# Operation Blunt or "Cut" me some slack.



## Doc (Dec 10, 2005)

Knife crime trial to be extended

A campaign against knife crime on trial for more than a year is to be rolled out across the capital, the Metropolitan Police has announced. Operation Blunt has been running in 12 boroughs since November 2004 and will now become a feature in every part of London.

Territorial Policing Commander Alf Hitchcock, who heads the initiative, said: "Our message is clear - carrying a knife is not a game. We will be working tirelessly, with our partners, over the coming months and years to reduce the number of people killed or injured by knives in London."

Hitchcock added, "Our main focus will be on the young. We believe that through a range of operational and educational programs and activities we can encourage teenagers not to carry or use knives. 

"The consequences don't get any more serious. If you carry a knife you are more likely to become a victim yourself. This means you could be killed. You are liable to be arrested and charged if found with a knife." 

During the 12 months to April this year, there were 12,211 offences involving knives. Robbery and assault accounted for the largest proportion of these. Operation Blunt will create a range of activities.

Over the next few months officers will visit every secondary school in London to teach the pupils about the dangers and consequences of carrying knives.

Police will also be targeting knife crime hot spots - usually public transport stations, pubs, clubs and colleges - using hand held metal detectors. The rolling out of the initiative is due to be launched at a press conference in London attended by Mr Hitchcock.

Also speaking at the briefing will be the Rev Nims Obunge, chair of the newly-formed Knife Crime Independent Advisory Group, and Franklyn Edwards, uncle of 15-year-old Robert Levy, who was stabbed to death in Hackney in September 2004.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

There's been some previous discussion of the issue of knives in the U.K. in the Knife Arts forum, e.g.:
Knife Epidemic:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11928
Knife Attacks on British Police:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5629
U.K. Physicians Want to Ban Kitchen Knives:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24481

Posters from there have said that carrying a knife is indeed taken very seriously over there.


----------



## jdinca (Dec 10, 2005)

It's very interesting how times change. As a kid, I always had a knife in my pocket. In fact, my father gave it to me. It wasn't for self defense, it was a tool to use as needed. At work, I carry a Leatherman which has several wicked sharp blades. Again, it's a tool. Six years ago, my oldest son was expelled from his school because a knife fell out of his coat pocket at a dance when the teacher he asked to hold it for him folded it over her arm. Yeah, you bet I was upset but that's what the school rules were. It wasn't a weapon to be used against others, it was just something he thought was cool to have. My response to him was that if he ever pulled it to defend himself, chances were it was going to end up stuck in him, or, even worse, he would find that he had brought a knife to a gun fight.

Along with gun ownership, I guess the question is whether carrying the knife is the problem, or whether the way society has changed over the years is the problem.


----------



## Doc (Dec 11, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> There's been some previous discussion of the issue of knives in the U.K. in the Knife Arts forum, e.g.:
> Knife Epidemic:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11928
> Knife Attacks on British Police:
> ...


Interesting reading sir. Thanks for the heads up. QUite a different perspective.


----------



## Doc (Dec 11, 2005)

jdinca said:
			
		

> It's very interesting how times change. As a kid, I always had a knife in my pocket. In fact, my father gave it to me. It wasn't for self defense, it was a tool to use as needed. At work, I carry a Leatherman which has several wicked sharp blades. Again, it's a tool. Six years ago, my oldest son was expelled from his school because a knife fell out of his coat pocket at a dance when the teacher he asked to hold it for him folded it over her arm. Yeah, you bet I was upset but that's what the school rules were. It wasn't a weapon to be used against others, it was just something he thought was cool to have. My response to him was that if he ever pulled it to defend himself, chances were it was going to end up stuck in him, or, even worse, he would find that he had brought a knife to a gun fight.
> 
> Along with gun ownership, I guess the question is whether carrying the knife is the problem, or whether the way society has changed over the years is the problem.


Well we've had more than one incident of youngsters attacking and killing another with baseball bats. Lets get rid of those "evil" baseball bats next. Or we could just make sure that those who commit these acts have sure and just punishment with no room for ambiguity in execution.


----------



## Brother John (Dec 11, 2005)

You know....this has got me to thinkin..

In school, the most common weapon for a youth to attack with is a sharpened pencil or a pen...often used like an ice-pick.

BAN Pencils and pens in our public schools.
Unfortunately....it might not affect the average GPA of the school.

Your Brother
John


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 11, 2005)

> During the 12 months to April this year, there were 12,211 offences involving knives. Robbery and assault accounted for the largest proportion of these.


You mean banning firearms didn't turn the place into a crime-free utopia?  WTF?


----------



## jdinca (Dec 11, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> You know....this has got me to thinkin..
> 
> In school, the most common weapon for a youth to attack with is a sharpened pencil or a pen...often used like an ice-pick.
> 
> ...



Along those lines, you couldn't care nail clippers on an airplane but you could have all the sharpened pencils you wanted.

