Common sense knife control?

[DMG]

Signaling devise , party noisemaker , hammer , crutch or splint , etc .

In the case of my old remington 870, a canoe paddle.

 

[DMG]

Guns are really not tools imo.
I'm all for gun rights, but there is little to be done with a gun other than fun (target shooting) or hunting/defense.
If you use a gun for getting your car started I would like to know how.

I agree that most of these issues arise from loss of morals and excuses.
I do not believe any regulation will help the situation.
Tighter restrictions appear to make violence worse.

 

[DMG]

Guns are really not tools imo.
I'm all for gun rights, but there is little to be done with a gun other than fun (target shooting) or hunting/defense.
If you use a gun for getting your car started I would like to know how.

I agree that most of these issues arise from loss of morals and excuses.
I do not believe any regulation will help the situation.
Tighter restrictions appear to make violence worse.

 

[DocJD]

Very cool and an old tech I never knew about .

Wonder if some fool ever used a real shotgun shell ?

 

[David Mary]

So we've learned that you can use a gun as an inadequate replacement for the right tool for certain jobs. You can say that a gun is a "self defense tool" which is just another way of admitting it is a weapon. And you can say that a gun is not a tool because subjectively you associate tools with work and daily living. It's all semantics. Is it a tool? I don't care any more.

 

[MolokaiRider]

It is absolutely a tool against tyranny.

A tool to protect your family and property,

A tool for ethically harvesting food.

In my opinion it's the most important one, with a knife being a close second.

Modern comforts are not guaranteed and should not be taken for granted. It is important to remember history and be prepared. You don't have to look back too far to see what can happen when left with pitchforks.

This is my opinion of course.

 

[not2sharp]

In the USA we are born with the RIGHT to bear arms and to defend ourselves. You earn the PRIVILEGE to drive. Comparing the 2 is not valid.

I hate to dissapoint a lot of you but firearms are tools like any other. They are mostly used to put food on the table or to protect one from dangerous game or persons. But, can also be used as a signaling or sporting implement. Very trivial amounts of the ammunition expended each year by civilians is aimed, intended or does actual harm.

But, let’s remember that In the US the gun is, first and foremost, a political implement used symbolically and literally to remind us that under our system power is delegated to the government by the people and to provide the population with the means to ultimately veto government abuse when deemed warranted.

Firearms are the underpinning of our personal freedoms. It is why we don’t hear tales of US villages mysteriously disappearing overnight. You may not win an individual battle; but, as long as a battle is a determined requirement, it makes it difficult to effective hide such an abusive strategy. The same cannot be said in Venezuela, China and many other nations throughout history, who consider their citizens as nothing more than government property.

In daily practice guns are very rarely used in the commission of, or defense against, crime. Their use in respect to violence is likely no more in occurrence then most common tools like knives, hammers, sticks or stones.

All, Hollywood fantasy aside, I have had free access to firearms and ammunition since very young and have yet to discharge a round in anger. As an article of property my gun has caused no more harm or violence than my young sister’s dolls. It is just another thing to be owned and used, with no malecious will of its own. I am deeply offended by the leftist attempts to impart violent intent on gun ownership. I consider it more a reflection of their own defective base instincts and paranoia.

n2s

 

[DocJD]

So we've learned that you can use a gun as an inadequate replacement for the right tool for certain jobs. You can say that a gun is a "self defense tool" which is just another way of admitting it is a weapon. And you can say that a gun is not a tool because subjectively you associate tools with work and daily living. It's all semantics. Is it a tool? I don't care any more.

Guns have seriously been used as signaling devises for a long time .

Sometimes to summon help in an emergency .

Not just a weapon ! A genuine multipurpose tool .

 

[Danke42]

Should knives and guns be treated as equals in the eyes of the law?

 

[David Mary]

Should knives and guns be treated as equals in the eyes of the law?

Do you mean "equivalents"? They are, under certain circumstances. "Assault with a deadly weapon".

 

[Danke42]

Do you mean "equivalents"? They are, under certain circumstances. "Assault with a deadly weapon".

Equal is a bit more exact that equivalent so I prefer that term.

So the original question is to laws restricting knives. So should knives be regulated in the same manner as firearms since we have determined that both are merely tools.

Discussing an after the fact choice to assault people and what consequences you could face is a for another day but I would presume that if they were regulated in a similar manner then similar consequences would result.

Practically though I could chose to beat someone unconcious with a frying pan & then be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and no one would ever need to worry about frying pans being locked up in the back room and needing a permit to obtain one. Most of that skews towards the individual's intent and not the small details of the incident.

 

[David Mary]

According to MolokaiRider 's definition, the tasks for which it is a tool means it is in the "weapon" category of tools, with the category's primary task of stopping the motor and/or vital functions of agents of tyranny, criminals, or animals you want to eat. A knife's primary purpose is to cut, putting it into a completely different and more versatile and useful (by number, not necessarily importance, of uses) tool category of "cutting tools". So equal does not seem to apply. Nor does equivalents, naturally.

 

[Danke42]

According to MolokaiRider 's definition, the tasks for which it is a tool means it is in the "weapon" category of tools, with the category's primary task of stopping the motor and/or vital functions of agents of tyranny, criminals, or animals you want to eat. A knife's primary purpose is to cut, putting it into a completely different and more versatile and useful (by number, not necessarily importance, of uses) tool category of "cutting tools". So equal does not seem to apply. Nor does equivalents, naturally.

Yes I understand many folks will make impassioned statements about knives and firearms. For the purposes of this discussion though I've put my self outside my emotions just to ask that simple question.

