[Guyon]

Title of this forum just struck me as odd--given that knives get so much discussion here.

I tend to think of a knife as a tool first and as a weapon only in certain scenarios. Just like I think of my hand as an appendage first and as a weapon only in certain scenarios.

One of the biggest legal challenges to knife owners involves perception. Too many folks these days have a gut reaction of "dangerous weapon" to a knife. But as most common sensical folks know, a knife ought to be considered a tool just like a wrench or a screwdriver. Most of us (hopefully) will go our entire lives and never employ a knife in a fight.

Organizations like AKTI spend a lot of time and money trying to combat "evil" perceptions of knives in the public eye. Should we perpetuate that stereotype here by discussing knives in a forum called "Non-Firearm Weapons" ?

[Smoke]

A knife IS a weapon. So is my pen if htat is all I have on me.

I don't worry to much about semantics. I do take perception into account. A folder is considered less evil than a folder. So that is what I carry most of the time.

If I'm lucky (and odds are I will be) I will never use a knife to cut flesh other than a steak now and then.

This forum is about weapons. Call it what it is.

[Tamara]

Weapons are tools.

[Don Gwinn]

What Tamara said.

[brownie0486]

Hey I like that!!!!!!!

real "tool":cool:

Brownie

[mete]

Remember that these days eveything is seen with hysteria. Like the little kid that was suspended for having a GI Joe pistol ( 1" long plastic) in school. Or the recent case in CT where a kid drops and breaks a mercury thermometer - they evacuated the school. Or when people came into my home and saw my kukri, I had just finished cutting brush , it's a wonderfull tool for that, and said " what a wicked weapon ". It's all hysteria!!

[George Hill]

Is a knife a weapon?

Are you kidding?

[Guyon]

My point here is that it's easy to get dismissive and simply state "A knife is a weapon" or "weapons are tools." Both responses are correct, of course, but such moves are also intellectually lazy in terms of the bigger picture of legal challenges that knife owners face in these United States. Length limits, no-tolerance policies, and no-carry policies are a direct result of how the voting populace and its representatives perceive these objects. I'm sorry, but semantics and perceptions are important in this politically correct, litigious age. If you want your knives perceived as weapons, fine. Just don't whine when your rights are taken away by legislation. Go over to Bladeforums, and get CJ Buck started on the perception of knives in our society. He, along with a lot of other knifemakers, would rather people call knives by their primary function (general tool) than a much more specific and rarer function (weapon). It's in their interest as knifemakers, of course, but it's also in our interest as knife carriers.

So again, I ask you: Why should we help feed the "hysteria" that mete mentions here?

[sw442642]

This is a weapons oriented forum. Why feed the hysteria - because if you buy into, then you buy into the concept that it is wrong to have weapons.

We don't have guns as tools. We have guns because they are weapons to defend ourselves and our country. We don't have hammers for that purpose.

So if I have a weapon, I own it because it is a weapon and I have a right to have a weapon. If that makes some one hysterical, that is too bad.

The Brits and the Aussies tried to defend owning guns as sportsmen. You see where that got them. It is a weapon!!!

I might slice a cheese with it or open a package, that'a nice side effect and hard to do with a shotgun

[Guyon]

Thanks sw442642. You provide a thoughtful response to my inquiry. Again, I agree with everyone here, for the most part. I just wonder if we are sometimes shooting ourselves in the foot with what we call things (eg. the "assault rifle" debate).

However, in the last part of your post, you make a distinction that helps make my point, actually. Guns are designed to lethally put a bullet in a living target. Other than shooting at paper (or other targets) for recreation, that's about it as far as function. Knives, on the other hand, have SO many other functions besides slicing up an attacker.

I wonder this as well: How many folks here have ACTUALLY employed a knife as a weapon?

[Mastrogiacomo]

Well, I've heard people call a gun a "tool." That's Bull...it's a weapon. A knife may be useful in the fields or opening stuff but IT'S STILL a weapon. Like it or not, it is what it is and it has been used in that capacity all through the ages in martial arts -- but as with most weapons, it needn't be it's sole function. Depends on the user.

