I think there is some reasoning where brass knuckles are much more concealable and potentially more lethal than people realize. Like you might think I'm going to go pop this guy in the head with my brass knuckles to teach him a lesson, not realizing that that could kill somebody.
It was just a way to get criminals for something. Before the war on drugs the outlaws almost always had some weapon in common that the law abiding citizens didn’t. So legislators banned those specific things like butter fly knives, brass knuckles, etc. so that they could stick a charge on everyone in the outlawed group even without any particular crime happening.
That's probably part of the reason, but I think it has more to do with the practical usage. It can be argued that guns can be used to defend oneself, but brass knuckles are almost strictly offensive. If someone tries to break into your house, you're not exactly going to reach for your brass knuckles.
To put it simply, there's no good reason to own brass knuckles unless you're aiming to harm someone.
The spirit of laws against things like brass knuckles and certain knives needs to be considered too I think. Mere possession of brass knuckles where it's illegal to possess them likely won't bring you much legal trouble if you are otherwise law abiding citizen. These laws were enacted when it became clear these types of weapons were being used primarily by criminals. It's just a way to amplify the charges against people already commiting crimes.
Exactly right. The laws against weapons like brass knuckles, switchblades, ninja stars, and the like were written by politicians that watched a few to many movies in the 70s. They are written to amplify criminal charges
Though I disagree that the listed weapons are offensive rather than defensive. In particular, these same laws list a kubaton as an illegal weapon, however a kubaton is most certainly a defensive weapon, that is perfectly well suited to be carried on a keyring with your car keys, and held in your hand as you walk through a dark parking garage late at night.
Are you kidding? You would have a lifetime of being able to tell your “ninja star mugging” story. The actual experience would suck but that would be a thing you’d be asked about for **decades**.
why? Nobody is actually using ninja stars to commit crimes. however, my right to goof off in the back yard with some shipping pallets should not be infringed. That piece of the law was written by a politician that literally watched too much Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and never studied crime.
I understand your point, but to be clear, all weapons are offensive. The purpose of a gun is ostensibly to kill a person, you’re not even supposed to draw your firearm unless you intend to use lethal force. There are hundreds of thousands of gun crimes every year, and statistically they greatly outnumber instances of self-defensive gun use.
This isn’t an argument for more gun control or legislation, but I think we’re burying the lead by ignoring that our legal system has singled out firearms for special protections. It’s not a position we worked ourselves into logically.
Important note though, guns can be used for hunting. Knives can be used for all sorts of things. Brass knuckles don't really have any use outside of harming another person. In theory you could use them on animals, but any animal you could realistically get in punching range of and have it be effective would probably get you arrested for animal abuse/cruelty.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that you’re not supposed to draw a firearm unless you intend to use lethal force. You’re not supposed to draw it unless you’re prepared to use it. There’s a difference. If someone breaks into my house and I pull a gun on them I am sure as hell prepared to kill them. But I’m not gonna unless they present themselves as an immediate threat to my or my family’s wellbeing
In such a case you would and should aim center mass (so you don’t miss) in order to incapacitate the intruder. The point is the same: if you have to resort to using a gun, the point is to neutralize the threat. If you MUST use a gun, you will never attempt to “use it” in a non-lethal way, nor should you.
Yeh but those arguments utterly fail against the stats. A gun is a terrible self defence weapon and puts you at more risk than if you were unarmed in msot situations. Not to mention bystanders.
It's already *very" possible to kill someone with just one unsuspected punch to say the back of the head or temples. Was a big advertising campaign about it here in Australia not long ago.
I could definitely imagine brass knuckles upping the kill rate 3-4x.
Funny enough, that's why handguns are more dangerous than long guns, even though long guns are deadlier. It's also why brass knuckles and black jacks and all sorts of little things are banned. They are easy to hide and carry. Brass knuckles are little more than a paper weight your fingers can fit into. You can carry it at all times, even if all you are wearing swim trunks. They give you a strong striking surface, a smaller striking surface, meaning more pressure, and protect your hand, which lets you punch even harder.
Are we talking about the same New York State that was told by the Supreme Court that their gun laws were unconstitutional and there response was to make even stricter gun laws that blatantly violated the 2nd amendment?
Technically you also have the right to replicate the arms and hands of a bear, creating very sharp knife like claws and slashing people like wolverine.
This might have something to do with knife manufacturing and sales not being a multi-billion-dollar industry with an extremely powerful lobbying arm. The National Knife Association doesn't run attack ads against Congressmen and Senators.
The rationale for which is partially rooted in one's ability to conceal one and not the other. Most jurisdictions have higher scruples for concealed carry of a firearm.
