Batons? Knives? MA Weapons? ect...

[SFC JeffJ]

Why is it that these weapons have such a bad rap? Don't get me wrong, I carry a firearm, well two firearms, but sometimes that just isn't the right tool. I'm a big believer in knives and sometimes expandable batons in extreme close quarters, but these weapons don't seem to receive the same social acceptance as a handgun.

Why is that?

EDIT: I'm a dumbass. This has been talked about fairly recently, I just didn't search well enough to find it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Why is it that these weapons have such a bad rap? Don't get me wrong, I carry a firearm, well two firearms, but sometimes that just isn't the right tool. I'm a big believer in knives and sometimes expandable batons in extreme close quarters, but these weapons don't seem to receive the same social acceptance as a handgun.

Why is that?

Jeff,

I have a similar problem as you do in this understanding.

I gun happy LEO who not only was proud that his carry weapon was a full automatic (* SWAT *) he looked down on everyone who did not carry what he did. His idea was to shot first and then ask questions later, or more like "BANG! BANG! BANG! Stop Freeze BANG! Bang! Bang! I said stop."

But he did write something that I found interesting. (* paraphrase below from memory *)

Firearms are looked at in the eyes of the law as defense weapons. Knives are up close and therefore attacking weapons.


After some thought, I kind of came up with this on my own. NOTE: I assume I was not the first, but I might not be the last. My thought was this:

One would have to be crazy to run at a person with a gun. (* This assumes that people do not understand the issue of clearing a weapon and bringing it online and the training and practice required. That just having a gun makes someone more dangerous. *) But to bring out a knife or a baton or stick or other weapon and to go forward is the sign of an attacker or someone taking it to a higher threat level than the attacker.

Therefore Guns are Defensive. :uhohh::xtrmshock

While I came to this "understanding" I still do not truly understand it.



Personal I prefer items like Pens and Knives that are tools with multiple purposes. Batons are limited for not combative purposes. Actual Canes do have their purposes, but most people do not want to train to learn how to use one, and those that really need, prefer to carry a gun. I support firearm carry with proper training, yet I think other tools should still be an option.

 

[seasoned]

Why is it that these weapons have such a bad rap? Don't get me wrong, I carry a firearm, well two firearms, but sometimes that just isn't the right tool. I'm a big believer in knives and sometimes expandable batons in extreme close quarters, but these weapons don't seem to receive the same social acceptance as a handgun.

Why is that?

EDIT: I'm a dumbass. This has been talked about fairly recently, I just didn't search well enough to find it.

Batons for bludgeoning, knifes for carving up. They get a bad rap because they leave such a mess. J Guns however are somewhat cleaner, in a way. The heat of the bullet helps to seal the wound on the way in.

 

[arnisador]

These are cheap and widely available weapons, hence associated with the criminal element.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

These are cheap and widely available weapons, hence associated with the criminal element.

So I should make sure my knife is a really expensive one?

Can I use this argument with my wife?lol

 

[arnisador]

Well, having an "evil-looking" or "military" knife can and will be used against you in a court of law...we think of them as tools, but the D.A. will portray it as a case of a man who wa slooking for trouble.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I blame the media :ultracool


No, really, this time I do. We yanks are enamored of our guns. Heroes carry guns in all the shows. Sure, there are a few martial arts flicks out there, but mostly the good guys shoot bad guys. They might punch them, but they rarely bludgeon them or cut them open.

We're familiar with guns, and thus more accepting of them.

Just my 3 cents canadian.

 

[tellner]

It's cultural. In popular American imagination guns were associated with Gawd-fearin' White tax-paying Christians. Knives and razors were always the province of Sinister Orientals, Swarthy Latins and *shudder* Negroes.

 

[lklawson]

Arnisador has it right.

It has a lot more to do with how much the items cost, historically speaking.

Knives were vilified in the 20's through the 50's as associated with street gangs and the seedy element. They were linked with everything from "reefer madness" to disaffected youth. Firearms were expensive (by comparison) and so more difficult to get. Thus firearms did not get the same vilification in general. Further, there was still a huge hunting momentum in the U.S. My Grandfather (and father) would take their .22 rifle to school and hunt rabbit on the way home. My Grandmother had a .410 she'd use to put an occasional squirel in the pot. My wife's father got a youth .22 for Christmas when he was 8 (and promptly took a rabit with it, dead in the eye, from the hedge that afternoon).

Knives were portrayed negatively to the vast U.S., and in particular to "Mom & Pop" who lived largely unafraid of violence. If you look back at the pop culture of the time, you can see that firearms were portrayed as being used by only a "higher class" of criminal such as the mobster whereas the knife was portrayed as being used by "low class" hooligans such as that migrant worker. Look at the old Bogey movies, for instance. Firearms abound but they're used by folks who generally leave working stiffs be unless they're just plain sadists (cops are a different matter, they're placed in opposition to the villains). But look at West Side Story (produced 1957, with it's cultural genesis going back earlier), the climax is a knife fight, followed by ONE single firearm, which itself was apparently stolen.

