UK Doctors are calling for kitchen knives ban

**GepperRankins** · 05-29-2005, 10:39 PM

if the biggest knife you can find bends when you try to stab someone then they get under control, surely that's better than a knife that goes straight into their internal organs first poke don't you think?

**bigboab** · 05-30-2005, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by j2k4

You can stab someone with a brick.

If you did you might get put awa for a long time.

**lynx** · 05-30-2005, 10:02 AM

Of the 10 chefs spoken to "none gave a reason why the long pointed knife was essential". The original article (in the BMJ, not the BBC's version) doesn't actually say if they were asked to give a reason. It is an old trick to illicit a non-response by failing to ask for one. They also failed to state what the chef's reaction would be if told they were to be deprived of such implements. I'll bet that's another question they didn't ask.

Just to put things into perspective, Home Office figures show

234 homicides in 2003/4 where the weapon was a "sharp instrument."

There are no statistics for serious injury caused by knives or sharp instruments. Even assuming that some of these would have been "long pointed kitchen knives", I am guessing that in most cases those would be where the knife was taken away from it's kitchen environment, which is already illegal. There are many instances where something taken away from it's normal function becomes a weapon. In those situations a ban on such implements would merely result in something else being chosen as a weapon.

Btw, what is not clear from the BBC article is who the authors are. It turns out (from the original article) that the first two named are actually trainees in emergency medicine (with over 2 years training left), and the third their training consultant. Assuming they have followed standard practice where the order of appearance indicates level of contribution I suspect that the consultant's name is there merely to give "weight".

Rather than banning these implements, wouldn't it be better to get manufacturers to introduce a new design. They could even emphasise how much safer these new implements are, and possibly get new sales. But all in all I can't help thinking that the authors have watched Psycho just once too often.

**Snee** · 05-30-2005, 11:49 AM

So, in other words, not that much thought has been put into it, or at least it isn't based on solid facts

I reckon it doesn't make sense, then

@busy: It's all about the odds, I figured they'd based it on solid statistics, and that it was a suggestion made by someone who might know what the hell they were talking about, thanks to having a lot of experience in the matter which is why I was fine with the notion.

It's not as if long blades play an integral part in anyone's life.

But if it is as lynx makes it out, it sounds to be based on belief and dodgy reasoning more than anything.

I reckon there is a limit to what could be banned, anything can be used to kill someone, but only something that isn't vital to society, fairly likely to be used in killing someone in proportion to how many there are of it, and so forth should come into question for a ban.

**hobbes** · 05-30-2005, 12:22 PM

I imagine that this article came to them (probably bleeding) to be written, rather than the other way around.

After the 6th stab wound with a sharp long knife came into the ER that week, the two trainees (people with an MD receiving additional subspecialty training, aka residency) looked at each other and said, "lot of stabbing going on with those long knives, maybe we should collect some data".

They presented this idea to the faculty who said, "You do all the data collection and write the paper, I'll sign on if it seems reasonable".

Now Lynx brings up a point we should all think about. How "good" is the data. All that is published is not gold and in some institutions there is a strong "publish or perish" threat. Lots of crap out there just for the purpose of adding to ones Curriculum Vitae.

The British Medical Journal is a peer reviewed publication, meaning that submitted articles are analyzed by several different doctors to look for weaknesses in the paper. There is a process of sending revisions back and forth as the reviewers demand clarification or refinement. I do not think the authors were trying to "trick" anyone with phraseology, as this is exactly what the peer review process is there to catch. That is why only 9% of submitted articles actually ever makes it to press (according to the BMJ website).

Had this article been published in a non-medical journal, you would really have to ponder if the authors are trying to put one over on people. Books also are merely opinions and ARE NOT peer reviewed.

What I am simply pointing out is that all that you read is not equivalent. The peer review process is the most rigorous way to screen trash as you have a group wanting to publish, and reviewers trying to expose any weakness.

Also, the name of the Journal is important. It seems that the BMJ is a respected publication and is not in need of something to publish. You need to be careful when things are published in the more obscure journals. The typical process is to try and get published with the "big boys", then shop your article around if it gets rejected. Eventually, you can get it published in "Bob's Journal of Medical Hearsay".

Anyway, I think that is how this all got started, not some nervous Nancy looking around for ways to ban things.

**Snee** · 05-30-2005, 12:38 PM

Arrgh

**lynx** · 05-30-2005, 01:02 PM

I wasn't intending to suggest that they deliberately set out to "trick" anyone, merely pointing out that if a question is not specifically asked, it is unfair to raise as an point the lack of replies. I can't understand why they did not follow the usual procedure used in articles of this nature and actually state what questions were asked and the responses received. In any case, 10 chefs is hardly statistically significant.

That said, I'm quite sure the data is "good", but I strongly question how relevant it is. As I said, if we remove one household item as a possible weapon another will be readily available as an alternative, so from that point of view the conclusions are spurious.

True, it may reduce the number of stabbings in the home, but it is unlikely to make much difference to the incidents where the perpetrator has deliberately sought a weapon beforehand, merely the weapon used. And for incidents in the home, what alternative will be used? A bottle? A chair leg? A heavy cleaver? All just as readily available in many homes, and capable of causing as much if not more damage.

If the intent was for the article to be a serious study of how to reduce knife crime rather than "adding to one's CV", I feel it should not have started with sensationalist quotes from leading newspapers:

We need to ban the sale of long pointed kitchen knives

"Britain in the grip of knives terror—third of murder victims are now stabbed to death." Daily Express, 31 January 2005

"Stabbing rampage kills one, injures five—a large kitchen knife was found." Independent, 24 December 2004

**hobbes** · 05-30-2005, 02:02 PM

Actually Lynx, I was just assuming that their point was valid for the purpose of discussion. How then is this different from banning guns?

I also wanted to point out that medical journals rely on "quality" publications and not on hype for the purpose of sales. Nobody is going to subscribe to the BMJ because of this article, but many will cancel subscriptions if they publish unreliable or poorly thought out articles.

As I have actually located the original, I find that it is an editorial. This means that it does not necessarily have the endorsement of the BMJ, but the editors thought that it was import enough to publish as "food for thought".

So the thought is, how is this different from gun control? When I first read this thread I was struck at the strong negative response from the UK. A knife really is a domesticated weapon, as it's function is to cut through flesh. Enraged drunk people tend to use whatever they can conceal in their clothing or the first thing they can grab when at home.

My interest in the thread was to determine if this negative response was due to a logical difference between this situation and guns or more of a reflection of human psychology. People just don't like their stuff taken away from them. It's like that thing you own, but never use, but when someone tries to throw it away you object, "Hey, I might need that someday, don't take away my stuff." People also don't like being told by "the man" that they are not responsible enough to keep that knife they have always had there in the kitchen drawer.

I think psychology plays a large role in how we respond. Instead of thinking about "why" we need a long knife, we focus on "why" you shouldn't take away my stuff. The parallel in America is guns. The people who own guns highly resist people messing with their stuff.