Common sense knife control?

Are you in favor of any laws restricting knives?

  • Nope

  • In some extremely limited cases

  • Yes, but I think the laws in my state/country are too restrictive

  • Yes, and I generally agree with the laws in my state/country

  • Yes, and I think the laws in my area should be more restrictive


Results are only viewable after voting.

not2sharp

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 29, 1999
Messages
18,816
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?
My response would be yes, so long as hey are able to competently handle the device. This is nothing new. We have private corporations operating nuclear facilities all over the country; everyone from hospital to power plants, and there haven't been many major problems. If someone were able to acquire a nuclear device, capable in storing one safely, knowledgeable in its maintenance and equipped to properly maintain it; I wouldn't have a problem with it. At least I would worry far less about that guy, than the politicians and teenagers that routinely handle these in our armed forces. It wasn't all that long ago, that individuals were allowed to arm their civilian vessels with a full range of the latest military artillery. There is reason for caution, but it is often exaggerated and misplaced; even the worst weapon of mass destruction will tend to just sit there until it is acted on by someone with destructive intent. We are only assuming that we are safer by leaving them exclusively in the hands of our present masters.

n2s
 

EngrSorenson

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
2,780
We have private corporations operating nuclear facilities all over the country; everyone from hospital to power plants, and there haven't been many major problems.
N2S, your opinion is not well informed. First of all, radiation used in medicine isn’t going to level a city. They use radioactive materials, not warheads. Second, nuclear power plants operate differently than an atomic bomb, and the power plants themselves are closely regulated, have significant safety measures in place and don’t detonate.

We are only assuming that we are safer by leaving them exclusively in the hands of our present masters.

Finally, I don’t know if the USA has ever experienced an accidental detonation of a nuclear device. Those folks you trust so little to manage these devices have been doing a bang up job.

A B-52 once broke apart while flying over North Carolina carrying two Hydrogen bombs, but that “near” disaster is the only one I know of: the bombs weren’t in danger of exploding.

Now let’s talk about the number of accidental discharges from law-abiding gun owners- I bet it’s more. The risks are just less than an atomic weapon.
 

not2sharp

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 29, 1999
Messages
18,816
N2S, your opinion is not well informed. First of all, radiation used in medicine isn’t going to level a city. They use radioactive materials, not warheads. Second, nuclear power plants operate differently than an atomic bomb, and the power plants themselves are closely regulated, have significant safety measures in place and don’t detonate.
All true, however, what I am getting at is that these organizations routinely handle materials that can also lead to mass destruction. Whether a Chernobyl or Fukushima, or Bhopal; industrial accident can lead to disasters every bit as lethal. We are back to the knife and gun vs. rock and stick thing. Just because you think Nuclear weapons are especially fearful does not mean that we haven't trusted "individuals" with comparably dangerous substances. The Wuhan lab/Covid debacle being perhaps the most damaging incident to date (over 200M injured and 4.5M deaths - not counting the economic damage). Again, the focus should be on regulating the behavior and not the thing.

n2s
 

EngrSorenson

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
2,780
Whether a Chernobyl or Fukushima, or Bhopal; industrial accident can lead to disasters every bit as lethal.
No, I don't think you understand.
There's no direct deaths linked to Fukushima.
There's 50 deaths linked to Chernobyl.
There's 4000 deaths linked to the 42 ton MIC gas leak in Bhopal
(not sure why we're worried about civilians having this much toxic gas hanging around, but there you have it.)
There's >70,000 deaths linked to Hiroshima.
We're way off course here, but there's no way I could get behind a private citizen owning biological or nuclear weapons.
The Wuhan lab/Covid debacle being perhaps the most damaging incident to date
I also read that the earth is flat, contrails are tools of the government, and Tupac is dead.

