Too much?
Recently an 18-year-old Oklahoma woman made the news for shooting an intruder while on the phone with a police dispatcher. The woman was home alone with her baby when a 24-year-old man armed with a 12-inch knife attempted to break into her home with an accomplice.
This story has given rise to a number of questions about American freedoms, the most controversial of which is always: How long will America continue to ignore its problem with assault knives?
Yes, it is stated in the 2nd Amendment that the people have a right to “bear arms”; but that was also written in a very different time in history. In those days, the average American may have needed large knives to protect themselves from bears, Englishmen, and bandits. But today, the bear has been relegated to the zoo, the most aggressive Englishman plays a doctor on your TV, and the police are there to protect us around the clock.
Realistically, for what purpose does the average person need to use a 12-inch knife? What could possibly be so large that you need an entire foot to cut through it? The largest head of organically grown lettuce can easily be bisected using two cuts of a 4-inch knife.
Sure, a large knife may have been needed for hunting, or in colonial kitchens for the purpose of cutting breads, cheeses, and meats. But again, the times have surpassed the knife with all foods coming in the form of can, slice, box, or shredded.
When we look at the facts, there can be only one purpose for such weapons, but the Big Knife lobby continues to keep the American people in danger by pulling the wool over their eyes and lining the pockets of legislators. Big Knife has been successful in blocking any legislation that would even slow the selling of assault knives.
Knowing it was futile, I called my local sheriff and asked him the number of knives sold in our county. He simply nervously laughed and hung up the phone. It’s not that he was hiding anything–he had no need to.
The fact is that are no age checks, background checks, or even accounting of knife sales in this country. Any man or woman of any mental mind frame can simply walk into a local Wal-Mart, pick up a package of assault knives (Ooh! 2 for 1!) and walk to the register. Oh yeah, while they are there, why not pick up a couple sharpeners? Never can tell how dull a knife will get after a full day of stabbin’, you know.
How many crimes have been perpetrated due to the assailant holding “courage with a handle”? Would this wayward young man have even attempted this home invasion if he had, say, a perfectly safe and reasonable electric knife? Sadly, we will never know. The bloody hands of the Big Knife lobby is covering the ears and eyes of those who swore to protect us.
Allen Tesch
Allen Tesch lives and writes in Mankato, Minnesota, where he doesn’t drink or smoke nearly enough. Visit Mr. Tesch at http://allentesch.blogspot.com/ and read his work at Gloews.com.
Email Mr. Tesch at allentesch@secretlaboratory.org.
Ok, let me get started by saying that I want to understand where you’re coming from. I’m not trying to “hate” on you, I’m simply asking what your reasons are for saying things like this.
You suggest that knives are a hidden and dangerous scourge on society and claim knives in general are outdated (if that’s not your case, please let me know otherwise). You seem to be arguing mostly against “assault knives” or knives meant to kill or maim, though you make a brief reference to kitchen knives themselves being outdated. Am I to understand that you don’t so much as have a Chef’s knife in your home?
You say that knives are so bad, but there’s a gun being used almost heroically in your article and you give it barely a word. No, it’s straight on to how knives are ruining our society. I’d really like to know how you think people will defend themselves from gun wielding maniacs when they don’t even have so much as a kitchen knife. You can’t say that gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals (just take 5 seconds and think of how D.C. is doing in that arena) or how more strict gun control would work because that only ever affects people who are obeying the law anyway.
I’d like to know how the police were meant to defend that woman and her child as the knife wielding men were entering her home. I say to you that police are here to enforce the law, not to protect us. If you don’t believe me, just look up “Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, App. 1989.” or “Warren v. District of Columbia” and see if you actually believe that anymore.
Aside from all of this, how would you propose that the government go about tracking the sale and movement of knives in this country? Guards keeping strict watch on people in prison have a hard enough time keeping stabbing implements out of the hands of the inmates. Aside from that, do you suggest that a knife with a 4 inch blade is any less deadly than a “12 inch knife” which only has about a 7 or 8 inch blade?
I encourage you to show me some solid facts that go against anything that I have said here. I am nothing if not open-minded, and welcome any reasonable argument.
Adrian,
I’m sure that Mr. Tesch will want to respond to this as well, but I thought that I should point out to you that this “news article” is satire; it is designed to be a humorous comment on the fallacy of gun control. I don’t speak for the author of this piece; however, I at least, support a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Anyone who relies on the police for protection is playing a foolish, dangerous game. The police spend most of their time cleaning up crime scenes, putting the pieces together, and trying to figure out whodunit. I’m not a paranoid gun nut; however, I carry a pistol–and a knife–just about everywhere I go. I have for fifteen years.
If you look around our site, I think that you’ll see that it is a lampoon of sorts. We specialize in sarcasm, satire, exaggeration, and do it all with a bone-dry wit. We do not advocate banning knives or guns; instead, we celebrate what this courageous young girl did and make a mockery of the people who would outlaw assault rifles … and hunting rifles … and handguns. The perpetrator in this case was armed only with a knife; by calling for a ban on “assault knives,” we illustrate our point.
I hope this clears things up for you. I’m sorry that you didn’t laugh–this piece was supposed to be funny.
–Ed.
Now I feel like a proper fool. Though at the same time I wonder about how funny this might have been if he had retorted “in character”.
Adrian,
You’re right: that would have made for an interesting read.
Besides all of this, I hope that you enjoy our site and come back often. If you’d ever like to contribute, let me know.
–Ed.
Adrian, don’t feel bad, it happens to the best of us. Your idea of replying “in character” was a great one. I doubt I would have been clever enough to think of it, though.
And thanks John for clearing everything up.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have an armed militia. This is because the US is not a democracy. A democracy implies that the majority rules. This means the majority can rule that you are in violation of a law because of your ridiculous hair style. The majority should not have any say about the ridiculousness of your coif. Thus, you have the right to keep and bear a weapon, such as a big arse knife, in order to discourage the mobs from coming onto your property to incarcerate you because your hair is dumb.
Please educate yourself on the entirety of the bill of rights before smoking a bowl and thinking you have some witty angle to discuss. You are patently off base with your hypothesis. We have the right to keep swords, guns, and battle gear precisely to keep idiots off our lawn and protect our right to use girly hair products.