[sw442642]

I understand the point. There is a technical issue about calling semi ayto AR-15 an assault rifle. But again, I don't really care.

Why buy into the demonization of a class of guns? Ok, you might argue that for assault rifles as just being politic. But then scope guns become sniper rifles.

A Glock or a Beretta 92 will be a military style pistol. I see no reason buy into this.

We shoot ourselves in the foot if we admit that the common types of firearms are intrinsically somehow evil and that we are dirty little boys and girls to have them. It's like arguing for the right to have pornography. We have that right but aren't you just a pervert to have it? So do you want to make guns like that?

Are you a nut to have a 50 BMG or an AR?

I would encourage us to tell folks that we own AR-15s and that they are semi auto versions of military rifles and it is a noble tradition for Americans to own such. Did anyone have a fit when after WWII, civilians had a Garand or Springfield '03?

No, we should be able to say forthrightly that we have an assault rifle (unless you want to get into the techy argument).

GWB is in favor of the assault rifle ban purely because of the term. So he is a dope. It's ok with GWB to have a Mini-14 which is the same darn type of gun except it is wood. Like his head.

[Sir Galahad]

sw442642 makes some outstanding points. Great posts!

By thinking that we need to call something by a different name to make sure we are "allowed" to keep or carry it, we are saying ourselves that there is something wrong with owning a weapon. That will come back to bite us. Every time we make PC concessions the Left gets bolder. And how about if the "Law" says, "Ok, you want to call it a 'tool'? Fine. We forbid the carrying of sharp or heavy tools. We'll now require a contractor's license for you to carry a hammer, a chisel, a screwdriver, or any other tool deemed to be a potential weapon in the guise of a tool."

I remember back in the early 1980s, there was a proposition going up for the vote (I believe it was Prop. 15) to ban handguns in the state of California. What did the antis say? "We're not after rifles or shotguns. We're just after those guns with NO SPORTING PURPOSE." (Yes, and pistol competitions aren't sports, right?:rolleyes: ) So, the proposition was defeated, but lots of gun shops said, "Whew! That was close! Let's sell more things like ARs and AKs and---remember these---HK-91s and HK-93s because we might get stuck with pistols we can't sell if they ban them." And folks bought those firearms. Well, in the late 1980s, here come the antis again with, "We just want to ban assault rifles. We're not trying to ban guns that have SPORTING PURPOSES." But, wait, they said they were not after RIFLES back when they were pushing Prop.15. But no one freakin' remembers it (or cares!!!) This time, they got their way and now in Cali you cannot own certain rifles. Now thy want the .50BMG rifles and "sniper rifles". This time, the term "sporting purpose" rarely enters the discussion. They just want to ban the firearms because they most likely can. And damn the sporting purposes. This is what happens when you buy into the "sporting purpose" justification for owning a firearm. You soon learn the "Neimoller theorum" (First they came for the assault rifles. I didn't own one, so I didn't speak up. They came for the concealable handguns. I didn't own one, so I didn't speak up...they came for the rest of the handguns, the .50 caliber rifles, and pump shotguns. I didn't speak up. Then they came for my rifle. But, by then, there were no gun owners left to speak up.) You give a leftist a millimeter and he'll take 1,000 miles. We do not need to justify owning a weapon. It is our right. There comes a time when good men must act or evil will prevail.

[Skunkabilly]

I carry my Emerson for defense and my Leatherperson for utility, but will use either for either if need be.

[Hawaiian]

Call the knife that you are carrying whatever you like, but when you are stopped by a LEO and asked "are you carrying any weapons", you better reply, "NO weapons, but I do have a pocket knife that is a tool for my job."

[Sir Galahad]

You might be better off saying, "Not really a weapon, but I have a pocket knife" and leave it at that or even just saying "I have a pocketknife" and leave it simple. If you say it's for your job and he asks what you do for a living and you're an accountant and here you are with a Vaquero Grande, he's going to think you're suspicious. Fact is, if the law is clear on carrying a knife, he doesn't need to know why you're carrying it. It places like Cali, you don't want to claim the thing is for self-defense. "Why are you carrying this, sir?" "My wife bought it for me for Christmas and she asks me every morning if I have it." If he's married, he won't ask any further. :D

[Guyon]

Nice points. I see where both sw442642 and Sir Galahad are coming from in terms of concessions in linguistic usage. Maybe you're both right. Maybe dodging the issue with terminology could diminish our rights to own weapons in the long run.

