Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's really not that ludicrous. That seems to be the crux of the matter here- whether you think grabbing the kid by the wrists is an impossible feat for 4 police officers.

I'm going to go tell my dad you guys think he's batman. He should be pretty pleased. I mean he's fat and balding and has bad feet, I didn't realise he was secretly the hero Gotham needs, but not the one it deserves.

 Deadshot wrote:


Actually, yes I have. I am in training to become a coach in Judo, and have been a Judoka for the past 11 years (since I was 6). I have plenty of experience both fighting against (in my younger years) demonstrating and intructing other children how to do it.
Its not hard. Its really not hard at all. You grab the hand or wrist and pull firmly but gently down and away from the wielder and bob's your uncle.

Does Judoka also teach matter teleportation? How does one get close enough to grab the wrist when they are 10 feet away and the child has it to her own nekc threatening to plunge it in?

What is your technique for disarming a knife jabbed deeply into her own neck? Does Judoka teach how to unstab a wound?

Disarming an attacker is not the same as disarming a suicidal person threatening bodily harm to themselves.

 dogma wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

I've put forward an argument that it doesn't take batman or superman to disarm someone with a knife, are you going to address that?

While that's certainly true there aren't many ways to do so safely that don't involve violence of some type, generally a blunt object to the forearm if no other option is available; an action which would still have landed these officers in hot water. The argument put forward by the plaintiffs in this case, distract the girl and grab her arm, is ludicrous. This has every hallmark of a family and lawyer seeing dollar signs.

Agreed on all points. When Frazzled and Dogma agrees 1) It has to be true; 2) Frazzled's head now hurts; and 3) Its the Seventh Sign! Preppers rejoice, here it comes!

 Da Boss wrote:
Go back and read my posts in this thread, I've stated what I think they should have done. I'm tired of repeating myself.

Sigvatr: They're lucky they didn't have serious consequences. If I drive dangerously but don't crash, I'm still at fault even though I didn't cause an accident.

nkelsch, The hedge Knight: Your posts are making me lose a lot of respect for both of you. I've put forward an argument that it doesn't take batman or superman to disarm someone with a knife, are you going to address that? And The Hedge Knight, if there's an award for putting words in people's mouths, you might be a shoe in. Not impressed.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. So far your only citation was you saying your dad could have done this better. My own citation was an instructional video for police officers showing how it is nearly impossible to defend against a knife attack. Your response was claiming since it was a child she couldn't do the officers or herself wrong, my response was a parody of your own silly one.

If you want to claim you're the only one providing citations, provide citations.

 The Hedge Knight wrote:


If you want to claim you're the only one providing citations, provide citations.

You need more than Batdad?

Hedge Knight, you are putting words in my mouth. There was a risk to the officers if they had tried to disarm her without using the taser. I believe it is an acceptable risk. She wasn't harmless, of course not, and one of the officers could have come to harm. That is preferable to tasing an eight year old.

It's unfortunate that my example happens to be my father. It does add an element of "my dad could beat up your dad" to the discussion. I can only say that my entire point with that is that he's absolutely nothing special- just an average policeman, middle aged, not even really that fit. He doesn't have to be a ninja to defuse a situation like that, it's a fallacy.
It would have been better to use the example of the Irish police force as a whole, as it would have personalised the whole thing less (and probably have stopped people brushing aside any credibility in my argument). He had personally disarmed someone with a knife who was threatening self harm though, so it seemed pretty relevant. I mean, what's your argument for the unarmed police force here being able to do these things? They're not all ninjas, they're not even all my Batman-Father. They're the same sorts of people that are in the police in the states, I bet. What makes it possible for them and impossible for others? Nothing. It's a false argument.

Edit: Very accurate picture, except the beer should be black with a white head. Also, should be smoking a cigar.
Edit 2: It's pretty irritating to be challenged to present real life experience of this sort of thing, and then to consult someone with real life experience of it, only to be ridiculed because their experience doesn't match your expectations, btw.

nkelsch wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
"Willingly putting yourself at risk" is part of the job of a police officer or a soldier. It's why they deserve respect and admiration.

