The real reason balisongs were banned?

I really appreciate the details pulled from your knowledge on the subject.

A quick $0.02: It took me a long time to understand this, but if one really listens to the opinion of most people who seem to be shouting "racism" at every turn, avoiding our universally human inclination to gravitate toward the oversimplified, straw-man arguments that merely reinforce things we already believe (or want to believe; because it's easy, or convenient, or comforting in making the world seem to make sense)...

More often than not, the argument is that race and racism played a role. Of course no one can find legislation that mentions race directly. When "racism" is defined narrowly as a clear, intentional act, then it will not be found in the places some claim it exists.

In our history, there have been laws and policies enacted that, when scrutinized, pretty clearly express a reaction to the fear of some exotic, mysterious, foreign entity breaching our borders and corrupting our innocent wives and youth. It's only natural: no one wants to believe that any of our problems might be actually coming from inside our tribe. A threat from outside the city walls is far less work to understand and deal with.

If someone is putting a lot of effort into my destruction, rather than simply labeling them "evil" and getting myself ready for a fight, I've reached the conclusion that it's safer for me to stop and think about it for a moment. People are unlikely to just do things out of unprovoked malevolence. If I dispatch the first group of my enemies, only to then discover they actually viewed themselves and their cause as being in the right, and mine wrong, addressing that isin everyone's interest. If it's a mistaken belief, I can attempt to demonstrate that they're mistaken... But, again, only after making sure I've listened well enough to truly develop an accurate idea of their grievance. If it's a legitimate grievance, and I am actually in the wrong and at fault, I would not want to defend my mistaken conduct or concepts. Sticking to bad ideas, just because they're one's own, has been the root of so much unnecessary conflict. I don't know how it's become so commonly believed that there's somehow virtue in loyalty to ideas. Bad ideas, or ones that seemed good until some new information changed that, do not deserve adhering to. As the saying goes, that doesn't prove who's right... only who's left.

Anyway, I'm just indulging my drunk mind at the moment. I hope no one takes offense, but hey, if you have a problem with any of this, I'm open to hashing it out via civilized conversation. To be clear, none of this has been directed at anyone in particular. I don't know anyone here well enough to put effort into launching an offensive on any of my fellow knife knuts! I like being right about things, so if I'm mistaken, I want to know. Every time I do that, I become more unassailably correct. I still don't understand why it's not more popular, especially as opposed to going through life content with untested, unverified perceptions of the world.

Sorry if this has been a thread hijack. To my eyes, this is at least somewhat relevant to the banning of balisongs, as well as those Italian- and German-style knives that were mentioned.

I hope my words have been helpful to someone in some way.

Cheers.

Edit: Accidentally hit "post" before finishing this impromptu treatise.
 
Last edited:
I think what people are trying to get at with the idea of racism here, is that as we all seem to agree, politicians take advantage of public ignorance and fear to make "public safety" laws, to make themselves look good and get re-elected.

Fear and ignorance are, arguably, basically the entire cause of racism. The fear of the unknown is ingrained within us all, and outsiders fit the bill.

Politicians take advantage of fear and ignorance of things that people don't understand, and sometimes things that they associate with these "other" people.

If you ban something associated with, say Filipino youth, law enforcement will be keeping a closer eye on those people.

None of it is outright racism. But at the end of the day, both the impetus for the legislation and its range of effects (intended as well as unintended) have elements of decisions made based on race, whether or not anyone did so with any malicious intent.

Just because I didn't intend to slide my car off the road and land on someone doesn't mean it didn't hurt them.

When people hear "racism," they think "intentional." "Intentional" implies that someone is pointing a finger, and laying blame on anyone participating in something that they perceive as having racial bias. So, of course it's pretty logical to take offense to that, especially when, like most of us, one has never actually done something borne of such backward attitudes.

What is usually meant is: "hey, this thing is causing harm to a specific group, and you [most likely unaware that your actions are] either making it worse, or not helping [because, as we agree, you're unaware of it]. So, instead of getting hurt and lashing out, which drives us further apart and helps no one... all anyone is asking is this: now that you've been made aware of the situation, would you please just try to not be part of the problem that, again, is not your fault? Please work with me so we can fix things together, and work towards nether of us feeling left out or screwed over."
 
FoxMacLeod2501 said:
I think what people are trying to get at with the idea of racism here, is that as we all seem to agree, politicians take advantage of public ignorance and fear to make "public safety" laws, to make themselves look good and get re-elected.

Fear and ignorance are, arguably, basically the entire cause of racism. The fear of the unknown is ingrained within us all, and outsiders fit the bill.

Politicians take advantage of fear and ignorance of things that people don't understand, and sometimes things that they associate with these "other" people.

