Are knives weapons, or are they tools?

[Chapp]

With respect to the gun topic even though this thread is about knives. A weapon is a tool designed to cause harm or injury. If you use a weapon in a sporting manner doesn't change the fact that it is a weapon. I use my swords in a sporting manner and for training, HEMA test cutting Kenjutsu Tameshigiri etc, technique drilling. They are still weapons, even if you don't use them to harm or kill.
You can take a 50 cal rifle to the range, and only use it for competition shooting and never shoot a single person with it, it doesn't make it a non weapon. A farmers shotgun is a weapon, a hunters rifle is still a weapon.
Some things that were weapons can be scaled down and designed to be non lethal, like a paintball gun, you can't really call that a weapon because it was never designed to kill or inflict harm, it is purely a sportng tool for playing games.
You can possibly make an argument that childrens bows designed for target shooting with extremely low draw weights are no longer weapons, because they were designed not to be used as weapons and not designed to actually inflict harm or kill things. But as soon as you get up to hunting bow draw weights even though they were designed to kill game and not humans they are still hunting weapons. Tools yes but also weapons. As long as something was designed to inflict harm or kill something it is a type of weapon, you can also have non lethal weapons, that are not made to kill, but are still designed and made to cause some form of harm to disable a target.
Whether or not the law says you can own a weapon is a different topic of debate, the fact is some blades are not weapons and were never designed to harm or kill living things, even if said knife can harm somebody or not, its design and function and intended application determines if it is a weapon or not.

In my opinion, the uses define the category of a said object.

Knives are used both as weapons and tools. 80% people use them as tool and 20% use them as a weapon. Those numbers are straight out of my behind, but you get the point. That would make knives DNA as 80% tool, 20% weapon, which seems to reflect the reality.

You can make a lot of stuff with knives. You can harm people, baton through woods, dig a hole to take a dumb in it, food prep... Knives are men's best friends.

 

[lieferung]

Not sure why you're going on about no point differentiating between knives meant for utility and knives meant for use as a weapon. I didn't know this was a legal discussion more of a philosophical one. Speaking on the US, many states have laws about deadly weapons and various definitions or lack thereof. If you murder somebody with a pen you will not get off just because it is a writing utensil. But from (I think) a more elevated perspective, we are capable of differentiating between a butter knife and a karambit.

 

[CanadaKnifeGuy]

They CAN be either. I mean, what's a bayonet for, after all??

Go to the Caribbean... Every Gardiner and handyman has a machete, often on their hip.

It's not for self defense... It's a bloody useful tool! And ppl don't give it a second look. Grannies have them for gardening, even.

My knives however, are tools.

I don't knife fight. I run. I'm completely at ease with that approach.

I use and carry daily, various small, 3" and smaller knives with a variety of geometries and in both plain and serrated edges.

There's always a perfect tool for the job.

 

[OrangeBlueOrangeBlue]

In Kansas it’s none of your business what kind of knife I have or how I use it. Having a knife doesn’t make you a criminal. Check my post above.

don’t think anyone said you were a criminal, but constitutional carry is only relevant if you’re talking about weapons.

 

[Arathol]

A weapon is a tool designed to cause harm or injury. If you use a weapon in a sporting manner doesn't change the fact that it is a weapon.

No, wrong, incorrect...sounds like you are trying to build a legal defense now....
A weapon can be anything used to cause bodily injury. A baseball bat is a deadly weapon. If you use something designed and used for sporting purposes in a criminal manner that doesn't change the fact that it will be considered a weapon. A shovel can be a weapon despite the fact its a gardening tool. A frying pan can be a deadly weapon, despite the fact that its intent is to cook food in the kitchen. Design can't be used exclusively to define a weapon, many other factors need to be considered. That is why we have laws that define what is what.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

In my opinion, the uses define the category of a said object.

Knives are used both as weapons and tools. 80% people use them as tool and 20% use them as a weapon. Those numbers are straight out of my behind, but you get the point. That would make knives DNA as 80% tool, 20% weapon, which seems to reflect the reality.

You can make a lot of stuff with knives. You can harm people, baton through woods, dig a hole to take a dumb in it, food prep... Knives are men's best friends.

