Banning knives

In My Humble Opinion
1

We’re all familiar here with the endless debate about banning some types of firearms- let’s not go there today. But I did get to thinking about an analogous situation: banning some types of knives. Switchblades, gravity knives, butterfly knives, etc. Apparently many people are convinced that there’s such a thing as a sinister “assault knife”. In Britain for example they’ve banned so-called zombie slayer knives.

In Your Humble Opinion, do these bans make any rational sense? As someone who doesn’t subscribe to the “Instrumentality theory” of crime and violence, I am skeptical. Excepting miniscule blades with little reach or depth, I would have thought that a knife was a knife.

2

Knife bans have their origins in 1950s scare-mongering with racist undertones. A knife is a knife. I have a perfectly legal knife in my pocket right now that is bigger and unfolds as fast or faster than the classic Italian stiletto switchblade that is illegal.

3

Washington bans many knives like that.

And brass knuckles too

(a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slungshot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife;

The city of Seattle bans knives over 3.5 inches in length.
It survived a Constitutional challenge

https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/High-court-No-constitutional-right-to-carry-a-6730184.php

4

If I’m understanding the story correctly, that is a very specific case essentially about the definition of “arms” and whether or not a kitchen knife qualifies. Story also makes it sound like, ironically, had it been a combat knife the guy might have won his case.

5

Seems to me this entire topic has several facets. Or is that cutting edges? Here are several disconnected thought-slices not forming a coherent essay.

There are folks who fetishize weapons to an unhealthy degree. To the degree we can prevent such weapons from actually being available, we help slow the stair-step from armchair tough guy to actual weapon-wielding wacko.

It’s a statistical argument and you can never prove any given act or non-act was caused or prevented by the ban or non-ban of [whatever] weapon. But at the margin, the absence of weapons reduces the lethality of what violence as does occur and (probably) reduces the incidence of violence overall. Demanding tit-for-tat levels of clear direct causation before acting amounts to a “No Scotsman is true enough to be believed” argument.

Weapon bans are a form of harm reduction, no less than pedestrian-friendly car bumpers, roadside guardrails, or drug needle exchange programs. Better to prevent the desire to attack, the desire to commit crime, car crashes, or drug addiction altogether. But in each case we can make changes that, at the margin, sand off some of the real damage from otherwise intractable social problems.

The perfect need not be the enemy of the good. But it makes a superficially attractive argument for folks who actually don’t want perfect or good, but rather the opposite.

6

My EDC knife is Kershaw Speed Safe, an assisted opening knife that is totally legal but flips open in a way that raises eyebrows.

Ever hear of a slungshot? I have one I made. It’s a large ball bearing (bigger than a golf ball, slightly smaller than a pool ball) wrapped in a monkey’s fist knotted enclosure.

Slungshots are used in marine applications to help throw a line ashore. They are illegal in some states because they are a deadly weapon.

From the Wikipedia article:

Summary

Abraham Lincoln’s most notable criminal trial occurred in 1858 when he successfully defended “Duff” Armstrong on a charge of killing another with a slung shot. They were widely used by criminals and street gang members in the 19th century as they had the advantage of being easy to make, silent, and very effective, particularly against an unsuspecting opponent. This gave them a dubious reputation, similar to that of switchblade knives in the 1950s, and they were outlawed in many jurisdictions. The use as a criminal weapon continued at least up until the early 1920s.[2]

Carrying or attempting to use a slungshot is a felony in the states of California,[3] Oklahoma,[4] Massachusetts,[5] and Michigan.[6] It is a gross misdemeanor in the states of Nevada and Washington.[7] In Minnesota, it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending upon the circumstances.[8] As of 2010, in the state of New Hampshire, possession of a slungshot carries a misdemeanor penalty.[9] In March 2016, Florida repealed its longstanding first-degree misdemeanor law forbidding the carrying of a concealed slungshot.[10] Tennessee’s going armed statute lists the slungshot (as “slingshot”) in its list of prohibited weapons.