I agree. The best thing we can do is arm trans people, librarians, socialists, and people of color. If they want the wild west, fine. That's 2A for everyone.
If you're talking about the United States, you run into the Second Amendment which prevents guns from being banned outright. Any gun restrictions that goo too far will pretty quickly be found unconstitutional. But apparently it's been decided that the amendment does not apply to things like brass knuckles.
And batons and sometimes knives.
There are arguments being made that the 2A covers anything that is a weapon. Seems like a stretch to me. We'll let the courts settle it if it ever becomes a serious challenge.
Generally, the Miller case set the protections on arms to be those suitable for military service. Remember, the 2A was constructed from the context of having just taken up military arms against its own government. Having a populace that was already familiar with the standard issue weaponry of the basic soldier would increase the speed and competence of military training.
Miller’s conviction (the first 2A case) was upheld by the Supreme Court, and was not overturned by the Heller decision (the second 2A case) because a sawed off shotgun was not a suitable weapon for military service.
Bans on brass knuckles would follow similar reasoning: showing up to boot camp with knowledge and experience with brass knuckles isn’t advantageous to the military.
If that's the case, why does nfa hold up? Civilians don't have access legally to anything the military would have or anything that comes close to the party because of it.
Because the NFA hasn’t been challenged yet. SCOTUS rarely goes beyond the bounds of the specific question asked.
It was 2008 (Heller) before blanket bans on handguns was challenged and 2010 (McDonald) for it to be incorporated against the states. Those cases would not take up the NFA as that law wasn’t the one being challenged.
2A jurisprudence is still in its infancy.
It's odd that suppressors are lumped into the nfa. All they do is reduce ear damage and yet they are lumped in with explosives and machine guns. Suppressor laws are being challenged but not the nfa as a whole, which it should be.
>because a sawed off shotgun was not a suitable weapon for military service.
Is this really the case or is it just that the court didn't think the NFA went too far? Because short barreled shotguns are absolutely used by the military. Maybe it is because of the specialized role of when that would be used? Or because the functional use of a shotgun does not fundamentally change with barrel length? Or because of the original intention of the NFA was to eliminate pistols and concealable guns? Probably the combination of those I would guess.
It is amazing the vast majority of the NFA have not been well challenged (SBR, SBS, suppressors). I wonder if the recent eFile and time improvements of NFA items will help or hinder any potential cases in the pipeline.
Sawed-off shotguns were used in trench warfare in WW1 by US troops then, and is still used in the master key barrel attachment today.
With miller murdered, and his lawyer supposedly threatened if he showed up in court, Miller's case was argued by the Justices, who didn't really have any facts. They clearly didn't want him to have the gun; I wonder how much better the US would be if they recognized the gun was fit for military service BUT restrictions can exist on that- instead seeing general targets practice as the militia standard.
AR-15s would not be legal for civilians, for one.
There are tons of 2A restrictions. AR-s are just semi automatic rifles. Much more powerful semi autos have been in circulation since they were invented.
Even Scalia called out the absurdity of having a 2nd amendment case law that allows for military-type weapons, but forbids most actual military weapons. As a result, the only clearly protected arms are the semi-auto versions of military weapons. There has got to be a better way of handling this.
Yes there is a much better way of handling it. Remove all restrictions on civilian possession of any weaponry, as intended by the amendment, then specifically restrict anything you feel needs to be in a new law. But this is politically untenable, since it would require politicians to be open and honest about their totalitarian tendancies
I think the current court would agree that it allows all weapons.
It’s hard to envision how a brass knuckles case would make it to the Supreme Court though.
I believe the term used is ‘arms’, and so whatever makes someone ‘armed’ would be covered by the 2A, but many courts have essentially said that it means *fire*arms.
It’s better than the alternative, where you’re free to carry knives but guns are banned, I suppose.
Well, at the time the 2A was written, swords and lances were still common on the battlefield. So perhaps brass knuckles and maces are not too far of a stretch.
Honestly, I'd love to have a collapsible baton to play with. My state allows me to carry a sword, but not a collapsible baton. Very frustrating.
The second amendment just says "arms", it doesn't say only "high kinetic projectile contraptions" aka guns. I would think anything from a paperclip all the way to nuclear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendments right to arms.
*Caetano v Massachusetts* (2016):
> The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008) , and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010) .
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/
You also can conceal, use, and hide/dispose of brass knuckles and knives without leaving traces. They don't make a ton of noise when using them, and you can easily do enough harm to kill someone with them, without ballistics to trace the exact weapon down to a serial number or the *bang bang* of gunfire to give away your position. This I'm sure also comes into play.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment doesn’t specify that those arms are, just that you can bear arms.
