Knife Laws are weird to me.

[TomAiello]

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?

I'm not sure how you are arriving at that choice.

Having fewer laws gives us _more_ consistent enforcement--not less. And it also gives us lower costs.

Fewer laws = less policing = less bias = lower taxation = less harm. It's a win, win, win, win, win.

[apollo]

Knife laws are completely useless in my country. (Belgium)
If the news talks about a stabbing its almost always the same thing a kitchen knife…

And the fact is most of those stabbings are either drug/gang related or crimes of passion. The second one you can not really prevent in my eyes and the first one well i am sure at least half of the politicians in my country probably run coke true there nose every hour based on the fact that with every day that go’s by my country gets more stupid to live in.
So they’re famous “war on drugs” is just a front to get votes next year.
Now those gangs have a new thing they say to kids if you stab people you get points and when you have enough of those you can enter our gang. And the stupidest thing is they actually do it!
I can not believe how moronic the youngest are nowadays , if they told me that 20 years ago when i was a kid i would laughed and told them to F* off and leave me alone!

[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.

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

I think you are right!

That does seem ironic (from my admittedly limited viewpoint) when you have the American Constitution - one of humankind’s greatest secular writings - intended to guarantee a fair relationship between individual and state.

[ChrisinHove]

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?

I'm not sure how you are arriving at that choice.

Having fewer laws gives us _more_ consistent enforcement--not less. And it also gives us lower costs.

Fewer laws = less policing = less bias = lower taxation = less harm. It's a win, win, win, win, win.

My simple assumption is that less policing wouldn’t result in less crime, but more. Maybe I have a lower opinion and expectation of people!

[apollo]

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?

I'm not sure how you are arriving at that choice.

Having fewer laws gives us _more_ consistent enforcement--not less. And it also gives us lower costs.

Fewer laws = less policing = less bias = lower taxation = less harm. It's a win, win, win, win, win.

My simple assumption is that less policing wouldn’t result in less crime, but more. Maybe I have a lower opinion and expectation of people!

I agree with you less policing will invite more crime. They should police more but with less and clearer laws to police…

[TomAiello]

My simple assumption is that less policing wouldn’t result in less crime, but more. Maybe I have a lower opinion and expectation of people!

I don't think the correlation is really that simple at all.

The creation of a new law restricting what knife can be carried outside the home effectively 'creates' crime by turning a previously lawful act into a crime.

In many cases more laws = more crime (not less).


Please also note that I was discussing 'more laws' as opposed to 'more policing'. Those are also two different things.

[ChrisinHove]

My simple assumption is that less policing wouldn’t result in less crime, but more. Maybe I have a lower opinion and expectation of people!

I don't think the correlation is really that simple at all.

The creation of a new law restricting what knife can be carried outside the home effectively 'creates' crime by turning a previously lawful act into a crime.

In many cases more laws = more crime (not less).


Please also note that I was discussing 'more laws' as opposed to 'more policing'. Those are also two different things.

To be fair, you did comment that “The problem isn't the laws so much as the differential enforcement.”

I don’t think numbers of crimes is as important as their severity. How many incidents of unlawful carry equate to one incident of injury?

It comes down to trust, as you say. Your “differential” policing is my “discretional” policing!

[TomAiello]

It comes down to trust, as you say. Your “differential” policing is my “discretional” policing!

I think that may be the crux of the issue. I don't trust the discretion exercised by individual police officers with little or no chance for review or oversight.

[Wartstein]

It comes down to trust, as you say. Your “differential” policing is my “discretional” policing!

I think that may be the crux of the issue. I don't trust the discretion exercised by individual police officers with little or no chance for review or oversight.

I have to agree with Tom on "fewer laws = less policing" at least just in the sense that if there were fewer and only the laws that actually make sense (like, to put it simple, "one may not stab another person under any normal circumstances" ), but no silly laws (like, as it is in my neighbour country Germany "one is not allowed to carry a Ladybug"): It is pretty clear that less police capacity is needed to enforce that fewer laws, resp. the existing forces have more capacity to take care of that fewer laws.

[ChrisinHove]

One thing we haven’t mentioned is direction of travel. I think lawmakers are inclined to make stricter laws to look like they are making things better, but are unlikely to relax laws in fear of being accused of making matters worse.

[TomAiello]

I'd definitely prefer to live in a society with fewer laws, where those laws are enforced well (and impartially). A proliferation of laws, especially relatively minor ones, leads to an overwhelming 'white noise' of law, where enforcement becomes a matter of personal preference on the part of the enforcing officers. And unfortunately, resisting a biased enforcement often leads to people being brutalized. Far better to just wait for your day in court--but that's easy for me to say because I can actually afford to hire lawyers, where many people cannot.

[Naperville]

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.
....

I trust in the Bill of Rights. I also trust everyone to stab or shoot me. It is my business to stay on top of security for my family.

