Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Knives in school?

Rate this topic


Shinokamen

Recommended Posts

As Rand has said, government-funded establishments must fully represent the beliefs of all those paying for it. In other words, the taxpayers--you and me. Does this mean that knives should be banned in schools? I, for one, believe that at the very least pocket knives should be alllowed. I understand and agree that there should be limits as to the length and possibly a ban on fixed-blade knives.

Thoughts, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts, anyone?

I don't know if you are aware of it or not but there is an underlying assumption in your question that schools should be publicly run, owned, and/or regulated at all. If they are privately owned, each individual school could properly set it's own policy. If governments do own the schools like in the US then it's their "right" to set any policy they feel is appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if you are aware of it or not but there is an underlying assumption in your question that schools should be publicly run, owned, and/or regulated at all. If they are privately owned, each individual school could properly set it's own policy. If governments do own the schools like in the US then it's their "right" to set any policy they feel is appropriate.

Since you rightly pointed out that this topic is based upon alot of false assumptions, I'm going to continue the trend and point out that simply because the government owns something doesn't mean that they have the right to violate our Constitutional rights. I can't think of any reason why the government should be telling nightclubs and churches what their weapons policies should be, so why should they be preventing individuals from carrying weapons in public schools?

But none of that matters anyways because, like you said, the government shouldn't be running these things. They should only be running the police, the military, and the courts. All places that, since their fundamental purposes are the use of legal force, civilians should be prohibited from carrying weapons.

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you rightly pointed out that this topic is based upon alot of false assumptions, I'm going to continue the trend and point out that simply because the government owns something doesn't mean that they have the right to violate our Constitutional rights. I can't think of any reason why the government should be telling nightclubs and churches what their weapons policies should be, so why should they be preventing individuals from carrying weapons in public schools?

But none of that matters anyways because, like you said, the government shouldn't be running these things. They should only be running the police, the military, and the courts. All places that, since their fundamental purposes are the use of legal force, civilians should be prohibited from carrying weapons.

Grant

I do not disagree, Grant. That is why I put right in scare quotes. If someone owns property, they can set any policy they wish. The violation of rights happened when they owned the schools in the first place.

Gordon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But shouldn't there be some sort of rules regarding children and weapons? I would not feel very safe walking around a school if all the four year olds had guns, for example. Now that may be a rather extreme example, but I would say that just as a child cannot decide certain things before a certain age because their mind and judgement isn't fully developed, it would not be a good idea to let children openly carry firearms before a certain age, because they just don't have the ability to rationally decide when to shoot and when not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Rand has said, government-funded establishments must fully represent the beliefs of all those paying for it.
And where exactly did she say that?
Does this mean that knives should be banned in schools?
No, public schools should be banned.
I, for one, believe that at the very least pocket knives should be alllowed.
That is your right: you would probably want to check out www.smalknifetotingschool.com.

This discussion is broken to start with: here's a way to fix it. Focus on the minimum disturbance of man's rights. The fact is, we do have publically funded schools -- end public funding of schools! Plus we have laws forcing parents to send their kids to school -- make school attendance voluntary! But, ex hypothesi, we can't change that. So given that, you're trying to make the best of a bad situation. That means schools should teach kids stuff that they ned to learn, and they must take responsibility for the safety of the kids (just as the parent has an obligation to protect the child from vermin -- the schools are essentially taking on some of the responsibility of the parents when the child is in their custody). And that is it.

If you can prove that there is a need to restrict the freedoms of children in school, for example banning knives because of stabbings in the school, and if that can't be accomplished by expelling the punks or improving security, then knife-banning it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But shouldn't there be some sort of rules regarding children and weapons?

You handle this the same way you handle anything else that children are not competent to address: make the parents responsible for anything that happens if they leave their children unattended and said children get ahold of a weapon. The small child won't be tried for an accidental shooting, but the parents sure as heck will.

Banning guns for anyone under a certain age won't keep guns out of their hands any more than concealed-carry permits have prevented criminals from getting guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, but if we can forbid children to do certain things by law (because they cannot yet decide it on their own) before a certain age, why not this? I mean, would you also say that children aged 8 should be allowed to drive cars, and that we should go after the parents if anything goes wrong?

Where is the difference?

I don't think it's strange at all (or a violation of anyone's rights) to say that certain actions are forbidden to children until they reach age X. I think a young child with a gun is just as much as a threat as he/she would be driving a car or flying an airplane...

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, but if we can forbid children to do certain things by law (because they cannot yet decide it on their own) before a certain age, why not this?
Because violation of a child's rights by the government should be minimal. It would be better if you proposed a few things which you think children should be prohibited from doing by law. For example, driving? I don't see a rational reason to prevent 8 year olds from driving, but there are various things that correlate with 8 year oldness that can work their way into a rational restriction. For example, a law that says "the driven must be able to reach the brakes", "the driver must be able to see out the window", and perhaps a test of actual driving ability and knowledge of law and basic motor responsibility.

There are certain age-type restrictions regarding children that are rational, but they pertain to children interacting with others: the right to make contracts and the right to have sex are the obvious ones. The various anti-pedophilia laws do not say that children do not have a right to have sex with you, they say that you don't have a right to have sex with children (basically, because you cannot establish consent). Anti-sin laws about drinking and smoking are not justified. If a child can technically qualify to be a pilot (and I knew one who could years before the legal age for getting a license), why should that person -- who is provably qualified -- be preemptively restricted from a perfectly moral action because of her age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws against drinking and smoking ARE justified. In order to have full rights, one must have a fully developed rational faculty. Children do not have the intellectual equipment necessary to decide whether they should smoke or drink, for the same reason that they do not have the intellectual equipment necessary to decide whether or not to have sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws against drinking and smoking ARE justified.