Fact is, though, I just don't think of a knife as a weapon. At least not unless it's a weapon of last choice (the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight comes to mind).

I was raised in the country. I carried a pocketknife to school from the fourth grade on. Not to cut people. Not to ward off attackers. Instead, I sharpened pencils, whittled branches, cut rope, cut twine on hay bales, and tackled whatever other little jobs arose. And I still mainly carry a knife for such purposes.

Over on Bladeforums, I chuckle at all the machismo and posturing that goes on around "tactical knife" choices. The gritty reality, of course, is that you just do not want to be in a knife fight--no matter what your level of "training." It's messy, bloody business, and everybody involved is likely going to get cut. And of course, if your assailant is unarmed and you stab and kill/maim him or her, you could be looking at some jail time or monetary retribution in certain, more liberal areas of this country. Here in Tennessee, it would depend on the circumstances. But pity the poor fool who stabs an attacker in California with an "illegal" knife.

As a result, I carry a sidearm for such extreme scenarios. I carry my knife for much more mundane chores.

Regarding conversations with LEOs, I would never refer to my pocketknife as a weapon.

[Bruz]

My knives may be tools or weapons, but they are all works of art!

[kannonfyre]

:fire: :fire: :fire:

In a land (where I live) crammed chock-a-block with :cuss: sheeple, almost every goddamn thing worth using for self defence is considered a weapon. :banghead:

Unless it's an SAK or a multi-tool, the local JBTs can arrest you and can your a## in maxi-security prison for carrying a buck 110. Thus, I have lived all my life with those around me proclaiming that almost any folding or fixed blade is a weapon, unless you're camping or using it in a kitchen. :cuss:

:cuss: ing sheeple and :cuss: ing leftist politicians!

[Tamara]

Once more: Weapons are tools.

Some tools are more narrow-focus than others, but the fact remains that a tool is merely "A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work".

I realize that this will annoy both liberals, who wish to assign some totemic significance to various devices that they are particularly scared of, as well as various tactical types, with their Conanesque "riddle of steel" visions, but the truth of the matter is that various cutting implements and bullet-launching machines are merely devices that facilitate manual or mechanical work.

Since we're all tossing about hackneyed phrases, I'll chime in with "My 1911/Emerson Commander is only a tool, I am the weapon." ;)

[Double Naught Spy]

Guyon, I am afraid that you don't quite understand the difference between function and intent. Guns are NOT designed to lethally put a bullet in a living target. Specifically where the slug goes, such as into a living target, is a matter of application and not design. A gun is designed to launch a projectile down range in a controlled manner, nothing more.

So your reasoning concept that a knife is just a tool unless being used in a fight also holds true for guns. It is all about application and not design. Of course there are gun designs that were developed to put more, bigger, or faster slugs down range and many of these designs have come about for combat application, but combat application. Even so, the design and function of the gun is still to put projectiles down range in a controlled manner.

Also, the idea that the design of a gun to lethaly put a slug into a living target is off in the same manner where it comes to lethality. Whether or not a slug is launched into a target in a lethal manner also comes down to application. You can intentionally shoot living organisms without trying to kill them.

[Guyon]

Once more: Weapons are tools.

Yeah, I get the category equation here. Makes perfect sense to anyone who doesn't react with outright fear at the sight of a sharpened piece of metal. But honestly, one has to recognize that being technically correct with language does not always mean that you'll be understood as you want to be. Ask a lot of average Joes on the street (who are exposed daily to liberally saturated "newspeak") and they'll tell you that a tool is found in the hardware section of [insert large department discount store name here], and a knife is a dangerous weapon that shouldn't be allowed in schools or airplanes for the public good. My point is that, in this Oceanic reality (my apologies to Mr. Orwell), denotation and connotation can be worlds apart (one reason Orwell wrote "Politics and the English Language" (http://eserver.org/langs/politics-english-language.txt)). This discrepancy is what knife carriers need to change--even if it is a single person at a time. Yes, knives have a long and storied history as weapons, but knife owners ought to combat current Conanesque visions and liberal stereotypes and instead emphasize the general utility of a good pocket knife--ie. its function as a "tool" in the tamer sense of the word. Even if you enjoy annoying liberals, you have to grant me that perception does matter when it comes to protecting the rights we currently enjoy.