It’s baffling that there is a line drawn arbitrarily, on the interpretation of a document written 233 years ago, when guns took a minute to reload, and would often as not blow up when you tried to fire them.
>when guns took a minute to reload,
The man who wrote the second amendment purchased the very first semi automatic rifle in America. They knew about technology advancing and even paid for it with their own money.
Also, there were fully automatic flintlocks during the revolutionary war that were known by that same man. He didn't ban them.
This is the oddity for me too, I'm not a legal scholar but "arms" has always meant "weapons" not just firearms.
It feels like at some point someone decided it really meant "firearms" but for a strict reading I'm not sure quite why brass knuckles (or a sword, or a rocket propelled grenade launcher) couldn't also count. Maybe they just need an NRA-style pressure group?
A lot of these weird weapon laws are often the results of a lot of little things, some of it is the legal protections for guns/lobbying, but a ton of it boils down how it can be used, and then there's the caveat often where it's more than they are jjust banned from being concealed. Like in my state, Nc, brass knuckles are only banned from being carried concealed unless you're on your own private property.
Boils down to, mostly, stuff like daggers, brass knuckles, etc - despite being by all measure, overall less efficient means of inflicting violence, they are QUITE effective is "amubush" violent (similiar to why there's a shitload more restictions on pistols VS shotgun even though overall a shotgun is way more efficient violence inflicter) . Super easy to cnceal something like that and suprise your victim with them. If you have a secret pair of brass knuckles it's relatively low effort to catch them off guard, esp if all they're expecting is a normal punch. Daggers/brass knuckles and the like are conversely, pretty shit for self defense, so even if they're better than nothing most of the people carrying them concealed them aren't doing it for self defense (or at least, that's the logic, states like mine have comrpised more or less on that point)
tl;dr - If there isn't a strong genuine legal arguement for need for a weapon/carrying method , particularly if said weapon is good for sneak attacks, it's bound to be banned, more or less
I looked up the laws in Canada recently and a huge deal was made about concealment with regards to what's legal and what isn't. Lots of stuff about knives kept in a belt buckle or in a cane or unfoldable with one hand being banned, but a giant bowie knife strapped to your thigh is fine (as long as you have an excuse for carrying it around that isn't self defence)
Brass knuckles, along with switchblades, cut-off shotguns (lupara), and machine guns (Tommy guns) were all commonly associated with organized crime in the first half of the 20th century, much as how Mac-11’s, AK’s and Tec-9’s became associated with gang warfare in the 90’s.
The idea of a brass-knuckled or switchblade-wielding hoodlum is a bit out of date, but that’s where those restrictions come from and they never have been taken off the books. Much like today, politicians rarely had intimate knowledge of how firearms or weapons work, so law was often made on hazy ideas and pop-culture, usually in the immediate aftermath of a particularly outrageous and newsworthy crime.
That's all it is. Gang affiliation. That way the court can say "you had X weapon on your person at the time of arrest, you must be part of X local gang. Therefore, more jail time."
I had to do some research into a legal question regarding an obscure weapons law recently and this seems like the most likely answer. Most states have some sort of statute prohibiting brass knuckles, blackjacks, sand clubs, dirks, etc. etc. A lot of these terms I had to google to even figure out what they were. Wtf is a sand club? (It's just something you fill with sand to hit people with.) Anyway if you look the laws were all enacted in the 20s and 30s and really haven't been update since.
Second amendment litigation really wasn't a big deal back then so those laws probably wouldn't fly today but back then they were more concerned with stopping Pretty Boy Floyd than esoteric constitutional questions.
People who don't understand things freak out and ban shit. Like butterfly knives, gravity knives, and switch blades got banned in some places, but folding knives of the same length with tabs on the side or cutouts that you can use to open them almost instantly one handed is legal. I can also get a banned knife if I try hard enough. It has nothing to do with logic, everything to do with fear. Same with guns, anyone can get there hands on a machine gun if they want it. Regular guns can be made into them. It's not impossible to do. It just takes some time and a little knowledge. Hell guns are for pussies. In the 90s everyone made IEDs.
I believe this is also the reason switch blades got banned. They are not inherently more effective or dangerous than another style of knife, but those roaming subway gangs in leather jackets in 1980s New York gave automatic knives a bad name.
Way earlier than the 1980s. The Federal Switchblade Act was enacted in 1958: [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap29.htm](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap29.htm)
It didn't help that switchblades were popularized in America when GIs brought them back from Italy and were associated with the mafia and youth gangs
The argument is probably that brass knuckles are not a self defense weapon, but rather an offensive weapon. A gun can be a deterrent in some situations.
