A familiar horror reached Pooja Kanda first on social media: There had been a sword attack in London. And then Kanda, who was home alone at the time, saw a detail she dreaded and knew all too well.

A man with a sword had killed a 14-year-old boy who was walking to school. Two years ago, her 16-year-old son, Ronan, was killed by two sword-wielding schoolmates while walking to a neighbor’s to borrow a PlayStation controller.

“It took me back,” Kanda, who lives near Birmingham, said about Daniel Anjorin’s April 30 killing in an attack in London’s Hainault district that also wounded four people. “It’s painful to see that this has happened all over again.”

In parts of the world that ban or strictly regulate gun ownership, including Britain and much of the rest of Europe, knives and other types of blades are often the weapons of choice used in crimes. Many end up in the hands of children, as they can be cheap and easy to get.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The fun thing about the US is that the people opposed to dealing with the symptom are also usually opposed to dealing with the disease.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Right? I’ve long said that Democrats should just pivot and say, “Okay you don’t want to work on getting guns out of the hands of criminals? Okay whatever. You agree part of this is a result of mental health? Okay, then let’s pass Universal healthcare with guaranteed access to therapy and more.”

        • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          They’d have my vote, along with probably tens of millions of other independents.

          Honestly, gun control is the “poison pill” of the Democratic platform. They’ve got a ton of great ideas and policies but demand one of your civil rights in exchange. Even for people who aren’t into guns, the idea giving up any civil right is problematic to say the least.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m fully on-board with a national gun ban and a complete change of the 2nd amendment, but I know we are also decades away from that realistically. Boomers and GenX will have to die off first. Can’t teach old dogs new tricks.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Like I said I’m good with either direction. Pragmatic pivoting to root causes, addressing the hemorrhagic symptoms, or both.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Last I checked, physicians must treat both symptoms and diseases simultaneously. E.g., the Shock. The bleeding. The excess fever.

      Similarly there’s no reason both cannot be tackled simultaneously here as well; for the root cause is often far more difficult to address than treating symptoms.

      So yes, address the root causes such as:

      • Reducing societal stress (reduce work weak, lower socioeconomic inequality)
      • Expand and improve baseline education levels
      • Provide Universal healthcare with free access to mental health including therapy.

      … But also address the symptoms, which means that when someone does inevitably fall through the cracks, they’re not given free and easy access to gun that is lethally more effective than a knife.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      You might not have noticed, but I am a moderator. If I wanted to silence you, I certainly could. I do not use that power to do so just because I disagree with someone. You are free to disagree with me and anyone else in this community as long as you follow the community rules.

      • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Your first thought was to head off an argument against your train of thought, you don’t need your mod powers to do what I described. I do appreciate you having more restraint than more than one Reddit mod I’ve encountered thoigh

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Of course I would need mod powers to silence you. I have no other way of silencing you. Your replying to me proves that. You’re not a victim. Your voice is as heard as everyone else’s here.

          • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I didn’t mean physically silence, more rhetorically silence them by assuming an argument before you were ever engaged, it comes across as an attempt to restrict discourse. If that was not your intent I apologize

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              That is not rhetorical silence either.

              Silence may become an effective rhetorical practice when people choose to be silent for a specific purpose.[3] It has not merely been recognized as a theory but also as a phenomenon with practical advantages. When silence becomes rhetorical, it is intentional since it reflects a meaning. Rhetorical silence targets an audience rather than the rhetorician.[4]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence

              Assuming an argument someone is going to make in no way silences anyone. Especially when I didn’t specify who I was talking to. All you had to say was, “I don’t agree.” Instead, you decided to point fingers and make this personal by saying:

              When you are done tripping over yourself to silence those you disagree with

              Notice that the multiple other people who replied to me both did not make a personal attack and did not feel silenced, and if you want to apologize for something, apologize for that.

              Furthermore, while I do not moderate discussions I am involved with, personal attacks are against community rules, so I hope you don’t think this is something you can normally get away with.

              We could have had a legitimate discussion, but you decided to come in feeling like this was personal. I have no interest in discussing anything with you now.