Pretty sure I read somewhere that the reason we moved to having blunt knives and forks set at the table was because people used to frequently get into disagreements at the dinner table and stab each other, and so it became a requirement to leave one's dagger/sword whatever outside.
I believe there is also an etiquette that tells to put a knife down with the cutting side facing inwards towards your plate (ie: not towards your enemy sitting next to you). As otherwise it might be seen as a hostile gesture/provocation.
Huh. Always wondered why we were painstakingly taught to set tables like that in debutante class (yes, that’s really still a thing among upper/upper-middle class Southern high school girls)
I don't know about incredibly easy, but certainly possible. If you stab somebody in the chest with a fork, it won't penetrate as deeply as a dagger, and there's a higher probability that the ribcage will stop the blow and spare the internal organs. Forks are less-lethal utensils.
Not nearly as easy as it would be to kill with a sharp knife. A fork only has so much travel and would have a hard time penetrating tough tissues such as the epicardium. Besides, people don't seem to stay still when being killed, would you? So maybe not so easy to kill with a fork.
You don't have to stab someone in the heart to kill them. You can definitely nick the femoral artery or damage the windpipe/jugular with a fork. Dead in minutes.
Any modern fork, essentially. The tips are flat or rounded, never pointy. While it might be possible to kill someone with it, given enough training and/or determination, I don't think it would fall into "incredibly easy".
A modern eating fork is a blunt fork. An older fork wasn't really a tool for eating from, but was really more like one of the large meat forks one uses to carve a turkey or otherwise hold meat. The tines were longer and there were often fewer of them. On top of this, they were sharpened to a point.
The difference is more like the difference between a sharp kitchen or steak knife and a dulled butter knife (even if it has a point). Sure, you can kill someone with the dull butter knife, if it doesn't bend and you hit the right spots, but it is going to be more difficult than the proper knife.
I bet "frequently" here is kind of like how people think the cowboys in the Wild West of the United States had "frequent" shootings, even though it didn't.
For what it’s worth I use my Tramontina kitchen knife [1] when eating, it’s not blunt at all, quite the contrary. I also never, ever start a fight or argument during eating, that is a thing my peasant grandma has taught me and my brother pretty well. Her reasoning was something like “if you start an argument during dinner you’re not enjoying the food that all of our family worked pretty hard to put on the table so by doing that you’re disrespecting them and most importantly you’re disrespecting their hard work”.
"A dagger is a knife with a very sharp point and one or two sharp edges, typically designed or capable of being used as a thrusting or stabbing weapon."
Steven Pinker talks about this in his book Better Angels of our Nature. Ending the habit of personal eating knives was part of the "civilizing process" that drastically reduced the murder rate in Europe, because people stopped walking around armed quite so much.
That premise is true, just not in the way you think. Societies with uncontrollable violence tend to have informal codes of politeness designed to prevent violence and are far more likely to have gangs with honor codes. This does not necessarily make the society less violent, it just means you have more rules to navigate so you don't lose your protection or piss off some powerful person.
Exactly, it can apparently be perfectly polite to threaten to murder someone (shame if anything was to happen to you...), but not polite to use the wrong fork in your salad. I suppose it depends on what you think is polite.
On the other hand, I think it's generally true that social solutions come up to problems that regularly present themselves, but we tend to forget about those formalisms that aren't often used. That doesn't imply the social solutions are particularly fair or globally effective.
Imagine a situation where you almost never have to worry about another driver cutting you off in traffic, but you know your chance of being shot in a road rage incidence goes up 5x. Is it worth it and does the implied threat really more polite (eg in an emergency) ?
It was always premised on the idea that implicitly threatening someone with violence is "polite". It also breaks down rapidly when people have had a few drinks.
Politeness is all about rules. A society where people tend to follow complex rules of social interaction is polite, even if it becomes very violent if someone breaks those rules. That's why they are rules in the first place: they are enforced with violence or shame. I don't think I'd be able to find a single large society where people are polite but face no risk of violence or intense social shame when they break the rules.
I noticed that in cultures where violence is a more accepted form of behavior it is much less likely that someone will bump into me on a busy street. In places like Split (Croatia) or Istanbul there is more natural inclination to grant some space when passing. The most bumps I get in Germany with Munich claiming the first place. I used to joke that the citizens of Munich simply aren't afraid enough of getting stabbed or beaten up and hence use any minor inconvenience as an opportunity to make a statement.
Haha, come to Asia. You people haven't seen a thing. Not only are there far more people in far less space but personal space norms are drastically reduced, and in some cultures queuing unheard of. Here in China doing anything amongst a group in public is like catching a schoolbus... elbows out, grannies included!
According to Wikipedia, the per capita homicide rate of turkey is approximately 3.5 times higher than that of germany. Croatia is actually less than that of Germany, although they did fight a very nasty war in the early 90’s and that may have colored some people’s perception of the country.
What does per capita homicide have to do with a culture's being accepting of violence? I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels. Anecdotally, having been to all three countries, I approximately encountered the same level of violence, i.e. nil. So really, I'm lost here. Are there any specific violence-proscribing laws in Germany that somehow don't apply in Turkey or Croatia?
If a given place has a higher level of homicide, doesn’t it logically follow that more people there resort to violence as a means to solve problems? Your personal anecdote doesn’t really disprove the actual statistics. Most countries have laws against bribery and corruption, although I doubt you’d define a countries acceptance of bribery and corruption on the basis of whether there are laws prohibiting it.
>I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels.
So no, I don't see how it logically follows, whatever that means, that people Turkey or Croatia would be more likely to resort to violence to solve problems:
-Germany's crime rate is very low, and even 3.5x a very small amount is still very small. Croatia's is lower, but it apparently doesn't count because reasons. (For information, the US has never had any war on its own soil since 1865 and still sports higher homicide rates than all three of these countries).
-Unless a country is literally at war or does lynchings or something, most violence typically happens within an underclass and rarely spreads to the middle to upper classes and becomes a cultural trait affecting the general population.
-Cities are often more developed than the countryside, and the original poster was mentioning Istanbul. I get that there may be dodgy areas like in every city in the world, but does it logically follow that a whole culture shift in the entire city (or even country) stemmed from that specific number increase, and led to a peculiar general attitude when bumping people in the street? Here I'm lost.
No, I didn’t miss that part, I just don’t understand what that has to do with which societies have marginally more violence.
And I didn’t discount Croatia at all, if you read my comment you’ll notice that I explicitly mention Croatia has lower per capita homicides. You’d then notice that I speculate as to why some people may have a mistaken impression of them, based on their history. You’re trying to argue against claims that I explicitly introduced contradictory evidence against, as if I support them.
As for Turkey, I’m saying that a higher per capita homicide rate is indicative that more people commit homicide on a per capita basis. People who look at a country with a higher Per Capita homicide rate may come to the conclusion that there are more people there who may commit a homicide - that is what I mean by logically follows.
I don’t know how the US, or it’s wars, factors into this discussion at all, but I think the per capita homicide rate of a country is a heuristic to the countries relative acceptance of violence. I think American culture is very violent, but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.
Maybe the point was lost in discussion but the original post was not about absolute, hard numbers at all - it was about people being accepting of violence. About violence being so ingrained that everyday folks such as what you may bump into in the streets may casually resort to it to solve problems.
Germany's homicide rate (per 100,000 people) is approximately 1. Turkey's is 4. If you lived in a city with population 100,000, would the extra three homicides be so impactful that the remaining 99,996 people would shift their whole attitudes so that they'd be careful not to bump people in the street? What I'm arguing is: no, they wouldn't. I'm not arguing anything else, so please don't shift this away from the original point.
I think you are reversing the points, and putting needless emphasis on irrelevant factors. I think in marginally more violent cultures, violent acts of all kinds are marginally more common - murder is just the most extreme outlier. I think these marginal acts of violence set a window on the possibilities in any confrontation and people in society respect that.
In NYC subways people usually mind their business, even when they see someone acting inappropriately- by masturbating in public, for example. I think this norm of minding their business is set by the window of possible outcomes - most people are aware of stories about people being assaulted or worse by others on a subway that they confront. In the extreme, people in prison place an enormous emphasis on respect, and gangs routinely and violently check members who disrespect others, whether against another gang or against other members. The more plausible that these outcomes are absolutely influences people’s actions.
I’m familiar with plenty of areas where violent crime is commonplace, and I can absolutely tell you that it’s entirely possible to be assaulted (or killed, in the extreme) over disrespecting someone.
If you’re really interested in this I’d suggest reading about what an honor culture is.
> If a given place has a higher level of homicide, doesn’t it logically follow that more people there resort to violence as a means to solve problems?
Correlation is not causation, and definitely not logic. A high homicide rate is not indicative of a trend in problem solving, it is indicative of a safety issue.
Specially, a high homicide rate is often the result of warfare. In the absence of conflict with a different nation, usually this means gang warfare. In that case, homicide is sometimes a business tactic, and sometimes tribal.
In some societies, human life isn't as valuable, or there is a precedent for settling disputes with violence, or insignificant problems are dealt with harshly, and so homicide sometimes is a problem solving tool. But it's also sometimes a cultural quirk.
My example is Baltimore, Maryland. Often the city with the highest murder rate, this is a result of gang disputes and the drug trade. The people are friendly and neighborly, and it's got a similar culture to a liberal Southern city.
So you’re saying that more people committing violent crimes doesn’t indicate that more people there commit violent crime? I don’t think your example really helps your point at all - more people probably die in Baltimore as a victim of a random act of violence than similar people in marginally less violent places.
Very polite. Lots of rules on when you can kill someone, and when you MUST kill someone, and what their relatives are then obliged to do to you, and so on.
It is horrible. The murder rates of such societies are many times higher than our modern, boring system where we just call the police and have the courts deal with it.
There have indeed been many codes of behavior stemming from heavily-armed societies. The error is that these societies were not inclusive, their codes designed to prevent killing only among the armed elite. Poor people were not included.
(1) Chivalry evolved as a code of behavior between noble European families. It did not protect the man in the field. Some versions of the code even included the "duty" for nights to terrorize the peasantry in order that they respect their lords and continue working the fields.
(2) Japan. The modern, early-modern, samurai codes developed during the tokugawa period ... which contrary to legend was actually very peaceful. Basically held prisoner in Edo (see "sankin kotai") the samurai class was bored. Lots of people with swords all sitting around. Some became authors who wrote about being samurai, but many were often just drunk. Rigid codes kept the peace. But samurai were basically free to slaughter commoners.
One could argue that rather than reduce violence, such codes succeed only in channeling violence towards the poor, to those without weapons. Arming everyone might seem an answer, but historically removal of the weapons was more effective.
Pinker's book has a whole section on how our notions of etiquette were formed as we transitioned from nobles getting ahead by taking from their neighbor to pleasing the kink. So it is definitely true that an armed society can be shockingly rude.
However what is absolutely true is that a violent society has very strong notions around honor and respect. You have to when failure to respect others is grounds for getting killed, and failure to get others to respect you leaves you liable to get assaulted yourself.
That kind of honor and a high murder rate go hand in hand. Whether we are talking medieval nobles or organized crime today.
In large parts of the world, the idea of "self defense" guns is considered barbaric and absurd. And the high rate of violent crime in the US reflects that relative barbarism.
There are places in the world where keeping a full-auto Kalishnikov at home is considered normal. They're much more violent than the US is.
Switzerland has a large population with guns (I don’t recall if it’s more or on par with the US). They also are not barbaric by any standard.
Guns aren’t really for self defense, so much as self direction. If Trump decided he wanted to make an executive order forcefully sending people to retention centers... you don’t think those guns would come in handy? It’s the last line of defense.
This is different than the knives which were literally part of every meal. Most people keep their guns in their home, often locked
Yes. First point is it's culturally less obtuse because it's a western frame of reference. Second, it's historic fact. More interestingly, they adapted the tools toward peaceful uses making carrying them frowned upon in public. While the same has been considered before for guns, eg. a smart gun which only chambers a round or fires when in a designated recreational shooting zone, time or season, or when pointing in the right direction, etc. ... the reality is that clawing 100s of 1000s of firearms out of the general US public is not going to happen.
There are other factors involved, not relevant to gun control in the United States (or any other country).
There aren't a lot of public environments where one draws and uses a gun, without that being the essential purpose of the event, with injunctions towards due caution being made over and over. Gun ranges are pretty strict about eating, drinking and making merry on the premises. Eating knives were brandished casually and in the presence of alcohol.
You can see this logic in East Asian cuisine. No knives anywhere on the table, all food must be pre-processed to be graspable using chopsticks or and/or spoons.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The table knives nowadays have their blade end rounded and present no greater risk of causing harm than a fork or a chopstick.
The carotid is right under the skin on the sides of the neck. Academically, I suspect you absolutely could reach it with a push pin.
In Jiu Jitsu, you're taught to squeeze on the sides of the neck for a choke. The goal is not to cut off the air supply via the throat so much as the blood supply to the brain via the carotids. Many people pass out in 20-30 seconds of directed relatively gentle pressure on the carotids.
We were recently talking about choke holds in Krav Maga, and it’s shockingly fast when the sides of the neck are squeezed. Within about 5 seconds, for me, I start to get tunnel vision and a profound sense of panic.
That's how they taught us to choke people during basic training in the USMC, and collectively referred to the chokes as "blood chokes" because you cut off blood supply to the brain. It's suprisingly easy to choke someone unconcious just by twisting the sides of their shirt collar, or grabbing someone from behind and squeezing the arteries on their neck with your forearm and bicep. The scariest part about doing it during training is that you don't know that you're about to blackout because you can still breath fine, it's just that none of the oxygen is getting to your brain.
From that link, it's unclear to me whether an Opinel would be illegal: it locks in place, but not with a button. Anyone know?
> Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives:
* have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button
* can include multi-tool knives - tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener
That talks about the blade folding and being under 3 inches (you don't need a good reason to carry it in public), or the blade folding and being over 3 inches or not folding. It doesn't mention the mechanism of locking.
Knives that are illegal would be covered by section 141 - "offensive weapons".
You'll see item 1 is a knuckleduster. If you're a child and you 3d print a knuckle duster a police officer is likely to tell you to stop fucking about and they'll confiscate and destroy the item. If you're a drug dealer with a history of violent offences they're likely to prosecute. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45275791
This is a cultural difference in law enforcement, and it's something that derails conversations all the time on HN. Discretion in charging and prosecuting offences are seen as a good thing in the UK. But it's really important to remember this element of discretion when talking about how the written law is applied.
Because it's irrelevant. I think the UK's knife laws are ridiculous - but an article on medieval eating knives is definitely not the place to discuss that.
A "good reason" doesn't seem to include "because it's convenient to have", which is the reason for a lot of people.
UK is extremely restrictive with their knife laws according to their own page. I don't know why you're trying to depict it otherwise. I'm not even taking a side here.
The acceptable reasons for carrying a knife listed on that government article are:
Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:
- taking knives you use at work to and from work
- taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
- if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
- if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it
None of those mention carrying an Opinel to cut up an apple, and are so obscure.
In addition, you have the Mayor of London saying there is never any reason to carry a knife [1]. I suspect if you're on a hike in the Yorkshire moors, you could be ok. On the tube in London, probably not. Either way, you are gambling on a policeman's discretion.
That is so lame. Non-locking knives are simply a danger to the user. Doing any sort of vigorous knife work it's just a matter of time before you accidentally shut your hand in it, speaking from experience.
It's also incorrect. Read the link. You're allowed to carry and use a locking knife, but you need to ahve a good reason. If you don't have a good reason you have to find another tool.
This law is not aimed at the few people who carry opinels, but the many football hooligans who were carrying eg stanley knives.
There are knives that are illegal in the UK. One example would be flick knives.
Of course, people still carry knives (mighty useful, what with today's multi-function ones); but about ~0% of them use them as their primary, day-to-day eating utensil.
My redneck is showing, but I feel a little naked if I go out the door without either my Leatherman or my Mercator in my pocket. I have even been known to pull it out and use it as an eating knife from time to time...
Ya pretty much this. Though i prefer my Buck knife myself. I've been carrying a knife almost constantly since my dad gave my first pocket knife as a kid. I can't even begin to count the number of times it's come in handy. I've used it for eating more than once for sure. I've even used it to trim my nails.
Howdy redneck, this New England yankee carries a Leatherman (Skeletool CX) everywhere. Do you think we can find us a midwest farm boy in here?
I've also used for food in a pinch (mostly cutting things up to share with others).
I see a lot of people carry pure folding knives (Spyder, etc). Honestly I use the screwdriver, etc at least as much as the blade. Not sure why anyone would forego a little extra utility.
I'm neither redneck nor yankee, but texas from texas.
FWIW, I really like my multitool... but the reason why I carry just a folding knife is that the multitool is quite heavy by my standards, compared to the small oldtimer that I used to carry or the single blade ones that I've owned.
Had been carrying a Ken Onion Ripple, a Spyderco Sage, or a Kershaw Cryo. I find you have to be careful not to frighten Californians with your pocket knife, in this part of CA.
Oh, definitely. There are some odd rules regarding serrated blades and total blade length, I have to be careful to make sure any knives I buy are okay as an EDC in California.
I've been eyeing some Kershaw knives, but haven't pulled the trigger yet - I have several knives already and none of them are in danger of wearing out anytime soon, so it's hard to justify another.
There are no state-wide restrictions on blade length or serrations for folding knives in California. There may be some local laws on length in various cities, but I've never been able to find an example where they've been enforced.
The only blade length mentioned in the SF Police Code is in a loitering law (Article 17, §1291). Arguably any pocket knife would also be covered there, regardless of length, under "any cutting, stabbing, bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm."
* CA Penal Code §21510 Carrying switchblades > 2 inches illegal
* CA Penal Code §171 Knife with locking blade > 4 inches illegal in public buildings or meetings
* CA Penal Code §626.10 Knife with blade > 2.5 inches or any locking knife illegal in schools
also in any Federal facility (e.g., Post Offices):
* 18 USC §930 Knife with blade >= 2.5 inches considered "dangerous weapon," possession of which is illegal
People judge you until it's useful. If I received a dime whenever I've used my pocket knife to cut steaks when everyone had only picnic plastic knifes I would be rich by now.
One advantage of an Opinel, is that it doesn't look too out of place as a steak knife. The other advantage: It's cost is very reasonable, especially for the quality of blade you get.
Same with duct tape. I used to always have a roll on me (I work remotely now, and get out less). People would laugh, up until the point something needed to be fixed, or affixed somewhere.
Never done that, though I know people do it. When a roll was used up a bit (50+%), I'd flatten the roll and have a version small enough to put in my jacket. But I almost always had a backpack or a large bag with me in those days (school, then university), so I had a place for a full roll too.
As a confirmed gear head I always have at least one folder on me unless strictly forbidden. Usually it's a smallish locking folder on the right pocket, and a larger folder in a slipcase in the left pocket (my "burrito knife"). Then I may have a fine work knife in my tool pouch in my bag (I cycle/transit, so I always have a bag). Finally, I may (usually?) have a larger camp/SHTF knife in the bag as well (I work/live in Metro L.A.¹).
Also: I'm a lifelong nail-biter and I'm basically screwed for lots of little tasks if I don't have some kind of blade on me. (The struggle is real <wink>).
¹— a new habit is keeping a pair of work/utility gloves in my bag at all times. I have enough pairs so I don't have to shuffle them around. When SHTF/The Big One/WOROL happens, being able to protect your hands will be a huge differentiator.
My foppish New-Englander is showing, but I always keep an Opinel No. 8 on hand as a picnicking knife, in case I need to cut cheese or salami that I buy, and my fiancee keeps one in her purse for the same reason. Highly recommended. (As is the fiancee carrying around purse salami, the original protein bar.)
In a pinch I might have to use it to break down a box, here and there.
Carbon steel just looks beautiful and ages so naturally. It's really hard to find knives with blades not made of stainless steel - at least in reasonable price ranges.
They're easy to come by here in Sweden, just get a 'Mora kniv' (Mora knife) with a 'kolstål' (carbon steel) blade. It'll set you back around 55 SEK, around $6. There are more luxurious versions but the whole point of these knives is that they are tools to be used, not mollycoddled or used for snobbish whatever-signalling purposes. Use it, keep it sharp and clean and oiled and that $6 knife will last you a long time.
What's the legality of carrying something like that around in a backpack? When I've traveled overseas, my first port of call when I arrive is to buy a SIM card and a knife that will cut bread and cheese. Then I'm ready for anything. ;-)
Officially you're only allowed to carry such a knife if you need it in your job - e.g. carpenters use them. Packing a knife in a backpack should not be any problem assuming you're not going to use it for self defence, in which case you'd be in dire straits. I regularly carry a knife in some form, from multi-tool to this type. I've never had any problems with it but then again, I live in the countryside and police is about as rare here as hen's teeth.
Location, location, location...in the concrete jungles of NYC and major cities knives are out of place (other than self defense but then you have to deal with laws etc)
I've found my folding knives as useful when living in major cities as I have when I've been in the wilderness backpacking. I would hardly call them out of place.
My dad grew up on a farm. He was also career military, as was my ex who was not a redneck and did not grow up on a farm.
For some folks, guns and knives are meaningful tools and not everyone is a hot head who would readily knife someone.
I always find discussions of such subjects on HN uncomfortable. It's not a criticism of you. It's a criticism of "Why does anyone have to self deprecatingly identify as a redneck (or something) to admit on HN that this is a part of their life?"
I've just gotten enough weird looks and expressions of terror that I feel like I have to indicate that I'm originally a broke-ass hillbilly from northern Appalachia before dropping anecdotes. I somehow managed to get into an Ivy League college, and met a lot of people that were fabulously wealthy and looked at me cross-eyed and recoiled in fear if I pulled a jacknife out of my pocket to open my mail. I had the campus police called when I walked from the campus police office gunlocker with my deer rifle in a case to the outdoor activities office that was doing a deer hunting trip.
My Alaskan with connections to Colorado is showing, but I feel a little naked if I go out the door without my Spyderco.
I often joke that in Alaska, one would only leave the house without a knife if not planning to make it back. While that's not strictly true, visually scanning peoples' pockets even in cities and towns, a pocket clip for a knife can be seen more often than not.
I'm in Germany most of the time lately, but I still don't go out without a knife. The use cases are different, as is the knife I usually carry, but it sees about as much use.
The first person to paint true to life peasants was Pieter Bruegel. Until the renaissance people painted for kings, queens and the church. Bruegel is therefore an excellent source for being able to determine if this story is true.
If you look at his paintings then only the men are carrying knives. None of the women are. Why is this and can someone prove me wrong? I am not that familiar with his work and have not checked everything he painted yet I have not seen women with knives in his art.
Nope. I had to ask my favourite search engine since my observation on the topic was not deemed that relevant here. Surprisingly simple answer:
"At many medieval dinner tables men and women ate in couples from a bowl shared between them, and when they did, men were expected courteously to serve their female partners, cutting portions of meat for them with their knives."
So that explains my observation of the paintings from the era that only show the men with knives.
I believe Henry Petroski's Evolution of Everyday Things begins by describing Western eating utensils. It also goes into similar stories about sandpaper, paperclips, and other everyday items. Great read if you enjoyed this article.
If you enjoy that, then you'll enjoy this article. However I enjoyed this article but still rate that book as the most boring book that I've ever managed to finish.
chopsticks are useful too, especially when you can't easily wash your hands and want to eat something a bit messy, but they only work for food well cut up in advance...
In cases where food isn't cut up, I'll often use both the chop sticks and pocket knife.
Once my chop sticks competency reached the point where they started feeling like finger extenders I started using them quite often. I much prefer putting bamboo sticks in my mouth over anything metal or plastic.
Yeah, same with me. What's your feeling about plastic chopsticks and metal chopsticks (Korean style)? I've seen telescoping extending chopsticks made of metal for camping, always wondered if they were any good. I suspect not. I personally camp with wooden, non-bamboo chopsticks.
If a restaurant brings out metal chopsticks with my food, the wood ones from my bag come out.
Telescoping metal chopsticks sounds like a solution looking for a problem personally. It's not like bamboo disposable chopsticks weigh much, just stick them somewhere.
Me too. I guess telescoping means you can reduce the length of the rigid portion to keep them in smaller spaces, like on your belt or something. There's a whole culture of that around Hong Kong, for example. Everything must clip to belt - otherwise, not cool. I only half joke.
Knives are generally useful, but not specifically useful. They are often a good substitute for a more appropriate tool. One can use a knife as a can opener, or to cut down a sapling, or to dig a foreign object out of a wound. It may be that a knife is the most generally useful tool of all time: if one can only have one tool, it should almost certainly be a knife. Part of that generality includes misuse, and people tend to have more specifically-useful tools (such as can openers, saws, and surgical implements), which tend to be both less useful and less misuseful (because that's a perfectly cromulent word, no matter what spellcheck says).
In Medieval Europe ? My grand-father (who had been working an office job in the city since the 50's) always had his Laguiole along. He even used it in the restaurant. It was certainly standard behavior before WWII in rural areas.
George Orwell mentioned the practice in a letter in 1936.
> The trouble is that the socialist bourgeoisie, most of whom give me the creeps, will not be realistic and admit that there are a lot of working-class habits which they don't like and don't want to adopt. E.g. the typical middle-class socialist not only doesn't eat with his knife but is still slightly horrified by seeing a working man do so.
I was just wondering how having only a knife helps with eating. The knife will just make the food bite-sized - though, how do you fixate the meal while cutting? Then it struck me - you'll use your other hand for that and also for moving the piece to your mouth. I'd argue this is the actual problem with this BYO-knife-mentality.
If you hold your knife in the right hand you hold the food item in your left. You then cut towards your right thumb, pinching the piece between your thumb and the knife as it comes loose. You can then bring the piece to your mouth with your right hand. As you do this, you turn hand such that the edge of the knife is downwards and the back of the knife is towards your face. The knife is horizontal and the point of the knife is towards your left.
That's hard to put in words but it's not hard to do at all.
that's more or less what I wrote. but in many cultures touching food with your bare hands for the purpose of eating is considered barbaric. that's why I suspect that the problem isn't the knife - it's having to use your fingers.
In my country (Italy) AFAIK you're not allowed to carry a knife (any size, even the smallest) in any public place (pub, restaurant, post office, ..).
Even on the streets or driving the law enforcement officers could ask you for a sound motivation to carry it.
Man I would love to go back to everyone carrying a belt knife. They're so useful. In my state in America it's actually illegal to conceal a fixed blade knife longer than a few inches, but perfectly fine to belt carry (open carry).
I often carry a swiss army knife, opinel, or bushcraft knife with me.
173 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 301 ms ] threadStab them in the head, or the neck, or the gut.
Only in the movies, unless you use a grill or pitch fork.
Are you trying to argue with the idea that forks are safer than knives?
Like yeah you can kill someone with a push-pin or a howitzer, but what's your point?
The difference is more like the difference between a sharp kitchen or steak knife and a dulled butter knife (even if it has a point). Sure, you can kill someone with the dull butter knife, if it doesn't bend and you hit the right spots, but it is going to be more difficult than the proper knife.
[1] https://www.mychefknives.co.uk/932-tramontina-knives
http://www.ragnarsmarket.co.uk/product/medieval-eating-knife...
or
https://myarmoury.com/review_tod_15c_eating.html
"A dagger is a knife with a very sharp point and one or two sharp edges, typically designed or capable of being used as a thrusting or stabbing weapon."
On the other hand, I think it's generally true that social solutions come up to problems that regularly present themselves, but we tend to forget about those formalisms that aren't often used. That doesn't imply the social solutions are particularly fair or globally effective.
Imagine a situation where you almost never have to worry about another driver cutting you off in traffic, but you know your chance of being shot in a road rage incidence goes up 5x. Is it worth it and does the implied threat really more polite (eg in an emergency) ?
However, there is one such city for me, it's the only city I ever got bumped into twice in a single day by (seemingly sober) busy pedestrians: Prague
>I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels.
So no, I don't see how it logically follows, whatever that means, that people Turkey or Croatia would be more likely to resort to violence to solve problems:
-Germany's crime rate is very low, and even 3.5x a very small amount is still very small. Croatia's is lower, but it apparently doesn't count because reasons. (For information, the US has never had any war on its own soil since 1865 and still sports higher homicide rates than all three of these countries).
-Unless a country is literally at war or does lynchings or something, most violence typically happens within an underclass and rarely spreads to the middle to upper classes and becomes a cultural trait affecting the general population.
-Cities are often more developed than the countryside, and the original poster was mentioning Istanbul. I get that there may be dodgy areas like in every city in the world, but does it logically follow that a whole culture shift in the entire city (or even country) stemmed from that specific number increase, and led to a peculiar general attitude when bumping people in the street? Here I'm lost.
And I didn’t discount Croatia at all, if you read my comment you’ll notice that I explicitly mention Croatia has lower per capita homicides. You’d then notice that I speculate as to why some people may have a mistaken impression of them, based on their history. You’re trying to argue against claims that I explicitly introduced contradictory evidence against, as if I support them.
As for Turkey, I’m saying that a higher per capita homicide rate is indicative that more people commit homicide on a per capita basis. People who look at a country with a higher Per Capita homicide rate may come to the conclusion that there are more people there who may commit a homicide - that is what I mean by logically follows.
I don’t know how the US, or it’s wars, factors into this discussion at all, but I think the per capita homicide rate of a country is a heuristic to the countries relative acceptance of violence. I think American culture is very violent, but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.
Germany's homicide rate (per 100,000 people) is approximately 1. Turkey's is 4. If you lived in a city with population 100,000, would the extra three homicides be so impactful that the remaining 99,996 people would shift their whole attitudes so that they'd be careful not to bump people in the street? What I'm arguing is: no, they wouldn't. I'm not arguing anything else, so please don't shift this away from the original point.
In NYC subways people usually mind their business, even when they see someone acting inappropriately- by masturbating in public, for example. I think this norm of minding their business is set by the window of possible outcomes - most people are aware of stories about people being assaulted or worse by others on a subway that they confront. In the extreme, people in prison place an enormous emphasis on respect, and gangs routinely and violently check members who disrespect others, whether against another gang or against other members. The more plausible that these outcomes are absolutely influences people’s actions.
I’m familiar with plenty of areas where violent crime is commonplace, and I can absolutely tell you that it’s entirely possible to be assaulted (or killed, in the extreme) over disrespecting someone.
If you’re really interested in this I’d suggest reading about what an honor culture is.
Correlation is not causation, and definitely not logic. A high homicide rate is not indicative of a trend in problem solving, it is indicative of a safety issue.
Specially, a high homicide rate is often the result of warfare. In the absence of conflict with a different nation, usually this means gang warfare. In that case, homicide is sometimes a business tactic, and sometimes tribal.
In some societies, human life isn't as valuable, or there is a precedent for settling disputes with violence, or insignificant problems are dealt with harshly, and so homicide sometimes is a problem solving tool. But it's also sometimes a cultural quirk.
My example is Baltimore, Maryland. Often the city with the highest murder rate, this is a result of gang disputes and the drug trade. The people are friendly and neighborly, and it's got a similar culture to a liberal Southern city.
(1) Chivalry evolved as a code of behavior between noble European families. It did not protect the man in the field. Some versions of the code even included the "duty" for nights to terrorize the peasantry in order that they respect their lords and continue working the fields.
(2) Japan. The modern, early-modern, samurai codes developed during the tokugawa period ... which contrary to legend was actually very peaceful. Basically held prisoner in Edo (see "sankin kotai") the samurai class was bored. Lots of people with swords all sitting around. Some became authors who wrote about being samurai, but many were often just drunk. Rigid codes kept the peace. But samurai were basically free to slaughter commoners.
One could argue that rather than reduce violence, such codes succeed only in channeling violence towards the poor, to those without weapons. Arming everyone might seem an answer, but historically removal of the weapons was more effective.
However what is absolutely true is that a violent society has very strong notions around honor and respect. You have to when failure to respect others is grounds for getting killed, and failure to get others to respect you leaves you liable to get assaulted yourself.
That kind of honor and a high murder rate go hand in hand. Whether we are talking medieval nobles or organized crime today.
Did you mean “pleasing the king,” or were you perhaps referring to bonded serfs? ;)
There are places in the world where keeping a full-auto Kalishnikov at home is considered normal. They're much more violent than the US is.
Guns aren’t really for self defense, so much as self direction. If Trump decided he wanted to make an executive order forcefully sending people to retention centers... you don’t think those guns would come in handy? It’s the last line of defense.
This is different than the knives which were literally part of every meal. Most people keep their guns in their home, often locked
There aren't a lot of public environments where one draws and uses a gun, without that being the essential purpose of the event, with injunctions towards due caution being made over and over. Gun ranges are pretty strict about eating, drinking and making merry on the premises. Eating knives were brandished casually and in the presence of alcohol.
http://the-toast.net/2015/02/11/two-medieval-monks-invent-di...
I can think of puncturing their eyes or their genitals if I wanted to make the thing painful, but that wouldn't kill them any faster I reckon.
In Jiu Jitsu, you're taught to squeeze on the sides of the neck for a choke. The goal is not to cut off the air supply via the throat so much as the blood supply to the brain via the carotids. Many people pass out in 20-30 seconds of directed relatively gentle pressure on the carotids.
My father still carries a knife, and he still uses it for eating fruit.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
> Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives: * have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button * can include multi-tool knives - tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents
The knife stuff starts here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crosshe...
That talks about the blade folding and being under 3 inches (you don't need a good reason to carry it in public), or the blade folding and being over 3 inches or not folding. It doesn't mention the mechanism of locking.
Knives that are illegal would be covered by section 141 - "offensive weapons".
The Knives Act 1997 covers marketing of knives: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/21/contents
The schedule to the Criminal Justice Act lists what weapons are currently illegal: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2019/schedule/parag...
You'll see item 1 is a knuckleduster. If you're a child and you 3d print a knuckle duster a police officer is likely to tell you to stop fucking about and they'll confiscate and destroy the item. If you're a drug dealer with a history of violent offences they're likely to prosecute. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45275791
This is a cultural difference in law enforcement, and it's something that derails conversations all the time on HN. Discretion in charging and prosecuting offences are seen as a good thing in the UK. But it's really important to remember this element of discretion when talking about how the written law is applied.
And indeed, about discretion. So much of how things work is outside the written law, and of varying quality.
UK is extremely restrictive with their knife laws according to their own page. I don't know why you're trying to depict it otherwise. I'm not even taking a side here.
The link posted says you can't carry some knives in public unless you have a good reason.
That's different from "Locking knives are illegal in public".
The acceptable reasons for carrying a knife listed on that government article are:
Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:
- taking knives you use at work to and from work
- taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
- if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
- if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it
None of those mention carrying an Opinel to cut up an apple, and are so obscure.
In addition, you have the Mayor of London saying there is never any reason to carry a knife [1]. I suspect if you're on a hike in the Yorkshire moors, you could be ok. On the tube in London, probably not. Either way, you are gambling on a policeman's discretion.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/mayoroflondon/status/982906526334...
Yeah it is lame, but unfortunately you can't challenge politicians to a duel anymore.
stealth knives - a knife or spike not made from metal (except when used at home, for food or a toy)
No they're not.
This law is not aimed at the few people who carry opinels, but the many football hooligans who were carrying eg stanley knives.
There are knives that are illegal in the UK. One example would be flick knives.
'I want to' should suffice. It's a general-purpose tool, and one oughtn't be required to have a specific reason to carry a general-purpose tool.
This applies in the software context, e.g. to cryptography.
---
Also when did atlasobscura become the new hotness?
Links to it pop up regularly on HN, and have been for some time. Usually there's something interesting on both ends.
I've also used for food in a pinch (mostly cutting things up to share with others).
I see a lot of people carry pure folding knives (Spyder, etc). Honestly I use the screwdriver, etc at least as much as the blade. Not sure why anyone would forego a little extra utility.
FWIW, I really like my multitool... but the reason why I carry just a folding knife is that the multitool is quite heavy by my standards, compared to the small oldtimer that I used to carry or the single blade ones that I've owned.
I've been eyeing some Kershaw knives, but haven't pulled the trigger yet - I have several knives already and none of them are in danger of wearing out anytime soon, so it's hard to justify another.
* CA Penal Code §21510 Carrying switchblades > 2 inches illegal * CA Penal Code §171 Knife with locking blade > 4 inches illegal in public buildings or meetings * CA Penal Code §626.10 Knife with blade > 2.5 inches or any locking knife illegal in schools
also in any Federal facility (e.g., Post Offices): * 18 USC §930 Knife with blade >= 2.5 inches considered "dangerous weapon," possession of which is illegal
Also: I'm a lifelong nail-biter and I'm basically screwed for lots of little tasks if I don't have some kind of blade on me. (The struggle is real <wink>).
¹— a new habit is keeping a pair of work/utility gloves in my bag at all times. I have enough pairs so I don't have to shuffle them around. When SHTF/The Big One/WOROL happens, being able to protect your hands will be a huge differentiator.
In a pinch I might have to use it to break down a box, here and there.
Here's that ~$6 knife:
https://morakniv.se/produkt/basic-511/
...or a somewhat more fancy model for ~$15
https://morakniv.se/produkt/classic-612/
I don't know why. It comes in handy sometimes.
My dad grew up on a farm. He was also career military, as was my ex who was not a redneck and did not grow up on a farm.
For some folks, guns and knives are meaningful tools and not everyone is a hot head who would readily knife someone.
I always find discussions of such subjects on HN uncomfortable. It's not a criticism of you. It's a criticism of "Why does anyone have to self deprecatingly identify as a redneck (or something) to admit on HN that this is a part of their life?"
Never had to struggle cutting a steak in restaurant.
I often joke that in Alaska, one would only leave the house without a knife if not planning to make it back. While that's not strictly true, visually scanning peoples' pockets even in cities and towns, a pocket clip for a knife can be seen more often than not.
I'm in Germany most of the time lately, but I still don't go out without a knife. The use cases are different, as is the knife I usually carry, but it sees about as much use.
With these terror attacks you are searched whenever you enter a big shop/mall/whatever so it's less practical.
If you look at his paintings then only the men are carrying knives. None of the women are. Why is this and can someone prove me wrong? I am not that familiar with his work and have not checked everything he painted yet I have not seen women with knives in his art.
"At many medieval dinner tables men and women ate in couples from a bowl shared between them, and when they did, men were expected courteously to serve their female partners, cutting portions of meat for them with their knives."
So that explains my observation of the paintings from the era that only show the men with knives.
If you enjoy that, then you'll enjoy this article. However I enjoyed this article but still rate that book as the most boring book that I've ever managed to finish.
Once my chop sticks competency reached the point where they started feeling like finger extenders I started using them quite often. I much prefer putting bamboo sticks in my mouth over anything metal or plastic.
If a restaurant brings out metal chopsticks with my food, the wood ones from my bag come out.
Telescoping metal chopsticks sounds like a solution looking for a problem personally. It's not like bamboo disposable chopsticks weigh much, just stick them somewhere.
i see you haven't been to china. the trick is to learn how to spit stuff out gracefully (bones, etc.)
https://www.forbes.com/2005/08/31/technology-tools-knife_cx_...
Socialization seems to be turning knives into taboo things to carry and use out of the kitchen.
Got a bunch of odd looks from folks in the crowd around me, but got my card back.
> The trouble is that the socialist bourgeoisie, most of whom give me the creeps, will not be realistic and admit that there are a lot of working-class habits which they don't like and don't want to adopt. E.g. the typical middle-class socialist not only doesn't eat with his knife but is still slightly horrified by seeing a working man do so.
That's hard to put in words but it's not hard to do at all.
I often carry a swiss army knife, opinel, or bushcraft knife with me.
A great book with many interesting topics (the personnal knife is just one of them) !
Supposedly, Catherine de Medici brought the fork from Italy to France and popularized it:
https://www.cooksinfo.com/catherine-de-medici
http://www.courtneyprice.com/fork-you-said-catherine-de-medi...
https://wonderopolis.org/wonder/when-was-the-fork-invented