KNIVES AS WEAPONS... What is the problem?

Anthony Cheeseboro: You and I may agree about .22 rifles and .30-06 rifles being "hunting tools", but I don't recommend trying to take those "tools" to England, or Mexico, or any of OVER 50% of all nations currently seated at the UN.

You'll be jailed if you do.

Where guns go, knives follow. Look at England's restrictions, and Australia is rapidly approaching that level if it ain't there already.

That's what comes of "legitimate non-weapon use only".

Jim
 
Responsibility and awareness - In my opinion, determines wether a knife is a tool or a weapon.
wink.gif


Sam

------------------
have spydies
will travel...
 
Yeah, self defense becames less and less accepted. For instance, there is a new law in France that states: if you have a "potentially dangerous" dog, you shoud pay an ensurance (in case it bites somebody). The future step will be to take out his teeth, so it couldn't harm an eventual burgler that penetrates your home
smile.gif
. In lots of european countries all locking-folders are illegal (even a 1" one). Not speaking about autos or fixed blades.
 
OK, I'm one of the 'Tool' guys. I truly do not carry knives with the intention of using them as weapons. I do not train in knife fighting, or self-defense.

But I think the use of edged weapons for the purpose of self defense is perfectly legitimate. So are discussions about this issue. I do get tired of the some of blood lust crazed teenage male postings. They strike me as remarkably immature and irresponsible and likely to get themselves into a lot of unecessary trouble.

On the other hand, I respect, understand, and admire Jim March's position and personal crusade. There is No constitutionally guaranteed right to carry tools. There IS a right to bear arms (weapons of any sort). It is this right which is slowly being attacked, limited, restricted, and will possibly be eliminated altogether.

I am not in favor of Any weapons carry restrictions on peacable law abiding citizens. It is only possible to punish behavior. It is impossible to prevent violent crime by banning ownership and carry of weapons (of any kind).

Jim feels that the political battle to preserve the right to own, carry, and collect knives (and guns) is best fought on defense of 2nd amendement rights. I'm not so sure.

The American Knife and Tool Institute (AKTI) is trying to promote the rights of knife owners by emphasizing the legitimate Need to carry tools. Any reference to weapons use is frowned upon. This is mostly a capitulation to the hysterical and irrational fear of knives by the sheeple, who appear to be More afraid of being Cut than Shot. Blade Magazine has recently changed its editorial policy to exclude references to knives as weapons in articles and advertisements.

I don't know which approach is more likely to succeed in preserving the rights of knife (and gun) owners. Since I collect knives as tools and as Art, never as weapons, I am drawn more to the tool arguement. But as that has no Constitutional backing, that may be a flawed approach. On the other hand, I am not at all certain that the NRA's position about the absolute and unrestricted right of American Citizens to own and possess Any form of weapon makes sense either. Should we all be allowed to have and carry a small thermonuclear device?

A Few Thoughts about Tools:

1. All weapons are tools

2. Some tools are weapons

3. Some tools can be used as weapons.

4. Tools can be used properly

5. Tools can be used improperly. Improper use of tools is very dangerous

6. A thing is just a thing. It becomes something when someone's mind or actions makes it something

7. Not all tools are things

8. Words are tools

9. Words can be used as weapons both defensively and offensively

10. We should all try to use tools responsibly and wisely


Paracelsus, wondering around the universe
 
Paracelsus: the more I study constitutional issues, the more I think the question of "what should we own" can be phrased one of two ways:

1) Under 1790s-style views of the 2nd Amendment, "we the people" have a duty to be armed with *personal* (versus crew-served) weapons adequate to serve as a check and balance against central authority gone gonzo.

Due to a quirk of history, the personal Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles used by ordinary citizens ("the militia") in the Revolution were more accurate than the British "Brown Bess" infantry smoothbores. Picture the Brits having M16s and the colonists having FAL308s and you'll get some idea of the difference.

