Banned Knives

[RenaissanceBiker]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

You have to remember that those people were, by modern standards, primitive and ignorant. They had some good ideas, especially for their time, but the idea that government interventions that provably save many lives should be eschewed because of some simple-minded aversion to "harassing citizens who weren't doing anything wrong" is pretty silly.

You have to remember that those people overthrew a government that routinely harrassed citizens that were doing nothing wrong. It wasn't a simple-minded aversion. It was a deliberate effort to treat citizens better than the previous government. That cultural idea of freedom is still prevalent in the U.S. today.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Tell you what, you be a cultural relativist and I'll believe that some practices are actually better than others in important and objective ways.

What's wrong with cultural relativity? I can understand urban knife and gun laws, but I don't live in an urban environment. It's foolish for you to think that just because a law works in your culture that it should absolutely work in all cultures.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Tell you what, you be a cultural relativist and I'll believe that some practices are actually better than others in important and objective ways.

Bad news, Kevin, neither he nor I are cultural relativists in that way. I firmly believe that all citizens without records of illegal violence against others should be free to go armed above a reasonable age - and those demonstrated to be incapable of doing so rationally and appropriately should not. Regardless of country.

ETA: Note that does not create a requirement to be armed, it just verifies the right to self-protection - a right no non-criminal should ever be denied.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Bad news, Kevin, neither he nor I are cultural relativists in that way. I firmly believe that all citizens without records of illegal violence against others should be free to go armed above a reasonable age - and those demonstrated to be incapable of doing so rationally and appropriately should not. Regardless of country.

ETA: Note that does not create a requirement to be armed, it just verifies the right to self-protection - a right no non-criminal should ever be denied.

I agree.

You can look at the experiences of states in the U.S. that have changed from a "may-issue" model for concealed carry permits to "shall-issue"- the predicted "blood in the streets" end result never materializes.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by BStrong

I agree.

You can look at the experiences of states in the U.S. that have changed from a "may-issue" model for concealed carry permits to "shall-issue"- the predicted "blood in the streets" end result never materializes.

And strangely your homicide rate is much higher than Australia's. Hmmm....

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by lionking

And strangely your homicide rate is much higher than Australia's. Hmmm....

So is our rate of death and injury from motor vehicle accidents.

An individual in either country is more subject to death through accident (all types) than homicide.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by BStrong

So is our rate of death and injury from motor vehicle accidents.

An individual in either country is more subject to death through accident (all types) than homicide.

I don't really see the point you are making here.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by lionking

I don't really see the point you are making here.

Perhaps that as an instrument of death, an automobile is a much more dangerous device, yet both countries allow pretty much anyone (including "idiots" who like knives) access to such things. Both societies (the enlightened Australians and the barbaric liberty worshiping Americans) have decided that their respective populations are mature enough to handle machines that weigh several thousand pounds and travel at very fast speeds. So perhaps the fear of knives is a bit misplaced.

[lionking]

If you want to talk about driving regulations, perhaps another thread. For starters, Australia has compulsory seat belt laws and random alcohol and drug tests. I think you will find automobile death rates are lower here as well. Sensible government intervention.

ETA We also don't allow young people to drive over powered cars.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by lionking

I don't really see the point you are making here.

The murder of my friend, Julius Long:

"Declaring that "road rage is out of control in our society," a San Mateo County Superior Court judge yesterday sentenced a man to nine months in jail for running over and killing a motorcyclist he had argued with minutes earlier."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/MNS48575.DTL

If the murderer had used a knife or firearm, it wouldn't have been 9 months work furlough - society accepts that vehicles are dangerous when misused, but does not take any affirmative action to restrict their possession or use.

Why? everybody drives, or wants to - not everybody owns or uses firearms or knives as common tools.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by lionking

If you want to talk about driving regulations, perhaps another thread. For starters, Australia has compulsory seat belt laws and random alcohol and drug tests. I think you will find automobile death rates are lower here as well. Sensible government intervention.

ETA We also don't allow young people to drive over powered cars.

