this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
117 points (88.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35810 readers
1810 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Why are knife control laws so strong in the United States as opposed to gun control?

I was realizing it would be nice to have a knife with auto opening for boxes, etc., basically a switch blade or similar, and I found out that they are super illegal in my state (and/or there are length restrictions, or both sides of the blade can't be sharp, etc), but I can go into a sporting goods store and buy a pistol and ammo in under 30min.

Shooting open an Amazon box seems inefficient. What is up with restrictive knife-control laws??

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No actually, he's right. Many knife laws were created specifically to target minorities.

For instance, the gravity knife ban that's in place in many states exists because the state of New York realized that poor people who wanted to carry a safe, concealed knife on them were using gravity knives due to their low price making them more accessible than other folding and automatic knives at the time. New York saw a bunch of minorities carrying gravity knives, figured that they must be a "gang weapon" and banned them, and about half the other states followed suit immediately after. Some states have since reversed course on this obviously racist law, but many are still holding out. The ban has nothing to do with the safety of the knife, it's only because lawmakers were afraid of armed minorities.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, like gun control laws and the Black Panthers. My point was that guns are the overwhelming choice of violent offenders over and above knives, regardless of race. And it's a general truism that more violent "street crime" is perpetrated by and against those of lower socioeconomic status in the US.

I use "street crime" here because that's how it's labeled in federal statistics AND because if we counted violent crime done through economic imperialism and corporate thuggery, it would dramatically alter that picture.

Nevertheless, saying that poor and abused people use knives and not-poor white men (implicitly, by way of being contra to the former) use guns is a sub-optimal and vaguely racist way to structure that sentiment.

That weapons restrictions are heavily rooted in a history of racism and moral panic in the United States isn't lost on me. Even more complex when you add in the shifting terrain and definition of "whiteness" during the 20th century, e.g. Irish-, Italian-, Jewish-Americans et al., especially in the context of early and mid-20th century weapon regulations.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nevertheless, saying that poor and abused people use knives and not-poor white men (implicitly, by way of being contra to the former) use guns is a sub-optimal and vaguely racist way to structure that sentiment.

I don't disagree, but I think maybe we interpreted his comment differently, as the way I read it was the other person making exactly this point. I took his comment to be explaining from the perspective of one imposing such a law, as opposed to a belief they're presenting as their own.

Even more complex when you add in the shifting terrain and definition of "whiteness" during the 20th century, e.g. Irish-, Italian-, Jewish-Americans et al., especially in the context of early and mid-20th century weapon regulations.

Yup! A couple other examples I can think of are stilettos and switchblades being banned shortly after Italian knife makers picked up on the trend, under the guise of being "mafia" weapons. One excuse they often go for is that the blade can be deployed too quickly, which is BS; you can give a 10-year old kid any old folding knife with thumbstuds, and with 5 minutes of practice they can deploy it just as quickly as any spring-loaded knife.

It's a tale as old as time. Any time the feds see a group of people arming themselves, and they're not white (or not white enough), they'll bend over backwards coming up with any justification to strip them of their defenses.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

My understanding is that the "mafia" thing is also why short-barreled rifles, silencers, and machine guns are heavily regulated. I'm pretty thankful for the latter, but the first two seem kind of silly to me at this point in time.

And then the poverty issue returns when we consider that the regulations require the purchase of a $200 tax stamp for the above. A chunk of change to be sure, but the price has never changed since its inception of these regulations in 1934.

An adjusted tax stamp for one of those ATF items in today's dollars would make it about $5,000 for each stamp. You can see how, in 1934, that effectively kept certain types of weapons and accessories out it the hands of the poor.