I'll make no excuses, allow everyone to CONCEAL CARRY a firearm, knife or blunt instrument no matter who they are and what their record or mental state is. If you can conceal it, you can carry it. It's the 2nd Amendment, and you are either for it or against it. Now, that said, if you commit a crime, you do the time. The prosecutors and judges should be responsible and make sure that those that do serious bodily injury to anyone, do serious time.

I am PRO 2nd Amendment. No excuses.

And while we are at it, we need to have a serious discussion about self defense. It is my God given right to defend myself.

[TTFulltimer]

In the US it seems as though most people think the 2nd amendment is just talking about guns. I think it applies to everything and not just weapons. It should include all other gear needed like knives, body armor, night vision and communication equipment.

It is so focused on firearms that in some places the gun laws are more lenient than the knife laws. Especially now that many states are passing constitutional carry with preemption. I can open carry a gun and a large knife but brass knuckles are illegal. That doesn’t make sense.

The founders included the 2nd such that the people would have parity with any established federal military. The founders did not think a standing military was necessary. Of course during that period people volunteered to make us free. So ARMS is the term they used knowing full well that new ARMS would be coming in the future. I think to be fair the people should be able to keep and bear any ARM that our foreign enemies can buy from the USA. Those ARMS are defined in the ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulations) And trust me any foreign country is or can become our enemy in the blink of an eye. So if Israel can buy F35 fighters so can the Freedom Fighters of Defense Town USA.

The so called 2nd Amendment organizations do we the people a huge disservice by only concentrating on guns.

[TomAiello]

So if Israel can buy F35 fighters so can the Freedom Fighters of Defense Town USA.

I'm sure state national guard units can buy that kind of hardware (if they have the budget).

And city/county governments have bought APCs and helicopters from the DOD. I wonder how it would go if a town tried to buy an F35? I'm not sure what town has the budget for it, but it's an interesting question.

What's the price of an F35 on the International market? According to one article I found via google (https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-bi ... eries-dip/) it's about $90 million. So that's not out of the question for some municipalities, but it's probably a stretch.

[TTFulltimer]

So if Israel can buy F35 fighters so can the Freedom Fighters of Defense Town USA.

I'm sure state national guard units can buy that kind of hardware (if they have the budget).

And city/county governments have bought APCs and helicopters from the DOD. I wonder how it would go if a town tried to buy an F35? I'm not sure what town has the budget for it, but it's an interesting question.

What's the price of an F35 on the International market? According to one article I found via google (https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-bi ... eries-dip/) it's about $90 million. So that's not out of the question for some municipalities, but it's probably a stretch.

National Guard units are part of the standing military. No government Federal State or Local is beyond yelling at you, "Get in the boxcar" And from what I saw they will start with people wearing masks. Least likely to be a problem.

[Scandi Grind]

I find it generally atrocious when laws state that you cannot defend yourself with certain tools, or as it is in some countries, use any tool at all to defend yourself. It actually stimulates violent crime if a criminal knows that every law abiding citizen has meagre or no tool with which to stop said criminal from hurting them.

I also find it a little ironic because even with perfect enforceability, say we actually could stop everyone from obtaining firearms and knives, physiology now plays into violence and the biggest and strongest now will always have the overwhelming advantage. The fact of the matter is that until you literally remove somebodies limbs, they are always "armed" and potentially dangerous. I've learned enough about martial arts to know how quickly you can kill someone with just your bare hands. The benefit especially of firearms as an available defence, is that it has the potential to be wielded with almost equal effectiveness by a small 120 pound woman, as it can by a 220 pound man. It greatly levels the playing field.

I also find it the most unjust type of rule you can make, that you not be able to take any measure necessary to stop someone who intends to harm or kill you. If someone violently attacks you without physical provocation, then all bets are off. Their life is on there own head and you have a right, and furthermore a responsibility to survive. If you were attacked and knew you weren't allowed to use the shovel in your hand to defend yourself, but you feared for your life, would you even care about the law at that point? Should you? The fact that such a thought process should ever have to go through someone's head saddens me.

[Brock O Lee]

In my state of Victoria in Aus the knife laws are simple. No EDC knife is allowed, not even a 58 mm SAK. This is land of Crocodile Dundee for crying in a bucket.

The exception to the rule is, unless you have "a good reason" to carry a knife. Like a tradesman on a job site carrying a utility knife or multitool, or a fisherman while fishing on the beach with his fishing knife.

Nice and ambiguous. A "good reason" is open to multiple interpretations by the officer of the law. Interpretation is very subjective and it all depends on the situation. According to the law the fisherman may not EDC his fishing knife on the trip home, because he is not fishing anymore.

To get in trouble, someone has to catch you though... So my take on it is:
-do whatever you want
-learn how to fly under the radar
-do not draw attention to yourself