Individual Trust vs Collective Benefit - Should Boy Scouts Keep Their Knives?

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's quite funny, as I always thought knives were originally made for specifically that purpose. They were weapons before they became an everyday utility.

Now, I do not support the confiscation of knives form the Boy Scouts, but still, a knife is a knife. It was not a tool, unless you mean "a tool of war".

What? I think knives probably came about as cutting tools before they were ever used in war. They aren't very good for combat because they're so small. A simply pointed stick or club would be better. But I can't be sure.

As for modern times, they are far from a 'tool of war' - they are carried in wartime for the same reason they are carried by civilians - as a tool to cut things and the like, not to kill people. The people who do use them as weapons are people who likely weren't given any instruction as to proper knife use, are criminals who don't follow the law anyway, or carry them to protect themselves from criminals because England's coppers are more interested in fining people than arresting criminals.*

CR
*A generalization. However, as is generally the case when I generalize, I don't care.

[Aemilius Paulus]

What? I think knives probably came about as cutting tools before they were ever used in war. They aren't very good for combat because they're so small. A simply pointed stick or club would be better. But I can't be sure..

Well, actually, knives were the first weapons invented by humans, for use against other humans mainly, but also later to assist in cutting meat (which really, was done with sharpened stones and not proper knives). That was before the advent of a hatchet, long before the invention of the spear, and millions of years before the bow.

You see, when the knife was introduced, it was a cutting-edge, state-of-the-art weapon which was useless against animals, too precious to be used for cutting meat, but just right for inter-species warfare - the most dangerous hunt of them all as they say (although back then this statement was not always so true). Or so the theory goes. Yes, clubs and sticks were used against animals, but knives are perfect against other proto-humans.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You see, when the knife was introduced, it was a cutting-edge, state-of-the-art weapon which was useless against animals, too precious to be used for cutting meat, but just right for inter-species warfare - the most dangerous hunt of them all as they say (although back then this statement was not always so true). Or so the theory goes. Yes, clubs and sticks were used against animals, but knives are perfect against other proto-humans.

Who's theory, exactly? Because even today I'd rather have a baseball bat than a knife in a fight.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who's theory, exactly? Because even today I'd rather have a baseball bat than a knife in a fight.

CR

I would rather have a knife...you have to swing a baseball bat.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I would rather have a knife...you have to swing a baseball bat.

Same here, although that's probably due to living in the central belt of Scotland more than anything else.

[Furunculus]

the entirety of page page 2 is OT, though a very interesting debate in its own right.

[Centurion1]

sorry to take this off topic but i must say one more thing.

The knife was the first tool. hunting with stones and sticks came long before inter-species warfare. you could construe that they were also used for defense against predators but the knife should always be considered a tool and not a weapon first.

[HoreTore]

Well, actually, knives were the first weapons invented by humans, for use against other humans mainly, but also later to assist in cutting meat (which really, was done with sharpened stones and not proper knives). That was before the advent of a hatchet, long before the invention of the spear, and millions of years before the bow.

You see, when the knife was introduced, it was a cutting-edge, state-of-the-art weapon which was useless against animals, too precious to be used for cutting meat, but just right for inter-species warfare - the most dangerous hunt of them all as they say (although back then this statement was not always so true). Or so the theory goes. Yes, clubs and sticks were used against animals, but knives are perfect against other proto-humans.

wiki proves you wrong....

A knife is any cutting edge or blade, handheld or otherwise, with or without a handle. Knives were used at least two-and-a-half million years ago, as evidenced by the Oldowan tools.[1][2] Originally made of rock, flint, and obsidian; knives have evolved in construction as technology has with blades being made from bronze, copper, iron, steel, ceramics, and titanium. Every culture has a unique version of the knife. A knife may be either a fixed-blade or a folding version with blade patterns and styles as varied as their makers and countries of origin. Due to its role as mankind's first tool, certain cultures have attached spiritual and religious significance to the knife.