This is kind of where one of the problems comes from though, on a surface level it seems logical that the user determines what he uses the knife for. But that only explains philosophy of use, it doesn't get to the root of the matter which is philosophy of design. Things can be designed for one thing yet used for another.
Chef knives are a good example where people seem to understand the difference better. there are many types of specialized chef knives that are designed to perform a very specific task in a kitchen, you also have general duty chef knives which can do a little of everything. You can use a Yanagiba to cut up a cabbage, but that is not what it was made for and you are not using the tool for its intended purpose.
You can use a butchers meat cleaver to butter your bread, but again you are not really using the knife with its intended design and function in mind, you are improvising with a specialist tool.
I can open letters with a bayonet, but it's not a letter opener.
The user actually doesn't get to classify the tool, it is the designer and maker of the tool who put effort into designing it from the ground up with a specific task in mind, even if you don't appreciate or use it for that task, that is the truth of the matter.
Hammers are another good comparison, I have used claw hammers to forge with before, but that is not what a claw hammer was designed for, I am using the wrong tool for the job, a blacksmiths forging hammer was designed to do the job better. A dogs head hammer is perfectly suited for flattening blades on the anvil, even if you use it to hammer some nails into wood.
Then you have Warhammers, they were designed to be weapons and are anti armour tools used to defeat an enemy wearing plate armour in medieval times, a warhammer is a weapon not a utility tool. The maker and designer gave the hammer its intended use, not the wielder.

 

[FullMetalJackass]

They are tools, used for cutting things. It's a useful, utilitarian purpose first and foremost.

Of course they can be used as a weapon, like about 99 % of tools and items, as long as you apply enough force to them.

Personally, I am more frightened by a crowbar than a knife.

 

[Hanne762]

Depends. I see a guy with an SAK I'm not gonna worry like I am about the guy with the machete.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

No, wrong, incorrect...sounds like you are trying to build a legal defense now....
A weapon can be anything used to cause bodily injury. A baseball bat is a deadly weapon. If you use something designed and used for sporting purposes in a criminal manner that doesn't change the fact that it will be considered a weapon. A shovel can be a weapon despite the fact its a gardening tool. A frying pan can be a deadly weapon, despite the fact that its intent is to cook food in the kitchen. Design can't be used exclusively to define a weapon, many other factors need to be considered. That is why we have laws that define what is what.

It's you who is wrong and using legal terms, you are basing what you say on the case of legality and law. I am explaining the difference from a design aspect. Everything you say reverts back to laws and legal definitions. I'm not interested in what laws say I'm interested in the design features of an object that a creator gave it when he was making a tool for a specific task.
It doesn't matter if something is called a weapon or used as a weapon, what somebody uses something for can and might be completely different from what the craftsman who made it intended and designed it to be used for.

 

[Velitrius]

Is a pen a weapon or tool?

It is mightier than the sword, they say...

I disagree though.

I think if you'd have pulled a pen on Miyamoto Musashi in anger, you'd quickly be inclined to disagree as well.

 

[Mitchell Knives]

Knives are tools that have the capacity to be used as a weapon.

Virtually anything can be used as a weapon given the right intent.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

It is mightier than the sword, they say...

I disagree though.

I think if you'd have pulled a pen on Miyamoto Musashi in anger, you'd quickly be inclined to disagree as well.

Hand somebody a 2 OZ ball peen hammer and a medieval warhammer, then ask them which one they want to use to fight that knight in full plate armour over in the corner.
They will suddenly understand which one is the weapon and which one is the utilitarian tool.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Knives are tools that have the capacity to be used as a weapon.

Virtually anything can be used as a weapon given the right intent.

Knives are also sometimes only designed to be weapons and nothing else, what they are used for doesn't change what they were designed for. Virtually any chefs knife can be used for cutting up tuna, you still won't find a sushi chef using a Nakiri to do it.
I can use the hilt of my 1845 pattern infantry officers sabre to bash in tent pegs, it doesn't make it a mallet.
When you design a knife for somebody and they ask for a 14 inch bowie knife, with clipped point blade and S shaped guard, just hand them a 3 inch Deba instead, and tell them it's good enough.

 

[Arathol]

Hand somebody a 2 OZ ball peen hammer and a medieval warhammer, then ask them which one they want to use to fight that knight in full plate armour over in the corner.
They will suddenly understand which one is the weapon and which one is the utilitarian tool.