It still seems like none of you are willing to address anything I've been saying. That's quite interesting. Ah well, continue to make bad jokes, it is difficult to admit when you're losing an argument, I understand

You still ignore the fact she had a knife to her own throat and any agressive action by police could have made her kill herself.

All your ninja suggestions are based upon two false assumptions:
1. She was never serious about killing herself.
2. The knife was being used to attack police only, and could be disarmed easily.

- The babysitter told them by phone she was threatening to harm herself.
- The police takes some time before coming to the house in the report (not their fault, it was the address told to them that was wrong).
- Yet, all this time until the police came to the house, the kid was still alive and unhurt.

Don't you think she would already be dead if the kid was really serious about killing herself? I would say you are the one making false assumptions based on your beliefs rather than what is really written in the report.

And I know 8 year olds who know martial arts who could destroy you and would never easily be disarmed.

And where in the report is said this girl was able to do what you claim? Just because it is possible means all kids are able and will do the same all the time around the world? Seriously?

At least, she wasn't wearing any bomb on her, I guess.

Of course success in the police world is making assumptions and risking harm right?

If it was only one untrained adult (like the babysitter as if it would be reasonnable to think that), I would agree with you.

Here, we're talking about policemen, who weren't alone with one trained in hostage negociator and another with taser use. We're not talking about criminals who are used to kill and do it on a regular basis, here.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's really not that ludicrous. That seems to be the crux of the matter here- whether you think grabbing the kid by the wrists is an impossible feat for 4 police officers.

Oh, it certainly isn't impossible, its simply something police officers in the US aren't generally trained to do, so expecting them to act against training seems unfair. I mean, realistically, how often do you think police respond to domestic issues in which the kid is the assailant?

nkelsch wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AesSedai wrote:
The article is nebulous on the circumstances and/or the police are poorly trained.

No it isn't. We have all the facts. the entire impartial 3rd party report was posted in the article and in this thread. We have pretty much all the facts from all the points of view.

All due respect, I find several issues with the report. First, according to Taser International, tasers are unsafe to use on a person under 60 lbs. My previous post listed the average weight of an 8 year old female at 57 lbs. Thoughts?

The deployment of force was two minutes after entry. "When asked or told to do something she resisted by shaking her head no". So pretty much like any angry little girl. Thus, the non-compliant label could be applied, which is law enforcement speak for conditions being met for justifiable use of force. Except, this "perp" is a little girl. I think this situation could have been handled better had the officers had more experience/better training. Thoughts?

If you look at the language, the report seems determined to excuse the decision in light of the "tense" and "rapidly evolving" circs. positing the use of the taser as the best use of force available. My position is that using a taser on a person of low weight, like an 8 year old, is unethical because it carries a risk of killing the person. Much like applying a chokehold and having 5 officers sitting on a obese man with a respiratory condition is excessive (that guy is new york a few weeks ago- he died). Better training may have mitigated the need to tase a child.

 kronk wrote:

Just so we're clear, no one in this thread wants to start a petition to tazer more 8 year olds.

Only because I hadn't posted yet...

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Just so we're clear, no one in this thread wants to start a petition to tazer more 8 year olds.

Only because I hadn't posted yet...

Although I'm sure we've all seen a few kids around in public who need a good tazering (since we can't spank kids anymore, guess all we're left with is the tazer)

 AesSedai wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AesSedai wrote:
The article is nebulous on the circumstances and/or the police are poorly trained.

No it isn't. We have all the facts. the entire impartial 3rd party report was posted in the article and in this thread. We have pretty much all the facts from all the points of view.

All due respect, I find several issues with the report. First, according to Taser International, tasers are unsafe to use on a person under 60 lbs. My previous post listed the average weight of an 8 year old female at 57 lbs. Thoughts?

The deployment of force was two minutes after entry. "When asked or told to do something she resisted by shaking her head no". So pretty much like any angry little girl. Thus, the non-compliant label could be applied, which is law enforcement speak for conditions being met for justifiable use of force. Except, this "perp" is a little girl. I think this situation could have been handled better had the officers had more experience/better training. Thoughts?

