By Philip   |  04-13-2018   Opinion
Photo credit: Business Insider

London has just received the dubious honor of overtaking New York City as the city with the highest amount of knife-related incidents despite having a rather tight grip as far as keeping handguns out of the hands of the populace.

Politifact verified Greg Abbot's claim (backed by FBI data) that even in the US more people are killed each year by knives or blunt objects than by rifles:

<blockquote>The Facebook post earned a "True" rating because it reflected the FBI’s statistics from 2011, the most recent year available, for murders with knives (1,694), personal weapons (728, typed on Facebook as 726), blunt objects (496) and rifles (323).

The Facebook post did not include homicides the FBI attributed to handguns (6,220), firearms whose type was not stated (1,587) and "other guns" (97). Those numbers mean handguns were used in 72 percent of all firearm murders in 2011 and slightly under half of all murders using any kind of weapon that year.

Abbott’s tweet, similarly, did not include some FBI-tracked categories by referring solely to rifles and blunt objects and leaving out other significant firearm categories. Still, according to the FBI’s data covering 2005 through 2011, blunt objects such as clubs and hammers were consistently used to murder more people than rifles alone.</blockquote>

In London, gun control doesn't seem to have made the city a safer place with the number of homicides surpassing that of New York City and acid attacks. Once the precedent has been set, I suppose the tendency is to keep pushing to control anything that could be used for self-defense.

They say Cain killed Abel with a stone. Hundreds lost their lives in the Oklahoma City Bombing with not much more than a U-Haul, fertilizer and something to ignite all that with. One reason why the idea of gun control catches on in the so-called bourgeoisie circles is because they don't even realize how much it would entail if, like London, we kept chasing after a new thing to ban every time it was shown that reducing the number of guns wasn't making the world a safer or better place. For example, my mother's grandfather on the paternal side was a gunsmith. If one was to argue for total gun control, would we not need then lathe control, die and mold control, and yes even metal control.

Seems like a lot of effort for nothing if it doesn't even serve the stated purpose of reducing the number of homicides and deadly attacks. In fact, does the attack even need to be deadly? In the case of acid attacks, can you imagine a loved one of yours, a sister or cousin entirely permanently disfigured? Guns haven't changed all that much, relatively speaking in the past 25 years or so that the "mass shooting and school shooting tragedies became a common occurrence. It's not the guns that have changed, and if we attack this problem in the same way that London has, it will likely prove equally fruitless. Remember as bloody and vicious as the Las Vegas mass shooting was, it still didn't result in as many shot dead as the attacks of Friday 13, in November 2015 when 89 people died from gunshot wounds at the Bataclan theatre in Paris. If gun control were an effective deterrent to staggering amounts of homicides, then Chicago wouldn't have had more than the result of LA and NYC homicide rates combined.

Share this article
Thoughts on the above story? Comment below!
1 Comment/s


Anonymous No. 23058 1523652994

You know what kills even more people than knives and guns combined??

Cars do and so do doctors.

What do you think about this article?
Name
Comment *
Image