I do not know exactly how to ask/phrase this politely, but how did Australia go from a semi-hearty pioneering state to a nanny state so comparativly quickly? (Sites for real sociological/political data and analysis welcomed!!) The US has in this area gone downhill in the past 50 years, but Australia has done so much quicker.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by fuelair

I do not know exactly how to ask/phrase this politely, but how did Australia go from a semi-hearty pioneering state to a nanny state so comparativly quickly? (Sites for real sociological/political data and analysis welcomed!!) The US has in this area gone downhill in the past 50 years, but Australia has done so much quicker.

Maybe we just aren't hung up about the "right" to carry lethal weapons. As I said earlier, there simply is not a groundswell to change things. We also have lower homicide rates. Not a bad trade off in my opinion.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by lionking

If you want to talk about driving regulations, perhaps another thread. For starters, Australia has compulsory seat belt laws and random alcohol and drug tests. I think you will find automobile death rates are lower here as well. Sensible government intervention.

ETA We also don't allow young people to drive over powered cars.

I know you have a tiered licensing scheme for motorcycles, but how does the licensing for passenger vehicles work? What are the power limits for young drivers?

It's an issue here concerning sportbikes, but with no law in place it's up to the discrection of an individual salesman as to not selling liter (or larger) bikes to non expereinced kids.

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by Chris L

The guys who wrote our Constitution didn't much care for the idea of authorities arbitrarily harassing citizens who weren't doing anything wrong. Different countries and different cultures I guess.

Exactly. The Australians have had generations as colonies for the utter helplessness of the British peasantry to be completely ingrained in the culture. It's actually a little sickening how HAPPY so many of them are to be defenseless.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

Exactly. The Australians have had generations as colonies for the utter helplessness of the British peasantry to be completely ingrained in the culture. It's actually a little sickening how HAPPY so many of them are to be defenseless.

What unmitigated drivel. The differences between Australian and British culture are very, very similar to the differences between US and British culture. Bow down to Poms? What a joke.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by BStrong

I know you have a tiered licensing scheme for motorcycles, but how does the licensing for passenger vehicles work? What are the power limits for young drivers?

The three large states of NSW, Victoria and Queensland (75% of the population or something like that) have restrictions on 8 cylinder cars, turbos and some others for probationary license holders (usually, but not always young people).

ETA I see that South Australia also has restrictions.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by lionking

If you want to talk about driving regulations, perhaps another thread. For starters, Australia has compulsory seat belt laws and random alcohol and drug tests. I think you will find automobile death rates are lower here as well. Sensible government intervention.

ETA We also don't allow young people to drive over powered cars.

We have similar laws here, and yet such vehicles still manage to kill thousands on the road annually. Despite that fact, you can (with the proper documentation and enough credit) drive out of a car lot anywhere in either country behind the wheel of one of these killing machines. You are worried about hunting knives while others are handing out the equivalent of machine guns on wheels.

[lionking]

Invalid comparison is invalid.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by lionking

Invalid comparison is invalid.

It's invalid why, because you don't like it? They are both tools that can kill when used inappropriately. One has far more ability to take life than the other, and does so on a regular basis. You trust your fellow citizens with THAT tool, but not the tool that looks scary.

[lionking]

If you want to provide evidence of using cars as lethal weapons to such an extent to cause public concern, then you may have a valid point. Otherwise, you don't.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by lionking

If you want to provide evidence of using cars as lethal weapons to such an extent to cause public concern, then you may have a valid point. Otherwise, you don't.

You don't think the annual highway fatality rates for either country are proof enough of how deadly automobiles are?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Chris L

You don't think the annual highway fatality rates for either country are proof enough of how deadly automobiles are?

Disingenuous rubbish. If you have evidence of cars being used as weapons to an extent to cause concern, please present it.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by lionking

Disingenuous rubbish. If you have evidence of cars being used as weapons to an extent to cause concern, please present it.

Nothing disingenuous about it. The people who are killed by those machines are just as dead whether the driver meant to kill them or not. I've heard a lot of talk about "idiots" on this thread and how the law has to protect us from them. Here is a clear example of "idiots" being allowed access to far more deadlier instruments of destruction, that can be used to kill people even when the "idiot" has no intention of doing so. This isn't just a theoretical lethality, as these machines kill thousands of people each and every year. Yet you don't seem to be willing to give up THAT tool to save those many more lives.