If you look at the language, the report seems determined to excuse the decision in light of the "tense" and "rapidly evolving" circs. positing the use of the taser as the best use of force available. My position is that using a taser on a person of low weight, like an 8 year old, is unethical because it carries a risk of killing the person. Much like applying a chokehold and having 5 officers sitting on a obese man with a respiratory condition is excessive (that guy is new york a few weeks ago- he died). Better training may have mitigated the need to tase a child.

A knife in your throat is unsafe for people of all weights. The person trained in tazer usage made a call that she wasn't too small. The report found him not negligent. Maybe they should have pepper sprayed her instead? That would have been a way to close the distance and disarm the child before she could harm herself and is less risky than a tazer?

No amount of training is going to train into officers how to handle the irrational and mentally ill children. And self-harm means act quickly or have a child bleeding out and then sued for inaction.

So you are of the "Let her run around and hope she doesn't kill herself because if she was serious she would have done it already, faker." camp.

Same people who would have condemned the police for rushing her and causing her to kill herself or doing nothing and letting her kill herself.

nkelsch wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:


Actually, yes I have. I am in training to become a coach in Judo, and have been a Judoka for the past 11 years (since I was 6). I have plenty of experience both fighting against (in my younger years) demonstrating and intructing other children how to do it.
Its not hard. Its really not hard at all. You grab the hand or wrist and pull firmly but gently down and away from the wielder and bob's your uncle.

Does Judoka also teach matter teleportation? How does one get close enough to grab the wrist when they are 10 feet away and the child has it to her own nekc threatening to plunge it in?

What is your technique for disarming a knife jabbed deeply into her own neck? Does Judoka teach how to unstab a wound?

Disarming an attacker is not the same as disarming a suicidal person threatening bodily harm to themselves.

This argument is invalid, Nkelsch. In the report linked at the beginning on this thread one of the policeman said the girl lunged at him and the knife was in his own words "way too close". Any person trained in edged weapon counter tactics-- as any worthwhile law enforcement member should be--would have used the opportunity to disarm the untrained little girl child. Deadshot is correct.

 AesSedai wrote:


This argument is invalid, Nkelsch. In the report linked at the beginning on this thread one of the policeman said the girl lunged at him and the knife was in his own words "way too close". Any person trained in edged weapon counter tactics-- as any worthwhile law enforcement member should be--would have used the opportunity to disarm the untrained little girl child. Deadshot is correct.

The report also showed she was stabbing at her leg and throat. She also had 2 knives.

nkelsch wrote:

 AesSedai wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AesSedai wrote:
The article is nebulous on the circumstances and/or the police are poorly trained.

No it isn't. We have all the facts. the entire impartial 3rd party report was posted in the article and in this thread. We have pretty much all the facts from all the points of view.

All due respect, I find several issues with the report. First, according to Taser International, tasers are unsafe to use on a person under 60 lbs. My previous post listed the average weight of an 8 year old female at 57 lbs. Thoughts?

The deployment of force was two minutes after entry. "When asked or told to do something she resisted by shaking her head no". So pretty much like any angry little girl. Thus, the non-compliant label could be applied, which is law enforcement speak for conditions being met for justifiable use of force. Except, this "perp" is a little girl. I think this situation could have been handled better had the officers had more experience/better training. Thoughts?

If you look at the language, the report seems determined to excuse the decision in light of the "tense" and "rapidly evolving" circs. positing the use of the taser as the best use of force available. My position is that using a taser on a person of low weight, like an 8 year old, is unethical because it carries a risk of killing the person. Much like applying a chokehold and having 5 officers sitting on a obese man with a respiratory condition is excessive (that guy is new york a few weeks ago- he died). Better training may have mitigated the need to tase a child.

A knife in your throat is unsafe for people of all weights. The person trained in tazer usage made a call that she wasn't too small. The report found him not negligent. Maybe they should have pepper sprayed her instead? That would have been a way to close the distance and disarm the child before she could harm herself and is less risky than a tazer?

No amount of training is going to train into officers how to handle the irrational and mentally ill children. And self-harm means act quickly or have a child bleeding out and then sued for inaction.

So you are of the "Let her run around and hope she doesn't kill herself because if she was serious she would have done it already, faker." camp.

