[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

... Now it could very well be that socially there is a different logic applied to knives and that brings me back to my original question: Why? It doesn't make sense to me that the same society that will permit open carry of pistols will raise Cain over someone's hunting knife.

I gave you some of the reasons why. Whether those reasons are based in practicality, political correctness, or something else is another matter. You're free to disagree with them. There are laws of land warfare, definitions for war crimes, prosecution of war criminals; yet, there are still people who ask "Why?" They feel that war is war, all's fair in war, and no rationale will ever change that for them.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Bullets (especially hollow point) will maim and mangle worse than a knife can. ...

That could pertain to any bullet if you're comparing a single shot to a single stab or slash; but, in a meaningful comparison of shots to the stabs and slashes in aggregate that it takes to incapacitate an attacker, the reverse may very well be true.

I'm not sure why you singled out hollow point bullets as special. They're designed to expand (mushroom) in diameter at the nose of the bullet so as to achieve the affect a larger caliber bullet. Any larger caliber bullet, from a compatible gun, would be of more concern to me at handgun bullet velocities.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

... Just because one uses a gun doesn't mean they'll make a clean, painless kill. Any shots to anything other than the heart or head will cause pain and/or disfigurement if the patient survives. How is that more humane than a knife stab?

Originally Posted by sexobon

... You can kill in self defense; but, you're not permitted to unnecessarily maim or mangle.

That's why I said "unnecessarily." A gun typically has the greater potential for a humane defense even though it isn't always possible. It's because a gun gives people of various sizes and physical capabilities a better chance to proficiently (i.e. without "unnecessarily" maiming or mangling) incapacitate an attacker: guns aren't called the great equalizer for nothing. In the same vein, the greater working distance potential of guns typically provides better weapon retention capability than with knives so your weapon isn't taken away from you and used against someone else.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

But a bullet can go through all your protective extremities and, for some, right through you with enough leftover velocity to stick in a wall. To me, on the subject of penetration, that suggests a knife would be less of a weapon to worry about.

Some knife blade designs (and some arrowheads) can defeat low level soft body armor, like that routinely worn by law enforcement officers, since they can be thrust to penetrate through the weave which is designed to protect against the rapid blunt force of bullets (fibers are only slash resistant).

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Besides, once you get above a certain length, knives tend to be more about slashing and less about stabbing (not saying one couldn't stab).

Slashing isn't PC regardless of blade length. I remember the case of an older Filipino man who was trained in a self defense discipline in which a short bladed knife is very rapidly and repeatedly worked across an attacker's body, to inflict cuts at multiple points with each slashing stroke, until the attack stops. He used the technique on an attacker who didn't stop aggressing until after the victim had inflicted over 200 cuts on the attacker (took less than a couple minutes). In addition to the attacker being prosecuted, the VICTIM was prosecuted for mangling his attacker. The victim was eventually exonerated; but, went bankrupt establishing the validity of his defense.

Originally Posted by sexobon

... Burglars have tried to avoid being charged with having burglary tools in their possession by carrying sporting tools (e.g. a large hunting knife in lieu of a pry bar or chisel).

I'm not applying it to a gun and don't see an analogy there. Burglar with a knife instead of a pry bar corresponds to someone carrying a gun instead of ______?

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Someone with murderous intent can walk around with a gun as long as he has no spots on his record and/or has the proper permits.

The same would be true if people were permitted to carry knives, batons, baseball bats, hammers, golf clubs; or, anything else they felt comfortable carrying to protect themselves. Arguments could be made in favor of all these and more, especially for those who can't afford guns. I'm trained in combat shooting, knife fighting and baton use and I empathize with you. It is; however, guns that are the great equalizer. How does anything else measure up? What else works across the board rather than just serving a social niche? Where would it all end?