[crimresearch]

Will somebody please stick a knife fork in this thread?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by BStrong

So is our rate of death and injury from motor vehicle accidents.

An individual in either country is more subject to death through accident (all types) than homicide.

Non-sequiter.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Will somebody please stick a knife fork in this thread?

Stab....stab....STAB...STAB...stab

[Xulld]

Quote:

Indeed. It's an ideological commitment to the belief that arms control can't work.

Ohhh it can work, but requires the complete and utter destruction of freedom to actually attain significant results.

Prohibition has never been very effective in a free society.

[W.D.Clinger]

False dichotomy 101:

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Originally Posted by Chris L

Tell you what, you live in your country and I'll live mine.

Tell you what, you be a cultural relativist and I'll believe that some practices are actually better than others in important and objective ways.

Because cultural relativity is the only alternative to agreeing that Australian law and culture are superior to the law and culture of all other countries.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Chris L

Nothing disingenuous about it. The people who are killed by those machines are just as dead whether the driver meant to kill them or not. I've heard a lot of talk about "idiots" on this thread and how the law has to protect us from them. Here is a clear example of "idiots" being allowed access to far more deadlier instruments of destruction, that can be used to kill people even when the "idiot" has no intention of doing so. This isn't just a theoretical lethality, as these machines kill thousands of people each and every year. Yet you don't seem to be willing to give up THAT tool to save those many more lives.

I reckon the social cost of restricting cars might be higher than the social cost of restricting knives. People use cars to get to work and to get to spending opportunities so the economy relies on them in a way that it just doesn't rely on knives.

Also people are willing to accept air bags, crumple zones and so on. They're okay if cars are deliberately designed to be as safe as possible. Yet the knife fans aren't keen on being limited to small, folding knives, almost as if they want the objects they carry to be useful as lethal weapons.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Crumple zones and air bags protect those inside the car, not outside. It's kind of like how a locking blade protects the hand of the user, but not others. Some of the features of knives that make them useful are the very ones that make them lethal weapons. Field dressing a deer or cutting some things are better done with a larger knife. I don't always carry a hunting knife, but when I do I don't want to have to explain myself to you or anyone else. Fortunately, I live in a part of the world that suits me in this regard. I'm glad you enjoy your sheltered existance. What you call a sanctuary I call a cage. You can argue that I would be better off in a cage all you want. Out here I'm free to disagree.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Also people are willing to accept air bags, crumple zones and so on. They're okay if cars are deliberately designed to be as safe as possible. Yet the knife fans aren't keen on being limited to small, folding knives, almost as if they want the objects they carry to be useful as lethal weapons.

New York City has been treating small folding knives as illegal, while fixed blade knives of up to 4 inches remain legal when carried openly.

The district attorney and other law enforcement officials appear to be abusing a poorly written law for their own purposes. A knife rights organization filed suit last year in federal court.

Originally Posted by Chris L

I've heard a lot of talk about "idiots" on this thread and how the law has to protect us from them. Here is a clear example of "idiots" being allowed access to far more deadlier instruments of destruction, that can be used to kill people even when the "idiot" has no intention of doing so. This isn't just a theoretical lethality, as these machines kill thousands of people each and every year. Yet you don't seem to be willing to give up THAT tool to save those many more lives.

According to US government statistics, motor vehicle deaths are the leading cause of injury death within all age groups except for those less than one year old. During 2009, the five leading causes of death by injury (as opposed to disease etc) were

1. 34,485 motor vehicle deaths
2. 31,758 poisoning deaths
3. 24,792 deaths from falling
4. 18,735 suicides by firearm
5. 11,493 homicides by firearm

Homicides by knife did not make the top ten overall, but homicides by cutting or piercing (not necessarily by knives) did account for about 400 deaths within each of three age groups: 15-24, 25-34, and 35-44. Even within those three groups, firearms accounted for more than ten times as many deaths as knives. So did motor vehicles.

Knives are much closer to motor vehicles when we look at non-fatal, unintentional injuries. In 2007, there were 2,655,425 people injured by motor vehicles and 2,123,862 injured by cutting or piercing.