Having the citizenry be better armed than at least the common foot soldiers of the central authority would NOT have struck Madison, Jefferson or the rest of those radicals as a "bad thing"
smile.gif
.

2) Alternately, you can view the 2nd "as modified by the 14th" as supporting the armed state of black individuals or townships at a level able to throw off lynch mobs of Klansmen or similar. Several sources point to black armament in the post-civil-war South as being a key civil right the all-Northern legislature of 1866-68 was trying to pass down.

SOURCES:

Yale Professor of law Akhil Reed Amar, "The Bill Of Rights".

Attorney Stephen Hallbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed" (specifically studies the links between the 14th and black RKBA as a civil right).

Suggested reading: go look up the infamous 1850s US Supreme Court case "Dred Scott", in which the "justices" talk about why blacks will never be granted citizenship or full civil rights: doing so would infer upon them the same "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) that whites enjoyed, therefore black citizenship was unthinkable.

For that matter, Justice Buford writing for the majority in Watson vs. Stone, Florida Supreme Court 1941, on why a white dude should be let go even though he was packing a gun without a "permit":

"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied."

Care to guess what happened in 1893? A black township outside of Gainsville FL was raided by nightriders...the townsmen shot back with 15-shot leverguns (the "assault rifle" of it's day) and revolvers.

Sure enough, the first version of this sick FL "permit" system applied to "leverguns and revolvers".

Listen well: no government that wants to disarm you is your friend. That is NO JOKE. Fight them in court, fight them in the media, fight them at the voting booth with everything you've got, or one day you'll be fighting them in the streets or choosing slavery.

Jim
 
Folks, I have become, in the last 10 years, a member of the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers. The Quakers have a long-standing and well-known position on the use of violence: they oppose it in any form and for any reason. You may ask what I am doing in these fora, I occasionally ask that of myself. I keep coming up with different answers, but they all share the some aspects, one of which is that I wasn't always a Quaker. I have long loved knives as both weapons and as tools, and I have appreciated their beauty and efficiency as both. The traditional Bowie Knife is, to me, one of the most wickedly beautiful devices ever made by mankind, as is the Roman Mainz style gladius hispaniensis (Spanish shortsword, see my posting in this poster's thread in the Sword Forum for more detail on this), and also the swept-hilt rapier of the 16th -17th Centuries (see "The Three Musketeers" or Inigo Montoya's rapier in "The Princess Bride"). I can make no claims for these as tools, but, by God, are they beautiful. A gorgeous modern example would be one of "Tinker" Pearce's wonderful handmade Highland Dirks. But, as a Quaker, I will not carry a weapon. I can and do always carry at least one tool, however. My current choices are a StarMate where legal and a BF Native elsewhere. Yes, they can also be weapons, but I CHOOSE to see them as tools. Now for the $64,000 question: "Would I use one of them to defend myself or, God forbid, someone I love?" I cannot answewr that in the absence of the situation, as I just do not know. For me, alone, I hope and think that I might remember Jesus's recommendation to "turn the other cheek". But Jesus also asked his followers to sell their cloaks to buy swords if they had none, so His instructions are not so straightforward as some Quakers would have you believe. Of course, when Peter pulled out a sword to strike off the ear of the High Priest's servant on the night of Jesus's arrest, Jesus told him to put away his sword and healed the servant's ear. Bottom line is that I might, just might, be more willing to stand down where I am concerned than where someone I love is concerned. But I just don't really know.

Mike and Spark, I am sorry for the religion, but how do you discuss pacifism without discussing its religious bases, at least for me as a Quaker.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
FullerH, please don't apologize for your beliefs. You have as much a right to bring religion into this discussion as anyone has to bring other rationalizations. By the way, I also am concerned about those who carry weapons with the intention to apply that kind of force first.

As far as knives as weapons...When I was growing up, in New York and Michigan, all boys had pocket knives. They were not considered weapons, but tools (and frankly toys). Times have changed. Our society (speaking of the United States)is so paranoid about things that might hurt - guns, knives, coffee. And everybody sues everybody else. I'm appalled at laws that restrict some freedoms while opening wide the floodgates in other areas.

