Good knife restrictions?

Steven Roos

Steven Roos

Joined
Jun 29, 2002
Messages
4,131
Some of you may remember my thread about a paper I needed to write. Well, I got the draft back and now I need to revise it...

My professor says I have plenty of information on why knife laws are too restrictive, but I don't have much for the opposite side.

Does anyone know of any instances when knife laws and restrictions had a positive effect? Any other evidence to support the argument that knife laws are not too restrictive?

Thanks in advance!
 
Good Luck on getting people that come here to spit out info on why knife laws ARNT to restrictive. You would probably have better luck trying to steal a grizzly's cubs :D
 
Originally posted by Rifter
Good Luck on getting people that come here to spit out info on why knife laws ARNT to restrictive. You would probably have better luck trying to steal a grizzly's cubs :D
Click to expand...

I know, I know...
 
Does anyone know of any instances when knife laws and restrictions had a positive effect?
Click to expand...

No, at least not from my perspective. Their are two very distinctive points of view on how to develop a social contract. One perspective argues that society must be regulated such that the individual is provided less opportunity to cause or suffer harm. The alternative is to maximize the degree of individual freedom and then hold the individual accountable for their actions. Our laws are and have always been a hodgepodge of both approaches.

It is hard to prove the positive impact of additional restrictions, and easier to acknowledge the impact as a restriction. We know that if we ban the carry of dirks and bowie we are in effect restricting the rights of all citizens to carry these knives. Some will argue that the result is a lower incident of crimes involving dirks and bowie. Perhaps that is true as far as it goes, however, when these laws were first put into place, then emphasis simply shifted to guns and walking sticks. The net level of crime may have remained the same or increased. Whatever net benefit there is may be indirectly related. Someone prosecuted for attacking another may be prejudice against for having in addition used a prohibited means of attack. But, this of itself must be put into perspective. Does anyone really believe that someone who murders another intentionally with a gun, or a knife, is in any way more delinquent then another who commits the same act with a baseball bat or their automobile?

People are incredibly creative tool users. It is silly to try to regulate tools in an indirect attempt to control behavior. The same behavior is simply conducted using whatever tools are at hand. I don't see a positive effect from banning tools. If anything it has often proven just the opposite by generating additional criminal opportunities by driving a real market demand underground.

n2s
 
Since there realyy are no positive effect you will have to find wierd excuses. I guess you can say since there are very few deaths today from sword fights that the old Japanese ban on katanas and the Phillistine ban on edged weapons are working.:D

I guess some would say that "liberals" are less stressed out knowing that they are now safe from evil knives and therefore healthier and will live longer, though that is not really positive IMO. :D
 
If you research any of the recent legislation you will find plenty of positive anti-knife arguements. Unfortunately, these arguements tend to be transparently falacious. Were switch blades ever really a problem? Or, were we simply playing into a fiction created by the entertainment industry?

At present there is a strong sentiment that kids and knives should not go together. Yet, for most of our history kids and knives have gone together very well.

The bottom line is that you would never find any harm that can be caused by a knife which is not already prohibited by law. Passing additional law simply adds restrictions without benefit.

n2s
 
Originally posted by not2sharp
If you research any of the recent legislation you will find plenty of positive anti-knife arguements. Unfortunately, these arguements tend to be transparently falacious. Were switch blades ever really a problem? Or, were we simply playing into a fiction created by the entertainment industry?

At present there is a strong sentiment that kids and knives should not go together. Yet, for most of our history kids and knives have gone together very well.

The bottom line is that you would never find any harm that can be caused by a knife which is not already prohibited by law. Passing additional law simply adds restrictions without benefit.
Click to expand...

How about a defense of pervious laws? Falacious or not, I need something...
 
guns don't kill people, people kill people, laws are written to stop the stupid and psychotic people from going on a killing spree and in turn taking away the rights of normal, sane and law abiding people
 
For a serious answer, many of the knife older knife laws were made to keep the poorer people from defending themselves, much like the post-reconstruction gun laws in the south. In Missouri, for example, the laws were only enforced on blacks until the 1950s.
 
