3 ms·
Knife crime in the UK unacceptably high. So high in fact that it's something 60% of the benchmark for unacceptable crime rates. The US's. Being anywhere near a
by lucozade 4y ago
Knife crime in the UK unacceptably high. So high in fact that it's something 60% of the benchmark for unacceptable crime rates. The US's.
Being anywhere near as bad as the US in any violence categories is a genuine cause for shame and is the reason why knife crime is a big topic in the UK.
Obviously, it's not a big topic in the US because it pales into insignificance compared to gun crime. Not because the US has low knife crime; it doesn't it's terrible.
And I genuinely don't know why you'd bring up Germany and Switzerland. Their gun crime stats are bad. Switzerland particularly. Obviously they're not as bad as the US because no country outside central America, the Balkans or South Africa comes even vaguely close to the US. That doesn't make them good though.
And I lived in Switzerland long enough to understand pretty well why the gun crime is low compared to the volume of arms in circulation. I lived in Kandersteg for a bit so I saw the training first hand. But you can't reasonably argue that the US mess isn't because of gun ownership because Switzerland isn't as bad.
And as to your point re the senator from Arizona. I could have worded that better. They're not trying to pass a law for effective gun control. They're trying to make baby steps on the road to effective gun control that are sufficiently small to have a vague chance of succeeding. The intention is laudable. And it is likely that they do want effective gun control eventually. So I accept the rebuke.
- kodah 4y agoOn one hand you decry the actions of meaningless gun control by those acting in bad faith but then as soon as it's democrats doing the exact same thing it's "baby steps" and laudable. Can you explain why you're doing this?
- lucozade 4y agoI didn't say it is meaningless. I said it isn't effective. Because it isn't effective. We have plenty of examples of effective gun control and these aren't they. And I couldn't care less what party they represent. Democrats can presumably be against gun control.
- _ktx2 4y agoRight, but then you go on to pat the people doing it on the back, followed by an "acceptance of rebuke". This kind of doublespeak is what's disruptive in these conversations and makes people not trust each other or their intentions. If we do end up in a place where we ban guns, the backlash of that will probably be to ban things that other interest groups like that "cause harm" with similar statistics. I find that expressly illiberal, and I'm not really a fan of what a small minority of vocal liberals really want, which is to ban them or make the system so frustrating that no one can enjoy them.
- lucozade 4y agoGuns murder a lot of people in the US. Having fewer and less potent guns is better. Not good but better. I applaud people who are trying to make things better because the status quo in the US is shockingly bad. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your second paragraph. I'm not really that bothered if people stop being able to enjoy weaponry. I also don't particularly blush at being called illiberal. Or indeed liberal. I do care that a country that was once admired and respected has become a thing of pity and disgust. I take no pleasure in that. That the beacon of democracy is also a beacon of wanton violence is something to be saddened by. And I am.