Mrs. Miggins and the Great Knife Surrender: Are We Disarming Crime or Just the Kitchen Drawer?

Knife amnesties and surrenders are often touted as an effective means of reducing weapon-related crime, but do they genuinely impact those most likely to use knives for criminal or self-defensive purposes? This essay critically examines the effectiveness of knife surrenders, distinguishing between an amnesty—where all surrendered weapons are accepted without consequence—and a surrender, which does not guarantee immunity. Through the lens of Mrs. Miggins and her well-meaning neighbours, this analysis questions whether these initiatives truly remove dangerous weapons from circulation or if they simply provide an easy public relations win for authorities. It explores whether individuals engaged in violent crime are likely to disarm voluntarily, whether fear-driven narratives push vulnerable individuals toward knife-carrying, and whether these campaigns skew crime data by including non-criminalised knives in their statistics. The conclusion argues that, while any knife off the street is a positive step, these initiatives must be coupled with targeted, intelligence-led policing and robust crime prevention strategies to have a meaningful impact.