Here in the DC area, a recently-freed inmate attacked several people in an upscale mall with two knives taped together (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052600640.html). Frankly, I wouldn't be suprised to see the local politicians try something like restricting knive sales, based on what just happened.

When I read the initial post, I figured I'd agree with the nanny-state-gone-too-far spin that was offered with it. But, having read the actual editorial, it strikes me as pretty sensible. In particular, the very limited form of the proposed ban, and the author's attention to the question of any potential culinary utility for such knives, lead me to view the editorial very favorably. I'd be open to proposals for other ways of getting the same outcome from something less severe than a ban -- subsidies for the safer knives, say, or a higher tax on the less-safe ones -- but I don't see anything wrong with the ban per se. It's entirely of a piece with, e.g., requiring that certain forms of power tools have to meet various safety requirements. (Which, btw, shows that this isn't really a slippery slope issue; and that the only reason to be offended by it is, indeed, if one is scared that it'll start us down a slippery slope!)

What's up with the scarequotes on "prestigious", anyway? Do you mean to suggest that it is not, in fact, a prestigious journal?

Fortunately, we have a complete collection of kitchen knives both here in Boston and in our Ferienwohnung in Munich. And knife sharpeners in both places, as well.

At some point, this stuff gets to be a bit silly.

I recently have wondered, though, why people appear to be unwilling to call a proposal for what it is: Silly? Stupid? Dumb? Idiotic? Why the reluctance to call it for what it is?

Because as a general rule those words are flung around so much on news shows on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, et al, that they've lost any effect they once had. Calling a proposal stupid is normal these days -- offering sound reasons for why a proposal is stupid is something that is sorely missed in most common political discourse, however.

I suppose Nick. The last time I paid attention to those channels was in 2001. This was shortly after the Chinese forced down the US surveillance plane. Faux News seemed to be covering the thing 24/7. Their commentator (I hesitate to call her a "reporter) basically said "we don't have the slightest idea what's going on, but we'll continue talking about it anyway." This was at about 5:30 in the morning. I literally rolled on the floor laughing.

Regarding proposals to ban the sale of kitchen knives to reduce fatal stabbings, it strikes me that one wouldn't need to go into a long discourse about that. It is fairly evident that kitchen knives serve useful purposes. I do a lot of cooking, and I can clue you that, if I had to cut my carrots with a fork or slice my beef with a spoon, that would life far more difficult than need be. Just how many fatal stabbings with kitchen knives have there been, outside of the Friday the 13th style of movies? That's what I mean when I suggest that proposals such as this be called silly. Stupid. Dumb. Idiotic. Regardless of Faux News.

Let me get this straight: Instead of offering at least a stab (ha!) at arguing why a writer thinks the idea is wrongheaded, you just want us to fling words around?

It constantly gets easier to ignore some suggestions....

Raj, you need to actually read the editorial in question -- the author is not trying to reduce us to a situation where we'd be "cutting our carrots with a fork". If she were, then I'd be in agreement with you. I think you'll agree that, unless someone is a very strange or incompetent knife-wielder, when they prep their onions and what-not, the sharp point at the end of the knife plays basically no role in cooking. You need the long, curved blade, and you need to be able to pivot towards the end (to get the right rocking motion going); but there's no use for the point itself. I'm a pretty serious cook, and I absolutely cherish my set of Henkels, but the proposal sounds very reasonable to me.

So perhaps we should not call the proposal stupid, because it is not in fact stupid.

philosopher at May 29, 2005 10:22 AM |

I have a nice set of carbon steel knives in both Boston and Munich. (I know that I have to protect them from rusting, but they maintain much better edges than stainless steel blades. And most of the knives have pointed tips) I don't recall the brand--Sabatier?

But I do believe that people need a reality check. What are they going to want to ban next? Swiss army knives? Screw drivers? Swiss army knives and screw drivers can do as much damage as a kitchen knife. And what is the extent of the problem they purport to be trying to solve? Spouting percentages, as was done in the editorial under mention, means nothing--how many people were injured or killed from kitchen knives? No idea. They don't say.

And moreover, if the issue is the tip of the knife, I will remind you that a cleaver, which has no tip, is perfectly suited to slit a throat.

Let's get a reality check. Whatever problem there is, isn't with the device. It is with the person who wields the device. I could kill or seriously injure someone with a hoe or another garden implement (I won't), are they going to ban hoes next?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Kitchen knives. Swiss army knives. Screw drivers. Hoes and other garden implements. Pencils (forgot them). At some point this becomes a bit silly, and should be dismissed for what it is.

Thank you, raj, for giving a perfect illustration of my earlier point: the only reason to think this proposed ban is really bad is if you're the sort who's willing to throw around slippery slope arguments. Is the proposed ban bad on its own terms? Raj doesn't say (at least, he doesn't respond to my point about such a ban being culinarily harmless), but he's willing to suggest that it'll lead to a horribly pencilless existence, and so must be opposed.