However, if you look specifically in areas which had a lot of violence associated with firearms, such as Chicago during the 30's, you can see a difference in cultural views. Knives almost aren't on the radar and the public is vastly more concerned with gun tote'n criminals.

Now, lest you become too complacent, bemoaning the treatment of the humble knife while sighing in relief for your defensive firearm, look again at the cultural portrayals (movies and tv). Guns are now only used by criminals (who find them easy to get and use them indiscriminately against Joe 6 Pack) or by governmentally approved operators such as cops or federal agents of one stripe or another. Largely gone are the movies which portray the average person heroically using firearms in defense of self or others. The closest you get these days are hero’s who are "retired" from a government sanctioned position such as military or LEO. In "movie land" these folks are at least sympathetically presented because they've "had training" and were "trusted" to have one of those awful devices of constant satan inspired continual destruction! Seriously Sam Spade and Spenser for Hire are dead. They've been replaced with Olivia Benson and we are diminished because of it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[shesulsa]

Bludgeoning weapons and cutting weapons require close personal contact. It is *easy* to recognize the intent behind a baseball bat raining down on your head.

A gun is removed ... some distance is not necessarily its enemy ... and it is *easy* to forgive a "stray" bullet or the "nervous twitch" than it is an entire body behind a downward overhead strike or an inward body thrust and mix.

Sticks and knives are "personal" weapons ... because you have to get personal ... a.k.a. bloody ... a.k.a. hurt.

 

[Grenadier]

As the others have stated, it's all about media hype and politicians' ignorance (a redundancy).

Looking at various knives, you always wonder why the heck they would outlaw the balisong (butterfly knife), yet various lockback knives made of superior steel, are perfectly fine. Or, they'll outlaw switchblades, which are flimsy compared to the Spyderco Police (yes, I'm biased towards Spydercos).

Do these politicians really know what they're doing? The answer is "no." They'll simply look at what the ignorant media feeds them, and take a look at what kind of hype has been generated, and then concoct various feel-good / do-nothing proposals that won't affect criminal behavior.

It just happened to be, that various movies and news programs showed hoodlums using switchblades. When people see that often enough, they'll start thinking about the prevalance of switchblade knives. Eventually, some political figure can capitalize upon this exposure. The same holds true for the balisong.

I wonder how many politicians capitalized on the hype generated by "Enter the Dragon?" Given how many countries outlaw nunchaku, or how some squeamish folks even censor out the nunchaku scene in the movie, I'd wager that someone "fell for the hype" in those localities, too.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Well, having an "evil-looking" or "military" knife can and will be used against you in a court of law...we think of them as tools, but the D.A. will portray it as a case of a man who wa slooking for trouble.

My CQC-7 with "tanto" blade and serrated half edge "looks" evil or bad. I have had to explain that why I carry it for cuting seat belts (* I travel for work in vehicles and we do things sometimes "normal" customers do not. *) I also explain the drop point or tear drop tip with the straight edge are much more efficient for stabbing and cutting a person. Those that have questioned were associated with being a first responder and understanding the reason for the type of "tool" I was carrying.

But to the average person, it is "evil-looking" and therefor bad.

 

[Bikewr]

Up through the Civil War, scarcely a red-blooded fellow could be found without a Bowie or "Arkansas toothpick". Of course, handguns were not exactly at a high degree of refinement then, and even the best were exceedingly slow to reload.....A good knife was a prudent backup.

During the First World War, our troops were issued ferocious "trench knives" that incorporated both brass knuckles and a skull-smashing pommel. And WWII also had our lads issued with a variety of combat knives.

Why the blade fell into disfavor as a "criminal" weapon I can't say for sure.
Perhaps the association with various ethnic gangs? The connection with the "motorcycle gangs" of the 50s?

 

[arnisador]

I've heard it said that the switchblade fight in "Rebel without a Cause" was a big motivator of anti-switchblade laws.

 

[chinto]

guns are noisy, and seen as "up front" weapons for that reason. the law and many people see Knives and bludgeoning devices like saps/coshes and batons and clubs as the weapons of criminals looking to quietly do harm to the innocent.

that is why you will be in more trouble, at least in the US, normally for using a knife or club then if you shot that person. The jury and others assume you must be a criminal for having been carrying a knife and knowing how to use it as a weapon! The same reasoning seems to be true for the club, and any martial arts weapon, well you must be some kind of human weapon out to be a killing machine or something underhanded.

unfortunate but true. the old mountian men and such from say 1850 would be shocked at the way people think today.