I watched the Schools QuestionTime last week and there were two main topics discussed (I don't include the 15 minutes they dedicated to how many courses Gordon Brown had at the G8 meal).
Firstly, and quite obvious as it was in London, they looked at knife crime, especially regarding young people. The other focus was on Iran and nuclear proliferation. The main argument the grown-ups on the panel used on knife crime, which has been the Government's line for many a year, was, as the child-sized Douglas Alexander said...
"Not only is carrying a knife wrong, but you are more likely to make yourself more vulnerable to a crime of violence if you carry a knife"
But if you speak to someone who carries a knife for self-defence, who doesn't feel safe walking home at night, or knows that there is someone out there who is out to get them, they will carry a knife to feel safer.
I don't agree with it, but in this situation you can understand the thinking...
If someone attacks me with a knife, chances are that knife's going to be used to stab or slash me. In turn, if I get stabbed, I've a good chance of dying and little chance of defending myself, especially if that guy has already decided, no matter what, he is going to stab me. If I have a knife, even though I may have to stab him, which I don't want to, it does mean, in this situation (which is the only reason I'm carrying a knife and the only situation in which I'd use one), I have a better chance of seeing my next birthday.
You can see the logic behind that, right?
Well, it dawned on me, this is probably quite similar to how Iran is feeling:
"They've got the bomb, they've got it in for us, so we want the fucking bomb!"
So does the knives argument not also work, at least from Iran's perspective, on the Nuclear bomb issue? Couldn't Iran just say to Britain, India, America, ISRAEL etc, "Put your nuclear weapons away and I won't need one". This is what the politicians don't get when it comes to knife crime, is that it is a self-assurance thing, defintiely to Iran, and undoubtedly to a large number of knife carriers.
If I get into a fight with someone with a knife and don't have one myself, I will invariably lose the fight.
If Iran gets into a fight with Israel or the US, it has NO WAY TO DEFEND ITSELF, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't expect Iran to bow to pressure from these hypocritical Governments.
I don't like knives, and I don't like nuclear bombs.
But in either of these situations, especially against someone who I know, 100% for sure, is out to get me, you can understand why I'd rather have equal weaponry with which to fight my fights.
The problem isn't that I might carry a knife, its that someone else has got one. I'd have no reason for one if it wasn't for 'the other guy'. Iran wouldn't feel like they needed the bomb if Israel, America didn't have one. So let's have a nuclear bomb amnesty, get rid of them all and the problem will disappear.
Somehow, I don't see the world following my idea.
ConHome Diary: Interviewing the PM
1 day ago