What do you think about knives on school grounds?

[Peter Hartwig]

I am wondering if we are having a discussion/argument over something todays kids don't even care about. Does todays kid even want to carry a knife, much less in school? I am sure a few do, but from my observation they seem absorbed in their I phones. They don't even look up when walking across the street. Being knife lovers, are we just trying to put our wishes onto them. (this part is a question, not a statement of fact, but if the students don't have the desire to carry, and feel safer in a knife free school, and the administration also prefers knife free, who am I to want that changed.)
Not that I like seeing any rights or privileges given up to easily- they are too hard to get back.
Todays adults don't even carry knives like in the past, and there are many places they also can't carry. I don't like it, but nobody asked me or cared when they made the rules.
I am a knife lover and I like to carry them, but I may just be a relic of the past and resistant to change(I certainly am resistant to change).
these are just thoughts written down, and I am sorry to be posting this much, but I do find the subject interesting(as well as all the comments).

 

[Jens Schuetz]

I am wondering if we are having a discussion/argument over something todays kids don't even care about. Does todays kid even want to carry a knife, much less in school? I am sure a few do, but from my observation they seem absorbed in their I phones. They don't even look up when walking across the street. Being knife lovers, are we just trying to put our wishes onto them. Not that I like seeing any rights or privileges given up to easily- they are too hard to get back.
Todays adults don't even carry knives like in the past, and there are many places they also can't carry. I don't like it, but nobody asked me or cared when they made the rules.
I am a knife lover and I like to carry them, but I may just be a relic of the past and resistant to change(I certainly am resistant to change).
these are just thoughts written down, and I am sorry to be posting this much, but I do find the subject interesting(as well as all the comments).

You might be right but I don't see a corellation to the usage of smart phones.
Guess how many knife nuts use such phones to buy knives or communicate within our very own Blade Forums?

 

[Peter Hartwig]

You might be right but I don't see a corellation to the usage of smart phones.
Guess how many knife nuts use such phones to buy knives or communicate within our very own Blade Forums?

Maybe none, That was still part of the question- they may be much more diverse than I am giving them credit, but they don't seem interested in much else-a continuous text marathon. Certainly ownership of a smart phone doesn't exclude you from knife ownership or anything else I can think of.

 

[Neko2]

Maybe none, That was still part of the question- they may be much more diverse than I am giving them credit, but they don't seem interested in much else-a continuous text marathon. Certainly ownership of a smart phone doesn't exclude you from knife ownership or anything else I can think of.

I think the "usefull gadget" used to be the pocket knife, swiss army knife or similar. You'd sharpen a pencil, cut food, carve your initals where they shouldn't be and generally fool around with it. When you outgrew matchbox cars you had knives.
Now the "usefull gadget" is the phone. It tells you everything, lets you "talk" to others, play games, waste time and generally makes you not have time for other distractions.

 

[Faiaoga]

It may be a little bit dated, but there is a good article about knives in schools published in "Knives 2012" (Joe Kertzman, editor). I was able to read this at my local public library.
"Zero Tolerance for Knives in School" (pp 33-37 of that publication) by Louis P. Nappen explains the development of the zero tolerance policies and some of the effects of these policies.

Other issues are related to religious exceptions to knife bans. USA Today (October 23, 2014) had a short news item by Eric Wilkinson abut a school district in Washington State that allowed a young Sikh student to carry a kirpan in school as long as the knife remained concealed, "Student allowed to bring a religious knife to class" USA Today (10/23/14) www.usatoday.com

 

[oguruma]

I am wondering if we are having a discussion/argument over something todays kids don't even care about. Does todays kid even want to carry a knife, much less in school? I am sure a few do, but from my observation they seem absorbed in their I phones. They don't even look up when walking across the street. Being knife lovers, are we just trying to put our wishes onto them. (this part is a question, not a statement of fact, but if the students don't have the desire to carry, and feel safer in a knife free school, and the administration also prefers knife free, who am I to want that changed.)
Not that I like seeing any rights or privileges given up to easily- they are too hard to get back.
Todays adults don't even carry knives like in the past, and there are many places they also can't carry. I don't like it, but nobody asked me or cared when they made the rules.
I am a knife lover and I like to carry them, but I may just be a relic of the past and resistant to change(I certainly am resistant to change).
these are just thoughts written down, and I am sorry to be posting this much, but I do find the subject interesting(as well as all the comments).