While we're being honest, I have to grant that I don't refer to knives as tools OR weapons. I just call them knives. But if someone exclaims, "Why are you carrying that?!", I do take the time to carefully explain all the reasons why a pocketknife is useful. Generally, however, I avoid mentioning that they're "great for stabbing perps." :p

As for the REAL weapon, you're exactly right, Tamara. I stopped reading Stephen King a long time ago (as soon as I realized most of his novels were basically the same novel). However, one passage from the Dark Tower series stands out in my memory. I think it's from the Gunslinger's creed:

I aim with my eye.
I do not kill with my gun; he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

Double Naught Spy: I fully understand the difference between function and intent (see the three lines above). But you're kidding yourself if you believe that there is no overlap here. How many gun makers choose to make guns that are not lethal? Daisy? Crossman? Those are airguns, my friend. You can split hairs and call lethality a controlled function, but this nomenclature strikes me as naive. A "controlled manner" could mean just 50 fps. Try selling that velocity to consumers.

[Sir Galahad]

It's not about "annoying liberals". It's about not capitulating to them. If you add water to the claim "weapons should not be carried in public", even if inadvertantly, you make the case for abolishing CCW in the interest of "public safety" and making sure non-CCW states never get CCW. "Well, if you say a knife is a tool, let's go further and define what is a tool. You don't need a blade longer than 1 inch to whittle a pencil and the blade doesn't need to lock like on those assault knives. And since you seem to be reasonable that you are carrying a tool and not a weapon, then you don't need a CCW." LIke I said, it starts with things like Prop. 15 and before it's over, you've lost much more freedom than you thought possible. Allowing liberals to THINK there is something wrong with carrying a weapon by making that assertion yourself is a sure-fire road to losing the right to even own them. You don't have to call the knife a weapon, but don't make it a point to reassure liberals that you're carrying a "tool" and not a weapon because that just convinces them they're right to ban weapons. Some people are not stupid. They will see you calling a Vaquero Grande a "tool" and think: subterfuge. If liberals want to know why you're carrying THAT thing, it's simple. Because I want to and the law says I can. Period. They don't NEED to know anything else. If they insist on knowing why, I'd insist on knowing something personal about them, like what they do behind closed doors with their spouses. When they get offended, that's when you remind them that being polite is a two-way street.

[brownie0486]

It matters not what YOU call your knife, a weapon or tool.

The laws are already on the books and knives fall under "dangerous weapons" laws, not tool laws.

Asked by an LE if you have any weapons? He's referencing the statutes of the state which describe knives as weapons. Playing semantics with what it is to you, or denying the same will only cause more scrutiny on the officers part.

Most LE ask if you have any weapons and then clarify that with "any knives", etc. right after.

Call it what you will, the courts will prosecute any viloation of restrictions on the objects in question as weapons. So described and so restricted depending on the state you live in.

There are no "tool" laws that pertain to knives, they are weapons and have been considered such since the firat laws banning their possesion in public back around 1850-1860 era in the deep south [ when everyone carried a Bowie type knife and they were seen as weapons used to defend ones honor and life ].

You may use it as a tool and then secondly for defense of your person but that is secondary to their description by law. I would not be one to play semantics with the LE's on the street.

I would however, and do, carry the dangerous weapons statute for my state with me and have headed a few officers off at the pass when questioned about mines legality.

Have had em taken away on the steet, then given back at their chiefs desk in an hour or less after citing law statute which they confirmed.