Vote, right your congresspersons, keep aware. Regardless of how we refer to knives - as tools, toys or weapons, there are those who see them only as weapons and will do their best to "disarm" us.

Rhetoric, not logic, applies when discussing anything that could possible be used to harm someone.

One good look at "zero tolerance" at schools for knives or "sharp pointy things" shows the direction US law is heading.

Paracelsus - great comments. By the way, do you know where I can get a nuke with a pocket clip? (Please, anyone reading this - it's a joke!!)

Dean





------------------
"All is well. And all will be well - in the garden." Chance the Gardener
 
I can't speak for Mike or Spark, Hugh, but from my perspective, I don't think you have stepped over the line. I'm not a Quaker nor likely to become one, but I can sympathize. You have certainly mentioned religious topics, but you haven't tried to proselytize or convert anyone. This topic is potentially divisive, but so far it has stayed pretty well under control and even in disagreement, most people have stated their reasoning in very polite terms.

I tend to fall into the sort of "side" that includes you and Paracelsus, but I have a lot of respect for Jim March and his reasoning too. I tend to feel that we need both kinds of publicity. I carry and use my knife constantly as an everyday tool and everyone who knows me knows that I have peaceful uses for it and a peaceful intent. OTOH, I would use whatever I had if I needed it in a defensive situtation. I also see Jim's very fine point that we do need to ensure that the public at large understands the benefits of people being able to defend themselves.

Still, I tend to fall on the "tool" end of the spectrum, myself, and I very much like the point of "usefulness in all sorts of emergencies." I certainly never fail to point out to my (9-yo) son the stupidity of all the idiotic people in TV plots who wouldn't be in the fix they're in if they just had half a brain and the concomittant sense to carry a knife.
smile.gif



------------------
Paul Neubauer
prn@bsu.edu
If the odds are a million to one against something occurring, chances are 50-50 it will.
 
Everything everyone has said so far: Yes.
wink.gif

------------------
Yeah, well, people ... They're just not my bag

[This message has been edited by willOthewisp (edited 08-07-2000).]
 
On pacifism, three quick points:

1) What would Jesus have done if he'd come upon the victim the good Samaritan helped - while the victim was being attacked?

I can't picture him standing there watching the beating.

2) The old "Law of Moses" the Jews lived under pre-Christ was a complete God-given recipe for a human government on earth. There was a justice system, humane treatment of animals rules, a welfare system for widows and orphans, a public health code that included quarantine for exposure to "unclean" things, etc.

There was also nothing remotely like "gun control". They had archery, swords, spears and knives - and *nobody* was prohibited from carry, not by age, or gender, or national origin.

3) Nowhere in the Bible is weapon ownership condemned. Weapon MISUSE, heck ya, all over the place. But to take one example: when one of Jesus' disciples chopped the ear off that Roman when they came to arrest Christ, Jesus corrected the disciple for that specific situation (and then fixed the ear) but he didn't make comment one about the sword carry itself.

Fuller, that alone should make you feel better about your Starmate and Native, or anything bigger.

I've saved a man's life when he was being beaten to death in public, much like that hypothetical "altered Samaritan" story above. Not bragging, just fact. I can't ever see being embarassed about that, or the knife carry that made it possible.

Jim
 
I certainly wouldn't want to use my SAK as a weapon... But my Spyderco's are perfectly capable. I work as a security guard at a shipyard, and while the people there are very friendly most of the time, some of the people coming off the ships can have nasty attitudes, and so do the people that get ripped off by the cab drivers... The rules say no weapons, which they say includes knives. Several other security officers carry pocket knives(spotted a very dull CRKT), as well as shipyard workers. The knives MAY get used as weapons, but there really isn't anything to do until it is(unless they start cracking down on knife carriers like they did with the people downloading porn on their breaks). I'd rather get fired than walk around without the neccesary equipment on an industrial site. They say that safety is the most important factor of anything on the site, and I totally agree - and my knives are a part of my safety. Wouldn't you hate to get tangled up in some rope without a knife? LOL - There's even an interesting Bill of Rights Day flyer in the cafeteria - kinda faded, but I think it's from the JPFO. They may be able to kick you out if you carry a weapon, but they can't stop you from talking!
smile.gif


Here's something really neat! From the August 2000 issue of Bicycling, page 42, talking about tools for bike repair.

