Knife Laws are weird to me.

[ChrisinHove]

laws serve one purpose: to hold criminals accountable. you could argue that they are meant to prevent crime, but that is false. the fear of accountability can be preventative, but the law can't stop a person from breaking it. furthermore, the mindset that laws prevent crime is how we get laws that are meant only to prevent people from breaking other laws.
it is already illegal to kill, stab, or even threaten someone with a knife. this is universally true. these laws exist to hold criminals accountable, promoting public safety. when you add blade restrictions or carry restrictions in hopes to prevent people from breaking the laws that already exist, the only real effect is an assault on freedom. those laws only exist to limit freedom because they accomplish absolutely nothing when it comes to stoping criminals from being criminals. in fact, they make criminals out of people that are doing nothing to cause harm to anyone.

laws don't prevent crime. laws hold criminals accountable for doing harm to others. if there is a law that exists solely to prevent you from breaking another law, it's only purpose is to limit your freedom.

I respectfully disagree! - at least in part. I am no criminologist, but I cannot conceive there isn’t a deterrent effect, at least on people who aren’t sociopaths.

[ladybug93]

laws serve one purpose: to hold criminals accountable. you could argue that they are meant to prevent crime, but that is false. the fear of accountability can be preventative, but the law can't stop a person from breaking it. furthermore, the mindset that laws prevent crime is how we get laws that are meant only to prevent people from breaking other laws.
it is already illegal to kill, stab, or even threaten someone with a knife. this is universally true. these laws exist to hold criminals accountable, promoting public safety. when you add blade restrictions or carry restrictions in hopes to prevent people from breaking the laws that already exist, the only real effect is an assault on freedom. those laws only exist to limit freedom because they accomplish absolutely nothing when it comes to stoping criminals from being criminals. in fact, they make criminals out of people that are doing nothing to cause harm to anyone.

laws don't prevent crime. laws hold criminals accountable for doing harm to others. if there is a law that exists solely to prevent you from breaking another law, it's only purpose is to limit your freedom.

I respectfully disagree! - at least in part. I am no criminologist, but I cannot conceive there isn’t a deterrent effect, at least on people who aren’t sociopaths.

i said the threat of accountability promotes public safety. this is what i mean by that. the problem though is that the threat of accountability only deters people that are unlikely to commit the crime in the first place, as you pointed out by calling them sociopaths that don't care about the law. a person that wants to commit a murder isn't going to stop to make sure their knife is only 2.5" and non-locking first. according to the evidence, they're far more likely to grab a legal hammer and bash a person's skull in.

the person that isn't a sociopath isn't going to use their knife for harm, so there's no point in restricting their freedom. the person that is a sociopath isn't going to care about the law, so there's no point in restricting law-abiding citizens on their behalf. these restrictions only take away your freedom and serve no purpose other than to neuter you and make you a subject and a victim.

[James Y]

laws serve one purpose: to hold criminals accountable. you could argue that they are meant to prevent crime, but that is false. the fear of accountability can be preventative, but the law can't stop a person from breaking it. furthermore, the mindset that laws prevent crime is how we get laws that are meant only to prevent people from breaking other laws.
it is already illegal to kill, stab, or even threaten someone with a knife. this is universally true. these laws exist to hold criminals accountable, promoting public safety. when you add blade restrictions or carry restrictions in hopes to prevent people from breaking the laws that already exist, the only real effect is an assault on freedom. those laws only exist to limit freedom because they accomplish absolutely nothing when it comes to stoping criminals from being criminals. in fact, they make criminals out of people that are doing nothing to cause harm to anyone.

laws don't prevent crime. laws hold criminals accountable for doing harm to others. if there is a law that exists solely to prevent you from breaking another law, it's only purpose is to limit your freedom.