Originally posted by Benjamin Liu
For a serious answer, many of the knife older knife laws were made to keep the poorer people from defending themselves, much like the post-reconstruction gun laws in the south. In Missouri, for example, the laws were only enforced on blacks until the 1950s.
Click to expand...

That is the kind of info I need! Anywhere I can research more about that?
 
since you are righting the paper, let me give you some insight here.

think about it real hard and come up with an original idea and back it up with some examples.

i feel that the point should have something to do with you thinking on your own and backing it up.

This leads to you getting evaluated on your thought processes and writing skills.

if the teacher thinks you are smarter than 90% of your peers than you might get an A, if not than try to learn what you need to improve on.

Then again, cut & paste is always easier and faster.:)
 
You could say that the knife laws have a psychological effect that allows most of the masses sleep at night believing that they'll be safer because certain knives are not allowed. The counter argument for that is that a) they forget to realize that criminals don't really care about the laws and b) It really makes no difference because many of the murders (at least in Canada) are committed by stabbings and also in houses, and there's a certain places where knife laws doesn't apply..... it's called the kitchen.
Criminality always exists; banning the so called tools of the criminal doesn't really help. The only thing you can do is to capture them and hopefully they would change (if they choose to change).

You can conquer an empire, but you can't conquer a person's mind. - rough translation of a chinese proverb.
 
Originally posted by calyth
You could say that the knife laws have a psychological effect that allows most of the masses sleep at night believing that they'll be safer because certain knives are not allowed. The counter argument for that is that a) they forget to realize that criminals don't really care about the laws and b) It really makes no difference because many of the murders (at least in Canada) are committed by stabbings and also in houses, and there's a certain places where knife laws doesn't apply..... it's called the kitchen.
Criminality always exists; banning the so called tools of the criminal doesn't really help. The only thing you can do is to capture them and hopefully they would change (if they choose to change).

You can conquer an empire, but you can't conquer a person's mind. - rough translation of a chinese proverb.
Click to expand...

Good points there. Thanks!

Rigger: That is just the problem. These have to be from other sources. I can give my own opinion at the end, but I need evidence for both sides, even though I don't agree with it.
 
i think it would be easier for you to find many arguments on handguns.

maybe if you grouped those arguments with the knife.
 
Originally posted by rigger
i think it would be easier for you to find many arguments on handguns.

maybe if you grouped those arguments with the knife.
Click to expand...

I'm only talking about knives in this paper...
 
Well it is common sense why certian kinds of knives are illegal to conceal.

Bowie Knives were designed from the beginning as fighting knives with the long heavy blade (9"~12"). There really shouldn't be an arguement on that one. And there is plenty of real life documentation on them to back it up. (And we don't need to go into detail about what happens to people on the wrong end of the knife)

Switch Blades...I don't see any real reason these should be banned because most of them have 3"~5" blades and in most states they would be legal to carry if they weren't automatics...I fail to see the logic in making them illegal. You could kill someone just as easy with a parring knife, or a pencil for that matter.

Daggers...Also Double Edge (Boot Knives) these are killing knives, plain and simple.
 
Originally posted by Ankerson
Well it is common sense why certian kinds of knives are illegal to conceal.

Bowie Knives were designed from the beginning as fighting knives with the long heavy blade (9"~12"). There really shouldn't be an arguement on that one. And there is plenty of real life documentation on them to back it up.

Switch Blades...I don't see any real reason these should be banned because most of them have 3"~5" blades and in most states they would be legal to carry if they weren't automatics...I fail to see the logic in making them illegal. You could kill someone just as easy with a parring knive.

Daggers...Also Double Edge (Boot Knives) these are killing knives, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Even if you think it is common sense, I still need evidence! Of course, I don't see why most people would need to carry a concealed fixed blade...

OTOH, I want to get a permit so I can do just that...:footinmou
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top