"A hammer is like a handgun - the danger is in the hand that grips it" - and then they go on talking about hammers. I nearly fainted when I saw that! Pretty risky to put such a seemingly pro-gun message into anything these days...


------------------
John Rollins Jr KD7BCY
http://jrollins.tripod.com/
http://www.geocities.com/jrollins.geo/
 
Jim, you may remember that I once, back in 1991., did have to use a knife, a Black TiN Spydie Police as a weapon. That was before I became a Quaker and the threat of my producing such an evil-looking thing scared the punks off, may the Lord be thanked. As you also know, I am one of the first to try to disabuse first-time posters of the notion, what I call the Crocodile Dundee Fantasy, that simply showing a knife will be enough to end an incident. When you produce an object that may be seen as a deadly weapon, you have escalated the level of violence or of potential violence to deadly force and you had better be ready to back up that threat of escalation because, if you are not, your opponent may well be ready and you will be in a world of hurt! In my case, I was prepared in both training and in psychology to use the knife. Any decision that I may make today must be made in the light of that background and in the light of my physical infirmity, arthritis.

Jim, I will not debate you on the question of the Quakers' Testimony to Nonviolence. I will only say that it is one of the oldest and most established positions that we have. But, as with with most things Quaker, it is not a matter of creed. We are not, in any way required to comply with any standard of nonviolent behavior. It is up to each of us to try to understand what that teaching means to us at our point in our spiritual journey. One basic Quaker tenet is that there is a little bit of God (the Light of God) in each and every one of us, and that killing another human being is to kill that little piece of God. Now that is a very serious matter to us and that is what has led to the Testimony to Nonviolence, to opposition to wars by many, to opposition to the death penalty by some, and so forth. The variations are many and varied.

Rdaneel, Mike and Spark have very reasonably requested that religious discussion be kept to a minimum here because it has led to some absolutely ferocious flame wars that they have had to use asbestos to put out, and we all know how dangerous asbestos is to those who use it. Anyone who wishes to discuss Quakers and their beliefs further, you have my email above, please use it. I must add this, howewver, after 8/10/00, I will have access to a computer only sporadically, if at all, until 8/23/00, as I will be on vacation at my sister's farm in mid-Ohio. I will be going to the CART race, though. Yeah! Go Michael Andretti!

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
In a perfectly peaceful world, or, failing that, a world where there were other weapons I could have which would be better than a knife under all conditions, I would still carry knives, and maybe a bigger knife than I carry now, because nobody would be afraid of it any more.

A knife is the universal tool that makes possible, at one stage or another in their creation, all useful material things that we cannot find in nature. The hairy-armed person who first put an edge on a suitable rock, perhaps to peel the fruit of the tree of knowledge, allowed our species to alter nature, making moral choices both necessary and possible.

And one kind of moral choice is to attack, or to defend, or not. Any knife that one can use to do the sort of work a knife is made to do is probably a knife that one can use to do lethal damage in a fight, God forbid.

And a knife, when seen as a weapon, is one of the most politically incorrect weapons an individual is likely to own - worse than a sword or a gun. A knife is a sneak's weapon (thieves, spies, assassins), or it is the weapon of people who are not expected to defend themselves (peasants, women).

There are jurisdictions where one may fairly easily qualify to lawfully carry a gun, which are very restrictive on knives. Try asking your local law enforcement people how to apply for a permit to carry, not a gun, but a concealed dagger.