Whether the kids care about knives or not is irrelevant. Most parents don't care about whether or not they are allowed to carry guns in schools (the parents carry guns, not the kids), yet many feel it is a constitutionally enumerated right to carry in all public places. The "well I don't care about that specific right so I don't care if everybody loses it" argument is the reason why the bill of rights may as well be toilet paper.

While we are taking about cellphones. It's a daily occurence that a child uses one of these to distribute child porn (idiot teenagers sending pictures of themselves) yet children aren't arrested or suspended for bringing one of those to school.

 

[Peter Hartwig]

Whether the kids care about knives or not is irrelevant. Most parents don't care about whether or not they are allowed to carry guns in schools (the parents carry guns, not the kids), yet many feel it is a constitutionally enumerated right to carry in all public places. The "well I don't care about that specific right so I don't care if everybody loses it" argument is the reason why the bill of rights may as well be toilet paper.

While we are taking about cellphones. It's a daily occurence that a child uses one of these to distribute child porn (idiot teenagers sending pictures of themselves) yet children aren't arrested or suspended for bringing one of those to school.

I am not sure I followed you on this one, so please correct me if I got it wrong.
You believe you and everyone else including terrorist, have the right to carry guns and knives in all public places, including schools, courts and airports and that public safety plays no part at all. I think that is what you were saying(obviously put into my words), but not sure.
No comment-just looking for clarification

 

[RX-79G]

I am not sure I followed you on this one, so please correct me if I got it wrong.
You believe you and everyone else including terrorist, have the right to carry guns and knives in all public places, including schools, courts and airports and that public safety plays no part at all. I think that is what you were saying(obviously put into my words), but not sure.
No comment-just looking for clarification

Take it a logical step further: If the 2nd Amendment means what we say it means, can you even take away someone's gun when they are sent to jail, but haven't yet been convicted of felony?

While we are taking about cellphones. It's a daily occurence that a child uses one of these to distribute child porn (idiot teenagers sending pictures of themselves) yet children aren't arrested or suspended for bringing one of those to school.

If a teenager sending a naked photo of themselves is distributing "child porn", is teenage masturbation child molestation?

 

[oguruma]

I am not sure I followed you on this one, so please correct me if I got it wrong.
You believe you and everyone else including terrorist, have the right to carry guns and knives in all public places, including schools, courts and airports and that public safety plays no part at all. I think that is what you were saying(obviously put into my words), but not sure.
No comment-just looking for clarification

Nice strawman you've built there. Yeah, I think terrorists should have guns and grenades and chemical weapons in schools. Give me a break, will you?

What I am saying is exactly what the constitution says.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bearing arms means that an individual can carry them in public places, and private places at the permission of the owner. If a private school, buisness, or airport, etc. doesn't want firearms there, then they have a right to ask the individual to leave. Plain and simple. If the place is open to the public, firearms should be lawful.

Ask the families of the victims in the Brussels attack how much gun laws did to protect their "public safety"? How about the dead kids in Newton? The Gun-Free School Zones Act sure did save them. Wait... No it didn't...

 

[Jens Schuetz]

Nice strawman you've built there. Yeah, I think terrorists should have guns and grenades and chemical weapons in schools. Give me a break, will you?

What I am saying is exactly what the constitution says.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bearing arms means that an individual can carry them in public places, and private places at the permission of the owner. If a private school, buisness, or airport, etc. doesn't want firearms there, then they have a right to ask the individual to leave. Plain and simple. If the place is open to the public, firearms should be lawful.

Ask the families of the victims in the Brussels attack how much gun laws did to protect their "public safety"? How about the dead kids in Newton? The Gun-Free School Zones Act sure did save them. Wait... No it didn't...

