knee-jerk quote: "Who are these people?!?"

Maybe I just have a strange view of things, but here I go anyways. I dont think that the people who want to take our knives make any distinction between tools and weapons. They have tried to take all knives away from us long before the "tactical knife" craze. Weapons or tools, makes no difference to them.

Also, I do not know why people think its so bad to call a knife a weapon. First off, my knives are tools. They are capable of filling the weapon role if needed. I find that many knife people look down with disgust at people who consider knives a weapons. Fine, call them what you want. I personally see "weapons" as an acceptable and good reason for carrying one if you choose. Carrying a weapon is nothing to be ashamed of, and why anybody would be embarresed or insulting of a person who does is beyond me. Some people are nervous when citizens choose to carry guns or knives. Personally I feel better about it.

It is popular with some to call those who think of a knife as a weapon paranoid, or scared little insecure folks. I am completely the opposite. I feel if a person carries a gun or knife with the proper attitude to use it in defense of your life or that of a loved one to be responsable and good. There are people killed everyday in this country by scumbags. Perhaps if these victims had been a bit more "paranoid" or "insecure" and carried an object that would serve as a weapon, they may have had a chance, no guarantee of course, but a chance.

Knives are tools first. But also realizing that they could be used as a weapon if needed is nothing at all to be ashamed of.
 
Phil, on that piece of paper of yours, be certain that defending your family, your friends, and yourself is among the uses of that gun or even tactical knife. Now add up all those uses for that small folder you like and decide if they are in their entirety as important.

The fact is, if everyone on those planes had a gun or a useful knife, the only people who would be dead today would be the 18 miserable bastards who truly deserve to be.

I just can't understand why the simply stated principles of our Constitution are so difficult to understand. Armed honest citizens on those airplanes would have instantly become a citizen militia who would have defended their families, fellow passengers, innocent office workers in NY and DC, country and themselves from those or any other terrorists who have no need of laws nor recognition of civilized human values. This simple principle is the basis of our independence, and the sole insurance of our remaining such.
 
I might add that just minutes earlier on the same broadcast, the middle-aged reporter was talking to some expert on something (sorry, can't remember on what) who was advocating the importance of having pilots trained and armed with guns, plus a 5-minute door, which would take about 5 minutes for hijackers to break through to get into the pilots' cabin. The pilots then would have time to unlock the gun boxes, get out their guns, and shoot the first person to come through that door. Makes sense to me. This guest expert was one of the few "experts" who said a series of things that made sense. He also made it clear that it would be then up to the passengers to be responsible to do what they had to do to overcome or resist the hijackers. He mentioned that the hijackers might take down 4, maybe 5 passengers, but they could not take them all down.

What was not brought up was that it would be much, much more efficient and probably life-saving to the passengers to resist armed hijackers if the passengers were themselves armed.

But I will say...how in the hell is a tiny keychain-sized SAK considered a heinous weapon??? I seriously doubt anyone could hijack a plane using a Victorinox Classic, even the most wild-eyed fanatic. I use mine for light grooming and connecting my steno machine to my computer. And it's so small and non-locking/utilitarian that I don't see how it could be mistaken for anything but.
Jim
 
Richard and Jerry have both hammered home the points I was trying to make, and more eloquently than that of which I was capable, apparently. Thank you, guys.
 
Not wantin' to add any fuel, but......I believe that there are more times that a knife has be used to "defend" against a non-person danger, (such as cutting a rope to save a person or horse), than against a human danger. The "adversary" in "self protection" is not often a human one. A tactical knife IMO, is one designed to be "At The Ready" for whatever emergency might present itself. It doesn't have to be large, it does have to be easily accessible, reliable and sharp. It doesn't have to be flashed.

If you are going to be considerate of others, then you must consider the possibility that you are triggering their fear. "Why" they might be afraid is not a question or something to argue. When reality presents itself, a mirror is often a good personal learning tool.

sal
 
Sal:
Thanks for the perspective.
A few years ago on a flight over India (I think) a child began choking. A doctor on board rushed over, then called out if anyone had a knife. Luckily another passenger handed him a Swiss Army knife. The doctor used it to perform a tracheotomy and saved the child's life. (I read this once on Victorinox's site).

This may be an extreme case, but it shows but one example where an available knife is a life-saving tool. What if you need to quickly exit the plane for some emergency and you are somehow stuck, either by clothing or the seatbelt, or whatever. I agree that a knife more often will be used for normal utility and can even be used in a life-saving role.
Jim
 
