Why 2.5"?

C

Clint Simpson

Joined
Nov 13, 2001
Messages
378
Why are some blade limits 2.5 inches?

I have been thinking about this and haven't found a definitive (or for that matter GOOD) reason why some cites have blade limits of only 2.5 inches.

I know WHY places have blade limits (I disagree but I see they reasoning, even if it is deluded)

I understand it is an arbitrary number (someone else did it, so will we...) but why 2.5? Why not 3” or 2”?

So the REAL question is...Where did this idea that 2.5 inches is “safer” than 3” or 4” but no more dangerous than 2”?
 
My theory as regards to blade length restriction choices has been that those who wrote the law simply pulled out their own knife, measured the blade, and said, "That's all anyone else needs."
 
My guess is that they looked at the most common knife carried, a Swiss army knife, and just picked a round number closest to that size blade, 2.5 inches.
 
The following is just a logical "guess":
While a sharp 2.5 inches can sure cut somebody up, it's capacity to hit a vital organ through a shirt, jacket, BF vest, etc. (a LE uniform) is quite limited. Much more so then, let's say, a four inch blade.

Regards
 
Hmmm.

That makes the assumption that stabbing is a primary concern.

I was under the impression that blood loss is the primary cause of death, therefore slicing would be the primary concern.

2-inches can slice about as deep as needed when shaped right, or so I'd think.
 
Restricting possession or use of objects is an inefficient or ineffective way to control counterproductive behavior. Why not just ban the behavior itself and punish violations with increasing severity until it becomes rare or non-existent?

Because that is not spectacular enough for the legislator to say "Look what I did to make you safer!" It takes time to show that making mayhem or murder illegal and punishing it severely will control its incidence, but a knife ban or a blade length restriction can go into effect immediately.

Since restrictions on objects make no real sense anyway, the specific restrictions imposed are irrelevent. If the State of California puts no length restrictions on knives, why would anyone else need to do so? :D
 
I'd like to think some thought came into it but it probably was a random choice where they thought 2" is too short and 3" is too long so let's try 2.5" and see how much people complain. and i'm in the slashing camp, it'll disable{nice word for kill} you quicker through rapid blood loss than stabbing. at least from what i've seen. later,ahgar
 
moving-van.jpg
 
I think the restriction on knives 'over the legal length' was created on the belief that 4"+ could stab directly into a persons heart causing instant death.
Beats bleeding out a big messy puddle.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top