, the District of Columbia had a complete ban on handguns
overturned by the Supreme Court. But a similar law is still standing in
Chicago (though is fortunately unlikely to last very long), and various
unreasonable regulations on guns continue to exist across the country.
A man stabbed 18 people
and another slashed 10 police officers before being stopped, for crying
out loud! It should at some point become obvious that people do not need
guns to kill other people. And it should be equally clear that it is not
the guns that kill, but the nuts who use them – or any other weapon, for
that matter.
There is no doubt that
gun control makes some policy makers feel good about taking steps
against crime. But as we see in every other aspect of government policy,
“feel good” motivation often leads to the most inefficient and harmful
laws. The murderers will always find a way to kill, irrespective of
their access to guns. So if you wish to regulate guns, you must do the
same for every item that could potentially kill on an individual level –
down to knives, pens and power cords.
But we know that bans
work only on those who abide by the law. We should thus never deprive
these same law-abiding citizens from the self-defense they need against
those who will always be armed.
© 2008 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column # PI119.
Request
permission to publish here.
|