I actually think the Civilian in particular is one of those knives better suited to defense than offense. My understanding is it's designed to be easily used by anyone in a near last-ditch environment; the Spyderco website specifies LEOs who can't carry a firearm and don't have formal self-defense training. Its lack of a strong stabbing point may limit its offensive use, and would certainly limit repeated limited use. The other big factor is price; how many meth addicts who want to rob you at knife point could afford to own one? No, the crooks are more likely to go with a supermarket kitchen knife. For me this one comes close to nailing the "morality" of the self-defense knife; purpose-driven design, takes the user into account, well constructed from quality materials and (potentially) not specifically useful as an offensive weapon.
I think this thread is getting more interesting. Hopefully we can keep it from becoming a "knife rights" thread which will be relegated to a perpetual circular spin in the Political forumThere is certainly overlap but I think there is definitely a strong argument for a continued design discussion.
For the OP - is this useful? I'm genuinely interested and would like to know more about what you think about what's being said.
Could you clear up the difference between a offensive and defensive knife? From my (somewhat limited) point of view they're two sides of the same coin. The goal is to kill the other guy, who started it is hardly relevant.