Knife discrimination

Status
Not open for further replies.
EngrSorenson said:
Everyone has sufficiently covered the appropriate disbelief and corresponding comments, to which I can’t add much, but I will say one thing in defense of the OP’s misinformed, derpy anti-knife person: it’s hard to casually deploy an OTF auto. Even Shirley Temple would look like she’s gonna cut a sucker. That said, carry ‘um if you want to, because I don’t think that person has spent enough time learning about knives to have a respectable opinion.

Off topic: Wasn’t there a movie where the protagonist coached a sailor via radio through slitting a bad guys throat with his SAK to save the ship… or was it a submarine? D Danke42 , you know the one I’m talking about? Might have had Steven Seagal in it, but it wasn’t “Under Siege”.
Click to expand...
That was a Peanuts Halloween special. They don't play it anymore.
 
David Mary said:
If I may make a guess as to Bob's point, it might be something to do with the more accessible that laws (or the lack thereof) make something, the more often and easily it will find its way into the hands of bad actors. So balanced laws that limit accessibility as much as possible to the law abiding and from criminals is perhaps what he is advocating rather than no laws at all.

Bob, forgive me if I am off base, as I said it was a guess.
Click to expand...
Sorry, had to finish my workout.

I get the point, I just disagree with it. I personally made an operable AK from scrap parts I ordered, without any restrictions (my kid could have ordered them), because they are considered garbage. It took some tools, some know how, and a lot of swearing but...... when it was done I had built an AK. (I'm getting to the knives, bear with me)

They have been trying to limit access since 1934 with the NFA (which I oppose with all other gun laws) and it simply does not work. They found an operable firearm, built from scrap, in a PRISON. that means - if you made this country as restrictive as a prison, we would still have guns. (I swear, I'm coming back around to knives)

No, I think trying to limit access only achieves two things: (1) it harms those inclined to follow laws. There are actual examples of people KILLED during their "waiting period" (2) it fuels a black market the same as alcohol and drug prohibition have.

This is with tools as complex as guns. Knives? Sheesh, anyone with a piece of metal and some concrete (to rub it on) can "tool up". Try limiting access to that.

No, I totally understand your (or rather Bob's) opinion, I just wholeheartedly disagree with it. Liberty carries risks, that's a fact, but trading even a little of it for the illusion of safety..... count me out.
 
Trailer_Ape said:
Sorry, had to finish my workout.
Click to expand...

Should never apologize for that!

Let's take a step back. Bob said some firearms laws are useful, you say abolish all firearms laws. Law prohibiting felons from ownership of firearms seems like a useful law.
 
Weird US Laws:

i-HjnSdnD-X2.jpg


From: https://www.farandwide.com/s/weird-laws-united-states-5ec88a12367547fd

:D
 
David Mary said:
Should never apologize for that!

Let's take a step back. Bob said some firearms laws are useful, you say abolish all firearms laws. Law prohibiting felons from ownership of firearms seems like a useful law.
Click to expand...
I agree, that is a very useful law! So that we can LOCK THEM UP when we catch them doing it - it's not going to PREVENT them from doing it!

I am not in favor of abolishing all gun laws - or even all knife laws. Only the ones that apply to law-abiding citizens.
 
I am not smart enough to know what the laws should necessarily be. I just know that while law in general is good and necessary to society, it can also become perverted enough to destroy it.
 
Trailer_Ape said:
In all the time I have been a cop, I have never seen a "law" stop anyone from doing what they were compelled to do. We got laws against meth, I've seized plenty of it. Laws against rape, I've worked several. I've seen MULTIPLE restraining orders ignored. People routinely hurt each other, with disregard to whether or not it is "legal" and we should worry about what type of knife they have?!?! I don't.

Laws do not stop crime, force does.

Actions effect others, possessions don't. The gun in your trunk shouldnt be my concern, the one you aim at me should be.

And if you think there would be consequences to having too much liberty, are you not concerned about the consequences of too much tyranny?
Click to expand...

Trailer_Ape said:
Sorry, had to finish my workout.