If you ban something associated with, say Filipino youth, law enforcement will be keeping a closer eye on those people.

None of it is outright racism. But at the end of the day, both the impetus for the legislation and its range of effects (intended as well as unintended) have elements of decisions made based on race, whether or not anyone did so with any malicious intent.

Just because I didn't intend to slide my car off the road and land on someone doesn't mean it didn't hurt them.

When people hear "racism," they think "intentional." "Intentional" implies that someone is pointing a finger, and laying blame on anyone participating in something that they perceive as having racial bias. So, of course it's pretty logical to take offense to that, especially when, like most of us, one has never actually done something borne of such backward attitudes.

What is usually meant is: "hey, this thing is causing harm to a specific group, and you [most likely unaware that your actions are] either making it worse, or not helping [because, as we agree, you're unaware of it]. So, instead of getting hurt and lashing out, which drives us further apart and helps no one... all anyone is asking is this: now that you've been made aware of the situation, would you please just try to not be part of the problem that, again, is not your fault? Please work with me so we can fix things together, and work towards nether of us feeling left out or screwed over."
Click to expand...
Well said and thought out, most people just react to the idea of racism as someone is accusing them.
 
ErikMB said:
Dude, please reread my post, try to understand it, refrain from jumping to conclusions, and reread which country uses that cyclone knife. If you are going to call yourself "thebrain" then I suggest you try using yours. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Auto correct was to blame for that many apologies. Germanic is the people, Austria is the country. I did say classist regarding some types of knives. Perhaps you should reread and attempt to understand my post. I only see you saying without merit that race couldn't have anything to do with banning knives but clearly there are many laws on the books all over our and many countries that are intentionally and unintentionally race based.
 
I am an Austrian/American living in a predominantly Filipino town, oddly enough. I've done a fair amount of FMA (hence the interest in knives) and done many years of MMA with quite a few Filipinos. I find them to be sweet and lovable folks.

Pretty obvious to me that balisongs fascinate teenagers and wannabe thugs. Pretty obvious these appear often at schools. Pretty obvious this is a problem. Also, pretty obvious that's why they are frequently made illegal. I have yet to see lumpias or milkfish made illegal.

I'm just sick of the wokeist cult and the mindless reflex of calling everything racist. It's gone way too far, it's become like a witch hunt run by Bolsheviks. It has lost its meaning and needs to stop.

Any time someone bleats about racism my reaction is to conclude, in the absence of other evidence, that they are one of these mindless, indoctrinated, conformist, narcissistic idiots, trying to signal how virtuous they think they are while trying to express their hate and desire to exert power over others.

Reminds me of a joke.

"How many pedantic extremist wokeist militants does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

"Hey, that's racist!"
 
Last edited:
I think the point with the racism is that certain weapons get banned because they’re “scary” to the people making the laws, which during that time period was more or less conservative waspy folks. And the reason why those weapons were “scary” is because they were associated with “other people”.

Are “ninja stars” more dangerous that Davy Crockett throwing knives? Which one got banned? Are “martial arts weapons” like nunchucks and sai really so much more dangerous than simple clubs and baseball bats that they needed to get specifically banned? No. They were banned because they were scary because kung fu movies made them look like all powerful scary oriental super weapons.

Same with switchblades. Switchblades existed in America way before they were banned. They were commonly thought of as women’s knives because they were marketed as the ideal sewing kit knife since you wouldn’t break your manicure opening them. Then came West Side Story. Italian gang members dancing around with stilletos. It was the Italian switchblade that got them all banned. (And yes, Italians were considered outsiders. And Irish. Basically 0% chance of getting into a country club.)
 
The biggest knife related injury I ever gave myself was with a balisong but it was my own dumb fault, it shouldn't be banned because idiots exist.
 
thebrain said:
The Italian switchblade style was very popular with the hold on to your hat....Italians !! That were by many considered undesirable and worse they were in places like New York viewed as the main criminal element the Italian Mafia being a huge part of that. The nationalist thing was a small part of it, the mainly Irish police force in large part being racist(yes racist) against the Italians among other ethnic groups. If they could have made being Italian a crime they likely would have. The fact that the description in some of the laws clearly is describing the "S" bolstered classic "picklock" style that was very common to be carried by recent (at that time) immigrants from Italy, and not just a general switchblade like the descriptions in the laws in the Midwest for example. Your argument is clearly clouded by your belief that almost nothing is racist as is popular among people recently as a knee jerk response to feeling attacked about systemic racism being highlighted in everyday life. And by the way Australian is not a race.
Click to expand...

Uh, "Australian" certainly isn't a race, but neither are "Italian" or "German." You're barking up a wrong tree.
 