I respectfully disagree! - at least in part. I am no criminologist, but I cannot conceive there isn’t a deterrent effect, at least on people who aren’t sociopaths.

i said the threat of accountability promotes public safety. this is what i mean by that. the problem though is that the threat of accountability only deters people that are unlikely to commit the crime in the first place, as you pointed out by calling them sociopaths that don't care about the law. a person that wants to commit a murder isn't going to stop to make sure their knife is only 2.5" and non-locking first. according to the evidence, they're far more likely to grab a legal hammer and bash a person's skull in.

the person that isn't a sociopath isn't going to use their knife for harm, so there's no point in restricting their freedom. the person that is a sociopath isn't going to care about the law, so there's no point in restricting law-abiding citizens on their behalf. these restrictions only take away your freedom and serve no purpose other than to neuter you and make you a subject and a victim.

I agree.

Unfortunately, the "lawmakers" want to make it appear like they're doing something about crime. Whether they're doing it accidentally or purposefully (I suspect the latter), they make it easier for the criminals to commit crimes, and harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. The "law" also often seems to come down harder on citizens who rightfully defend themselves than it does on career criminals who prey on innocent citizens.

I get the feeling that those who push for and pass such restrictive laws are psychopathic themselves. They want more and more control over everyone else's lives, and they feed on the fear of those who "want something to be done" about crime. Which has much to do with the already-restrictive laws in the first place.

Jim

[TomAiello]

If you make enough laws, everyone is a criminal who can be arrested at any time. I lived in Eastern Europe at the end of the communist era, and that was an _extremely_ common government strategy there at the time. Once everyone is a criminal, you can pick and choose which criminal to arrest based on your political agenda. You see the same thing in some places, where policing is radically slanted based on income, race, appearance, etc. A 'good party member' (or 'clean cut looking suburbanite') won't get arrested for the exact same thing that someone else might. NYC arresting people for carrying blades that are too long is a very typical example of this. If you look like a stockbroker in a suit, your chance of getting arrested for carrying a 3.5" blade is basically zero. But if you've got tattoos and purple hair, your chances are much higher.

Interesting read on this topic: https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man

[TkoK83Spy]

Call me ignorant, but I honestly have never paid attention to knife laws. No idea what's legal or illegal. I just carry what I like and don't be stupid about pulling it out in public or around people I'm unsure of how they would react. Screw all this, well I'll carry this knife in the city, this knife at home, this knife when I travel...that's tiring.

[BLUETYPEII]

I think ladybug was spot on…

Criminals don’t care about laws that restrict weapons.

Weapon restrictions only harm law abiding citizens. These restrictions could prevent someone from being able to defend them self, especially if they are disabled.

You can’t always rely on someone else to protect you. Help is only a phone call away but sometimes that’s much too far away.

About three years ago my neighbors apartment got broken into by three armed young men, they all had pistols. Unfortunately he had to use his own gun to defend himself; he shot one of them.
The other two fled and I actually was standing right there and called the cops on them and got them caught.

Now if he didn’t have a gun what do you think would’ve happened?

I actually wasn’t carrying my pistol at the time but I religiously carry it every time I leave the front door now.

[ChrisinHove]

If you make enough laws, everyone is a criminal who can be arrested at any time.

Maybe if you don’t make enough laws, no one is a criminal until there is an innocent corpse?

(As ever, context is all. I’m thinking about drunk teenagers in town on a Saturday night).

[Naperville]

I don't yet have the book but it is called, "Three Felonies a Day" and it is a story about how if the US Feds want you, they can follow you and find that you have broken 3 esoteric felonies every day, and put you away for a decade or longer.

This whole thing about laws around the 2nd Amendment is just crazy out of control, like all the other laws that are on the books.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-D ... 3IAWTML1CH

[ykspydiefan]

I dream of simple laws and meaningful enforcement. Compassion for the disproportionately disadvantaged and recognition that some humans have a predator instinct that causes the person to be a constant danger to civil society.

Someway the person and the society must find homeostasis or balance. It would be nice if laws made this easier.

In Canada, the legislation has changed a number of times. So, you can buy an assisted opening knife in Canada but it is not legal to own. This causes dysregulation.

Most laws are weird to me. The stone cold crazy thing is our laws keep changing. Every time the government changes they want to change laws and undo what the last team did. The waste of money should be made criminal. Google Canadian Long Gun Registry for an example of a 2milllion dollar bad law, turning into 1billion dollars before it was scrapped all together.