A knife an a gun (and a vehicle) are inanimate objects made to perform a specific task. When used responsibly they cause no harm to other members of society. So should they be considered same or different.

Banning weapons is a difficult proposal. First of all you can ban all the weapons you want but someone can knock someone else over the head with a frying pan.

And bans are porous. As an example being in Canada pistols have been strictly controlled since the 50s and automatic weapons even more strictly controlled and de facto banned in the 80s but somehow the gangsters up here all seem to manage to get their hands on them to shoot up the competition, the local neighborhood and innocent bystanders. How can that be possible if they're against the law?

 

[David Mary]

They are similar in some ways, and different in many others.

 

[DocJD]

Should knives and guns be treated as equals in the eyes of the law?

Of course !

They are the same exact thing .

Like male and female and whatever .

Covid and Ebola .

Everything is the same as everything else .

All equals .

 

[Drop bear]

Yes I understand many folks will make impassioned statements about knives and firearms. For the purposes of this discussion though I've put my self outside my emotions just to ask that simple question.

A knife an a gun (and a vehicle) are inanimate objects made to perform a specific task. When used responsibly they cause no harm to other members of society. So should they be considered same or different.

Banning weapons is a difficult proposal. First of all you can ban all the weapons you want but someone can knock someone else over the head with a frying pan.

And bans are porous. As an example being in Canada pistols have been strictly controlled since the 50s and automatic weapons even more strictly controlled and de facto banned in the 80s but somehow the gangsters up here all seem to manage to get their hands on them to shoot up the competition, the local neighborhood and innocent bystanders. How can that be possible if they're against the law?

Not the best argument though. It doesn't diminish the law just because people break it.

Instead there would be a damage vs gain argument to be made.

Let's start with the most extreme. So should people be allowed nukes or sarin gas?

 

[EngrSorenson]

Let's start with the most extreme. So should people be allowed nukes or sarin gas?

Your point is a good one- legalized dangerous things should only be as dangerous as Clutzy McTrip-face can handle. The cost of an accidental discharge should be limited, in the very least. “Seattle was wiped out today when Bob Smith accidentally leaned on the button.” shouldn’t be a headline. The risk of accidental discharge should be equal to or less than other daily risks, in my opinion.

But the knife discussion is as much of one about optics as it is actual danger to the public. Let’s be real: there’s a bunch of knives marketed based on their aggressive look or sold with some air of fighting or doing battle… 99.999% owners will never use them for that purpose, but outwardly the story is “knife marketed as weapon”.

I’m not saying that solves the issue of folks being leery of knives, but I think we share part of the blame as a knife community because the story isn’t a consistent one of “knife as a tool”.

 

[Enkrig]

Let's start with the most extreme. So should people be allowed nukes or sarin gas?

No. And I say that because NOBODY, countries/governments included, should have them. They are weapons that kill *indiscriminately* within a very large radius. Hence the reasons they are referred to as WMDs.

Here's something a bit more mid-ground: tanks *and* rounds for those said tanks. Maybe the rounds for the tanks would have to be kept locked outside of the tank when not in use, and require the igniter part (not sure of the name) for those round to be kept elsewhere under two different locking systems, to reduce the chances of nefarious intent of some crazy person trying to steal the keys to go on a joy ride, but I'd be ok with that.

All in all, I think that government should be out of the business of deciding whether people can or cannot have something, whether we're referring to knives, guns, tanks, or airplanes, for example. If it is really bad, such as WMDs, then nobody should have them.

Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, so I don't oppose "reasonable" regulation designed to manage the risk of accidents, their consequences, or access by people which have shown disregard for the those responsibilities or the rule of law. A key point of "reasonable" is to allow responsible people, who've done nothing wrong, to enjoy their freedoms. An example of unreasonable is when someone regulates to oblivion some aspect to the point where it becomes a de facto standard for deciding whether people can or cannot have something. Requiring someone so pay some large amount (say >10% of the cost of the item) to own something is a de facto exclusion of poorer people, or required to have something in a safe and with a trigger lock such that it cannot perform the crucial action of defense and self preservation (keep in mind that, inside a house and a safe or hidden compartment comprises two control access points already). Personally, unless it is a machine gun or *maybe* there are minors in the house, I don't think that safes are required.

 

[DocJD]

Not the best argument though. It doesn't diminish the law just because people break it.

Instead there would be a damage vs gain argument to be made.

Let's start with the most extreme. So should people be allowed nukes or sarin gas?

Only "sovereign entities" that can be absolutely trusted to never EVER use them . Or have accidents , or have their stuff get stolen .

Sort of like " gain of function" development of human and animal pathogens . Making micro-organisms more pathogenic in the lab . Creating diseases that nature did not .

We used to call this process "weaponization " , but that got outlawed .

There's no possible way this could wrong !

Seriously , some things should probably not be made available to humankind .

But that's not how the real world works .

 

[Hickory n steel]

That's the kind of black and white thinking that's gotten us into this mess, this is not a binary equation. The tired old whine "but what about the motor vehicles" is such an old saw that it has no "gotcha" left. We have driver's licenses, laws about who can drive what kind of vehicles, laws about vehicle safety, insurance requirements, speed limits.... and people still die because of stupid mistakes, gross incompetence or negligence, or just plain bad luck. It's not a perfect system because people are involved, but it's the system we have and it evolves to incorporate changes in technology and law. Show me a car you can carry in your pocket that you can use to injure 13 people in a bar and maybe the comparison would be apt.

Show me an item anyone can easily steal from any parking lot or street curb and use to plow through a crowd of dozens of people which can also fit into your pocket.

Motor vehicles are still much more dangerous than the knives and firearms that people who think like you want to restrict.