Maybe the strict gun laws didn't prevent some terrorist attacks however they probably prevented lots of domestic shootings, gun accidents and even violent robbers have a hard time to obtain guns and thus almost never kill anybody with a gun. Less guns over there also make the cops more relaxed and not having to be on the edge all the time they don't shoot anybody who isn't having their hands on the wheel in a traffic stop or puts his hand in his jacket to get his ID. Net positive in my book if that's all true.
Now would a more relaxed gun law prevent terrorists from bombing and shooting or only increase other kind of gun incidents? Nope. So why are these attacks even part of the argument? Maybe because more available guns would make it easier for terrorist to get one and thus provide any teenager wannabe terrorist to have a bigger impact than if he'd only have easy access to a knife or a bat.

Anyways while I see the benefits for a society as a whole I'd still prefer to have a gun as long as there's only one crazy person out there who might possibly maybe have one.
I can't wait 5 minutes for the police to come. The price for this freedom in self defence is also not paid by me or my kids. It's usually others who have accidents or get shot by a husband in rage or a robber who had an easy time buying a piece.

 

[Peter Hartwig]

Nice strawman you've built there. Yeah, I think terrorists should have guns and grenades and chemical weapons in schools. Give me a break, will you?

What I am saying is exactly what the constitution says.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bearing arms means that an individual can carry them in public places, and private places at the permission of the owner. If a private school, buisness, or airport, etc. doesn't want firearms there, then they have a right to ask the individual to leave. Plain and simple. If the place is open to the public, firearms should be lawful.

Ask the families of the victims in the Brussels attack how much gun laws did to protect their "public safety"? How about the dead kids in Newton? The Gun-Free School Zones Act sure did save them. Wait... No it didn't...

While I know you aren't for arming terrorist, I am not sure how under your thoughts they are excluded, or even could be if suspected. If you are allowed to walk into all these places with knives or guns , so will they be. The laws don't stop terrorists, but they don't make it easier for them either. I have no problem with me carrying a gun or knife anywhere, it is the other guy that creates the worry-too many unstable people, and too many bad people. A lot of todays population have neither the skills nor the mental attitude to be safely armed. On the other hand, I have no answers for some of the gun problem(more so than knife), but I don't want a bunch of knee jerk restrictions that won't help in the least.
But the original ? was knives in schools which is a much easier ? . They are a student and teacher population(regulated by school board, state and federal government), that has no need for knives during school hours. No knives =very few knife incidents. This creates a safer learning environment. In this area it is the zero tolerance and the penalties that go with it that I dislike. A student that plans to cut up other students, should be treated much differently than a 6 year old boy that sneaks his new SAK into school to show to his buddies. Both broke the rules but they should be handled differently. Zero tolerance and mandatory penalties have never proven to be fair and just.
You believe in the hard line right to carry. Those words you quote were written many years ago, and society has changed dramatically since then(especially the last few years). Their work has held up very well, but they were just men trying to do their best and didn't expect that their words would be written in stone and never be changed.
If you can figure out a way to get the hard line interpretation of right to carry and a safe society to mesh, more power to you. I haven't, so I give a little but grudgingly. I just hope the slope isn't too slippery for while I will give a little of a safer society, I certainly don't want to give a lot and follow the Europe plan.

Again all these are just my opinions and everyone else is entitled to their own regardless if they differ from my own. I am not sure there is a good answer to some of these problems, much less a perfect one. At least I have not seen it yet

 

[heresthedeal]

I carried a knife from second or third grade till I got out of school in 1985. Yep, a long time ago.

Somehow for some reason people always seem to think that what they did was alright, but the kids today for some reason just couldn't handle it. It doesn't matter if its a knife or a gun or a car.

How bout we just go back to punishing people for what they did or were doing instead of what they could have done or what somebody thought they could do.
Things are now starting to look like some kind of pre crime sci fi movie, if little Johnny brings a knife to school and cuts someone, charge him, put him in jail.

If he brings a knife to school and keeps it in his pocket and sometimes uses it to cut his food or a string that needs cut, leave him alone, tell him to leave it at home, no need to expel him for what he could have done.

Somehow kids today are so much more advanced then we were(Older guys) but yet they cant seem to handle the pretty basic stuff that we did.

