Well, it's come to this, not that we're suprised: Now that gun control has failed, and the crime rate climbs, Brits are seeing the inevitable push to ban knives, too. The group recommend five years mandatory, minimum sentence for carrying a blade longer than three inches. Hmmm... that would cover most my cooking knives. And only six months for a blade less than three inches. What next, pointed sticks? Fingernails? Excessive musculature? Small rocks?

Err, yes: Pencil sharpeners. One UK elementary school student disassembles a pencil sharpener and slashes the throat of another. For their crime, pencil sharpeners are banned for life. The attacker gets two days. Remember: People don't cause crime. Weapons do.

Then's the matter of enforcing everyday-object bans at school. Philadelphia is taking no chances, and recently arrested and handcuffed a ten-year-old girl who was caught carrying a pair of scissors. "'My daughter cried and cried,' said her mother, Rose Jackson. 'She had no idea what she did was wrong. I think that was way too harsh,' Jackson added.'" Nonsense. Young miscreants must be taught a lesson early! Zero tolerance! (School officials later apologized.)

Meanwhile, back in the UK, another proposal would prohibit the puchase of knives by those below age 18. One supporting editorial notes: "Knives are as deadly as firearms". (Well, yeah. That's why I've argued arguments for gun control based on "controlling gun crime" are meaningless if the total crime rate increases. And it does. Dead by knife isn't somehow better than dead by gunshot.)

So a seventeen-year-old is not mature enough to be trusted with a sharp object, but now they've also decided a 14-year-old girl is mature enough decide to terminate the life of her unborn child with no parental involvement or guidance? Where's the sense in that? If a kid can't wield a potentially harmful object, why should they wield the very power of life and death?

And if the Brits don't ban knives, then what would be a better alternative? How about constant body searches: "It is better, I ruefully think, to enter a state of perpetual frisk for everyone, than to automatically bang poor kids up in the slammer simply because they were themselves afraid." Ah, the sweet voice of reason.

What about innovating policing techniques? Like affixing a bright flashing blue strobe light to the top of a bobby's helmet: "Children loved the flashing light and I suppose it added a bit of amusement at Christmas time. Someone even suggested I should have a mini-siren as a finishing touch but I couldn't go that far." Attention K-Mart shoppers...

Or perhaps if they'd just put more 11-year-olds in jail for play-acting with plastic toy guns?

And then there's this helpful advice for UK crime victims (my emphasis added):

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t hurt me".

Yes, by doing absolutely nothing to resist crime, you are "taking charge" of the circumstances "through subtle means." What malarky! You're not in charge -- you're at the mercy of the criminal.

The article also treats criminals the way National Park guides treat bears: "Sometimes the perpetrator of a burglary is even more terrified than the victim..." The article also states: "What is perhaps most important is dealing with the victims of the crime and helping them through the aftermath."

No, what is most important was preventing the crime in the first place.

While burglary overall is down in the UK (Good policing? No, consumers don't like buying used goods), unfortunately, violent crime and "home invasion" burglaries are on the rise. Mark Steyn: "[T]there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing." The Independent also comments: "But despite burglary rates falling to a 20-year low, the study suggests that criminals still believe breaking into someone's home is not risky... 'Once in a property, residential burglary was regarded as virtually risk-free.'" I just can't image where burglars would get that impression.

The above safety advice didn't seem to have worked to well for kind-hearted and successful British financier John Monckton, who was killed, and his wife stabbed when they opened the door for a man who they thought was a postman. "No chance" of violence?

According to John Ray: "According to University of California, Berkeley criminologist Franklin Zimring, the best way to survive a robbery is through 'active compliance.' [Hey, I thought it was 'active passivity'] In other words, do exactly what the criminal says, as quickly as possible. However, the statistics suggest otherwise. After examining data from the Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey from 1979 through 1987, Gary Kleck found that the best way to survive a criminal attack was to resist – with a gun. Women were 2.5 times more likely to suffer serious injury if they offered no resistance than if they resisted with a gun.... Men who resisted without a gun were 1.5 times more likely to be injured than those resisting with a gun."

In wake of the murders, Tony Blair is promising a review of self-defense law, and the Tories are backing a change which would allow all but "grossly disproportionate" force in repelling home invaders. Yet a threat of "grossly disproportionate" force is precisely what would stop criminals in the first place. Being torn limb from limb should be a very real career hazzard.

But in the UK, we're instead deeply worried about the rights of the attacker: "Burglars as well as their victims must have the right to protection from violence, the Government’s top lawyer said today. Existing legislation is adequate to give home owners the right to repulse intruders using ‘reasonable force’, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith told The Observer. 'We must protect victims and law-abiding citizens,' he said. 'But we have to recognise that others have some rights as well. They don’t lose all rights because they’re engaged in criminal conduct.'" What protection did the victims have? Oh yes, they will be "protected" by a stance of "active passivity".

And:

Some critics of a change in the law have voiced concerns that burglars will feel they have to carry guns, knives and other weapons to protect themselves from householders.

Poor dears. Those homeowners can be so inconsiderate.

I have a better idea. Why not do these things by appointment? The burglar could call the police department and schedule a time to pop by for a burglary. The police could show up and oversee the whole affair to make sure it goes smoothly and no one gets hurt. It would make "detection" more convenient because they could then immediately interview the victim afterwards without making a separate trip.

What a crazy place.

One more story from the US: As you may know, recently a mother was found to be criminally guilty for eavesdropping on her 14-year-old daughter's telephone conservation. How odd: my employer can legally listen in on my telephone calls -- because they own the lines -- but a parent can't do the same to their child. This is just as insane as a woman only having a right to "privacy" which ensures she can have an abortion -- but regarding her actual medical records? No privacy at all.

And finally, some good news: except for sex crimes, crime rates continue to fall in the US with a whopping 4.6% drop in New York City, making NYC "the undisputed safest big city in the nation."