Again, the focus should be on regulating the behavior and not the thing.
A guy trips and falls on his knife- he'll probably live.
A guy accidently shoots himself- well... it's one guy.
A guy accidently blows himself up, and there's a chance his mistake is costing other people.
These three things do not have the same impact and it's impossible to regulate mistakes.
Personally I'm willing to accept the risk that is equivalent to the casualties in an average car accident.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
22,754
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?
My common sense is tingling.
 

scdub

Basic Member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
810
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?

The only reason people need to obtain a commercial drivers license to drive a large vehicle is because they are more dangerous and therefore need to be handled more carefully/knowledgeably. They are treated differently from passenger vehicles because they can clearly cause more damage more quickly than a smaller car.

I believe knives and firearms should be treated differently for the same reason.

In general I think it makes sense to control both knives and firearms in very rare, specific cases, but I think firearms should be regulated to a higher degree than knives. Similarly, high explosives, RPGs, artillery, etc should be regulated more strictly than firearms.

Should Jeff Bezos get to buy a fully armed stealth bomber because he can afford it? I don’t think so.

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”.
This sounds like an argument against making knives designed as weapons.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with marketing a knife as a weapon - that is after all what many of them are primarily designed to be. There’s nobody to “blame” for that - it’s just one of the many ways to describe this particular type of tool.

Would you be in favor of laws restricting the design or marketing of knives as “weapons”? (E.g. no knife blade longer than 10”, no hand guards, no swedges/double edges, etc. etc.)

I think it’s a slippery slope to try to pretend that knives are NEVER weapons if you are trying to live with relative freedom.

The ability to personally carry weapons is more fundamental to our freedoms than probably anything else in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
22,754
The only reason people need to obtain a commercial drivers license to drive a large vehicle is because they are more dangerous and therefore need to be handled more carefully/knowledgeably. They are treated differently from passenger vehicles because they can clearly cause more damage more quickly than a smaller car.

I believe knives and firearms should be treated differently for the same reason.

In general I think it makes sense to control both knives and firearms in very rare, specific cases, but I think firearms should be regulated to a higher degree than knives. Similarly, high explosives, RPGs, artillery, etc should be regulated more strictly than firearms.

Should Jeff Bezos get to buy a fully armed stealth bomber because he can afford it? I don’t think so.


This sounds like an argument against making knives designed as weapons.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with marketing a knife as a weapon - that is after all what many of them are primarily designed to do. There’s nobody to “blame” for that - it’s just one of the many ways to describe this particular type of tool.

Would you be in favor of laws restricting the design or marketing of knives as “weapons”? (E.g. no knife blade longer than 10”, no hand guards, no swedges/double edges, etc. etc.)

I think it’s a slippery slope to try to pretend that knives are NEVER weapons if you are trying to live with relative freedom.

The ability to personally carry weapons is more fundamental to out freedoms than probably anything else in my opinion.
So that would be the benchmark we have established. Knives should be regulated but not as strictly as firearms.

Next mark to establish is should a SAK be the same as an OTF in the eyes of the law or are there further branches to be made?
 

scdub

Basic Member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
810
So that would be the benchmark we have established. Knives should be regulated but not as strictly as firearms.

Next mark to establish is should a SAK be the same as an OTF in the eyes of the law or are there further branches to be made?
Yes - in my opinion an OTF, SAK and machete should all be treated equally. Not because they actually ARE equal, but because all can be used as a weapons that can at most kill one person at a time.

I think it’s reasonable that we regulate who can drive a vehicle. I think it’s also reasonable to regulate RPGs.

Knives and guns should be less regulated than cars or RPGs in my opinion, but I understand why some regulations exist, and agree with a select few of them (for instance I’m in favor of excluding knives and guns from courtrooms).
 

scdub

Basic Member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
810
Knives are also very unlikely to kill by accident. When my kid was around 6 I would let him wander around the campsite with his own knife. He knew how to handle firearms and shoot at that age as well, but I didn’t let him carry a gun around. To me, a firearm is substantially more dangerous than a knife and it’s reasonable to treat it that way.
 

