Our laws are all about intent. (which is the way I believe it should be) It is a crime to carry any "dangerous weapon" with intent to use it unlawfully against another person. If you don't intend to hurt someone unlawfully, they don't care what you've got or how you carry it, guns excepted.
The problem is when LEOs state "intent" when there is none.
This is subjective, based on assumptions and opinion, and i see it as a problem.
LE in my state varies from lacadasical to overzealous depending upon jurisdiction. I can tell you which jurisdictions you better not be seen in a leather jacket, for example. It's cities and towns like those that i see as a major problem. Of course, depending on the judge for fair treatment is fruitless, as they always go by what the report states, and i've seen a few first hand.
Running a town in a manner such as to promote a "peacefull, retirement community and well-lit neighborhood" by means of employing Nazi tactics has not been effective so far as i can tell.
Eh, what do i know? ... aside from where to not wear leather that is.
I find London, England a pretty good example of what happens when you take knives, stun guns, and firearms... bunch em into the same catagory: Weapons of Mass Destruction, then ban them all and consider possession of any the equivelent to USA's felony. Only criminals have the weapons, and crime escalates dramatically, leaving citizens no practical forms of defense for their families. The LEOs don't even carry firearms there. I don't know exactly how strict London is on blades, but i understand it's rather pathetic. Someday it'll probably be just like that in the USA.