Good knife restrictions?

The only good reason that the governing legal authorities can really come up with is to keep their timid sheeple from being in fear from seeing normal knives in standard use.
 
You can also get alot of research from looking into Jim Bowie.
 
Originally posted by mschwoeb
The only good reason that the governing legal authorities can really come up with is to keep their timid sheeple from being in fear from seeing normal knives in standard use.
Click to expand...


You have a point there..;)

I do try a keep a Bowie Knife within reach most of the time though..:D

In my opinion it would be very very dumb for anyone to "Hold up or hurt someone who is holding a Bowie Knife".:D
 
Originally posted by im2smrt4u
Good story! Did that cause any specific laws to be passed?
Click to expand...

I believe it did or at least helped things along alot.

It was a good story and true. :)
 
Just about every state has a Law stating that Bowie knives are illegal to carry concealed.


Texas is very strict on this, go figure...:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Ankerson
Just about every state has a Law stating that Bowie knives are illegal to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

Alright, so this would come down to the "dirk or dagger" concealed carry restriction then. Thanks!
 
All restrictions come down to benefits of restriction vs non-restriction. No mater if you are restricting kives, guns, alcahol or narcotics. We sould have learned this lesson in the 1920-30's with prohibition, but what can I say, some people are too dim-witted to learn from other peoples misteaks! Since only a small fraction of society is truely predatory, the world would be a better place if we did not restrict things. If everyone had unrestricted access to kinives and guns, and no need to fear the consequences of using them in self defence, criminals who use them to commit their crimes, would quickly seal their own fate, substance abusers with access to unlimited supplies of inexpensive drugs and alcahol would quickly do so as well. It's simpe natural selection. If all the drunks and druggies die of overdoses, and all the criminals get quickly killed off by armed citizens, then the world would be a safer, more pleasant place to live. It's a shame this concept is so far beyond the comprehention of the "If it feels good, do it." crowd.
 
It's a shame this concept is so far beyond the comprehention of the "If it feels good, do it." crowd.
Click to expand...

They are probably to fried to figure it out...:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by JDBraddy
All restrictions come down to benefits of restriction vs non-restriction. No mater if you are restricting kives, guns, alcahol or narcotics. We sould have learned this lesson in the 1920-30's with prohibition, but what can I say, some people are too dim-witted to learn from other peoples misteaks! Since only a small fraction of society is truely predatory, the world would be a better place if we did not restrict things. If everyone had unrestricted access to kinives and guns, and no need to fear the consequences of using them in self defence, criminals who use them to commit their crimes, would quickly seal their own fate, substance abusers with access to unlimited supplies of inexpensive drugs and alcahol would quickly do so as well. It's simpe natural selection. If all the drunks and druggies die of overdoses, and all the criminals get quickly killed off by armed citizens, then the world would be a safer, more pleasant place to live. It's a shame this concept is so far beyond the comprehention of the "If it feels good, do it." crowd.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that is not the info I need...:(
 
There are specific laws against concealed weapons. If a weapon is concealed it is a lot more dangerous to citizens and LE. Concealment also in way make a weapon less effective. If a weapon in plain site it can work as a deterant. If an criminal looks down and see your pocket clip or holster it may make him change his mind about attacking you. The element of surprise is more valuable in an offenive manner.

It is true that if an criminal see your weapon he can change his attack but the same is true for LE.
 
Throughout the legislative history of this country, it has been proven time and again that banning products or objects never produces any particular good. The problem is that, since the behaviors people want to eliminate are already illegal and voters clamor for more action, the only thing left for the politician to do to respond is to ban an object. Objects, after all, don't vote.
 
I believe that if "they" would enforce the laws we already have..(HAD) then we wouldn't need any new laws. ;)

And all the "NEW" laws do is hurt the law abiding people. And makes them and easier target for the crooks..

The crooks will do what they want anyway.
 
Originally posted by HotSwat
There are specific laws against concealed weapons. If a weapon is concealed it is a lot more dangerous to citizens and LE. Concealment also in way make a weapon less effective. If a weapon in plain site it can work as a deterant. If an criminal looks down and see your pocket clip or holster it may make him change his mind about attacking you. The element of surprise is more valuable in an offenive manner.

It is true that if an criminal see your weapon he can change his attack but the same is true for LE.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree, believe concealed weapons are even more effective as a deterent, as the offender can never be sure who is armed and who is not, and theirfore risks life and limb every time he commits a crime. Thus, concealed weapons protect both those who carry them, and those who do not! Concealed weapons are equally benificial to law enforcment, they reduce "Awareness" of weapons, thus law enforcment doesn't have to deal with as much unreasonable public fear of those who legally cary, and concealed carry promotes safe and fair practices among law enforcment, such as approching all individuals as if they had the same potenial to be armed. The element of surprise will always be sought in any offencive situation, as no one using a knife or gun for offensive purposes will seek to comply with any laws reguarding the weapons carry or use anyway. However, surprise can also be equally effective in a defensive situation, as the offender is more likely to underestimate the defensive capabilities of his intended victom, then suddenly find himself to be the one in trouble! It also serves to deter diarmament, as if the offender can see you are carrying, he can get the drop on you, and disarm you. If he cannot determine if you are carrying, he will not as easily be able to disarm you, and you can choose to wait for a window of opportunity to more safely draw or employ your weapon. Your statements about concealed carry assumes certain things, and reflects the same faulty logic that fuels avocacy of gun control. It assumes that those who use guns to commit crimes, will seek to, or be forced to abide by the gun control laws, of corse in reality criminals will seek to circumvent or violate any restrictive laws, this is what makes them criminals in the first place, and that's why restriction doesn't work! I carry concealed, and in fifteen years of concealed carry, I'm pleased to say, I've never needed to draw or brandish my weapon. If I ever do, I certainly want to have the advantage of choosing when and how I wish to employ that weapon in my defence. If the weapon is not concealed, I loose that advantage.
 
if those restrictions work, you can hardly realize the effect - for instance, if anti-terrosimn operations function in time, nothing happens. and nobody realizes what they actually prevented from happening.
restrictions like the ones on knifes could only be proved right by criminal statistics, then again they have been rasing ever since, so not it's not a sure thing to tell.


rag


*edited for not receiving emails anymore
 
Yeah, here in the US we have the most restictive weapons laws that we have ever had and Crime continues to rise...Go Figure..:rolleyes:


So much for laws solving the problem...;)
 
I'm a writer. Sounds to me like the thing you need to edit is this Profesor... from your life! If I still did things my grandpas way I think I'd be up sh!t creek... THere is no formula for writing. There is no a + b = satisfied reader. No Way No How. I think your Prof needs an ego massage. Cater to this BS and your on your way to being a real life conformist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top