Arm the British cops the way they should be and I think the knife problem will diminish significantly. They deserve the tools they need to do the job.


----------



## Pacificshore (Dec 11, 2005)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Arm the British cops the way they should be and I think the knife problem will diminish significantly. They deserve the tools they need to do the job.


Unfortunately from reading some of the threads on arming the British Police Force in this forum and others, there seems to be a split even among the force as to whether or not it is a good idea to be armed.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 12, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well we've had more than one incident of youngsters attacking and killing another with baseball bats. Lets get rid of those "evil" baseball bats next. Or we could just make sure that those who commit these acts have sure and just punishment with no room for ambiguity in execution.



Then on the contrary, you should carry a baseball bat for policing and personal protection, since you obviously consider them exactly as effective as other options by buying into that particular fallacy.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 12, 2005)

Pacificshore said:
			
		

> Unfortunately from reading some of the threads on arming the British Police Force in this forum and others, there seems to be a split even among the force as to whether or not it is a good idea to be armed.



It's also worth noting that the British "crime wave," hysteria in recent years is based on a rather complex set of circumstances where you are more likely to be mugged in the UK and more likely to be raped or killed in the US. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/810522.stm


----------



## jdinca (Dec 12, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting that the British "crime wave," hysteria in recent years is based on a rather complex set of circumstances where you are more likely to be mugged in the UK and more likely to be raped or killed in the US.


 
It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. It's also important to use a healthy dose of skepticism when reading any media report dealing with negatives. Negative is what sells.

It appears there are two choices. Arm the cops adequately, or start searching and confiscating "weapons". When it comes to children, maybe that's a good idea. What happens when it extends to the general population?


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 12, 2005)

jdinca said:
			
		

> It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. It's also important to use a healthy dose of skepticism when reading any media report dealing with negatives. Negative is what sells.



Like I said, it's more complex than that. The stats in the BBC article linked come from a USDOJ comparative analysis. Firearms rights advocates have taken to the survey as source information because the upsurge happened around the same time as stricter handgun legislation, but the truth is that the study is more complex than that and does not support anybody's position satisfactorily. From 1996 onwards violent crime did increase in the UK, but this was up from levels far, far less than the US to levels that are, going offense by offense (roughly, since offenses differ) the same to slightly higher. The exceptions are rape and homicide. The per capita homicide and rape figures in the US are several times that of the UK.

It's strange data, but it argues neither for nor against firearms for citizens or typical police.

There is also the matter of reportage standards. You get this old canard when comparing crime in the US and Canada, because of the difference between Uniform Crime Report standards and those of Statscan (the Canadain gv't stats department). Statscan measures by the call, not the arrest. The UK may have similar standards.



> It appears there are two choices. Arm the cops adequately, or start searching and confiscating "weapons". When it comes to children, maybe that's a good idea. What happens when it extends to the general population?



Well no -- it argues no such thing. British police are generally not interested in routinely carrying firearms, and it strikes me as highly presumptuous to second-guess their collective experience. They do want universal firearms training, which strikes me as being quite sensible.

As for weapons restrictions, there are two issues at work. One is the result of demagoguery, and the other is from a misunderstanding of the UK's political system.

The first is fairly simple: arguments that weapons restrictions lead to restricting all dangerous things are bunk. We know that there is a real difference between a gun and a baseball bat, or between a kitchen knife and a bit of Spyderco cutlery. This is part of legal tradition (the difference between establishing mens rea with the above is significant), utility and common sense.

Instead of obtuse simplifications, the real argument is the demarcation line between types of weapons and the legal sanctions that ought to be applied. This is not a question with an easy answer.

The second issue here is that folks don't understand how the parliamentary system works. You can hear all kinds of crazy things in Commons and Lords because matters that would be discussed by bipartisan committee in the US are doscussed -- argued -- in a more raw form in a parliamentary system. MPs and Lords (oh, especially lords, but they have little power) say silly things about restricting pointy knives in session. American politics frames it in legislation. This is why you didn't get a week of debate about whether fingernail clippers should be on planes, how long they should be, etc. before there was any action on the issue. Ths US style is considerably more muted and in some ways, more considered beforehand that parliamentary politics. But it doesn't mean that every harebraned scheme makes it into law or regulation. This one is probably on par with the proposal to leash cats that came up in Lords ages ago.


----------



## Dan G (Dec 12, 2005)

Excellent post! 

The UK police are also looking hard at Tazers, as there is serious concern being expressed about having a lethal response without also having an intermediate approach.

I missed the one about leashing cats... :erg:


----------



## jdinca (Dec 12, 2005)

First and foremost, it always helps when I accurately read what was written. You wrote "offences", I read officers, making my point silly and off topic. My bad. :asian: 

I have to disagree though with what you call "obtuse simplification". You go on to talk about demarcation lines between types of weapons and santions that should be applied. Yes, this is a much more complicated issue but the original post was in regards to knives. Would this also include deciding that a 2 1/2" blade is okay and a 3" blade isn't? That's actually a demarcation line here that I have an issue with. IMO, assault with a deadly weapon is just that. What the weapon is is less an issue than what was the intent of the user.