Although Kevin_Lowe wants us to be afraid of idiots carrying knives on the streets, you're far more likely to be killed or injured by a motor vehicle than by a knife. You're a lot more likely to be hurt by a knife while fixing dinner than when walking the streets.

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for Rule 12.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

New York City has been treating small folding knives as illegal, while fixed blade knives of up to 4 inches remain legal when carried openly.

I was interested until I clicked on the link and discovered you were being less than forthcoming or accurate. NYC is arresting people for carrying "gravity knives" which can be flicked open one-handed, not for carrying folding knives which require two hands to open.

That's exactly how the law is supposed to work. (Knife enthusiasts are well aware of the potential for modifying lockable folding knives so they can be flicked open and locked open quite easily with one hand. I suspect that the police suspect that some or all of the folding knives "that just happened to get that way through use" were in fact deliberately modified).

Quote:

According to US government statistics, motor vehicle deaths are the leading cause of injury death within all age groups except for those less than one year old. During 2009, the five leading causes of death by injury (as opposed to disease etc) were

1. 34,485 motor vehicle deaths
2. 31,758 poisoning deaths
3. 24,792 deaths from falling
4. 18,735 suicides by firearm
5. 11,493 homicides by firearm

Homicides by knife did not make the top ten overall, but homicides by cutting or piercing (not necessarily by knives) did account for about 400 deaths within each of three age groups: 15-24, 25-34, and 35-44. Even within those three groups, firearms accounted for more than ten times as many deaths as knives. So did motor vehicles.

So what? Seriously, so what? Do you think that the government should only address preventable deaths if there are a lot of them, and that small numbers of preventable deaths don't matter?

[RenaissanceBiker]

If small numbers of preventable deaths matter then we must also look at the idiots shoving each other into traffic. That is still a real danger to you in your comfy cage and that's what really talking about, things that frighten you.

BTW, my daily carry wasn't modified to be opened one handed. I bought it that way. I can also close it with one hand which is also quite useful.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I was interested until I clicked on the link and discovered you were being less than forthcoming or accurate. NYC is arresting people for carrying "gravity knives" which can be flicked open one-handed, not for carrying folding knives which require two hands to open.

Historically, a gravity knife was a knife whose blade is designed to open under the force of gravity. Gravity knives were originally designed for paratroopers who might get stuck in a tree and have only one hand available for opening the knife they need to cut themselves down.

As the current Wikipedia article on gravity knives explains:

Quote:

Importantly, a few jurisdictions and courts have periodically attempted to classify ordinary lock-blade folding knives with a blade that may be opened by centrifugal force (normally, using a flicking motion of the wrist) as a gravity knife, thus making the knife's owner subject to the same criminal penalties imposed for illegal possession of a gravity knife.

That's what's going on in New York City. The powers that be have been reinterpreting the law to further their own purposes.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

That's exactly how the law is supposed to work. (Knife enthusiasts are well aware of the potential for modifying lockable folding knives so they can be flicked open and locked open quite easily with one hand. I suspect that the police suspect that some or all of the folding knives "that just happened to get that way through use" were in fact deliberately modified).

Wrong again. New York City confiscated large numbers of unsold and unmodified folding knives from stores such as Eastern Mountain Sports. Had you actually read the article I cited, you'd know that some of the arresting officers have managed to "embarrass themselves somewhat by failing to get the knife to open on the first few tries in front of a jury". Had you followed one of the links from the article I cited, you'd know that juries have acquitted some of the citizens who have been arrested on these trumped-up charges.

NYC police have claimed that knives similar to two (and possibly three) of my four carry knives are gravity knives. From what I've read, they wouldn't say my Buck 102 Woodsman is a gravity knife, because its 4-inch fixed blade is always open, but two of my three folding knives have thumb studs that make it easier to open them with one hand. Considering the creative techniques being used by the NYC police, it might be possible to open my nail nick folder with one hand as well. None of those three folding knives have been modified.

I don't see how any sensible person could regard any of my knives as gravity knives, but the NYC police and district attorney disagree. Kevin_Lowe seems to agree with them. We'll see whether their argument holds up in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

So what? Seriously, so what? Do you think that the government should only address preventable deaths if there are a lot of them, and that small numbers of preventable deaths don't matter?