Same people who would have condemned the police for rushing her and causing her to kill herself or doing nothing and letting her kill herself.

First point:

"No amount of training is going to train into officers how to handle the irrational and mentally ill children."

I completely disagree. Ongoing mental health awareness training for all officers and specialized crisis intervention skills training for specialized officers should be (and is) part of law enforcement training. Also, police should have (and do) close collaboration with mental health agencies to improve quality of service.

"So you are of the "Let her run around and hope she doesn't kill herself because if she was serious she would have done it already, faker." camp. "

Sorry, bro. I'm not going to make it that easy for you to dismiss me.

I just want to point out that this girl sounds more like a spoiled brat who was pissed the babysitter wouldn't give her more ice cream than one with a mental illness..

Personally, I think that the officers handled the situation about as well as they could... I mean, they could very well have used their billy clubs to whoop her ass... or they could have shot her.


There are a number of ways that this situation could have ended up. As it is, there's no harm done here so any civil suit brought to court should be summarily tossed out.

nkelsch wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:


Actually, yes I have. I am in training to become a coach in Judo, and have been a Judoka for the past 11 years (since I was 6). I have plenty of experience both fighting against (in my younger years) demonstrating and intructing other children how to do it.
Its not hard. Its really not hard at all. You grab the hand or wrist and pull firmly but gently down and away from the wielder and bob's your uncle.

Does Judoka also teach matter teleportation? How does one get close enough to grab the wrist when they are 10 feet away and the child has it to her own nekc threatening to plunge it in?

What is your technique for disarming a knife jabbed deeply into her own neck? Does Judoka teach how to unstab a wound?

Disarming an attacker is not the same as disarming a suicidal person threatening bodily harm to themselves.

Firstly some language lessons.
Judo is the sport.
Judoka is the judo player/fighter.

Secondly, it is impossible for the child to react to fully grown man moving at full speed. The child's muscles are either lax or fully tense. In the former there is no way should activate said muscles and stab herself in the throat before being grabbed. In the latter her nerves will be slowed and she will not be able to react because she is focused on tensing her arm. An athletic and fully grown man can power forward 10 feet in about a second using his quadriceps.

nkelsch wrote:


The report also showed she was stabbing at her leg and throat. She also had 2 knives.

Not quite:

As per the report you mentioned, when the babysitter was asked by the call taker if there was blood anywhere, she replied "no". When asked a follow-up question about the blood, and with regard to the child stabbing at herself (at <sic> the leg and throat) the baby sitter replied, and I quote, "She hasn't actually...not that I can see, so, she's just threatening to do so".

Thoughts?

 AesSedai wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


The report also showed she was stabbing at her leg and throat. She also had 2 knives.

Not quite:

As per the report you mentioned, when the babysitter was asked by the call taker if there was blood anywhere, she replied "no". When asked a follow-up question about the blood, and with regard to the child stabbing at herself (at <sic> the leg and throat) the baby sitter replied, and I quote, "She hasn't actually...not that I can see, so, she's just threatening to do so".

Thoughts?

As she hasn't actually cut herself? She hadn't cut herself yet. The report explicitly mentioned stabbing at her own body.

"she is trying to cut and stab herself"
"Where is she trying to stab herself at?"
"The leg, and she tried to say she is gonna slice her throat"
"Now she's got two knives"

And then she goes on to tell how the child cannot be approached without risk of stabbing.

When the police arrived they were told "the 8 year old HAS tried to stab herself in the leg" so as far as they knew, the cutting has already started.

When they encountered the child, she was holding one of the knives to her chest to stab herself.

I don't know what you call holding a knife and threatening to stab yourself or how martial arts will teleport you across the room 10ft to grab a knife before someone threatening to stab herself actually stabs herself. Apparently the police negotiation techniques should have been, "You are a coward, you ain't cut yourself yet? loser, you won't do it."

The call taker clarified the issue with the follow up questions. The babysitter was obviously emotional and lied. The babysitter contradicted herself by saying, with regard to stabbing herself, "She hasn't actually...not that I can see, no, she's just threatening to do so".