Things haven't changed that much, other than information, 24 hour news, internet, cell phones, as soon as something happens 2/Two states away its played like it was outside your door. The world isn't a safe place, BUT it is a lot safer now that it was. Crime rates are almost half what they were in the 70s and 80s, if you don't believe it use that phone and look it up.

As for "Not written in stone" they were and that's why they are and we are still here.
Not just the second but the first and the fourth, and the fifth. (Always think of Dave Chappel when I think of the Fifth)

I've got no problem with kids taking knives to school or even carrying one if the parents allow it, who am I to argue with them, but if they commit a crime, then do something. Not for what you or someone else thinks they could have done or would have done.

And yes, I have kids and even a few grandkids, so I do have a dog in this fight.

 

[RX-79G]

I carried a knife from second or third grade till I got out of school in 1985. Yep, a long time ago.

Somehow for some reason people always seem to think that what they did was alright, but the kids today for some reason just couldn't handle it. It doesn't matter if its a knife or a gun or a car.

How bout we just go back to punishing people for what they did or were doing instead of what they could have done or what somebody thought they could do.
Things are now starting to look like some kind of pre crime sci fi movie, if little Johnny brings a knife to school and cuts someone, charge him, put him in jail.

If he brings a knife to school and keeps it in his pocket and sometimes uses it to cut his food or a string that needs cut, leave him alone, tell him to leave it at home, no need to expel him for what he could have done.

Somehow kids today are so much more advanced then we were(Older guys) but yet they cant seem to handle the pretty basic stuff that we did.

Things haven't changed that much, other than information, 24 hour news, internet, cell phones, as soon as something happens 2/Two states away its played like it was outside your door. The world isn't a safe place, BUT it is a lot safer now that it was. Crime rates are almost half what they were in the 70s and 80s, if you don't believe it use that phone and look it up.

As for "Not written in stone" they were and that's why they are and we are still here.
Not just the second but the first and the fourth, and the fifth. (Always think of Dave Chappel when I think of the Fifth)

I've got no problem with kids taking knives to school or even carrying one if the parents allow it, who am I to argue with them, but if they commit a crime, then do something. Not for what you or someone else thinks they could have done or would have done.

And yes, I have kids and even a few grandkids, so I do have a dog in this fight.

This suggests that the concept of "crime and punishment" applies to children. But it doesn't - our society and laws are based around the idea that children don't have the judgement of adults and can make criminal mistakes that don't make them felons.


And you also mention parents, without giving a nod to all the other parents - the ones who didn't send their kid to a public institution with a knife, but somehow ended up with a child in the hospital. Schools have to provide reasonable levels of safety and supervision for children (like parents do), even though the ratio of adults to students is 25 :1, rather than the 2:1 that a parent usually has. That huge difference in supervision is why a school needs to have schedules, rules and structure that a home does not. You can't expect parents to entrust their children to an institution that doesn't regulate what the other children can bring into the environment.


There is an American habit of talking about potential crimes as if the only thing that was important was identifying and punishing the guilty. But really, the most important thing is to prevent crime, not punish it after someone is already a victim. Having knives or guns in school is like leaving your home unlocked - it is unnecessarily increasing the risk of someone being a victim.

This principle can only go so far - adults also have to be able to make their own decisions about how to protect themselves, but that has nothing to do with public education or minors.

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Anyone who thinks criminals will obey a sign/law forbidding them from carrying a gun or knife. . . is a fool.

 

[RX-79G]

Anyone who thinks criminals will obey a sign/law forbidding them from carrying a gun or knife. . . is a fool.

The law makes it possible to put up a metal detector at the airport or courthouse that makes them obey.

 

[heresthedeal]

I identifying and punishing the guilty is whats suppose to keep others from committing crimes.
Going around thinking that you can just identify criminals before they actually do something kind of goes against the American way.

I never said anything about no rules, or schedules, or supervision in schools. I just said kids should be punished for what they do, not what they could do.

Minors get felony charges all the time, and some of them go out of a juvenile facility right into an adult one.

All I'm trying to say, (go ahead and put your words here) is even back in the day, more kids were hurt with pencils than knives, I guess its a good thing most of them just use computers now days.

Think and say what you want, I just don't have that much problem with a kid taking or carrying a knife responsibly to school. Maybe a length limit, 2.5 or so.