This is definitely not an simple issue and the only way to solve it is to discuss it, disagree, discuss some more and hopefully come to a reasonable solution for all parties involved. It'll be interesting to see where it goes.


----------



## Bode (Dec 13, 2005)

> The first is fairly simple: arguments that weapons restrictions lead to restricting all dangerous things are bunk. We know that there is a real difference between a gun and a baseball bat, or between a kitchen knife and a bit of Spyderco cutlery. This is part of legal tradition (the difference between establishing mens rea with the above is significant), utility and common sense.



True, but one would hope that most people realize the real point of making such a claim. A ban on weapons treats the means, but not the cause of people murdering others. The often outrageous arguments made that a ban on one weapons leads to a ban on all, simply points this out. Why are we not dealing with the root cause of the problem? Probably because the root cause doesn't exist and is too complicated to call out directly. I would venture to say the homicide rate per capita in the US vs Britain has little to do with the ownership of guns and more to do with a host of problems including social  and psychological.


----------



## Shortay (Dec 13, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> True, but one would hope that most people realize the real point of making such a claim. A ban on weapons treats the means, but not the cause of people murdering others. The often outrageous arguments made that a ban on one weapons leads to a ban on all, simply points this out. Why are we not dealing with the root cause of the problem? Probably because the root cause doesn't exist and is too complicated to call out directly. I would venture to say the homicide rate per capita in the US vs Britain has little to do with the ownership of guns and more to do with a host of problems including social and psychological.


 
I absolutely agree that the root causes should be addressed in the main and that the weapons argument should not be the primary focus.

However, you are always going to have nutters, and a nutter with a gun is far more dangerous a than a nutter pointing his fingers and shouting BANG!

That's where the weapons argument is important.


----------



## Doc (Dec 13, 2005)

Shortay said:
			
		

> I absolutely agree that the root causes should be addressed in the main and that the weapons argument should not be the primary focus.
> 
> However, you are always going to have nutters, and a nutter with a gun is far more dangerous a than a nutter pointing his fingers and shouting BANG!
> 
> That's where the weapons argument is important.


Yeah that makes sense. To do otherwise is kinda like not letting the law abiding drive, because some people drive drunk or recklessly. Do we hold the vast majority hostage because of the few?

XXX Honey!


----------



## Simon Curran (Dec 17, 2005)

Shortay said:
			
		

> I absolutely agree that the root causes should be addressed in the main and that the weapons argument should not be the primary focus.
> 
> However, you are always going to have nutters, and a nutter with a gun is far more dangerous a than a nutter pointing his fingers and shouting BANG!
> 
> That's where the weapons argument is important.


 
Whole hearted agreement from me there, my dad is a serving police officer in the UK, and has never even considered (at least to my knowledge) becoming firearms rated, for the kind of events he is expected to deal with it just is not necessary.
On the other hand, he does wear a stab proof vest to work as a matter of course, since the trend in the UK is more towards bladed weapons than ones that go bang.
I personally believe that legislation can go too far, but the trouble is society is just not capable of taking care of itsself, which is why we need a criminal justice system which protects the public at large.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 17, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Yeah that makes sense. To do otherwise is kinda like not letting the law abiding drive, because some people drive drunk or recklessly. Do we hold the vast majority hostage because of the few?
> 
> XXX Honey!



Do you rely on your automobile as your primary self-defense weapon? Or do you find the inability to distinguish between a vehicle and a tool designed to inflict harm unbelievably silly?


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 17, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> True, but one would hope that most people realize the real point of making such a claim. A ban on weapons treats the means, but not the cause of people murdering others. The often outrageous arguments made that a ban on one weapons leads to a ban on all, simply points this out. Why are we not dealing with the root cause of the problem? Probably because the root cause doesn't exist and is too complicated to call out directly. I would venture to say the homicide rate per capita in the US vs Britain has little to do with the ownership of guns and more to do with a host of problems including social and psychological.



Dealing with the means does not exclude dealing with thr root cause, so this is a false dichotomy. People can deal with root causes of violence perfectly well without letting go of the option to regulate weapons. On option does not magically disallow the other.

As for *why* the rates are different -- there's no definitive answer. Canadians have plenty of guns (about half the people I know own longarms), but don't shoot each other as often. I don't know of any attempt to correlate the US' abnormally high murder and rape rates with firearms availability and usage, but is it really any better to suggest, for the sake of defending firearms ownership, that Americans are psychologically damaged compared to that of the rest of the developed world? Given that I've liked most of the Americans I've met, I intuitively doubt that American culture is morally corrupt compared to that of the EU or Canada.


----------