Cassull said:
The biggest knife related injury I ever gave myself was with a balisong but it was my own dumb fault, it shouldn't be banned because idiots exist.
Click to expand...

Hmmm . . . was it your own fault, or was . . . racism . . . involved? 😁
 
ErikMB said:
I am an Austrian/American living in a predominantly Filipino town, oddly enough. I've done a fair amount of FMA (hence the interest in knives) and done many years of MMA with quite a few Filipinos. I find them to be sweet and lovable folks.

Pretty obvious to me that balisongs fascinate teenagers and wannabe thugs. Pretty obvious these appear often at schools. Pretty obvious this is a problem. Also, pretty obvious that's why they are frequently made illegal. I have yet to see lumpias or milkfish made illegal.

I'm just sick of the wokeist cult and the mindless reflex of calling everything racist. It's gone way too far, it's become like a witch hunt run by Bolsheviks. It has lost its meaning and needs to stop.

Any time someone bleats about racism my reaction is to conclude, in the absence of other evidence, that they are one of these mindless, indoctrinated, conformist, narcissistic idiots, trying to signal how virtuous they think they are while trying to express their hate and desire to exert power over others.

Reminds me of a joke.

"How many pedantic extremist wokeist militants does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

"Hey, that's racist!"
Click to expand...

One glaring problem with claiming racism as a motive for banning balisongs is that almost all of them that were being displayed and used in the US were done so by non-Filipinos. Most of the early arrivals of balisongs in the US were brought here by mostly non-Filipino sailors and other US service members. I can guarantee that when my father arrived here in the mid 1950s, he did not possess a balisong. He also showed no interest in them until my brother and I asked about them. They were just knives to Filipinos and Americans of Filipino descent. It was stereotypically white Americans who popularized them and got them on the radar of fraidy cats and the legislators who sought to garner favor by pandering to those same fraidy cats.

Just say "no" to baseless allegations of racism. Such nonsense obfuscates and detracts from real examples of racism that cause harm to people.
 
Yuran said:
Hello. I know I am late to the party, but I thought after this incident, balisongs have become illegal in NYC from that point on. All the Chinatown stores and the Asian store on 23rd St all had removed their butterfly knives from their display.

The station that this incident occured is the one I used to take to high school 4 years prior.

https://www.deseret.com/1990/9/4/18879639/8-charged-in-slaying-of-provoan-br
Click to expand...
Technically there are no laws on the books in NYC prohibiting butterfly knives, so that's not very likely. NYC's current law interestingly enough restricts the manner that box cutters can be sold (§ 5-73). The city's two knife laws, § 10-133 and § 10-134, don't actually mention butterfly knives. They just make knives with blades over 4 inches illegal to carry, make all open carry of knives illegal, and make sale of folding knives over 4 inches which lock open illegal. This last statute has the audacity to state the following:
It has been found that folding knives with a blade of four (4) inches or more that locks in an open position are designed and used almost exclusively for the purpose of stabbing or the threat thereof.
Click to expand...
To which I can only say to the those responsible for passing that law: Liar liar, pants on fire, nose as long as a telephone wire.

Now, butterfly knives might be prohibited by NY state law. But again they are never mentioned by name. Up until 2019, there was a prohibition on gravity knives which would have been applicable to butterfly knives too, but it was repealed that year. I'm not sure when that statute was originally added.
 
glistam said:
Technically there are no laws on the books in NYC prohibiting butterfly knives, so that's not very likely. NYC's current law interestingly enough restricts the manner that box cutters can be sold (§ 5-73). The city's two knife laws, § 10-133 and § 10-134, don't actually mention butterfly knives. They just make knives with blades over 4 inches illegal to carry, make all open carry of knives illegal, and make sale of folding knives over 4 inches which lock open illegal. This last statute has the audacity to state the following:

To which I can only say to the those responsible for passing that law: Liar liar, pants on fire, nose as long as a telephone wire.

Now, butterfly knives might be prohibited by NY state law. But again they are never mentioned by name. Up until 2019, there was a prohibition on gravity knives which would have been applicable to butterfly knives too, but it was repealed that year. I'm not sure when that statute was originally added.
Click to expand...
Where the hell did they get the idea that locking knives were designed to make stabbing easier? Um, no. The lock is a SAFETY feature to keep the blade from closing on your fingers! For crying out loud! How stupid do you have to be?

Anyway, balisongs were ruled to not be gravity knives by the courts in NY in several cases. What helped them skirt the definition was that the gravity knife law in the state required that the blade lock open instantly upon deployment and the balisong doesn’t do that as the latch simply hangs and has to be closed by the user if so desired. The NY gravity knife law which was repealed in 2019 was originally passed in 1958.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top