At least, in Canada our laws are mostly the same country wide. So, if you can smoke it here, you can smoke it there. Not like Washington and Idaho.

[ladybug93]

If you make enough laws, everyone is a criminal who can be arrested at any time.

Maybe if you don’t make enough laws, no one is a criminal until there is an innocent corpse?

(As ever, context is all. I’m thinking about drunk teenagers in town on a Saturday night).

i don't think anyone is arguing for anarchy. the point is that there are already laws in place that need to be enforced and legislators should not be building walls around sensible laws with more laws that limit the freedom of law-abiding citizens. there has to be a balance between sensible laws that will hold you accountable for harming others, while still allowing as much personal freedom as possible.

[Foehammer]

laws serve one purpose: to hold criminals accountable. you could argue that they are meant to prevent crime, but that is false. the fear of accountability can be preventative, but the law can't stop a person from breaking it. furthermore, the mindset that laws prevent crime is how we get laws that are meant only to prevent people from breaking other laws.
it is already illegal to kill, stab, or even threaten someone with a knife. this is universally true. these laws exist to hold criminals accountable, promoting public safety. when you add blade restrictions or carry restrictions in hopes to prevent people from breaking the laws that already exist, the only real effect is an assault on freedom. those laws only exist to limit freedom because they accomplish absolutely nothing when it comes to stoping criminals from being criminals. in fact, they make criminals out of people that are doing nothing to cause harm to anyone.

laws don't prevent crime. laws hold criminals accountable for doing harm to others. if there is a law that exists solely to prevent you from breaking another law, it's only purpose is to limit your freedom.

I respectfully disagree! - at least in part. I am no criminologist, but I cannot conceive there isn’t a deterrent effect, at least on people who aren’t sociopaths.

i said the threat of accountability promotes public safety. this is what i mean by that. the problem though is that the threat of accountability only deters people that are unlikely to commit the crime in the first place, as you pointed out by calling them sociopaths that don't care about the law. a person that wants to commit a murder isn't going to stop to make sure their knife is only 2.5" and non-locking first. according to the evidence, they're far more likely to grab a legal hammer and bash a person's skull in.

the person that isn't a sociopath isn't going to use their knife for harm, so there's no point in restricting their freedom. the person that is a sociopath isn't going to care about the law, so there's no point in restricting law-abiding citizens on their behalf. these restrictions only take away your freedom and serve no purpose other than to neuter you and make you a subject and a victim.

Unfortunately all this common sense is lost on politicians. I fear that in the future they will try to ban all weapons. In Canada, where I live they are working hard on banning guns. It may even be a long game, because most young people don’t hunt or shoot. So one day there will not be enough resistance to push back against their agenda. I’m only saying the bit about guns because I think it is related to knives. When the guns are gone I can guarantee you knives will be next.

Here in Canada we have pretty decent knife laws; but they are terribly ambiguous. Firstly, you are NOT allowed to carry for self defence, ever. There are no blade length restrictions. You can’t conceal your knife intentionally. You knife is only to be carried with the intention of using it as a tool. The reason they are ambiguous rules is because they attempt to govern a person’s intentions.

[Wartstein]

If you make enough laws, everyone is a criminal who can be arrested at any time.

Maybe if you don’t make enough laws, no one is a criminal until there is an innocent corpse?

(As ever, context is all. I’m thinking about drunk teenagers in town on a Saturday night).

I think I get what you mean, but I also think my previous example (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=94262#p1692873) is pretty telling:

Austria and Germany: Pretty much same culture, same language and so on

Austria, no restricting knife laws, Germany on the opposite very much restricting laws.

Still no difference in the (very low anyway) knife crime rate (and IF it is not folders but rather kitchen knives or the like involved)

Does not speak exactly for "restricting laws lead to a difference in crime rate"...

