Legality of knife-wielding
 

Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places, but I can't seem to find a decent discussion anywhere that delves into the reasons why many kinds of guns of many kinds of calibers are allowed to be carried under condition (or at all) but, by law, I could be arrested for carrying my OSS San Mai fixed blade hunting knife or other blades I own, concealed or not, in the same places I could carry a gun legally for self-defense. I'm not even talking about actual, made-to-kill-people swords, I'm talking about utility/hunting blades, typically 8-14" long.

I don't figure the reason is simply weapon lethality, because a gun is far more lethal. Sure, a gun and a knife can both make you dead, but a single gun shot can do it from a distance and has a greater potential for internal damage than a single knife thrust, depending on where the entry is. I can't buy the concept of criminal intent either. In terms of tools, a knife is a far more useful thing to have in odd situations than a gun. You could use the gun as a hammer if you reaaaaally wanted to, but a knife (especially one like my San Mai) can be a hammer, a chisel, a screwdiver, a pencil sharpener, a light-use crowbar, a nail pick, a tooth pick, a mirror (right after a good polish), a signaling device... and it can cut stuff. A gun... shoots things. I have far more legitimate answers for the question 'Why are you carrying that knife?" than "Why are you carrying that gun?".

This is not a 'gun vs knife in self-defense' question. This is a 'why is a gun more legal to carry than a hunting knife' question. So why? Why is it illegal for me to strap my San Mai to my waist, a couple of boot knives to my legs (in my boots), and a small thrust blade around my neck but legal for me to carry a couple of .45 HP or FMJ loaded pistols and a rifle?

(This question could also be extended to blunt weapons... I have a couple of maces and a small warhammer I'd like to stash in my car but legally can't.)

ETA: I'm in VA... I know state knife laws will vary, just like gun laws, but on the whole they seem fairly prohibitive.

Good questions. I don't know the answers, but I'm going to watch this thread for input from those more informed than I am.

I would speculate that the gun lobby is stronger and better organized than the knife lobby.

Yeah, the National Knife-Wielding Association ain't a big player.

Interesting that, as it calls itself a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms... but then focus almost entirely on firearms. Knives are still arms. So are maces. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say 'right to bear guns/firearms'.

Joking aside, I've wondered the same thing. But, I do have one problem with what you're asking. "8-14 inches"? WTF, are ya a size queen or what?

Seriously, let's say you come across a stab-worthy person. What's that 14 inch blade gonna do for ya? Ya still have to get real up close and real personal with the guy. In my neck o' the woods I don't think it's even considered a deadly weapon unless it's over six inches. (That's what she said, I know.) Pick up a six inch blade. Hold it. Look at it. Now imagine it stuck in your chest. Do you feel any less dead, because it wasn't a foot long?

How deep inside the body is the heart? Lungs? Liver? Any of the various arteries/veins? Even on a fat guy like me (5'8" - 240lbs), you're only looking at five-six inches, max (yeah she said that, too).

Go legal. Six inches is plenty (that's what I told her!).

Ima hafta look and see if KY regulates maces and warhammers.

Ima bet they don't.

We have restrictions on knives, but allow concealed carry. It is due to archaic laws. Don't forget that a person within 21 feet can stab you before you can draw your firearm - at least that is what is stressed to us in use of force classes

It's because we don't live in a medievel post-apocalyptic epic armageddon science fiction gladiator movie.

Haven't you heard that longer is better? Seriously though, to me, that's the same as asking someone why they're carrying a regular pistol vs a subcompact, or a .33 over a .45. It's personal preference, personal comfort and, when used in the situations they're made for, both guns will put a hole in whatever they're pointing at. Speaking of hunting blades, the difference between a 8" and a 14" would deal more with it's tool worthiness. You could cut your way through underbrush with an 8" blade, but having that extra 6" (which generally ends up looking more like a machete) makes a difference in effectiveness.

And yeah, 6 inches will reach deep enough in most people to cause a direct problem to the major organs from just about any angle of the core, even on a woman who has extra boob tissue. But, considering how close you'd need to be to someone to hit that, a 2.5" blade (which is allowed on pocketknives in a lot of places) will easily reach the big vessels of the throat, will penetrate both vessel and windpipe or fatally penetrate in the eye. You'd have to be reaaaaally fat around the neck to stop that from happening and there's no protection for the eye, barring goggles held on with a tension strap.

My San Mai blade is 8.75 inches long and I just prefer that blade for general use, from cutting rope to skinning and fleshing to scoring and cutting cardboard. I like wearing it and I'd love to be able to wear it outside the borders of my yard. I do have shorter 'outdoorsman' knives, 5 and 6ish inches long, but San Mai is my favorite. That's purely my preference.

Besides, around here 6" is still illegal for the carrying I'm talking about.

I think context plays a pretty big role too. They sell machetes at the hardware store a mile away from me, so they must be legal in Virginia. You have to get them home from the store somehow. If you walk down the street with an uncovered machete in your raised hand, you're liable to get some attention. But if you are cutting brush by the side of the road, I doubt the police would bug you.

*facepalm*

There's also the (not necessarily legally relevant) argument that, since suppressors or silencers are illegal most places, carrying a SILENT dangerous weapon like a knife is open to the silent-assassin problem. If you WERE to abuse your right to carry a firearm by using it illegally, most people nearby would probably hear it, and that's at least something, from a law enforcement standpoint. You can't sneak up on someone and cut their throat with a .45.
EDIT: mind you, that's not an argument I'm trying to SUPPORT. I'm just trying to parse the logic and consider the factors and all.