archieblue: I believe that it is important to explore both the cases for and against any idea. It is an element of freedom that we be able to look at both sides of the coin without prejudice or bias and be able to decide which is the better.
I think a good teacher should encourage this and I believe this is what im2smrt4u's professor may be trying to instill. Afterall, isn't it the simplistic single-tracked mind of the masses that caused them to fear knives without realising the usefulness of knives as a tool? They can only see one side of the issue and refuse to employ their minds to think and look at others sides of the issue, e.g. knives can cut, maim and kill, but knives are inert objects employed by people both as a tool and as a weapon. If the object is declared illegal, will anyone still have access to it? If so, who are the people who have access and who will not have access? Will not having access to the object affect a person's ability to perform legal tasks? Will having access increase the likelihood of illegal activity employing this object? If the object is not readily available, will the law-abiding person be able to find a suitable replacement object, and will the non-law-abiding person similarly use a different object which might be more destructive? Will not having the object deter, restrict or prevent the law-breaker from engaging in the illegal activities, or will he obtain the object illegally, or will he use a different object that might be more easily available but just as, if not more, destructive?
It is too easy to promote only your point of view without an attempt to understand the opponents point of view (or even a point which neither side may have thought about). This breeds narrow-mindedness and intolerance. Think about the other side of the coin. If all knives were permitted and the crime rate just kept on increasing, what would we be advocating then?
BTW, the idea that if everyone were permitted to carry any sort of knife they wanted without any form of restrictions and that crime rate would drop as a result because criminals would be less inclined to "try their luck" is based on the premise that more people would not only be prepared to carry knives, but would be willing to use it, and also capable of using it properly. (Afterall, it would be very bad juju to be "fed" back your own knife.
) We need to ask how likely that would be. I believe that if that scenario were to become true (freedom to carry with people willing and able to carry and use), then the incidences of petty crime would drop, but large and organised crime would remain the same or increase. I also believe that the level of violence in each encounter would also increase. Also, there might be a few more "accidents".
Another thought, IIRC, Amsterdam legalised several types of drugs and instituted campaigns to promote safer drug use (such as giving out free needles to reduce likelihood of Aids transmission). How successful was that in reducing drug use, drug-related crime and the incidences of Aids transmission? That might have a parallel to our problems with knives.
I think a good teacher should encourage this and I believe this is what im2smrt4u's professor may be trying to instill. Afterall, isn't it the simplistic single-tracked mind of the masses that caused them to fear knives without realising the usefulness of knives as a tool? They can only see one side of the issue and refuse to employ their minds to think and look at others sides of the issue, e.g. knives can cut, maim and kill, but knives are inert objects employed by people both as a tool and as a weapon. If the object is declared illegal, will anyone still have access to it? If so, who are the people who have access and who will not have access? Will not having access to the object affect a person's ability to perform legal tasks? Will having access increase the likelihood of illegal activity employing this object? If the object is not readily available, will the law-abiding person be able to find a suitable replacement object, and will the non-law-abiding person similarly use a different object which might be more destructive? Will not having the object deter, restrict or prevent the law-breaker from engaging in the illegal activities, or will he obtain the object illegally, or will he use a different object that might be more easily available but just as, if not more, destructive?
It is too easy to promote only your point of view without an attempt to understand the opponents point of view (or even a point which neither side may have thought about). This breeds narrow-mindedness and intolerance. Think about the other side of the coin. If all knives were permitted and the crime rate just kept on increasing, what would we be advocating then?
BTW, the idea that if everyone were permitted to carry any sort of knife they wanted without any form of restrictions and that crime rate would drop as a result because criminals would be less inclined to "try their luck" is based on the premise that more people would not only be prepared to carry knives, but would be willing to use it, and also capable of using it properly. (Afterall, it would be very bad juju to be "fed" back your own knife.
) We need to ask how likely that would be. I believe that if that scenario were to become true (freedom to carry with people willing and able to carry and use), then the incidences of petty crime would drop, but large and organised crime would remain the same or increase. I also believe that the level of violence in each encounter would also increase. Also, there might be a few more "accidents".Another thought, IIRC, Amsterdam legalised several types of drugs and instituted campaigns to promote safer drug use (such as giving out free needles to reduce likelihood of Aids transmission). How successful was that in reducing drug use, drug-related crime and the incidences of Aids transmission? That might have a parallel to our problems with knives.