[Jim Malone]

In Belgium there are forbidden knives and all the others need a "legal reason" The interpretation of what legal is is up to the judge. Not only that, "any object" you carry "with the INTENT to use or used in commiting a crime, is also a weapon".
Basically this means there is no 100 ,% legal way to carry any knife, nor any object that could be used as a weapon in the future.
I do carry knives solely for peacefull purposes and have never been stopped or searched in my life.
As a former police officer i'm convinced that i don't fit the profile of what the average street robber or criminal looks or acts like.

[TomAiello]

If you make enough laws, everyone is a criminal who can be arrested at any time.

Maybe if you don’t make enough laws, no one is a criminal until there is an innocent corpse?

The problem isn't the laws so much as the differential enforcement. When you have so many laws that everyone is breaking them every day, then individuals get to choose which laws are enforced--and against whom. That means that we no longer have 'rule of law' but rather 'rule of each individual officer choosing who they want to enforce the law against.' That sort of thing will always work to the detriment of the less powerful members of society. And it's exactly those less powerful people (those who are disadvantaged by an overabundance of laws) that the law is supposed to be protecting from the more powerful.

[ChrisinHove]

If you make enough laws, everyone is a criminal who can be arrested at any time.

Maybe if you don’t make enough laws, no one is a criminal until there is an innocent corpse?

The problem isn't the laws so much as the differential enforcement. When you have so many laws that everyone is breaking them every day, then individuals get to choose which laws are enforced--and against whom. That means that we no longer have 'rule of law' but rather 'rule of each individual officer choosing who they want to enforce the law against.' That sort of thing will always work to the detriment of the less powerful members of society. And it's exactly those less powerful people (those who are disadvantaged by an overabundance of laws) that the law is supposed to be protecting from the more powerful.

I would agree that this is a very reasonable viewpoint for jurisdictions where you can’t trust the authorities, or where only a suspect handful operate all the levers of justice. Isn’t that where your Constitution comes in?

I think there is extra protection against over-zealous policing of our laws from the prioritising of scarce resources and the unwelcome volume of paperwork and admin it creates!

Also, flexibility and interpretation will always be necessary when some of the laws that make up our Constitution (such as it is) are literally centuries old.

[TomAiello]

I would agree that this is a very reasonable viewpoint for jurisdictions where you can’t trust the authorities, or where only a suspect handful operate all the levers of justice.

If we could trust everyone, there would be no need for laws at all.

When someone is put into a position of authority, it does not somehow magically transform them into an angel--they are still just as self interested (and biased) as ever. That's why you need oversight (and checks and balances). When you create arbitrary knife laws (and see police officers practicing things like how to open knives with one hand by holding the blade and swinging the knife around), you put the decisions about who the law applies to into the hands of those people (who are humans--not perfect angels). I can't count the times in my life when I've seen a police officer 'go easy' on a 'respectable looking' person, and then handcuff someone else for the same crime.

A policeman might see my knife clip and say 'well, that guy looks like a respectable, clean cut father out with his children, so I'm not going to enforce the law on him' and then see the knife clip on someone with a different appearance and decide 'now that guy looks rundown/poor/homeless/minority' and immediately stop him and demand to see his knife. I have honestly lost count of the number of times I've seen that kind of thing happen. The fact that it works to my benefit (because I'm the clean cut looking upper income parent) does not make it fair, and does not mean I ought to just ignore it and let it keep happening.

[TomAiello]

"Mother, should I trust the government?"
- Roger Waters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73UMWoXRbjg


But also;

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
- The Federalist Papers, number 51 (author most likely either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton)

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60

[James Y]

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Jim

[ChrisinHove]

I would agree that this is a very reasonable viewpoint for jurisdictions where you can’t trust the authorities, or where only a suspect handful operate all the levers of justice.

If we could trust everyone, there would be no need for laws at all.
…

Absolutely. On the basis that violent crime will therefore be committed, would you prefer significantly higher taxation to sufficiently fund law enforcement to police everybody equally and consistently, to pay less and target enforcement to where it is most likely to cause harm, or pay nothing and ignore that harm altogether?

[bearfacedkiller]

I would agree that this is a very reasonable viewpoint for jurisdictions where you can’t trust the authorities, or where only a suspect handful operate all the levers of justice.

You guys trust agents of the state? Maybe there is a cultural disconnect?