Rationale for outlawing or restricting knife types

[philwar]

In Holland the following folding knives are illegal to carry:
Butterfly knives
Spring-operated knives (OTF or OTS)
Knives exceeding a total of 28 cm length (=11")

In Germany it is illegal to carry a folding knife over a certain length (about 3" I think but not sure) IF it has a thumb stud or equivalent. Remove the thumb stud and you can carry much larger folders. (I wonder how they feel about the Military?)

In the US it varies from state to state. I am of course the least qualified to speak, I only happen to know butterfly knives are illegal in California.

So I am wondering. When someone first proposed a law to criminalize or restrict these knives, what was their rationale? And how come it really doesn't apply to manually-opened or AO knives? I mean, REALLY?

The reason I ask is this: I honestly think that no politician believes there is any point AT ALL to these laws, except these two:

• To establish the concept of control. Once everyone has accepted that politicans actually have something to say over pocketknives, the precedent has been set.
• To show to the general public that things are being accomplished.

Of course, these two reasons can never be the official ones.

So if you have an idea, please tell me how the debate would go once a politician suggest outlawing knives like the Spyderco Citadel. What makes this knife in effect, in practical terms, unwanted, as opposed to its manually operated counterpart? Or is the flicking of a bali-song, the clicking of a Microtech, really upsetting enough for sheeple to warant a law by itself?

 

[OrdnanceBubbaUSMC]

They just go after the easiest targets - people are less likely to scream and cry if they go after things said to be deadly, dangerous, "favorite of drug-dealers", etc. It's just propaganda to push that government is protecting people from themselves and for you to trust in them for your safety and basic needs.

 

[singularity35]

I think that there's a commonality with knife and gun restrictions. It's something that the politicians can point to, as "achievements" and make the majority(sheeple?) think they are safe. As an example, in my country a lot of groups and politicians are targeting the privilege(it's not a right here) of legitimate and responsible gun owners to own and legally carry firearms. They point out to the statistics on gun related crime. They conveniently ignore that the majority(over 95 percent) of gun related crimes are committed with loose(unlicensed) and "paltik"(knockoffs made by mostly backyard machine shops) firearms. It's just something that the anti's can point out to, as an achievement.

 

[shecky]

It seems traditionally in the US, knives are regulated largely due to any perceived association with undesirable elements, such as juvenile delinquents, gangs, etc. Occasionally, you see this line of thinking spill over into things like clothing, where identifiable styles or colors are banned. Though in the case of the latter, there are sometimes serious First Amendment issues that are brought up, in addition to common sense. Knife regulations would seem to generally fun afoul of Second Amendment issues, but largely seem uncontested on that basis. It might even be counterproductive to contest knife bans on Second Amendment basis, since it would reinforce the notion of knives as arms.

 

[powernoodle]

So if you have an idea, please tell me how the debate would go once a politician suggest outlawing knives like the Spyderco Citadel. What makes this knife in effect, in practical terms, unwanted, as opposed to its manually operated counterpart? Or is the flicking of a bali-song, the clicking of a Microtech, really upsetting enough for sheeple to warant a law by itself?

These types of restrictions are purely emotional in their genesis. Auto knives and balisongs are no more dangerous than any other similar folder, but because they look scary, those who are more susceptible to emotion than reason will seek to prohibit them. The same was true with the so-called assault weapons ban, for example, which defined an assault weapon based on its scary appearance rather than lethality.

How does one successfully debate a politician on this matter, if that politician acts on emotion rather than reason? I don't think you can. You prevail not by bringing about a change in his opinion, but by terminating his public employment via the voting booth.

 

[Bastid]

You have been here long enoigh to know ts is not a thread for general. It really is not that hard.

 

[philwar]

You have been here long enoigh to know ts is not a thread for general. It really is not that hard.

You are right. I messed up. Apologies for the slip-up.

 

[philwar]

How does one successfully debate a politician on this matter, if that politician acts on emotion rather than reason? I don't think you can. You prevail not by bringing about a change in his opinion, but by terminating his public employment via the voting booth.

