Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Actually here in the UK the government did briefly consider banning all knives with points. I know right? Welcome to the nanny state.

(from 2005 but it was brought up again last year...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm#:~:text=%22Off...



This story comes up occasionally and is always misrepresented. Nowhere in the article does it say all knives with points. Nor did the government consider it, beyond being asked to comment on the journal article.

The proposal was from a hospital research group who argued that many stabbings are impulsive and that long knives cause extremely serious penetration injuries. So they suggested banning those knives for home use, or at least blunting the tips.

The response to this is usually "well people could sharpen them?" and sure, but the purpose is risk mitigation. You'd still be able to buy a smaller pointed knife if you wanted.

> The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

They allegedly consulted with chefs who agreed that if you really need to use the tip, a paring knife would be OK. Anecdotally I'd agree - the only thing I use the tip of my chef's knife for is for opening packaging.


Sort of the government version of Poe's law.


[flagged]


I always though a screwdriver would be more effective for stabbing people and much less conspicuous...


A police officer came to my school and told the assembled students that sharpened rulers counted as knives.

(I never bothered checking if he was right or making it up).


A strict reading of the law in many US cities classifies nerf and airsoft guns as deadly weapons regardless of the velocities involved. I don't think that gets applied often (ever?), but a few people have gotten deadly weapon charges for using BB guns, so the line isn't too far away. With that as the backdrop I wouldn't be surprised at sharpened rulers being classified as knives (especially as pertaining to laws regarding weapons near schools).

I might be off base here, but I think those kinds of bogus laws are usually applied selectively in situations where any reasonable observer would agree that the perpetrator ought to be charged with something, but there isn't anything better to stick them with. The danger of course is that everyone always being guilty of something allows for less desirable forms of selective enforcement (race, gender, journalism, protests, teenagers), intentionally or not.


Perhaps it is so that this definition would cover the police in the event they shot someone brandishing an airsoft?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: