the Government yesterday prohibition against macheter , there is now bipartisan agreement on. Himanshu Gulati in the Frp asks the attorney general to show vigor to make the streets safer, to applause from the Jan Bøhler of the Labour party.Columnist Knut Jørgen Vie
Knut Jørgen Vie is a philosopher and research fellow at Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet by OsloMet.Last published posts
the Ban has been place in the regjeringserklæringen and contribute to the combating of gjengkriminaliteten to ensure "peace of mind for most people." Macheter can be used to inflict aggravated damage, but Norway is not a safer place if they are forbidden, and in the worst case, it becomes more dangerous.
a Prohibition is a tempting means when the criminal gangs go around in Oslo's streets and wave their macheter. This is a scary tool and a weapon that is associated with gross abuses such as genocide in Rwanda.
the Police says that the confiscation of about a machete in a week and supports a ban. The minister of justice, Tor Mikkel Wara from the progress party has previously argued against a ban, on the grounds that "there are other items of a similar skadepotensial", but after that the ban has been taken into regjeringserklæringen, the party has his reversed.
Armed gangs in the streets is obviously undesirable, and something that should be prevented and fought, but here is it is not macheter that is the problem, but gjengkriminaliteten and I generally.
And to go around with a knife, machete or "similar sharp tool that is suitable for use by legemskrenkelser" is already prohibited, so long as it is not the one in the law call "worthy purpose".
in Fact, it can be argued that it is better that the gang members walking around with macheter than with knives, which they probably will resort to if macheter are difficult to obtain.
the Problem with a ban is that the knife is more dangerous than the machete. Machete this is less skadepotensiale than a knife, the most widespread option.
There are no systematic comparisons between knivangrep and macheteangrep, but studies of knivangrep shows that those who get the lethal outcome usually are those where the victim is poked in the chest or neck.
A machete is rounded off in the tip and wider than most knives, and therefore ill-suited to stab people in the chest with. Ribbenene protects the most important organs of our. One can come between them with a knife, but this is much more difficult with a machete.
It is a bad thing to be damaged in the stomach, head or other places with sharp objects, but get you to the hospital after an attack with a machete the chances are significantly greater that you will survive than whether someone sticking you in the chest.
To kill someone with a machete is relatively tricky compared to to kill someone with sharp objects such as knives. In a historical study of the cuban war of independence, it is claimed that the kubanernes macheter were inferior spanjolenes sabers, just because a saber can be used for knitting.
Machetene gave cruel wounds, and had a great effect on the spanjolenes morals, but especially deadly in battle, they were not. They were taken in the use of desperation and due to lack of alternative, not because they were good weapons.
In a study of macheteskader from a hospital in Nigeria, there were only three of 74 (4,1 %) of the injured who died. 96 % of the patients had damage from the attack, and though they often had suffered many cuts and injuries in the head survived almost all. For comparison, shows a study of the knivangrep from Scotland that 20 of the 120 (16,7 %) died.
In a study of macheteangrep in Haiti, it is claimed that most of the murders with a machete happens in regular executions, that is, a situation where the perpetrator has good control over the victim, and this gruesome fact says a lot about what it takes to kill someone with this tool.
Around half of the killings in the genocide in Rwanda was done by machete, and thus gives the impression that macheter is an effective drapsvåpen, but it belongs to the story that macheter was used against those who could not make particular resistance. Those who could potentially fight back was shot with the few balls of the president had.
the Machete was not used because it was effective, but because it was what they had, and the more deadly weapons were reserved for those who could defend themselves. In a gjengoppgjør is it enough resistance to find, and to kill anyone who defends themselves is more difficult with the machete than with something you can stick with so you so on Kuba. That macheter was used in Rwanda says more about how horrible the genocide was, than how dangerous a machete is.
There are several problems with the studies that are of macheteangrep. They have, for example, the small variety and they have been carried out in developing countries, where there is a lack of documentation and possibilities to follow up patients, but based on the knowledge we have about the subject, there is reason to doubt that the streets are safer of a ban, if what we care about is whether people are killed or not.
If the thread is to take the settlement with sharp objects, something that the society should work hard to prevent, it is better if they do it with macheter than with knives.
It is good symbolpolitikk to ban the scary things that macheter, but such bans can have unintended consequences. In this case, it can in worst case lead to that more ends up being killed. If I had had to choose between being attacked with a knife or machete, I would have chosen the machete.