7

Yeah, I have a small Ken Onion-Kershaw assisted opener that I carry everywhere. One-hand operation is really helpful in many situations, but like you said, people seem startled when I open my huge 3" blade.

8

And this I think illustrates a fundamental issue of the whole debate: do we allow something that most people won’t abuse, and rely on punishment after the fact to deter/ correct/ remove from society the minority who do abuse it? Or do we say “Item X must be banned because % of people will misuse it, however much the supermajority who don’t will object that that is unfair”?

IMHO, the problem with the latter position is that it seems like increasingly people are so distrustful of the rest of the population that there’s nothing they wouldn’t support banning to protect themselves from “those nuts”. Or as put originally:

“All the world old is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer.”
― robert owen

9

Do they need to make “rational sense” if the people buying them are doing so for an irrational reason? I suspect there’s a lot of people buying these knives because they “look cool”, and that group overlaps heavily with the group who would carry such a knife in public, and end up, intentionally or not, using it in a crime. How many of these people would habitually carry a kitchen knife, if that were all that was available? You can’t get your buddies to ooooh and aaah over mom’s paring knife.

And hey, anyone who is carrying a kitchen knife in a non-kitchen context probably is up to no good, so this gives you an excuse to stop and question them.

Now, do you want something that’s really irrational? Look at the US examples above, in which knives (and other weapons) are banned in situations in which guns are considered perfectly normal and acceptable. It seems to me, if you’re going to allow carrying of firearms specifically for the purpose of self defense, it’s a bit stupid to then turn around and ban the less effective/deadly weapons. Try to make that make sense, without resorting to “assault knives” type rhetoric.

10

Indeed @Lumpy you have found the nub.

I’ll suggest there are two factors, with collective distrust being one of them. The other is sheer density.

e.g. I interact with a thousand strangers a day out on the streets. 150 years ago my GGG-parents interacted with a dozen familiar faces in their village most days and some days none at all save their own household.

Lots of things that make preventative sense is dense urban or semi-dense suburban environments make no sense in rural or wilderness environments. And vice versa.

Where I live I have need of bear spray. But something to repel or restrain random wackos or criminals walking down the street has utility. But whatever it is, to be effective at harm reduction it needs to prevent attacks before they occur, not merely record them after they occur for later prosecution.

11

Back in the day, switchblades and I think butterfly knives were banned here though I’m pretty sure both are legal now. In fact, I’m not certain if butterfly knives were banned or if that was schoolyard lore to make the one kid who had one that much cooler. I used to carry a gravity knife while working in a landscape nursery for opening pallets or cutting twine and people would regularly express surprise. I’ll admit that the comments were fun but it actually was handy to have a one-handed action that was very easy to use.

Largely, I don’t think bans on those are very useful since ultimately 4" of pointed metal is 4" of pointed metal regardless of what the handle looks like and having a switchblade doesn’t let you stab things any more effectively. Arguably, it might be less effective than a sturdier folding knife (assuming a straight knife isn’t an option) though I doubt it’s a significant difference most of the time.

12

This is the same place where the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had to be called Hero Turtles instead and Michelangelo had to give up his nunchucks for grappling hooks. The subject of knives came up a few years back, and I remember a few of our overseas friends were flabbergasted that anyone would have any legitimate reason to carry something so simple as a pocket knife.

I think most knife bans here in the United States were simply moral panics that didn’t do anything to prevent violence or other criminal activity. A knife is pretty much a knife.

13

I believe consideration should be given to the expected intended use of dangerous implements of all types, because many folks are influenced by that, and buy (or steal) accordingly.

For example, a large chef knife is likely to be more lethal than a typical switchblade, but the intended buyer for chef knives is chefs and home cooks. You can’t very well ban chef knives.

On the other hand, I believe the market for switchblades is to use them against other human beings. Sure, some may argue that they want a switchblade to whittle with, but, c’mon, that’s a stretch. Use a whittling knife for that purpose. Need it for self-defense? Use bear spray instead, it’s not lethal.