The earliest knives were shaped by knapping (percussive flaking) of rock, particularly harder rocks such as obsidian and flint. During the Paleolithic era Homo habilis probably made similar tools out of wood, bone, and similar perishable materials that have not survived.[2][3] As recent as five thousand years ago, as advances in metallurgy progressed, stone, wood, and bone blades were gradually succeeded by copper, bronze, iron, and eventually steel. The first metal (copper) knives were symmetrical double edged daggers, which copied the earlier flint daggers. In Europe the first single edged knives appeared during the middle bronze age. Modern knives may be made from many different materials such as alloy tool steels, carbon fiber, ceramics, and titanium.

[Aemilius Paulus]

wiki proves you wrong....

How so?

[HoreTore]

How so?

Because it says knives were used as tools?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How so?

Spears were the earliest weapons.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Spears were the earliest weapons.

Not true. Definitely not true. This should be obvious. Sharpened stones were the first weapon, and they had to evolve long and hard until they were suitable for spear-points.

By the time proto-humans could make delicate spearheads, stone daggers were long commonplace. Not only is this what I always read, but it is also common sense. Declaring that spears came before knives is not too far from stating the musket came before gunpowder.

Because it says knives were used as tools?

Of course they are tools. The sharpened stones were tools. Real stone daggers were weapons back when they were the pinnacle of technology. Then other weapons arrived on the scene, and the daggers went back to being tools.

It would have been an utter waste to dull the innovative daggers with the cutting of the flesh & bones - a task a sharp stone could perform even better than the fragile, brittle knife. Once again, not only a fact, but also common sense. Try to use a flint or obsidian knife to dismember an animal. I remember my mother breaking a steel knife wrestling with a chicken bone - imagine what would happen to a Palaeolithic tool encountering a mammoth or a bison.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not true. Definitely not true. This should be obvious. Sharpened stones were the first weapon, and they had to evolve long and hard until they were suitable for spear-points.

Who says you couldn't make a spear with just sharpened wood on the point?

Anyway, I don't even see how depriving scouts of knives could provide any sort of 'collective' benefit.

CR

[HoreTore]

It would have been an utter waste to dull the innovative daggers with the cutting of the flesh & bones - a task a sharp stone could perform even better than the fragile, brittle knife. Once again, not only a fact, but also common sense. Try to use a flint or obsidian knife to dismember an animal. I remember my mother breaking a steel knife wrestling with a chicken bone - imagine what would happen to a Palaeolithic tool encountering a mammoth or a bison.

What do you think the first tools and weapons were made of, exactly?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not true. Definitely not true. This should be obvious. Sharpened stones were the first weapon, and they had to evolve long and hard until they were suitable for spear-points.

Nope, first weapons were the "digging sticks", wooden spears and tools sharpened against rocks and hardened in fire.

No spearpoint needed.

By the time proto-humans could make delicate spearheads, stone daggers were long commonplace. Not only is this what I always read, but it is also common sense. Declaring that spears came before knives is not too far from stating the musket came before gunpowder.

The first stone tool was the handaxe, it's pretty useless weapon, it's just a rock with an edge. You'd be better off just using a rock to bash soneone's head in. We tried throwing them at stuff at Exeter, it didn't really work.

Of course they are tools. The sharpened stones were tools. Real stone daggers were weapons back when they were the pinnacle of technology. Then other weapons arrived on the scene, and the daggers went back to being tools.

A stone dagger is just a spear-head supersized, they're harder to make because there's more likely to be a fault in the material that causes them to break.

It would have been an utter waste to dull the innovative daggers with the cutting of the flesh & bones - a task a sharp stone could perform even better than the fragile, brittle knife. Once again, not only a fact, but also common sense. Try to use a flint or obsidian knife to dismember an animal. I remember my mother breaking a steel knife wrestling with a chicken bone - imagine what would happen to a Palaeolithic tool encountering a mammoth or a bison.

That's exactly what they did, there's no better use than eating in a survival situation. Flint knives are great for dismembering animals, obsidion ones are a bit tricky, the damn things are so sharp you'll slice the carcas to ribbons, and your fingers, if you're not careful.