Knives, as weapons, have been "politically incorrect" for a very long time, from before anybody heard of a liberal, and probably from before Julius Caesar went for a walk on the Ides of March. The prejudice against going about armed with a knife (as opposed to going about equipped with a knife) may be due to the very necessity and universality of knives. Knives are everywhere, and we can't do without them, and that, and not just the up-close-and-bloody aspect of it, is what makes their use as weapons so much more frightening.

So we are going up against centuries of cross-cultural tradition in advocating that good people should be prepared to defend themselves with knives (as well as with other objects) against the other kind of people. But people have gone up against centuries of cross-cultural tradition before and succeded. For example, if you said over in our Politics forum, that women should not be allowed to vote, you would be considered either a commedian or a lunatic. A mere hundred years ago, you would have been "mainstream."

So maybe there is hope. But we need to understand that we "enlightened knife people" are surrounded by benighted heathen, and we need to go easy on the hellfire and brimstone as we seek to convert them.
smile.gif



------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001


[This message has been edited by James Mattis (edited 08-07-2000).]
 
If I think of my knives as weapons even once then there is the possiblity of me saying this around the sheeple that see a knife as dangerous. Therefore I do not think of my knives (even tactical ones) as a weapon. I mean sure I can kill you with my bare hands in a hundred ways (not the least of which is ripping off your arms and swinging them around while you lay on the ground bleeding to death crying mommy)but I think of my hands as tools--how about you?
Thank you
Mykl

------------------
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
 
Fuller, we agree on one major point:

If you draw, you MUST be prepared to use it. If you're not, street predators will sense that and they'll shove your "tool" up your nether regions sideways.

BUT...if you're confident in your "tool" and your abilities, AND your "will", they'll sense that too. And they'll usually run.

But there's no faking it.

I *think* the ultimate is a "dead calm state of acceptance" of the possible need for violence, for their deaths, possibly for your own. I've been there just once...it's past fear, past anger, past...almost past human. Pretty weird. A sort of "pure tactical computer" state. What happens next is totally up to the assailant...he runs, he attacks, whatever...his karma. I wouldn't put my head in that zone over "honor" or anything like it such as defense of property...but to save a life, ya. It's worth knowing I can get there in a dire emergency.

It was my reward for saving a life. Best deal I ever made.

Jim
 
Just wanted to chime in, since this is a topic which is quite important to me (election coming up, and all). From my way of thinking, any tool can be a weapon, and any knife is a tool, but certain knives are specifically designed as weapons. To call them tools would be like calling a square a rectangle. Sure, all rectangles are squares, but if there's a more accurate name for a thing, use that name. Of course, intent also comes into play. I, personally, consider balisongs - which have traditionally been outlawed as weapons -
to be more of a fun curio than a weapon, but consider a tactical (just meaning strong, simple, reliable, not Rambo-like) pocketknife to be a very effective weapon for urban carry, even though the average person thinks of such knives as primarily tools.

Hugh, I feel that we need more religious people like you. There is not enough representation of not-so-mainstream religions (in your case, the Quakers, in my case, I think the most appropriate term is 'pagan') (I read a very thoughtful article by a Quaker Wiccan once, but I can't remember where; it was really interesting to see how, for her, the two fit together, but I digress...). While a debate over 'which is the best religion' would just be completely innappropriate, I think that people should not be chastised for mentioning that they happen ot be of a certain religion. Much like the issue of actually calling certain knives weapons, the political-correctness groups have made it so some people are actually ashamed to mention their beliefs, for fear of offending those of different beliefs. And the issue of religion definitely does come into play when discussing self-defense. In Hugh's case, his beliefs frown upon violence of any kind. In my case, I feel that even knives have souls, and using a knife which was specifically created as a weapon as something else, except in an emergency, would be disrespectful.