I would likewise be in favor of banning sports shops from re-packaging chef knives, and naming it “the man-slayer.” Don’t put bad ideas into the minds of idiots.

The same argument can be made for hunting rifles, which are more lethal than many firearms that are banned. Hunting rifles are used by hunters to kill animals, assault guns are not (maybe some are, but that’s not typical). In most cases, assault rifles are intended to be used only against human beings.

In my perfect world, all firearms (and other potential weapons) would be much more regulated to keep them out of the hands of the general public, even hunting weapons. Responsible hunters or target shooters should not mind being hyper-regulated, and they should pay a higher penalty if their guns are involved in a crime (for example, if they didn’t properly secure the weapon and it is stolen, or by an accidental discharge that injures someone).

Guns (and switchblades) don’t kill people, idiots do.

14

Even weapons that by design have their greatest utility against human beings are arguably legitimate because in thankfully rare circumstances killing someone- or posing a significant threat of being able to do so- is the right thing to do. That used to be unquestioned, and even places like Britain haven’t yet quite adopted a standard of “no one should ever use lethal force for any reason”.

15

So all we have to do is balance the likelihood of that situation happening with the person and the weapon chosen. Do situations where, say, a machete is needed pop up often enough for the average person to make the purchase worthwhile?

16

I was researching carbines, once, and learned that there’s a law against middle-lengthed weapons in effect. You can have a long gun or a pistol, but not something inbetween. The issue, I believe, is that the longer a gun is, the more effective it is. But, likewise, the shorter a gun is, the easier it is to sneak it into places without being detected. The weapons that are in the middle are viewed as being doubly dangerous because they’re long enough to be far more accurate and powerful than a pistol, while being short enough to hide.

So, if we were to take that standard with knives, we might say that a long-sword is alright since everyone’s going to see you coming. And, likewise, a kitchen knife is alright because it has a short range. The “dangerous” one would be something like a short sword and that’s the one that needs to be banned.

That all said, I’d still say that the two risks for violence are mental illness and profligate advertising. To get to where you want to be through banning, you need to get rid of:

  • guns
  • knives
  • vehicles
  • machinery
  • poison
  • explosives
  • heavy things
  • hard things
  • sharp things
  • overpasses
  • hills
  • dams
  • bridges
  • congregation centers
  • tall structures

I’m not sensing a road to success.

To advertise less, all you have to do is nothing. Stop writing headlines, stop getting on the internet and promoting the fame of these cranks, stop teaching children how to attack schools. Do less.

To promote mental health, all you have to do is fund R&D for better methods of diagnosing and mediating metal illness, and electing people who you trust to run mental health institutions that are comfortable and caring.

17

But I only use my switchblade for deer hunting and throwing at targets for sport!

18

Well, ok then. So long as you tell the switchblade seller that that’s your intended use, all is good. :slightly_smiling_face:

19

The paradox is that where crime and violence are most prevalent is precisely where innocent people most crucially need weapons to defend themselves; see How Gun Control “Worked” In Jamaica for example. And conversely, where eliminating weapons because almost no one legitimately “needs” them is precisely when such bans are little-needed.

This segues into the whole question of how legitimate it is to be armed in the first place. Many people consider going armed to be inherently aggressive, that at best the armed are “paranoid” or “looking for trouble”. While others consider going armed to be merely prudent and condemn their detractors as hoplophobes.

20

There is, I think, a fundamental difference between guns and knives that renders gun control arguments irrelevant to this discussion. Guns have one purpose: killing things. They are weapons, by design.

Knives, on the other hand, are versatile and very useful tools; they have many more uses aside from weaponry. So the pro-gun arguments advanced - and I feel like this thread was meant to be a stalking horse for yet another debate about guns - don’t necessarily apply to the question of banning knives. The cost-benefit calculus of guns is very different than the one for knives. A society can survive well with very few guns; but knives are almost indispensable.

IMO, anyway.