I have heard it said...

[Dr. Snubnose]

I have heard it said that the individual states would sooner legistrate restrictions against knives and Martial Arts Weapondry (ie Nunchucks, Throwing stars etc) than have strong retrictions against Handguns...the reason I have heard is that the US Military needs private firearms manufacturers to make weapons for them as the US Goverment doesn't own any handgun or rifle companies thus strong restrictions would bring about the downfall of these companies which they need for national defense and security...if this is true I am assuming they also need individual companies to make their knives as well...but why does it seem that the states would be willing to put restrictions harsher than those imposed on handguns for knives in a blink of the eye...is it just easier for them to pass these restrictions?...Is it because the Knife Industry's lobby is not as strong as the Handgun lobby? Yes I am aware that there are states and cities with strong Handgun laws but it seems that looking at all the states as a whole, knives have more restrictions than do Handguns. Is there something else going on that I'm not aware of? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this topic....What says you!......Doc:D

[The Deacon]

Doc, the idea that states would faster restrict the sale and possession of martial arts weapons and at least certain types of knives than handguns is true, and observable. Witness the number of state that make legally carrying a handgun easier that doing the same with an automatic knife. However, I don't think the reason offered is correct.

For one thing, if all the privately owned US gun companies were to go out of business, the government would simply start manufacturing their own. After all, it has been done before. Long before a private company which usurped the name was formed, I owned a genuine Springfield Armory 1911 for many years and still own a sporterized 03A3 rifle made there. I think there are a combination of factors at work.

First, as you mentioned, the fact that the NRA and gun owners are perceived by many in public office as having the ability to influence the outcome of elections, while no group connected with knives and MA weapons has similar stature.

Second, the fact that more people perceive handguns as being suited for self defense and sport. Switchblades, gravity knives, nunchuks, and shiruken are perceived as only suitable for offensive use. It is always easier to justify legislating against things perceived to have little or no positive value. Reality supports this to at least some extent. How often do you hear of a police officer, store owner, or private citizen, defending the public, their business, or their home with a knife or MA gear?

There was, and probably still is, an element of racism as well. If you read the statements made by legislators and newpaper editorials back when the Sullivan Law was first passed, it was clearly aimed at Italian immigrants or, as the New York Times put it back then, "controlling the inherently violent nature of swarthy Mediterranian types". The rhetoric used to advocate the switchblade legislation of the '50s was blatantly aimed at "rampant gang violence by black and hispanic youth". The fact is that both these justifications, some fifty years apart, were based on relatively minor incidents blown out of proportion by the press and, in the later case, Hollywood.

Finally, there is also the unfortunate tendency shared by many of the companies making and selling knives and MA equipment to advertise in ways virtually guaranteed to offend anyone. What effect do you think names like "Dark Ops", "Shivworks", and "Toxic Toys" or advertisments like those of Cold Steel have on those outside the knife enthusiast community? Do you think those images help, or hurt, our cause when restrictive legislation is up for consideration?

[Dr. Snubnose]

What effect do you think names like "Dark Ops", "Shivworks", and "Toxic Toys" or advertisments like those of Cold Steel have on those outside the knife enthusiast community? Do you think those images help, or hurt, our cause when restrictive legislation is up for consideration?

Deacon I think your right on the money when you say certain names evoke certain images that hurt the industry, a Kubotan with the name inscribed on it "Skull Crusher", is much harder to defend even in a court of law than one with nothing written on it so it may well be viewed as just a keychain, I think the Firearms Industry has learned the lesson...as most stop naming their firearms with names like "King Cobra" or "Pit Bull" replaced by such names as "Officers Model", or just numbers like P220, or Sp101...it's all about image...IMHO the knife industry would be wise to follow suit in the same direction....Doc:D

[Simon G]

I have heard it said that the individual states would sooner legistrate restrictions against knives and Martial Arts Weapondry (ie Nunchucks, Throwing stars etc) than have strong retrictions against Handguns...the reason I have heard is that the US Military needs private firearms manufacturers to make weapons for them as the US Goverment doesn't own any handgun or rifle companies

Doc, that's exactly the reason I heard why HK pulled out of the XM8 programme. They were not prepared to sink money into development, especially when Governments are looking to restrict civilian sales. Civilian sales are where the profits come from. R&D, and advertising is what the military is for!

Case in point, HK socom Mk23. An elaborate pistol for a mission specific objective. Several thousand sold to the military. That wouldn't pay for the design, testing and development and certainly not even supplement the tooling up! However, the Mk23 spawned the USP and the USP has spawned a number of variations!