A 15th century war hammer was a front line military grade weapon, designed with the specific intent of defeating face hardened plate armor. It has no real purpose in the mundane world as a utilitarian tool. A 2 oz ball peen hammer is a small basic hand tool that could have many uses. It has nothing in common with a medieval war hammer. Its like comparing an M-4 carbine with an M-203 grenade launcher with a staple gun.... I don't see how comparing one with the other makes any sort of case to prove that any knife design is either a tool or a weapon....apples and oranges as they say.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

A 15th century war hammer was a front line military grade weapon, designed with the specific intent of defeating face hardened plate armor. It has no real purpose in the mundane world as a utilitarian tool. A 2 oz ball peen hammer is a small basic hand tool that could have many uses. It has nothing in common with a medieval war hammer. Its like comparing an M-4 carbine with an M-203 grenade launcher with a staple gun.... I don't see how comparing one with the other makes any sort of case to prove that any knife design is either a tool or a weapon....apples and oranges as they say.

Exactly, a warhammer is a weapon, and a ball peen hammer is a utility tool, and both are hammers.
Just like an opinel no 8 is a general purpose knife used for utilitarian needs, and a Fairbairn Sykes is a fighting knife made specifically for fighting, and they are both knives.
We are comparing one to the other to show how they differ, and to make a distinction between the two designs, because some people think either knives are all utility or knives are all weapons. When actually only some knives are weapons.

 

[JAM]

If someone is trying to bean your skull with the 2 oz hammer you would indeed consider it a weapon. If you lived long enough to consider it. Would you say to yourself "that is a tool, that man is unarmed." No. It doesn't matter if that's what it was designed for, you are just as dead. This has devolved into semantics. Knives are weapons, hammers are weapons. Weapons are tools. Tools can be weapons. Trying to derail common sense to RIGIDLY define what's a weapon (by design, intent, or use) and what isn't is futile and foolish. Just look at this thread.

 

[DocJD]

uses define the category of a said object.

By this logic , almost every knife ever made is mainly a utility tool . More like 99+% than 80 % .

Especially small carry knives have not been ever much used for fighting or actual hunting . No reach or stand off , or leverage , or range . Cavemen had better weapons !

This includes tactical and combat knives . Kukri and karambit . Tanto , dirk , and dagger .

Cold Steel (and similar) exciting weapon oriented advertising is used to sell knives that are mostly actually used for the same mundane tasks as all other knives .

 

[Londinium Armoury]

By this logic , almost every knife ever made is mainly a utility tool . More like 99+% than 80 % .

Especially small carry knives have not been ever much used for fighting or actual hunting . No reach or stand off , or leverage , or range . Cavemen had better weapons !

This includes tactical and combat knives . Kukri and karambit . Tanto , dirk , and dagger .

Cold Steel (and similar) exciting weapon oriented advertising is used to sell knives that are mostly actually used for the same mundane tasks as all other knives .

If you use a Montante Greatsword to cut up a pumpkin in your back yard, it means the Greatsword is a fruit knife.

 

[DangerZone98]

Exactly, a warhammer is a weapon, and a ball peen hammer is a utility tool, and both are hammers.
Just like an opinel no 8 is a general purpose knife used for utilitarian needs, and a Fairbairn Sykes is a fighting knife made specifically for fighting, and they are both knives.
We are comparing one to the other to show how they differ, and to make a distinction between the two designs, because some people think either knives are all utility or knives are all weapons. When actually only some knives are weapons.

True. That ball peen hammer vs warhammer is an example of two objects on the extreme sides of the tool-weapon spectrum. I think, however, that we also need to acknowledge that there are some knives that could fall in the middle. The Becker BK9 for example is regarded as a good chopping tool. So is the ESEE Junglas. Could both be used for defense? Possibly. Arguably though, I would say most Becker and ESEE owners use their knives as tools.

We also have the examples of the khukuri and the karambit. Believe it or not, both “killer looking” blades are used as utility/farming implements in their respective cultures. Could they be used as weapons? With the right training, yes. Depending on factors like design, weight, and reach, some knives can function as more effective weapons than others. As you said, I wouldn’t bet my life on an Opinel in a hairy situation.

This has been more of a philosophical take than a legal take (none of this is legal advice!). If the knife laws in your area say that even your innocent looking Mora is a deadly weapon, then that just plain sucks. But don’t go to jail over it.

 

[sabre cat]

But whether you define it as a weapon by design or not has no bearing on what the banners will "allow" you to have. It doesn't matter to them. Is a small Sebenza a "weapon?" I'm sure most of you would say no. But there are jurisdictions and even countries where you can't carry anything you can open one-handed or anything with a locking blade. Denying it's a weapon does absolutely no good. You can not reason with them.

Just don’t call it a weapon from the start. That ensures that you, as an individual, are not supporting this banning weapons nonsense.

The bottom line is this, not one knife or firearm I have ever owned has been used to harm anyone. So, how are they weapons?