And, again, you really need to look at the original argument made in the BMJ: once you do, you'll see that there's just no parallel between the proposed policy, and the hypothetical bans on hoes, pencils, etc. that you speculate on in your comment.

philosopher at May 29, 2005 05:15 PM |

As you wish. Some of us who actually have to live in the real world have to make compromises. Sometimes it isn't easy. People who drive cars sometimes die in auto crashes. Are we to ban the use of cars? People who ride in commuter trains sometimes die in commuter train accidents. Are we to ban the use of commuter trains? And some people who use kitchen knives misuse them. Are we to ban the sale of kitchen knives because of some who do?

Grow up. At some point, it becomes ludicrous to discuss anything on the internet. And appears to have become such here.

Sheesh, raj, I put just a little bit of argumentative pressure on your initial knee-jerk screed, and you immediately fall down to the tired old 'real world/stupid internet/yadda yadda' whininess? And all because I merely asked you to read the article that the initial post was all about? Develop some combination of backbone and/or neocortex, man!

Anyhow, you've managed to simultaneously perform the ritual act of dialectical-suicide-by-silly-bombast and give me all the premises I need for my argument. Yes, here in the real world -- where I do happen to reside, thank you very much; and surely you're not suggesting that emergency room physicians are somehow disconnected from the nitty-gritty of the real world? -- here in the real world, we make policies that strike compromises between safety on the one hand and things like utility, comfort, and freedom on the other. Which is why, even though cars are dangerous, we do not ban cars. But which is also why we do ban cars that don't have seatbelts. (And a myriad of other safety-related design elements.) Which is why we don't ban commuter trains. But which is also why we do ban commuter trains lacking in basic safety devices like fire exits and the like. And so on. When an object is particularly useful, we pretty much never ban it outright, but we do very often, and unproblematically, ban versions of it that lack whatever safety elements we deem both appropriate and which do not overly impinge on the usefulness of the object. (Which is not to say that we don't sometimes get things wrong -- I am of two minds about motorcycle helmet laws for adults -- but that's just to say that striking the right compromise is not always easy, and not to say that we don't make much more often make the relevant compromises pretty successfully.)

Now, if you'd actually read the initial editorial, as I have been asking all along, you'd see that no-cars-without-seatbelts is a perfectly good analogy to the kind of reasoning that is involved. The authors are (i) arguing from some real data about numbers of stabbings, and at least some decent conjectures about the relationship between those stabbings and dagger-style kitchen knives; and (ii) very sensitive to the issue of not impinging unduly on the usefulness of the kitchen knife, as evidenced by their attempts to poll both relevant culinary experts and knife manufacturers. Now, it's just an editorial, so surely we'd want rather more than just the information contained there before really enacting such a ban. For starters, I'd like to know how expensive it would be for the industry to start turning out point-blunted knives that still do a great job of chopping (though I suspect it would not be at all hard for them to do so). And one might reasonably want some more data, focused more directly on the matter of such knives. But nonetheless the kind of argument being made is simply immune to your ludicrous hand-wringing. It is, indeed, the kind of argument that we use, or at least should use, in making exactly those 'real world' compromises that you're lobbying for.

philosopher at May 30, 2005 10:49 AM |

At some point, it becomes pointless to respond on Internet comment boards. I read the damn article. It was dumber than hell. And please pardon my French.

Let's see. Ban the sale of kitchen knives with sharp points? Oh, please. How many kitchen knives with sharp points currently exist in the UK? 2? 3? I'd be willing to wager that there are a lot more out there than just 2 or 3. Banning the sale of new kitchen knives with sharp points is pointless because it is likely that too many pointed kitchen knives already exist there for there to make much of a difference. Understand?

What are they going to do next? Ban the sale of Swiss Army knives? Doubtful, although they can do just as much damage as kitchen knives. They aren't kitchen knives, by the way.

Ban the sale of cleavers? They don't have sharp points, but they can do a bit of damage, as, I'm sure, Jeffrey Dahmer (if he were still alive) could describe.

I have a feeling that the author of the article means well, but she was going in the wrong direction. She needs to attend to the perpetrator, not the tools that the perpetrator might use to inflict his havoc. I can inflict a good deal of havoc with piano wire. Have you ever seen piano wire used to strangle someone? Very efficient. It cuts the jugular vein almost immediately and the person is dead within minutes. Are they going to suggest banning sales of piano wire next? And BTW, I'm not joking regarding piano wire.

The issue isn't with the implement, it is with the person who wields the implement.

*sigh* Well, I have been trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that your obvious misunderstandings of the article were due to your simply having not read it. But if you did in fact read it, and still don't see how your comments are just completely irrelevant to the kind of argument they were making, then that's your problem.