So, which is the right religion?
rolleyes.gif
(disclaimer: that's a rhetorical question, no one better try to answer it
smile.gif
)

--JB

P.S., Bart, a nuclear powerplant is not a potential atom bomb. There is just no way that can happen. There are other dangers, such as radiation leaks, but an atomic blast No. Just something the anti-nuke groups go around telling people to scare them. As a true environmentalist (not just someone who feels depressed and wats to protest against something), I wholeheartedly support the adoption of more nuclear power. Sorry for the off-topic stuff, but it's an important issue.

------------------
e_utopia@hotmail.com
 
A few thoughts, but first a correction.

THE ONLY ASSAULT WEAPON IS A WEAPON WHICH HAS BEEN USED IN AN ASSAULT. PERIOD. I am so very sick of people, especially those who KNOW better refering to any firearm that isn't bolt action as an assault weapon. Adopting buzz words like these are what is leading to Gun Banning in America. I know, I live in California. I actually had our DA here call me (I know this gentleman personally) and tell me to get rid of all my Hi cap (the correct term is FULL CAPACITY) magazines, because it is extremely likely that posession of these items will be outlawed in my area within the next year. I told him that he can come and get them personally when the law is passed. I don't plan on giving them up.
This is relevent to this topic in this, refer to a knife as a weapon, and it becomes a buzz word.
Now, before I get fifty angry replies, allow me to extrapolate.

1. I do not, in any way deny that a knife is a weapon.
2. I fully support everyone's right to defend themselves by any means necessary.
3. I fully encourage every person who so desires, to learn how to use their knife as a weapon for self defense.
4. I also fully encourage EVERY person whom values their life and liberty to learn to use ANYTHING at hand as a weapon.

Consider your knife a weapon, for it is. The knife has the distinction of being Man's oldest tool(unless you consider rocks and sticks tools), but consider what this "tool" was used for.

I don't carry an AFCK merely to open letters or cut strings, a Micra would serve this purpose just as well; I carry an AFCK because while it will do the aforementioned, it may also be used to defend my life.
While I agree with James that we must not eliminate the self defense aspect of knives, neither should we promote the fact that they are deadly weapons.

Please consider how you refer to your knife, it is neither a tool, nor a weapon; it is merely a knife.

Joe


------------------
"I can go over to your mama's house, and start a small fire in her panties." -G. Busey
 
As regards Joe's prior post, I love my Palmetto Contract M-41 Assault Rifle (orherwise known as a Model 1841 Rifle of South Carolina contract, Palmetto stamped) and my M-61 Springfield Assault Rifle (otherwise known as a Springfield 1861 Model 1861 Rifled Musket). They were both used in many assaults, so would both obviously qualify as "assault weapons", even though they are both muzzle loading percussion ignition long rifles. I love it! But does a LeMat qualify as an "assault pistol"?

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
I don't carry or collect weapons. I do carry and purchase knives, because I love them. You may callyour knives whatever you want, that's your choice. You can practice offensive and defensive drills with your weapons, preparing for some expected threat, that you assume lurks around any corner.
If I saw the same threats to my safety that you do, a knife would not be my weapon of choice.
The problem as I see is that, you are reinforcing a negative stereotype on objects that I find to be practical to use, and beautiful in design. I would like to see knives become more acceptable as everyday carry items and as collectables. Your attitude regarding knives is counter to that end.
I have said it before and I will say it again, we may be our own worst enemy?



------------------
"Will work 4 Knives!"
My PhotoPoint Site
 
I tend to think of my knife as a weapon first. This is partly because I
have cut myself enough times to realise first hand it's "devastatingly
effective" capacity in that department. I consider it a tool on an
almost equal rating though. Actually, perhaps it is truer to say my
primary experience of knives is as hypnotically beautiful beasts of
quiet power...

On a diversionary note -
e_utopia - I cannot even begin to conceive of your definition of "environmentalist". I highly recommend you read Amory Lovins, ex-nuke designer, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute and dazzlingly brilliant energy efficiency consultant.

[This message has been edited by Kallisti (edited 08-08-2000).]
 
Back
Top