I'd agree, except that the people responsible never suffered such consequences. And wouldn't there be something to gain in exposing the idiocy of banning knives on a purely emotional basis?

 

[Gerard Breuker]

In the end nobody cares but us and our votes are inconsequential in comparison to those that have chosen to life their life in fear and are in need of false reassurance on a regular basis. Politics is mainly about pretending to take care of true or perceived problems to stay in power. Knife restrictions are just a small part of that general strategy.

 

[Cold Kill]

The biggest issue is that the media (mostly movies) ONLY shows knives and guns as purely killing machines. Showing otherwise would be boring and hidden in the deleted scenes. The only thing with the guns is that they have the NRA to defend them. We (knife people) don't have anybody on our side, except for us. The only way we can get our fair rights is if we can get congress to deem knives under the 2nd Ammendment, and we also move to start showing positive knives and uses of knives. We also need to move to start showing fewer negative knives and uses (sorry Cold Steel, showing nothing but slashing and stabbing is nothing but negative). Worst part is that none of this will ever happen. There is actually a higher chance of guns being viewed as tools instead of weapons.

 

[Phil Elmore]

The biggest issue is that the media (mostly movies) ONLY shows knives and guns as purely killing machines. Showing otherwise would be boring and hidden in the deleted scenes. The only thing with the guns is that they have the NRA to defend them. We (knife people) don't have anybody on our side, except for us. The only way we can get our fair rights is if we can get congress to deem knives under the 2nd Ammendment, and we also move to start showing positive knives and uses of knives. We also need to move to start showing fewer negative knives and uses (sorry Cold Steel, showing nothing but slashing and stabbing is nothing but negative). Worst part is that none of this will ever happen. There is actually a higher chance of guns being viewed as tools instead of weapons.

Actually, no. Movies like The Edge, 127 Hours, the television series MacGuyver, and the flood of reality television shows featuring celebrity survivalists all depict knives as tools and not as weapons. Certainly there is a lot of cultural bias against knives and knife ownership, but it is neither fair nor accurate to say there are no positive depictions of blades in popular entertainment.

 

[chiral.grolim]

It seems traditionally in the US, knives are regulated largely due to any perceived association with undesirable elements, such as juvenile delinquents, gangs, etc. Occasionally, you see this line of thinking spill over into things like clothing, where identifiable styles or colors are banned. Though in the case of the latter, there are sometimes serious First Amendment issues that are brought up, in addition to common sense. Knife regulations would seem to generally fun afoul of Second Amendment issues, but largely seem uncontested on that basis. It might even be counterproductive to contest knife bans on Second Amendment basis, since it would reinforce the notion of knives as arms.

Insightful post.:thumbup:

Another spin on laws against things in "association with undesirable elements" is that they give LEO's more tools of leverage against such elements (while attempting to avoid race-based wording, etc.), so that an arrested individual could be threaten with prosecution regarding whatever items he might have in his possession - e.g. you know he's a drug-dealer but you don't have any admissible evidence so you book him for whatever you can come up with.
As it so happens, knives are often used in crimes including robbery/muggings/general assault/rape/murder, they can be easily concealed, and the learning curve for doing significant damage with one is quite short, so ... Knives (in harmful hands) are dangerous to the citizenry, and it is logical to attempt to keep such tools out of the hands of harmful individuals, esp. where they pose significant potential risk (e.g. an airplane? I remain skeptical about it, but the law is the law). Since the spirit of the law often does not translate well in words, LEO's are instructed to enforce the letter of the law, i.e. punishing individuals carrying/using the same tools in benign manner. I've met a number of LEO's who didn't bat an eye when I deployed an "illegal" knife for benign use in a public setting, but people all differ, and once something is made illegal because of it's association with something ELSE bad, the thing becomes "bad" all by itself and you become guilty by association with it. Criminals are "scary" -> criminals often carry knives => knives are scary -> anyone carrying a knife is a criminal and one should freak-out at the perceived threat to a peaceful citizenry regardless of the actual circumstances .