I think the difference between a person who has been stabbed and one who is unharmed should be patently clear to anyone with two eyes and a desire to look.

You seem to be hammering this taze her vs. teleport argument pretty hard. I'm of the opinion that better trained officers would have used other means to diffuse the situation. Can you comment on this position?

 AesSedai wrote:
The call taker clarified the issue with the follow up questions. The babysitter was obviously emotional and lied. The babysitter contradicted herself by saying, with regard to stabbing herself, "She hasn't actually...not that I can see, no, she's just threatening to do so".

I think the difference between a person who has been stabbed and one who is unharmed should be patently clear to anyone with two eyes and a desire to look.

You seem to be hammering this taze her vs. teleport argument pretty hard. I'm of the opinion that better trained officers would have used other means to diffuse the situation. Can you comment on this position?

I think you are full of it because no amount of training would have been able to protect the officers from 'other people' or 'an unknown weapon' in the next room along with having no way to cut off her escape root or having it turn into dangerous chase.

There was nothing wrong with the training or the decision to use the tazer. This idea that it could have been handled 'better' outside of batdad has no evidence outside armchair quarterbacking. The idea police should always take extreme risk at personal expense to protect people is insane. Where would you have been if the kid ran from the kitchen down the hall into the bedroom and they let her go and BOOM loaded gun shooting police? Stopping the child from being able to escalate as well as containing her movements all was needed.

"She wasn't gonna do it" isn't valid in police work. And there is no evidence the babysitter lied as her statements are not contradictory.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

I've put forward an argument that it doesn't take batman or superman to disarm someone with a knife, are you going to address that?

While that's certainly true there aren't many ways to do so safely that don't involve violence of some type, generally a blunt object to the forearm if no other option is available; an action which would still have landed these officers in hot water. The argument put forward by the plaintiffs in this case, distract the girl and grab her arm, is ludicrous. This has every hallmark of a family and lawyer seeing dollar signs.

Agreed on all points. When Frazzled and Dogma agrees 1) It has to be true; 2) Frazzled's head now hurts; and 3) Its the Seventh Sign! Preppers rejoice, here it comes!

actually, frazzled, dogman, sebster, and myself all agree...

eiree

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

I've put forward an argument that it doesn't take batman or superman to disarm someone with a knife, are you going to address that?

While that's certainly true there aren't many ways to do so safely that don't involve violence of some type, generally a blunt object to the forearm if no other option is available; an action which would still have landed these officers in hot water. The argument put forward by the plaintiffs in this case, distract the girl and grab her arm, is ludicrous. This has every hallmark of a family and lawyer seeing dollar signs.

Agreed on all points. When Frazzled and Dogma agrees 1) It has to be true; 2) Frazzled's head now hurts; and 3) Its the Seventh Sign! Preppers rejoice, here it comes!

actually, frazzled, dogman, sebster, and myself all agree...

eiree

Throw in whembly into that group.

nkelsch wrote:

 AesSedai wrote:
The call taker clarified the issue with the follow up questions. The babysitter was obviously emotional and lied. The babysitter contradicted herself by saying, with regard to stabbing herself, "She hasn't actually...not that I can see, no, she's just threatening to do so".

I think the difference between a person who has been stabbed and one who is unharmed should be patently clear to anyone with two eyes and a desire to look.

You seem to be hammering this taze her vs. teleport argument pretty hard. I'm of the opinion that better trained officers would have used other means to diffuse the situation. Can you comment on this position?

I think you are full of it because no amount of training would have been able to protect the officers from 'other people' or 'an unknown weapon' in the next room along with having no way to cut off her escape root or having it turn into dangerous chase.

There was nothing wrong with the training or the decision to use the tazer. This idea that it could have been handled 'better' outside of batdad has no evidence outside armchair quarterbacking. The idea police should always take extreme risk at personal expense to protect people is insane. Where would you have been if the kid ran from the kitchen down the hall into the bedroom and they let her go and BOOM loaded gun shooting police? Stopping the child from being able to escalate as well as containing her movements all was needed.

"She wasn't gonna do it" isn't valid in police work. And there is no evidence the babysitter lied as her statements are not contradictory.