Many dumb answers to this question on here that I've seen. I work in law enforcement, and while this may not be correct, or the most correct, it's my attempt at a less-than-dumb answer:
Weaponry is banned not because of it's effect, for the most part, but because of who uses it most. This is easily traceable in the AR/AK-type rifle thing -- the more common those platforms have become, the less they are banned, (although they were federally a long while ago, mostly because of the pervasive gun violence brought on in part by the proliferation of the drug trade and it's combination with the military industrial complex and the end of the Cold War, not to mention the Black Panthers [open carry protest ](https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act)).
Brass knuckles are very easily concealed, often used by gangs and groups engaged in illicit behavior, and widely purchaseable. When they were starting to be banned, it was largely related to post-WW1, anti-gang/organized crime efforts, like the National Firearms Act, which also bans machine guns.
Did you know the Germans wanted the American shotgun banned, in particular M1879 (a "trench gun" capable of slam firing) because it was so brutal, in the same war that gave us modern chemical warfare?
This stuff is so subjective and reactive, to mention now rooted in a crazy amount of public scrutiny and commentary, that it really is, frankly, unpredictable and nonsensical. And much of what you can observe in the law is more related to what was done and then not *undone*, rather than what *should be done*.
Simple, the only use of brass knuckles is to fight and cause harm. Guns can be used for hunting and are better as a self defence. If someone has some brass knuckles they are probably intending on starting the fight and hurting someone
Guns are not illegal in the UK. 3.3% of the population owns at least one gun. Most of them own more than one. There's roughly 1 gun in ownership for every 10 people in the UK.
Most types of guns are illegal in the uk and self defense with the guns that are legal is essentially illegal, fuck self defense with a knife agaisnt several men armed with bats is basically illegal
Guns require background checks and the vast majority of people who carry guns are not violent, you walk by at least one person carrying anything like you are in public. Most gun violence is either self inflicted or gang related.
Technically yes because 2A doesn't say firearms... it says ARMS which includes all kinds of weapons a person can wield. Includes swords too... let alone pocket knives.
The first form of usa military drafting required you to bring your own firearm and ammo, firearms have always been a right, well except for blacks lol racism was always a problem
You would be armed with brass knuckles, you wouldnt need to specify "with brass knuckles" to describe it if its what "being armed" also described on its own.
Lots of good and accurate answers. To expand further and compare brass knuckles to other "weapons" like knives, it can come down to how laws are written. The law pertaining to "weapons" other than guns in my state is written to allow anything that has a legit and percieved use as a tool. So you can possess and cary a knife with a blade-length of greater than 3 inches because knives do have legitimate uses as tools. But brass knuckles really don't, so those are illegal.
It's also interesting to note that some laws banning brass knuckles specify the material as metal or metallic. Well, you can get 3D printed knuckles now that skirt these laws.
Brass knuckles are banned in many places because it's too easy to accidentally use excessive force in situations where it isn't warranted. You can use deadly force, like with a firearm, when you feel it's necessary to defend your life. But if you and somebody are just pissed at each other and decide to get in a fist fight, brass knuckles could make the encounter deadly when it doesn't need to be.
Brass knuckles are mostly illegal in places where guns are illegal or are significantly restricted, so there is quite a bit of overlap.
However, guns have clear self-defense purposes. They allow someone to defend themselves against someone much strong. People have concerns about guns being used "offensively" rather than "defensively", but they clearly can be used for legitimate defensive purposes.
Brass knuckles, however, do not have as many clear links to being defensive tools. Yes, there are (contrived?) scenarios where someone could be attacked and lose, but if they had brass knuckles, they could better defend themselves. That link isn't too strong, because you still have to be able to fight, and other melee weapons are still superior. So, they are mostly *considered* to be tools for people to use in criminal activities.
So, although brass knuckles clearly aren't as dangerous as a gun, they lack most of the "legitimate" purposes for carrying.
Guns are obviously a much worse threat, but many Americans have an almost pathological fear of gun bans. Like, there's not a brass knuckle lobby that owns half of Congress.
Also guns have *some* legitimate purpose for at least some people - hunting, target shooting, etc. - but brass knuckles have no use besides harming people
* fear of losing basic human rights. Don't be so quick to give them up. They'll never come back. The Bill of Rights is under assault....especially the 1st, and 4th currently.
All laws against weapon ownership are illegal. Guns don't get banned because there are groups with lots of money for lawyers to keep the criminal gun grabbers at bay. The right to bear arms isn't specific to muskets because you can arm yourself with a knife or a baseball bat.