Originally posted by Sal Glesser
Not wantin' to add any fuel, but......I believe that there are more times that a knife has be used to "defend" against a non-person danger, (such as cutting a rope to save a person or horse), than against a human danger. The "adversary" in "self protection" is not often a human one. A tactical knife IMO, is one designed to be "At The Ready" for whatever emergency might present itself. It doesn't have to be large, it does have to be easily accessible, reliable and sharp. It doesn't have to be flashed.
Click to expand...
That's a very good point, Sal -- and a one-hand opening, locking knife with at least a 3-inch blade is probably the perfect tool for dealing with such adversities. Sadly, because a knife that meets the design criteria requried for it to be useful for such utility and emergency tasks is also easily and effectively used as a weapon, it will always be viewed as such by those with an hysterical need to "control" such tools. They will do so on the grounds that access to these implements by their fellow citizens constitutes an imminent threat to public safety. I don't believe anyone here is advocating "flashing" such a knife.
If you are going to be considerate of others, then you must consider the possibility that you are triggering their fear. "Why" they might be afraid is not a question or something to argue.
Click to expand...
Here I disagree. I, in the course of my lawful, peaceful activities, never do anything to give a rational person reason to be afraid. Anyone who is then terrified by my possession of a Swiss Army Knife as I attempt to board a plane, or who quakes in fear at the sight of the pocket clip attached to my jeans, is behaving in an irrational manner.
When reality presents itself, a mirror is often a good personal learning tool.
Click to expand...
True enough. Reality corresponds to certain rational, logical principles, however. I think those of us disagreeing with Phil's points (which are nonetheless cogently stated) are arguing against the irrational attitudes taken by those who seek the bans we are discussing, rather than indicting those people for reasonable opinions.

I am appreciative as always that you participate in these forums; I wish more knife manufacturers did.

Respectfully,
 
I saw one of the airport "knife prohibited" signs on television. It's no surprise that the outline of the knife was a big fixed blade and not a SAK with little scissors and a corkscrew sticking out of the handle. Perception does shape reality, and I agree with Phil that as long as the primary purpose of a knife is perceived as "weapon" then that is what it is. I think people DO make a distintion between tools and weapons. If the picture with the red slash through it at the airport was a SAK, how many people would think it was a silly rule?
An offensive weapon or a defensive weapon is a weapon. I'm not saying it makes a difference what you call it. I'm saying its the perception. Razoredj, while I have a great respect for your intelligence I do not agree that you can't separate guns and knives. I may be one of the few on this forum not to own a gun, but that is my choice. I also choose my knife as a tool. I would try to use it as a weapon if my life depended on it, but I would try to use a pen, book, or chair as a weapon if my life depended on it.
I don't guess I've made any point here, other than to say I side with Phill. There are good points on both sides, and I'm glad we can come here and discuss them.
G.
 
Originally posted by Jerry Hossom
Phil, on that piece of paper of yours, be certain that defending your family, your friends, and yourself is among the uses of that gun or even tactical knife. Now add up all those uses for that small folder you like and decide if they are in their entirety as important.

The fact is, if everyone on those planes had a gun or a useful knife, the only people who would be dead today would be the 18 miserable bastards who truly deserve to be.
Click to expand...

Jerry, do me a favor and keep your eyes on your own paper and don't tell me what to put on mine, okay?

And really the fact is you don't know what any of the FACTS in this case are, do you? You can imagine all the Steven Segal scenarios you want, but none of us know what we would do in that situation, we weren't there.
 
People who would sacrafice freedom for security are cowards. And they are stupid. They rely on others to protect them, and then have the audacity to call those who protect them paranoid. I saw a great cartoon that hit the nail on the head with these people. It may have been an NRA publication, but went something like this: Two neighbors were talking and one was obviously upset because the other had guns and the first was against them. So the one with guns puts a sign in his yard telling all criminals that the house next door did not believe in guns, which of course upset the first neighbor (the sheeple), who in actuality depended on the fact that some of his neighbors owned guns to give him some protection.

This is the sheeple mindset. Stupidity and cowardice, hiding behind a guise of moral superiority. They do not even have the guts to admit that they are just cowards and underserving of the freedoms they enjoy.
 
Originally posted by Gary Hudson
Razoredj, while I have a great respect for your intelligence I do not agree that you can't separate guns and knives.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much, Gary; you flatter me. I really do understand your point (and those made by Phil). I just don't share your conclusions. I, too, am glad we can come here to discuss these matters.
 
Originally posted by PhilL
Jerry, do me a favor and keep your eyes on your own paper and don't tell me what to put on mine, okay?
Click to expand...

I assumed "defending your family, your friends, and yourself" might have been important to you. Apparently I was wrong. I stand corrected.
 
Originally posted by Gary Hudson
I do not agree that you can't separate guns and knives.
G.
Click to expand...

You can seperate them all you want but the fact remains that taking one away involves the same principles that take the other away.
Bob
 
Originally posted by Jerry Hossom


I assumed "defending your family, your friends, and yourself" might have been important to you. Apparently I was wrong. I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Jerry, I can only hope you're not trying to make some connection between carrying weapons and loving one's family, because that would be incredibly stupid wouldn't it? :confused:
 
I think Jerry WAS trying to make a connection between owning defensive tools and loving one's family. And his point is not the least bit stupid.
 
Ahhhhhh I see.
So following that logic the more weapons I carry and the more deadly they are is just a way of showing love and concern for my family, interesting?

I like the way you think, nothing says love better than an AK-47. :rolleyes:

Well, I sure can't argue with that logic.
 
Originally posted by Jerry Hossom
I assumed "defending your family, your friends, and yourself" might have been important to you.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by PhilL
Jerry, I can only hope you're not trying to make some connection between carrying weapons and loving one's family, because that would be incredibly stupid wouldn't it? :confused:
Click to expand...
Perhaps, PhilL, you wouldn't be so confused if you had quoted Jerry correctly. He did not make a connection between carrying a weapon and loving one's family; he made a connection between carrying a weapon and defending one's family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top