Letter to the editor: Sensible knife laws

August 21, 2014


The senseless tragedy a few weeks ago in the Santa Barbra area clearly demonstrates we need some sensible knife laws.

Our legislators and the governor should require manufacturers to sell knives with handle locks. People should have to register their knives with the local police. No one under 18 years of age should be able to buy a knife, and parents should be responsible if a child obtains an unlocked knife and uses it to harm another. People who want to buy a knife should have to take a knife safety class and the law should require a 15-day waiting period after purchase before delivery. Felons and the mentally insane should not have the right to have knives. Law enforcement officials should have the right to confiscate knives from mentally unstable people if their family or friends report the unstable people to the officials. The government needs to encourage rat finks.

I do not understand why U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstine or Barbara Boxer have not introduced legislation in Congress that would ban assault knives. It is obvious our elected leaders are in the pockets of the National Knife Association (NKA). Relatives of the victims need to go to Washington and campaign for new laws. If just one person dies because we do not have sensible knife laws that is one person too many. People: contact your elected representatives and demand that they keep knives out of the hands of criminals, the insane, and children by enacting sensible knife laws.


After the Ferguson, Missouri incident, Eric Holder should ban the police from carrying guns or knives. That cop should have taken his beating like a man.


and not shot that poor inicident little child.


knitting needles


Nice work Gary – its people like you who can save this nation.

However, I think you missed something even more dangerous: hammers! Since hammers kill more people than guns, I think there should be hammer training and let’s admit it – do people really need more than one hammer?

Since the folks just don’t seem to have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the bottom – limit households to one hammer and as with other dangerous weapons such as a knife, put locks on them. AND TEACH YOUR CHILDREN NOT TO PLAY WITH HAMMERS! SHEESH!

And have you seen some of these hammers? Talk about an assault weapon! My lord, what is the human race coming too?!

Not to be outdone, what about cars? The senseless tragedy of car violence is a long story and must end – cars kill. Can you believe the people allowed to have a car? Scary! Actually, I think they should ban cars – who needs them?

Ban cars, hammers and knives! … And flower pots! Heave one of those babies at someone and they’re liable to end up with a cracked skull!


Well, so much for my plea for folks to not go too far with this… OK- I give up- have at it folks- give it your best shot, and then let’s move on to whatever comes next.

Kevin Rice

I dealt with a guy killed by a hammer hanging a picture. Drove the nail into an electrical wire, fell off a ladder. Dead. Certainly, there could be some government required training that would save innocent lives. Automobiles are far worse killers, of course. Next to zero training to operate one of those death machines.


I forgot about hammers.




Murder Victims by Weapon (2007 US Dept of Justice)

Handguns 7,398

Rifles 453

Knives 1,817

Ratio is the same for 2008-2011

Looks like a reasonable argument Gary. However, since rifles look more scary than knives and handguns we should continue our strong support for gun control on assault rifles. Because addressing 02.0% of the problem is much better than addressing 98% of the problem. At least that’s what I hear on the street?


If gun laws worked we wouldn’t need more of them. They murders into Santa Barbara were committed by a mentally ill man who killed with a knife, a car an a gun. They commonality between them three instruments was there nut using them.

When we used today adequately fund a mental health system into this country an used today commit there ill to institutions we did not have these incidents, yet people had access todaythen the ACLU got involved and began advocating for the mentally ill claiming that they had rights to be free and to be treated while they were living in their communities. when some of these people then began to refuse treatment and refused to take medications that they desperately needed the ACLU advocated that that was their right too. As a result some of the truly dangerous mentally ill people who 30 years ago would have been locked away are now walking amongst us victimizing us and our loved ones and the only solution that are elected leaders can conceive of is for the restrictions upon our freedom not on the freedom of the dangerous mentally ill.

Instead of passing a law that says you can take away somebodys guns how about passing a law that says when somebody begins hearing voices telling them to do something violent or they start publishing a “manifesto” on the Internet we lock them up in the nut house for a while to do a full evaluation on them and see if they pose a serious risk to the public.


Wait a minute…back up the cutlery truck. Knives don’t kill people…people kill people!

Sound familiar?


A knife is so much more dangerous than any other silverware it’s imperative that we regulate it differently than a spoon, or even a fork. Call your congressman today.


Thought for a minute that I was reading The Onion.

Not a bad sarcasm piece. +1





OK, I get point and the sarcasm. But let’s not go too far, folks. Like it or not, we do have people among us who can be a danger to themselves and others (including us).

The challenge is to try to find reasonable balanced approaches to prevent such incidents, knowing that, in the real world, there will always be some way for an unstable person to inflict harm.


If we have those type of people, go after the people instead on objects, it’s not the object that is the problem, it’s the person.


So, which of my rights are you willing to give up to achieve this elusive ‘safety’? The answer should be ZERO.

1 2 3