 

[jbmonkey]

The biggest issue is that the media (mostly movies) ONLY shows knives and guns as purely killing machines. Showing otherwise would be boring and hidden in the deleted scenes. The only thing with the guns is that they have the NRA to defend them. We (knife people) don't have anybody on our side, except for us. The only way we can get our fair rights is if we can get congress to deem knives under the 2nd Ammendment, and we also move to start showing positive knives and uses of knives.

we have kniferights.org doing exactly that. doug ritter and his organization has been working on that and more......

i am a proud member myself
........as well as a....

patron lifetime nra member
goa lifetime member
saf lifetime member
florida carry member.



allot of folks thinks it's a waste of money to belong to these organizations. i disagree. while the money may not be always spent the best way and a few benefit and possibly take advantage of our dues and such.....sheer numbers of members is what get your state and the federal regime bureaucrats to pay attention and fear taking away my and your rights, at the cost of losing their cushy job. we already know they don't respect the constitution/bill of rights......they don't respect us little people at all.....they only stand down because we have that power of voting annoyance and pro-2nd amendment lobbying groups fighting an uphill battle daily for us.

 

[Jesse B.]

The only way we can get our fair rights is if we can get congress to deem knives under the 2nd Ammendment, and we also move to start showing positive knives and uses of knives.

It might even be counterproductive to contest knife bans on Second Amendment basis, since it would reinforce the notion of knives as arms.

I agree with shecky. Turning knife laws into a 2nd Amendment issue is not the way to go, because then knives officially become "weapons" which is not what we want. Leave the constitutional discussions to the guns.

 

[jbmonkey]

I agree with shecky. Turning knife laws into a 2nd Amendment issue is not the way to go, because then knives officially become "weapons" which is not what we want. Leave the constitutional discussions to the guns.

good point, but only certain classes of them. they aren't going to categorize kitchen knives as arms easily. of course.....hasn't that already happened in allot of cities and counties and states in this union? certain classes of cutting tools have been deemed arms already and banned/restricted.

i do agree that these prefessional rights strippers called politicians will twist and warp and take any chance to strip away arms from us in any form....so maybe ya'll are right? maybe we shouldn't give them more ammo to strip away more items from us besides what they have already. i'll be thinking this through this weekend, thanks to both for bringing up this point of view.....

 

[Charlie Mike]

In the end, control.

More people have been killed in "peacetime" by their own governments than all wartime deaths combined.

 

[Bucketokarma]

In the end, control.

More people have been killed in "peacetime" by their own governments than all wartime deaths combined.

Agreed.

Cars kill more people in America than all the knife and firearms combined, no politician is trying to ban cars though.
Even if you look at it from a strictly "knife" POV:

Swords are made for killing, have been for centuries, and there is no rational to use one as a tool in modern America = Illegal, fair enough.

Bowie/combat/survival knives (5"+), are longer than most states legal limit for carrying. These are the borderline knives in my eyes. I have no reason to EDC a knife this size, but once upon a time in America, this was your "do everything" tool. It's solid, dependable, easy to maintain, quick deploying, and Mic Dundee scared punks with switchblades with one! If I were stuck in the woods, one of these would be at the top of my list to have by my side 24/7. It can be a little bulky in public and has limited use in city/suburban life so, why not just toss then in with swords based on blade length alone.

Short fixed blades (4 1/2" or less), are the first knives I would feel the need to ban! Small, very concealable, sturdy, faster deployment than any and all "switchblades", no moving parts means; no problems with firing, tolerances, or lock-up. A very, very dangerous WEAPON indeed!

Manual folders are legal in most places (in America) as long as they are under a certain length. They are harder to maintain than a fixed blade, and do not (usually) deploy as quickly. They have lower reliability and will break much more than fixed blades of equivalent quality. They are still easy to conceal, but flip-side, very easy to EDC since most of them fit nicely into a pocket. Most need more than one hand to close (generally speaking).

Spring assisted folders, aren't as illegal as I would have thought. They make deployment of a folder much faster, and they are usually are more reliable than a side opening auto, but less reliable than a manual folder. They also need the use of more than one hand (again, generally) to close, more so since there is a spring pushing back against the blade you are trying to fold.due to it's ease of use, quick deployment, and legality, I have one on my side right now, and always do. This is my EDC choice.