What the LE's need to do is know the law relative this subject [ which most don't ]. What we need to do is know the law and abide by it, or attempt to change it. Carrying the statute governing your states restrictions or lack thereof goes a long way to satisfying their objectives of determining whether what you have is legal or illegal by law.

Beat em at their own game. Leave the semantics to those who want to get hastled further.

Brownie

[Penforhire]

The answer to your question would seem to depend on your personal history. As a young lad, around 11 years of age, growing up in a rough part of NYC I had occasion to use a knife (a really cheap import if I recall) and it served its purpose since I had no access to firearms. I also recall doing more damage with a hand-held barbell (sans weights) that was hidden inside my winter parka.

Both WEAPONS saved me from more serious injury, at least that's my opinion even in hindsight.

I had also been taught how to whittle on sticks by my father at an even younger age and in that setting a knife was a fine tool.

[Guyon]

I guess what's being debated here in the main is whether language is fixed and "true" or whether it is contextual and slippery. This isn't a new debate; it's at least as old as Plato's "Cratylus" (For those interested, here ya' go: http://www.karalahana.com/literature/plato%20cratylus.htm). The same debate is still being waged in academic circles between structuralists (fundamental systems based on explicit definitions) and deconstructionists (all systems are relative), though they may call themselves by slightly different names as the mood strikes.

I really like the responses that have speculated about what one would do in the presence of an LEO. I suspect that a lot of folks would be a little less likely to adamantly maintain that their knife is a "weapon." Language gets funny when your behind is on the line.

As for the language debate, I have to throw out this quotation from the master of spin and deconstruction:

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." --William Jefferson Clinton.

From my view, language has always been and is always going to be a slippery, political beast. Trying to pin it down is sort of like trying to pin down a tomato seed with your fingernail. The best we can hope for is to corral it to our advantage. Really, that's why I think knives ought to be depicted as tools. I don't see it so much as a concession. Really, it's just smart strategy.

[Baba Louie]

weap on n. 1. a. Any instrument or device used to attack another or to defend oneself from attack. b. Any part of the body used in attack or defense, such as an animal's horns, teeth or claws. 2. Any means employed to overcome, persuade, or get the better of another:"Her smile was her most effective weapon."

What Tamara defined and said kinda sounds like something R.A. Heinlein would write in one (or several) of his books. The mind is the weapon.

The real question would be... Is it a dirk or a dagger (shudder)?

Intent? Tell it to the judge.

My definition does and will not match, say, a judge or legislater in CA's definition.

So I guess until I use one of my knives as defined at the top, they're just tools that cut.

Adios

[brownie0486]

The only problem with that is you are going to answer to the states definition. They have been defined "legally", thats the law and we change it or work within its parameters.

Carry legal, have the state law concerning knives with you and when questioned or hastled by an uninformed LE type drag it out and show him.

Saves so much time, money , hastles, and you may just walk away unscathed.

Play semantics with the LE's on the street and they will likely take it as some form of resistance. Knowing their attitudes from being one for awhile they love a challenge to their authority and always have the upper hand on the streets whether they are proved right or wrong later.

Brownie

[Sir Galahad]

Got to agree with what Brownie says here. YOU might call your Vaquero Grande a "tool", but, really, what cop is going to believe that? If it is legal to carry, the cop is going to abide by that most times. The reason the cop is asking if you have weapons is for his personal safety as he interacts with you. If a cop asks me if I have a weapon, I am going to answer, "I have a pocketknife" and leave it at that. Now, Guyon, you also mentioned what one should call a knife when some liberal asks "What are you carrying THAT for?!" Again, if the law says you can carry it, why need we justify it to some liberal who probably faints away at the sight of a letter opener? Some laws do not specify as to what purpose a knife may be carried, only that it can be carried. So why need the purpose be given to some hand-wringer if the law itself doesn't? Brownie is correct. A cop hearing that your Vaquero Grande is a "tool" might think you're a wiseguy. Most police officers realize that they cannot be everywhere at once and that people are going to take steps to defend themselves. As long as you are on firm legal ground, it doesn't matter what a cop personally thinks of that law, he has to abide by it the same as you do. The theory that those of us who call knives "weapons" would not do so in the face of an LEO is simply not correct. Cop asks "Do you have any weapons?", he wants an honest answer. He doesn't want to play "That depends on what the definition of 'weapon' is." He's busy. He has 100 other things he needs to do besides debate semantics.Maybe he's even an hour past his lunch time but still has calls holding. So accomodate the man and say, "I have a pocketknife". Most cops appreciate honesty. There are even cops who are going to look at that knife and say, "That's nice! Where did you get that? I want one, too!" Not all cops are going to see your folder and call the SWAT team. Is a knife a weapon? It certainly is. It EVOLVED from a tool. But back then, it was knapped from flint. Weapons are tools in the sense that man uses tools to do what Nature did not endow him to do with appendages such as fangs, claws, or specialized beaks. In that sense, tools are the extensions of man's hands via the ideas in his mind, motivated by survival instinct. But the officer isn't in the mood to play archaeologist. He just wants to make sure he is safe while he talks to you.