I'm suggesting several things:

• It's stupid to say we should always ban an entire technology just because it might be possible to save one human life by banning that technology.
• By agreeing that motor vehicles should not be banned even though they cause tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries every year, Kevin_Lowe has agreed to the principle that the benefits of legislation and enforcement should be compared to their costs.
• People are notoriously poor evaluators of cost/benefit tradeoffs.
• Kevin_Lowe is not the ultimate authority on cost/benefit tradeoffs.
• Any evaluation of cost/benefit tradeoffs will involve evaluation of the costs and evaluation of the benefits.
• When the costs and benefits involve such things as the value of freedom and value of human life, the evaluation of costs and benefits may depend upon the moral values of a culture or country.
• Kevin_Lowe is not the ultimate authority on the moral values of Australia, let alone the moral values of other countries.

[BStrong]

The reason I brought motor vehicles into the discussion is that as a mechanical device, just about every adult owns and uses one (or more) knows how to operate it with at least a minimum skill level, and uses the vehicle at least daily.

Because of that familiarity, people are much more inclined to forgive or accept the intrisinic danger to life and limb the motor vehicle represents - since they themselves use the vehicle in a responsible manner, they are not inclined to believe that "they" are in some way responsible as a group for the damages and death that occur as a result of negligent or criminal use of the vehicle.

It should be that the same logic applied to any dangerous item in common use, but once you move away from the motor vehicle, any such logic is not just discarded, it's turned on it's head.

And having had a friend that was murdered with a motor vehicle, it's much more clear to me - the driver who murdered Julius received a nine month sentence to work furlough for misdemeanor vehiclular manslaughter - had the killer used a firearm or knife, the sentence for even second degree murder would be 15 to life.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by BStrong

And having had a friend that was murdered with a motor vehicle, it's much more clear to me - the driver who murdered Julius received a nine month sentence to work furlough for misdemeanor vehiclular manslaughter - had the killer used a firearm or knife, the sentence for even second degree murder would be 15 to life.

I know it's a bit off topic but my deepest sympathies for your loss.

As an every day motorcyclist I see far too many incidents of aggresive driving aimed at bikers (and have been the target of them myself) and it is about time that using a motor vehicle as a weapon was treated with the seriousness it deserves.

[RenaissanceBiker]

To the biker, there's little difference between aggresive and negligent drivers. I was following a car on the Cherohala Skyway last year that drove around a blind curve and stopped in the road as if lost. Knowing that my wife and another biker were about 1/4 mile behind us, I laid on my horn to get them to keep going. Had they not I'm sure those two bikes would have plowed into us both.

Dea's Gap 2010:

[P.J. Denyer]

While the results can be the same, at least the negligent driver may be 'woken up' with a blat on the horn. My encounters with the 'driving dead' have included being hit by a van that pulled out without indicating or checking mirrors (6 weeks of physio and written off bike), another van coming out of a blind corner on the wrong side of the road (bruising, broken mirror, b@@@@d tried to claim the accident was the other side of the corner and that I'd done £'000s damage to his van for my £20 wing mirror!) and a driver who wasn't paying attention and slamed on her brakes, locked up and skidded sideways completely across two lanes of 70mph dual carriageway in front of me (bruised thigh where I could quite get round the front corner).

But nothing comes close to the fear induced by having someone deliberately trying to hit you with three tons of turbo charged Bentley, pulling across a no overtaking lane divider and to get level with you and then pulling into you and when that didn't work getting infront and slaming the brakes on hard enough to lock up all four wheels to try and make you crash into the back. All because I'd had the temerity to sound my horn when he'd driven up a left turn only lane to the roundabout I'd queued (in the correct lane)to turn right at and then gone all the way round forcing his way into my lane at the last moment and nearly forcing me into a traffic island

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

While the results can be the same, at least the negligent driver may be 'woken up' with a blat on the horn. My encounters with the 'driving dead' have included being hit by a van that pulled out without indicating or checking mirrors (6 weeks of physio and written off bike), another van coming out of a blind corner on the wrong side of the road (bruising, broken mirror, b@@@@d tried to claim the accident was the other side of the corner and that I'd done £'000s damage to his van for my £20 wing mirror!) and a driver who wasn't paying attention and slamed on her brakes, locked up and skidded sideways completely across two lanes of 70mph dual carriageway in front of me (bruised thigh where I could quite get round the front corner).