Ok, my friend, since it seems you keep adding strawmen with every post you make, I'll have to call you on them from now on. Also, the frequency of factual mistakes you make is causing me to question whether you have actually read the release.

First, this is foolish:

nkelsch wrote:
"I think you are full of it because no amount of training would have been able to protect the officers from 'other people' or 'an unknown weapon' in the next room along with having no way to cut off her escape root or having it turn into dangerous chase. "

How about basic law enforcement procedure of gathering information and securing the premises? "Is there anyone else on the premises?" "Are there any weapons in the house?" is pretty basic. There goes that silly ass argument. Also, you should note that the premises in question was a trailer home and that the officer used the taser after the girl "looked toward the hallway" and "started to move towards it". Sure seems like that dangerous chase was inevitable, huh?Those little eight year old legs pumping furiously for all 10 feet of hallway.

nkelsch wrote:
"There was nothing wrong with the training or the decision to use the tazer."

That's kind of the discussion isn't it? Thanks for that.

nkelsch wrote:
"The idea police should always take extreme risk at personal expense to protect people is insane."

Whoa, great argumentation there! Clearly this is what I have been advocating! I never studied philosophy, but this crappy claim probably has a latin name. Is this reductio ad absurdum? I'm not sure.

nkelsch wrote:
"She wasn't gonna do it" isn't valid in police work. "

Who claimed it was? I feel there is a two-for-one special on latin names coming on...

nkelsch wrote:
"And there is no evidence the babysitter lied as her statements are not contradictory. "

At the risk of typing it for the THIRD time, how about you read the report, specifically the interaction between the babysitter and the call taker. It amounts to "SHE'S GOING AT HERSELF (with the knife)", then, "No, she's just threatening to". If that is not contradictory, you are obtuse.

Sorry people, Im with the Police here.
If some 8 year old was waving a pair of knives around and threatening me/herself then I would use all force available to stop her.

Then wouldn't you be against what the police did, seeing as they didn't shoot her too?

Fairly certain they had guns available...

 Da Boss wrote:
I've put forward an argument that it doesn't take batman or superman to disarm someone with a knife, are you going to address that?

If you're in a potentially dangerous situation and under the influece of adrenaline and have to use a technique that was aimed at disarming adults, it's not unlikely that disarming the kid in the taught way will result in a broken bone.

Muscle memory. I automatically use the, roughly, same amount of force every time I do such a maneuver simply due to muscle memory. It's a good amount of force as your opponent will likely have tensed muscles and thus provides a higher resistance to blunt force than usual.

Is that better?

I'm glad you're not in the police then.

Nkelsch: I guess you don't feel like responding to the fact that the entire police force of Ireland does not have guns or tasers and yet somehow deals with violent knife crime without a high casualty rate? Or even a medium casualty rate? The fact that police forces the world over dealt with knife crime without tasers up until pretty recently?

I can't believe I'm being accused of being the person with the "hollywood" argument by people who are claiming a little girl is so dangerous she could easily kill a grown, trained man, as she could have had martial arts training, or run and got a gun or whatever other scenario. There's no point in arguing with that sort of logic.

I reckon if a police man isn't willing to risk a cut to the arm (the most likely negative outcome by far) to protect a little girl from harming herself, he's got to ask if he's in the right job.

Sigvatr: I don't find that argument compelling at all. You don't need to use an armlock on a small girl, she's just not going to be strong enough to require it.

She clearly wasn't stabbing herself when the 911 call was made otherwise there'd have been a terrible mess by the time the police arrived.

Seeing as no one here was at the incident no one can say what the nuance of the body language was like. I'm personally doubtful that an 8 year old would stab themselves with a knife, or if they were frenzied and going to they would just do it and not spend some time waving the knife around threatening it. On the face of it that seems a need for attention than a serious suicide threat.

Rather than focusing on the parent making a fuss about the police tasering the child, I think some questions have to be raised about why they were in that situation. What is wrong with this child, and if she has problems why is access to knives in the kitchen not restricted?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
What is wrong with this child, and if she has problems why is access to knives in the kitchen not restricted?

I'm not sure if that's a genuine question or a slight jab at gun culture in the US