First Guns, Then Knives

Now that private firearm ownership is banned in Australia, criminals have taken to swords and knives to exercise their violent criminal acts. The Aussie government, showing both their cowardice and maliciousness, have now banned the private ownership of swords and knives. They cite the same tired old reasons and use the same tactics that gun-banners have used for years. Self-defense-banners claim that no one really needs to be walking around with a knife. They have instituted a registration program to exempt collectors and the culturally protected from the ban. And although a few may be exempted from the knife ban, they are not exempt from the self-defense ban. Anyone legally owning a knife must keep it locked up and must own a burglar alarm.

Logical thinking people have, for years, pointed out that banning inanimate objects will not address or solve the root cause of violent behavior. The escalation of violent crime in countries like England and Australia, where private firearm ownership and self-defense is banned, are perfect examples of just that. Criminals are cowards. They do not want any opposition. Once the law-abiding are unable to defend themselves, the criminals can engage in rampant acts of violence without fear of retaliation.

The Australian government has taken the position that banning knives and swords will protect the public. If criminals cannot get their hands on weapons, no crimes will occur. It is impossible to believe that there is any sincerity in such an argument.

I suggest that anyone who refuses to credit "slippery slope" arguments should be paying closer attention. Both the UK and Australia have banned (for all practical purposes) firearms; now both are attempting to ban swords and knives.