EngrSorenson

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
2,780
This sounds like an argument against making knives designed as weapons.
It’s not really an argument, I’m just saying that we make weapons and then get bent out of shape when political types make knife laws regulating certain knives (perhaps wrongfully) as weapons.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but all of my uses of knives are as tools. I’ve never used one as a weapon. It wouldn’t bother me at all if we never made another “fighting knife”, but I do wish I didn’t have to second guess carrying my Mora #2 classic because it’s a little over the limit for blade length for a casual carry in my state.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
6,390
So. Children?
Children in less developed nations , poor everywhere , and throughout most history; all children that could walk around had to survive in the presence of all kinds of dangerous tools , weapons , humans , animals , plants , open water , sheer cliffs ,etc .

They somehow mostly managed just fine , at least the ones that had any potential value to the group survival .

I don't mean they had no parental care or protection , but nothing like wealthy modern standards .
 
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
408
Children in less developed nations , poor everywhere , and throughout most history; all children that could walk around had to survive in the presence of all kinds of dangerous tools , weapons , humans , animals , plants , open water , sheer cliffs ,etc .

They somehow mostly managed just fine , at least the ones that had any potential value to the group survival .

I don't mean they had no parental care or protection , but nothing like wealthy modern standards .

Yeah. But what is their survival rate in third world countries?

And would we consider that acceptable here.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
6,390
I also read that the earth is flat, contrails are tools of the government, and Tupac is dead.
You might dig a little deeper on what is public record on the USA funding and support with full knowledge of "gain of function " work with covid . Almost certainly other organisms are getting the same type "enhancements " to their pathogenicity .

This is exactly the same as weaponizing a microorganism , just using double -speak because biological warfare was outlawed by Nixon and even Obama . And, I believe by various treaties .

It's incredible , outrageous , crime against humanity , but totally real fact . I did not believe this could be tolerated , let alone designed and financed by the USA . :mad::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
6,390
Yeah. But what is their survival rate in third world countries?

And would we consider that acceptable here.
Probably NOT .

But I think a terrible toll will be taken when the helpless generations face the next true global disasters .

I don't mean covid which in historical terms would not qualify as a plague ,IMO .

Raising weak , dependent , overly protected and pampered children, is no favor to them in the long haul .
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
139
A lot of knife laws are relics of the past. In Virginia carrying any kind of Bowie is illegal. I can only imagine why this came into being a law back in the day. How many drunken brawls did it take for people to say these things are really dangerous or maybe women became really uncomfortable with men carrying giant bowies strapped to their sides setting in the pew next to them at church.

Knives like balisongs and karambits look rather menacing. In reality people trying to use these kind of knives stand a better chance of hurting themselves than anyone else. If they have no training. But you know they look scary.
 
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
408
Probably NOT .

But I think a terrible toll will be taken when the helpless generations face the next true global disasters .

I don't mean covid which in historical terms would not qualify as a plague ,IMO .

Raising weak , dependent , overly protected and pampered children, is no favor to them in the long haul .

I am not sure those two ideas really link up that neatly.

I mean there are cultures like Australia and England that have strict weapons laws. But have no issues filling military roles.

Where say Somalia should be prime ground to create super soldiers. And yet they don't seem to stand out.

So these concepts of independence and resilience are probably developed in other ways than chaotic hardship.

Although I hadn't thought much about it.
 
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
408
A lot of knife laws are relics of the past. In Virginia carrying any kind of Bowie is illegal. I can only imagine why this came into being a law back in the day. How many drunken brawls did it take for people to say these things are really dangerous or maybe women became really uncomfortable with men carrying giant bowies strapped to their sides setting in the pew next to them at church.

Knives like balisongs and karambits look rather menacing. In reality people trying to use these kind of knives stand a better chance of hurting themselves than anyone else. If they have no training. But you know they look scary.


Intent?

Which is a major component of the legal process.
 
Top