[Guyon]

Naw, I don't have to "justify" my knife to anybody. It's legal. I carry it. That's that.

But all knife owners ought to at least try and change people's perceptions. If you simply explain all the useful functions of a knife, some folks will just go "oh yeah, I guess so." Some might even take a greater interest.

Of course, you're not going to reach the people on the extreme left of the political spectrum, but you might stand a chance with those in the middle if you don't come across as Rambo. Folks have to start somewhere, and most are going to be more interested in knives as "tools" than as "deadly weapons." Why do you think politicians always move to the middle come election time? It's just a more stable ground for persuading folks to your side.

In terms of this spectrum, LEOs are already more predisposed to like knives. Heck, here in TN, you can have that same "Cool, where did you get it?" conversation about guns.

[Sir Galahad]

I can understand trying to change some peoples' perceptions. But, unless I'm carring a sheath knife, no one is ever going to see the folders I'm carrying. There is only one reason any stranger is ever going to see them. Last comment I had about a sheath knife I was carring was, "Is that legal?" I said yes, it is as lomg as it isn't concealed unless you have a CCW, but you can carry a folder concealed without a CCW. Woman said, cool, she's going to get one, except a folder so she can carry it concealed just in case when she works late. Why? For self-defense. I didn't try and sell her on the "it's a tool" thing. She knew what the knife was for even though I never said so. And, she recognized the value of the knife and immediately made the connection even though I had said nothing insofar as self-defense. I suggested a few quality folders and steered her to the mall knife shop. Getting the average citizen aware of self-defense options, to me, is much more valuable than soothing the hysterical fears of liberals who have to see a "tool". If they want to be victims, hey, be my guest. I'm more interested in talking to people who are interested for their own sake to know that they, too, can carry a knife, rather than justifying my decision to not meekly submit to murder to the same liberals that let those selfsame murderers out of jail in the first place. I have never seen a liberal radical yet that could be convinced that they were wrong about something. If you can convince them, Guyon, more power to you. I find that leftists practically start hyperventilating once you poke the tiniest pinhole in their arguments. So I quit wasting time on them. I hear, "I don't think people should be allowed to own weapons of any kind!", I tell them the Constitution doesn't care what they think and walk away. Not getting in the "last word" really upsets them, but I have better things to do than arge with them.

[Guyon]

Reread my post. I agree that debating gun/knife control with dyed-in-the-wool leftists is a waste of breath and energy.

It's the folks on the fence who count the most.

Sidenote: You sent her to the mall knife store?!! I hope it's not like any of the ones around here. Four prices and crappy service. Only the Army-Navy store here offers decent service, but they're still pretty expensive. I'll buy there on occasion when I can afford it, but most knife purchases these days are online.

[Sir Galahad]

No, the one here carries Benchmade, CRKT, Cold Steel, Kershaw, SOG...and the staff is pretty sharp. Pretty sharp...get it?.:D I also sent her to the local gun shop which has an even better selection.

The fence sitters can be crucial. But, as I mentioned, no one sees mine unless I'm carrying a sheath knife. I never use mine as "tools". Most people around here are used to seeing occasional open carry of handguns, so knives are really small potatoes. :D