I get the point, I just disagree with it. I personally made an operable AK from scrap parts I ordered, without any restrictions (my kid could have ordered them), because they are considered garbage. It took some tools, some know how, and a lot of swearing but...... when it was done I had built an AK. (I'm getting to the knives, bear with me)

They have been trying to limit access since 1934 with the NFA (which I oppose with all other gun laws) and it simply does not work. They found an operable firearm, built from scrap, in a PRISON. that means - if you made this country as restrictive as a prison, we would still have guns. (I swear, I'm coming back around to knives)

No, I think trying to limit access only achieves two things: (1) it harms those inclined to follow laws. There are actual examples of people KILLED during their "waiting period" (2) it fuels a black market the same as alcohol and drug prohibition have.

This is with tools as complex as guns. Knives? Sheesh, anyone with a piece of metal and some concrete (to rub it on) can "tool up". Try limiting access to that.

No, I totally understand your (or rather Bob's) opinion, I just wholeheartedly disagree with it. Liberty carries risks, that's a fact, but trading even a little of it for the illusion of safety..... count me out.
Click to expand...
Nice write up, thanks for sharing your opinion. I agree with pretty much everything typed.

While we strive for a civil society, it is unfortunate but necessary that force be utilized.

The majority of laws only seem to affect the law-abiding.

It is also known that laws can actually cause people who would normally comply to find ways to circumvent.
 
The position that "laws don't stop or prevent crime" should consider the flip side: If (hypothetically speaking) laws against murder, rape, etc. were abolished, do you think that the instances of those crimes would remain stable, decrease, or increase? I am of the opinion that such laws, and the penalties and enforcement thereof, do actually prevent many such crimes from happening, though not all such crimes. But take away those laws, and I bet you'd have a lot of formerly would-be criminals coming out of the closet.
 
David Mary said:
The position that "laws don't stop or prevent crime" should consider the flip side: If (hypothetically speaking) laws against murder, rape, etc. were abolished, do you think that the instances of those crimes would remain stable, decrease, or increase? I am of the opinion that such laws, and the penalties and enforcement thereof, do actually prevent many such crimes from happening, though not all such crimes. But take away those laws, and I bet you'd have a lot of formerly would-be criminals coming out of the closet.
Click to expand...
That is actually a great point!

I misunderstood. I thought we were discussing laws that involve the sale, possession, ownership, etc. of knives (primarily, but also perhaps firearms and other tools that can be misused as weapons). That was obviously a bad assumption on my part.

Laws that prohibit the sale, possession, ownership, etc. of knives (and firearms, hammers, baseball bats, crow bars, etc) to law-abiding citizens seem to unfairly penalize law-abiding citizens without a significant, tangible benefit to society - in my opinion. I don't consider giving a "warm, fuzzy, false sense of security" to a certain segment of the population a significant, tangible benefit. But that's just my opinion, once again.
 
David Mary said:
The position that "laws don't stop or prevent crime" should consider the flip side: If (hypothetically speaking) laws against murder, rape, etc. were abolished, do you think that the instances of those crimes would remain stable, decrease, or increase? I am of the opinion that such laws, and the penalties and enforcement thereof, do actually prevent many such crimes from happening, though not all such crimes. But take away those laws, and I bet you'd have a lot of formerly would-be criminals coming out of the closet.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, and agree that laws are certainly useful, and help define what a society outlines as acceptable or unacceptable behaviors.

However, to ban a tool or book of matches or pointy metal thingy or create parameters seems like we are missing the mark.

I want a tank. Why can't I have one?

:) 😁
 
Mitchell Knives said:
I thought that as well until I realized that many people became felons for non violent offenses.
Click to expand...

Also a great point. I don't necessarily think that just any ol' non-violent felony should be exempted from the prohibition, mind you, as many of these betray a predatory or at least exploitative and/or entitled attitude that I would not want to see empowered with the right to keep and bear arms.
 
MolokaiRider said:
I get what you are saying, and agree that laws are certainly useful, and help define what a society outlines as acceptable or unacceptable behaviors.

However, to ban a tool or book of matches or pointy metal thingy or create parameters seems like we are missing the mark.

I want a tank. Why can't I have one?

:) 😁
Click to expand...
Lots of people have tanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top