- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,679
While I completely support our right to carry knives, I really dislike the "knives don't kill, people do" line. It makes us sound insincere, or worse, foolish. Why do we prohibit ownership of explosives like grenades, bazookas, rockets, guided missiles and the like by civilians? They're "just tools" and positively can't hurt humans without being activated by another human. Continuing that logic, why do we prohibit ownership of any inanimate object like drugs and the like? They can't possibly hurt anybody without human intervention.
This "nothing but a tool" argument is not gonna win you any convert. What would bring people over is a friendly attitude and patience to explain (and demonstrate) how useful a knife is, and that it's not simply a weapon. You need to make people think "he's a great guy but he carries a knife, so a knife can't be that bad" instead of "that jerk carries a knife, no wonder".
Remember, these people vote too. If you insist on being a ninja and a boor, someday they might require concealed carry permit for all knives. Yes, it's constitutional. If they can do that to handguns, they can surely do it to knives.
This "nothing but a tool" argument is not gonna win you any convert. What would bring people over is a friendly attitude and patience to explain (and demonstrate) how useful a knife is, and that it's not simply a weapon. You need to make people think "he's a great guy but he carries a knife, so a knife can't be that bad" instead of "that jerk carries a knife, no wonder".
Remember, these people vote too. If you insist on being a ninja and a boor, someday they might require concealed carry permit for all knives. Yes, it's constitutional. If they can do that to handguns, they can surely do it to knives.