But nothing comes close to the fear induced by having someone deliberately trying to hit you with three tons of turbo charged Bentley, pulling across a no overtaking lane divider and to get level with you and then pulling into you and when that didn't work getting infront and slaming the brakes on hard enough to lock up all four wheels to try and make you crash into the back. All because I'd had the temerity to sound my horn when he'd driven up a left turn only lane to the roundabout I'd queued (in the correct lane)to turn right at and then gone all the way round forcing his way into my lane at the last moment and nearly forcing me into a traffic island

That's where you should have fired off a few rounds from a frakking great shotgun at the ponce!!!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

If small numbers of preventable deaths matter then we must also look at the idiots shoving each other into traffic. That is still a real danger to you in your comfy cage and that's what really talking about, things that frighten you.

Is a minimum of honesty in your argument too much to ask? If you had a decent case you wouldn't need to constantly resort to these cheap personal attacks about "things that frighten you".

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Historically, a gravity knife was a knife whose blade is designed to open under the force of gravity. Gravity knives were originally designed for paratroopers who might get stuck in a tree and have only one hand available for opening the knife they need to cut themselves down.

...

That's what's going on in New York City. The powers that be have been reinterpreting the law to further their own purposes.

If the knife can be opened by gravity alone, whether it does so by swinging open or by the blade dropping straight down is a distinction without a difference as far as I can see. The concern is whether the knife can be deployed rapidly one-handed, and that concern is exactly the same either way.

If it needs more or less of a flick to get it to lock open I can see an argument either way, depending on how hard it is to flick open. If it's really hard to flick it open one-handed then it's not a knife that can be deployed rapidly one-handed and hence it's no more of a public safety concern than a regular folding knife. If it's really easy to flick open one-handed then the public safety concern is exactly the same as if it were a flick knife, butterfly knife, old-style gravity knife or whatever.

Quote:

Wrong again. New York City confiscated large numbers of unsold and unmodified folding knives from stores such as Eastern Mountain Sports.

I'd like to see both sides of the story before I believe anything either way. If they were perfectly ordinary folding knives with a stiff action and a blade under 3.5" or so I don't agree with the confiscation. However if it turned out that they were easily modifiable to flick open and lock, or if the store was selling them by saying so, or if they were one of those knives that attempt to get around the law by having a hook on the blade so you can open them one-handed on your trousers as you draw them, then I'm with NYC.

Quote:

Had you actually read the article I cited, you'd know that some of the arresting officers have managed to "embarrass themselves somewhat by failing to get the knife to open on the first few tries in front of a jury". Had you followed one of the links from the article I cited, you'd know that juries have acquitted some of the citizens who have been arrested on these trumped-up charges.

Pardon me if I don't take the word of a defence attorney advertising for business as established fact. Depending on how long the knife had been sitting in the evidence locker and how long the officer had to practice with that particular knife I am very much open to the possibility that at the time the knife was seized the owner was capable of flicking it open one-handed.

Of course it wouldn't surprise me a great deal if some police officers have tried to get people on bogus weapons charges in the USA for possession of a legal knife. Police officers are often far from perfect in both their knowledge of the law and their enforcement of it.

Quote:

I don't see how any sensible person could regard any of my knives as gravity knives, but the NYC police and district attorney disagree. Kevin_Lowe seems to agree with them. We'll see whether their argument holds up in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

At the end of the day I don't care if you call them gravity knives or freedom flickers or My Little Ponies. All that matters is whether they can be rapidly deployed one-handed. If they can, I think everyone is better off with them off the streets. Any lawful purpose will keep for the few seconds it takes you to open a folding knife.

Quote:

I'm suggesting several things:

• It's stupid to say we should always ban an entire technology just because it might be possible to save one human life by banning that technology.

• Bit of a straw man there. Nobody has asserted that this is a sufficient condition for banning anything.
  
  
  Quote:
• By agreeing that motor vehicles should not be banned even though they cause tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries every year, Kevin_Lowe has agreed to the principle that the benefits of legislation and enforcement should be compared to their costs.