Side folding autos are like their spring assisted counterparts on the other side of the law in every way but one, more moving parts. A button or switch in the handle means more moving parts, means more things to break and more likely to malfunction.

Balisongs, are illegal simply because they are flashy? I can't understand for the life of me how these became scary enough to make illegal. I love my butterflies and have used one on deployment, before my OTF auto, because of it's single handed operation. Aside from that, it takes longer to deploy than any auto or spring assist, and many manual folders, and it will never beat a fixed blade in a quickdraw (all of these are general statements, not challenges to see how fast you can do it). A balisong that sees use will usually have blade wobble. Most people that haven't touched one, cannot just pick one up in it's closed position and open it like a pro. I can open mine very fast, but that's not without some practice.

Single Action OTF autos are illegal as heck in most states. As, if not more reliable than a side opening auto. Plus with spring tension, you could effectively make one stab people. If you don't have something to stop it, you could have a ballistic knife. Okay, I can see how that might be scary to the public.

Double Action OTF Autos are even less legal than single action! This makes me simply go WTF?? DA relies on inertia. If something is blocking, something in the tracks, tolerances too high, anything can make a DA malfunction. If the tolerances are too low you can end up with lousy lock-up and blade wobble. Since the spring has to let the blade go, it can't maintain velocity if there is something in front of the blade, so it won't deploy into an object and still lock-up. But like the balisong and fixed-blade, it is made for one handed open/close, so there are no issues when your other hand is occupied. But of the types of knives I have put up here, DA OTFs have got to be the LEAST reliable. (I do LOVE my Scarabs though, I gotta say).


My point is, they will ban anything based on looks, but not worry about function. I understand that my point might have been lost in this little rant-fest, but I'm running on no sleep right now.

 

[Clang!]

It seems traditionally in the US, knives are regulated largely due to any perceived association with undesirable elements, such as juvenile delinquents, gangs, etc. Occasionally, you see this line of thinking spill over into things like clothing, where identifiable styles or colors are banned.

I think that's it in a nutshell. Any item (knives, clothes, etc.) with a perceived association to criminal or other undesirable behavior ends in regulation of the item as an attempt to control the undesired behavior.

It might even be counterproductive to contest knife bans on Second Amendment basis, since it would reinforce the notion of knives as arms.

I'm of a mixed opinion regarding that. The 2A amendment argument aligns the knife lobby with the much more powerfull gun rights lobby giving it more political clout. That being said, as "weapons" they are subject to much greater regulation and restriction then "tools".

 

[glistam]

It seems traditionally in the US, knives are regulated largely due to any perceived association with undesirable elements, such as juvenile delinquents, gangs, etc. Occasionally, you see this line of thinking spill over into things like clothing, where identifiable styles or colors are banned.

Indeed. In fact I would take it a step further and say many are based on racism (or at the very least, ethinic/cultural prejudice). I've had this theory for a while that many of the widespread restrictions in the United States have at least some element of cultural stereotyping and prejudice. Most of these items are perceived (even if inaccurately) as being associated with specific nationalities:
Switchblade - Italian. One of the Axis Powers in WWII that occurred shortly before this ban, plus the long association with Mafia.
Gravity Knife - German. Another Axis Power, they were used by Nazi paratroopers.
Dirk - Scottish, though also popular with sailors.
Butterfly knife - Southeast Asian and Latino.
Ballistic Knife - Soviet Russian.
Throwing star: Chinese and Japanese

 

[Hadji Flip Me Over]

I can't for the life of me understand why automatic knives are banned. They're not the fastest to deploy (waved knives and fixed blades are way quicker) and they're not any more dangerous than any other knife in the event that it's used as a weapon. Assisted knives even do the same thing, just in a slightly different way.

I also hate when manufacturers limit sales of automatics specifically to LEOs/military etc. as opposed to having them available at buyer's discretion regarding local knife laws. If others can have them ,regular law-abiding citizens should have the right to them as well.