JMO,YMMV.

 

[RX-79G]

The reason a 5 year old doesn't stab another 5 year old is NOT because they understand the penal system. It is because they are supervised and continually corrected when they do something that goes in the wrong direction. Part of that process is setting boundaries and rules because children understand those, even though they don't yet have notions of complex concepts like law or morality.

You are presuming that any child that gets sent to school with a knife must be regarded as responsible and of good judgement. If that's true, let them vote. Since it is demonstrably not true that children are automatically responsible, rules are the framework that both protect them and teach them what responsibility is.

 

[benchwarmer380]

I've got no problem with kids taking knives to school or even carrying one if the parents allow it, who am I to argue with them, but if they commit a crime, then do something. Not for what you or someone else thinks they could have done or would have done.

And yes, I have kids and even a few grandkids, so I do have a dog in this fight.

The reason a 5 year old doesn't stab another 5 year old is NOT because they understand the penal system. It is because they are supervised and continually corrected when they do something that goes in the wrong direction. Part of that process is setting boundaries and rules because children understand those, even though they don't yet have notions of complex concepts like law or morality.

You are presuming that any child that gets sent to school with a knife must be regarded as responsible and of good judgement. If that's true, let them vote. Since it is demonstrably not true that children are automatically responsible, rules are the framework that both protect them and teach them what responsibility is.

They don't need to have an understanding of the penal system to know the difference of right and wrong and what objects can be dangerous. I don't have children but imagine that these things should be taught as they grow. Kids that are walking, speaking, and ready to enter the first step of the human world (school) should have a basic understanding of the rules and boundaries that are set forth by their parents.

I as understand heresthedeal's posts, he is not saying that every kid should bring a knife to school. Kids who's parents trust and allow them to, should be allowed to bring a small tool to school.

 

[Jens Schuetz]

Anyone who thinks criminals will obey a sign/law forbidding them from carrying a gun or knife. . . is a fool.

If no civilian can buy a gun in your country criminals also can't unless they put in more effort. Thus there is an increased barrier to them having one which reduces the numbers of guns criminals have and thus the number of gun incidences.

In Germany you were able to buy a few illegal ones from the Russians at some point but they are gone since almost 2 decades. Now you have to travel to different countries and know people there. The common thief wouldn't put in that much effort or simply not be able to. He could also join a sport shooting club or study to become a hunter or cop. All not very likely scenarios and that increased barrier and reduced likely hood shows in the gun violence statistics.

Still I prefer freedom
but wouldn't call the other approaches fools without trying to understand them and maybe aknowledging aspects which are good.

 

[RX-79G]

They don't need to have an understanding of the penal system to know the difference of right and wrong and what objects can be dangerous. I don't have children but imagine that these things should be taught as they grow. Kids that are walking, speaking, and ready to enter the first step of the human world (school) should have a basic understanding of the rules and boundaries that are set forth by their parents.

I as understand heresthedeal's posts, he is not saying that every kid should bring a knife to school. Kids who's parents trust and allow them to, should be allowed to bring a small tool to school.

And that implies that all the parents involved are both trustworthy themselves and know their kid enough to be making such judgments. Everyone knows that is frequently not the case. So unless you are proposing some sort of parent permission system (rather than taking the word of the child), the idea of leaning on the assumptive sensibility of parents just doesn't work.


The real problem is that children AND parents form their own little loophole. A child can literally get away with murder, because being a child means you don't yet have a fully formed sense of right, wrong and consequence. Being a parent means that you are "responsible" for your child, but no parent actually needs to fear going to jail if their child breaks a law.

Unless parents have some skin in the game by actually being held criminally responsible for their kids, or kids can be held responsible for their actions just like adults, your simply can't treat kids like adults when you are supervising them as a third party. If I were a principle, there is no way I would shoulder the burden of responsibility for bad parenting or low impulse control children when I have 1000 other kids whose parents are trusting me to keep them reasonably safe.

I just don't know when the benefits of allowing knives in a school would ever make even a single serious injury excusable. Especially when we know that the students who are most likely to do something dumb are also the ones most interested in carrying a weapon and having parents that are not involved.