| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> UK govts message to youth on knife crime - hypocrisy?Question: UK govts message to youth on knife crime - hypocrisy!? The new government campaign against youth knife crime asserts that carrying a knife makes a young person more likely to be a victim of knife crime!. By this analogy, wouldn't possession of armed forces make a country more likely to be a victim of aggression!? Does the analogy hold, and if not, why not!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: i am not sure the analogy holds out because the knife is invisible!.!.!.!.!. if it was legal to carry the knife visibly then it could be argued that the person is showing his "defence" or potential to attack!.!.!.like an army like wise also showing his potential attacker what he has to do to overcome the person with the knife!.!.!. unless the person who carries the knife is the attacker anyway we dont have invisible armies whats the point!? altho terrorists have invisible armies and even vietnam noone knew who the enemy was!.!.!. so you could argue that knife carriers are modern terrorists!? and then one has to argue that "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" maybe the knife carriers are freedom fighters!.!.!.!. it just goes on and on and on essentially its illegal and thats that!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Very thought-provoking!. I have starred it!. I take it that the idea is that individuals in a lawless environment are like nation-states!. Yes - it can be a good idea to become a gang member!. The analogy would hold if all individuals were tooled up, and then there would be the factor of deterrence!. In the international arena, there ARE actors who have weapons and don't know how to use them - Arab states for example!. In fact, Saddam's iraq drew its blade in the face of a much bigger and more powerful yob and then had to suffer the consequences!. In the streets, completely unprovoked attacks draw the headlines, but they are rare!. This is true in international relations too!. Nearly all nations subscribe to the principle that all their wars are defensive, but it is quite easy for one government to see another as aggressive!. I think the real hypocrisy is the government pretending to be interested in the matter, when all they really want is to give money to their supporters!. If they were serious, they would establish more effective policing and stiffer penalties for knife crime - and make sure these were enforced!. That they are not doing this, shows it is just got up for public consumptionWww@QuestionHome@Com No, sorry, totally different situation!. People carrying knives often pull them at the first sign of trouble thus escalating the situation!. If they do, the target may well produce his or her own knife!. Neither can use the weapon properly and are more than likely to be unable to defend themselves properly too!. So you will receive what you aimed to give in the first place, thus becoming another victim / statistic!. Armies are conspicuous, everyone knows they are there, therefore, they are usually an effective deterrent!.Www@QuestionHome@Com not same thing at all, military personnel are schooled in warfare, trained to use weapons effectively and efficiently for use in war time situations, they get training, unlike the yoofs who just carry a knife or gun to big themselves up to their mates!. There is a world of difference!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |