I deleted the paragraph below on 14 Jan 2005, giving my reasons. It was promptly reinstated ("fixed") by Pedant a few minutes later, with no reasons given.
- Clasp knives are not generally considered to be weapons in the same category as switchblades, gravity knives, or butterfly knives in terms of legality. However, claspknives with that can be opened with one hand are not allowed to be carried through Airport security screenings; on the property of most U.S. National Monuments such as the Gateway Arch; or in any other area with higher-than-average security.
I can't see that this paragraph adds anything useful to the article; it is not just irrelevant but contradictory and confusing, and significantly reduces the quality of the article.
1. The mention of "switchblades, gravity knives, or butterfly knives" is irrelevant and confusing. As the paragraph itself states, claspknives are not weapons, as these items are.
2. As the rest of the article makes clear, claspknives are not designed to be opened with one hand, as "switchblades, gravity knives, or butterfly knives" are. There is no such thing as "claspknives with that can be opened with one hand" [sic] and it's certainly not as if airport security would disallow only them, while allowing through "normal" claspknives.
3. Of course you can't take knives, of any sort, into high-security areas. Even nail-files are confiscated at airports nowadays. Not only is this obvious, it's irrelevant to the subject in hand (claspknife). If given anywhere, the comment should be at knife -- as well as a dozen other everyday objects that can be used as weapons.
4. What's the relevance of the Gateway Arch to claspknives? Would anyone expect to find a link between these two articles?
In short, the deleted para adds nothing but confusion and misinformation. It reads as if the writer didn't actually know what a claspknife was, but thought it sounded vaguely sinister. I suggest it should not be reinstated, certainly not without advancing some very good reasons. Let's not get into a revert war over this.
Harry 00:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I was the one who added that paragraph. It is possible that I am mistaking the attribute's of claspknives, but many of them have a thumbwheel or similar protrusion that allows one to open them with one hand. While technically, it's still in the realm of pocket-knives, the last time I entered the Gateway Arch (which would have been about last November), they had a sign up specifically stating that claspknives with a one-handed open were not allowed into the Arch. I hadn't seen that distinction made elsewhere, but I thought to mention it. I probably did state it in a very muddled fashion. *wry grin* I only had one instance to work from and knife laws are very vague in most areas of the United States. I believe there was an example at the well-known "Knife Laws" site regarding various kinds of non-switchblade knives that had been classified as such which included clasp knives, but I cannot verify from here due to filtering software. I suspect that what happened is that a judge saw a knife with a lock-out blade that could be opened with one hand (as the above types of knives are), and decided it fit the profile. As for claspknives that can be opened with one hand, from the definition of clasp-knives being knives with lock out blades, I've got a couple here with thumbwheels, most of which can be opened with the right flick of the wrist. I'm not planning on trying to revert edits, as I really did state it in an unclear way, but I wished to post my justification. -Fuzzy 20:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Fuzzy for your explanation, which makes things much clearer.
- I take your point about the existence of locking knives with a projection or hole or some such thing on the blade that allows them to be opened single-handed. Personally I wouldn't have thought to describe them as claspknives somehow, but others might well do so and there's certainly nothing in the Wikipedia entry to rule out that description. I was wrong to be so dogmatic about that.
- However I don't see that there is any particular reason to address the relevance of high-security areas to claspknives specifically, as opposed to the many other types of implement routinely prohibited in such environments and for which an entry exists or could exist in Wikipedia. The important issue of the legality of sharp objects is, if I remember, pretty thoroughly dealt with at knife. In the absence of significant legal issues relating very specifically to claspknives -- of course I am open to correction here, but didn't understand that to be shown to be the case in the deleted para -- I feel the para should stay deleted.
- Harry 00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)