No, they aren't, and it's not illegal for children to have sex, as David mentioned; it's illegal for adults to have sex with them. My parents let me have moderate sips of wine or champagne on special occasions when I was younger; what's the harm in that?

I could see making it illegal for an adult to induce intoxication in a minor; this is actual harm that the minor may not have the faculties to militate against. This also puts it in line with the illegal-sex law. You might even consider it "inducing intoxication" if the parents/guardians of the minor allow the minor to obtain intoxicants without supervision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I can't seem to find the essay, but I had thought that it was in Virtue of Selfishness. The rationale behind the essay was that, because all taxpayers help to fund the government and have no choice in the matter. No one would help to fund something against their beliefs. I think that her target was religion, but I also think that it can be applied here, as well.

Secondly, I agree that schools should be privately owned, in which case they could set their own policies and that so long as the U.S. has public schools, we must work for a minimum of violated rights. Also, I did not mention guns. I am only referring to knives, pocketknives in particular. I would also agree to a restriction on butterfly knives, switch blades, and the like, as these are far more dangerous and lack some of the "utility" uses of some other pocketknives of the kind made by Leatherman, Sog, and Gerber.

Finally, I am aiming this at middle to high-school aged students, not eight-year olds. I concur that that age group probably lacks the rational ability to properly analyze a situation, but I also think that they should have a minimal amount of right-infringment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shinokamen: the situation you're referencing is so narrow, concrete, and divorced from principle that it's basically impossible to come up with a good reason for how-much-knife-is-acceptable-knife: this is what always happens when one attempts to act on pragmatism. The only real immediate solution is for individual schools to ban as much knife as they can get away with; if there's a public outcry, they must relax their standards, but otherwise in the interests of safety they should go as far as they can on this matter. The net result of this policy will be to reach a sort of uncomfortable ban-by-consensus, which if not right or fair, at least has the "benefit" of being average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws against drinking and smoking ARE justified.
This is where parental responsibility is important. Let me reemphasize the point that parents are supposed to take care of their children: to provide the moral education needed so that children can become functioning adults, capable of making rational decisions. Parents should teach their children the truth about smoking (tobacco is evil, m'kay?); they should learn their children how to handle alcohol responsibly. How to shoot guns safely; proper methods of parallel parking and passing. This is not and should not be a matter of law. Not even one little bit. The law should do nothing more than protect the rights of children -- against being forced to do various nasty things. There is no such thing as a right of a child to be forced to not smoke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, JMeganSnow. For example, a school could choose to allow only folding knives which, when unfolded, have a total blade (defined as the sharpened portion of the blade) length of 3 1/2 inches and which did not have an auto-opening feature. This leaves almost all "utility" knives, a few assisted-opening knives, and many cheap, small pocketknives, which are exactly the kind that most young men will have access to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the reason for needing a knife for a cooking class as it is necessary for food preparation but I am curious to know what could be the reason for wanting to carry a knife to school outside of that setting, to a history class, for example (keeping in mind the purpose of school).

I am asking this in an ideal context of attending a private school, which objectively sets its own standards and policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What could a child possibly need a knife for on the school bus? You're arguing about concretes with no basis in principle: there's no method for you to decide how much knife is an acceptable knife because no specific knife is useful in all situations, so all decisions are arbitrary. I say, since the only reason a child on a bus is likely to need a knife is for self-defense, all knives small enough to be easily concealable should be banned, and only blades over the length of 20" should be allowed. Either that, or there should be a "bus marshall" with a gun. Or maybe the bus driver can carry a utility knife should some knife-work be necessary.

If children walk to school, they should be walking, not stopping periodically for a quick beard-trim or to set a rabbit snare. Besides, if they find a sudden need to apply a patch to their clothing (?) and have to cut the thread, there are always scissors. Who knows, they might cut a hole in someone's fence to facilitate their passage, and that's just vandalism.

Until or unless you can point to an operant principle, that is, something that applies in all situations, your idea for what is allowable is no less random than mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there are no specific examples in which all knives could be useful. This is why I brought up the utility knife. It has many uses, although it would not be useful in all situations. Put yourself in the child's shoes. Wouldn't you rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it? I would.

Again, I am referring more to older children who could possibly be driving their own cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there are no specific examples in which all knives could be useful. This is why I brought up the utility knife. It has many uses, although it would not be useful in all situations.
Whether the knife is useful, decorative or amusing, the question is whether there is a reason to ban knives. In some schools, there is: the reason being that punk kids are using them as weapons. If one punk kid in 30,000 uses a knife as a weapon in school, that isn't (necessarily) justification for a knife ban. If there is a monthly knifing at the school, it's time to ban knives. And that would apply to "useless" deer-skinners as well as box-cutters.

Look for a principled reason to ban knives. Why would you ban knives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for that. You're right, DavidOdden, the schools should find a reason to ban knives before banning them. The reason I started this is because many schools ban them "because they could be used as a deadly weapon," often forgetting that pens, scissors, or even fists could also be used as "deadly weapons" by a trained (or even an untrained) person. They ban them because other schools have had problems, before finding a problem in their school. I agree that if there is a reason to ban knives, they should do it; but I feel that if their is not a reason, then the administration should act accordingly by not banning knives. I posed the question not because I feel that knives should be banned, but because I feel they should be allowed (with a few restrictions, possibly); not to find a reason to ban them, but to find reasons not to ban them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...