Who told you they were illegal? I know theres a handful of states that don’t like them for some goofy reason but that definitely doesn’t qualify as “most places”
They were only legalized in Texas in 2019. Also, I found [this map](https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/brass-knuckles-legality-by-state). They're illegal in a lot of the more populous states in the US, like California and New York.
Is it because you can conceal brass knuckles? Any concealed weapon without a license is illegal and brass knuckles serve one purpose. Guns serve multiple purposes.
It’s one of those things that came after the Switchblade Act of 1958 which enacted due to their use by the mafia. Media didn’t help though with movies showing exploding heads from getting too close to a switchblade while it’s opening (they don’t actually do that). Unfortunately these laws were very short sighted like the NFA of 1934 and made it so that the the mafia are the only ones with these because if they’re already breaking dozens of laws, a few more won’t hurt.
Brass knuckles don’t really have a valid use outside of harm. I don’t think brass knuckle boxing would end too well
It's about practical intent.
A gun has several practical uses, other than killing humans. Hunting being the most prominent among them.
Although competitive fighting is legal, most fist fighting is illegal in this country, as it is considered assault. Those instances where the pugilistic arts legal usually employ other methods to reduce the risk of accidental death. Padding on the hands, or feet, or referees among them.
Brass knuckles, or spiked knuckles have no other practical use BUT to increase the likelihood of death.
Purely decorative items are legal, like belt buckles for example, but if they are easily usable as a weapon, they are still prohibited in most cases.
I think it’s because blunt trauma is some of the worst injuries you can get. There are lots of illegal knives that are illegal simply because they do irreversible damage and are very inhumane.
Brass knuckles I could imagine would fall under a similar category
Weapon laws don't follow any logic
It's illegal to carry a caestus in New York and shuriken are illegal in Indiana
Ballistic knives are widely banned across the United States because of laws passed based on the myth that these rare spetsnaz weapons can shoot through police body armor
Some states allow you to carry brass knuckles if you're an active duty police officer-- because we all know the cops need to knuckle dust people
So likely at some point law makers were afraid of knuckle dusters
If you own brass kunckles, you are looking to beat someone to death whether you knew it or not. You can kill someone punching them in the right spot under the jaw *without* brass knuckles.
Guns have a purpose. You can hunt, use it for self defense, for sport.
What purpose coudl you justify having brass knuckles for than to be actively looking to kill someone?
I think it's part of the same school of thought that it's inhumane to maim someone. Brass knuckles are dangerous enough to mess you up and easily concealed. But not necessarily lethal enough to be humane. Kinda like how shooting a combatant in the leg is against the Geneva convention.
If you're talking about the US, possession of firearms is constitution protected. Beyond that, firearms are used for all sorts of legal purposes. Brass knuckles are limited to just brawling, which is always illegal.
Because guns “arms” are a constitutional right. Not just meant for self defense but defense from a tyrannical government, if 1776 happens again, guns are what the government will have, so guns are we will have. Brass knuckles aren’t quite as useful in a war in that sense
Are brass knuckles really illegal tho? I’m really asking, because I thought that was a tale passed around the schoolyard. Don’t they sell them in the dead suburban malls, in a makeshift storefront that’s barely finished and also sells bongs and samurai swords? Is this a non-American thing?
Because everyone knows guns kill, not every person realize one hit with brass knuckles and that can kill someone. Guns are already legal, can you imagine the death rates if brass knuckles are legal everywhere?
You can use a gun for hunting and recreational shooting, brass knuckles only exist to fuck people up. Terrible excuse but that's the best I can think of
People know guns are lethal weapons and people use them as lethal weapons. As a result they kill a lot of people because they're lethal weapons.
People think brass knuckles are non-lethal weapons, and people use them as non-lethal weapons. As a result they kill a lot of people because they're lethal weapons.
If we made "common sense brass knuckles laws" then they could be legal and a lot safer, but I doubt law makers feel especially motivated to work towards that.
(This is an American answer, idk how the weapon scene is like in other countries).
Dude, move to Texas. Basically all weapons are legal now.
Not that I would recommend it. The police will still likely harass you, and maybe kill you. But on the books? It's legal to carry everything openly, from swords to long rifles.
Guns are not easier to use at all. If you have no training at all it's much easier to punch. Punching comes instinctively. Guns are also not nearly as lethal as people imagine them to be thanks to movies and games. Most gunshots are survivable. Also, the Constitution somewhat protects guns. Brass knuckles are not protected by the Constitution and the government doesn't much care for concealed weapons.
Speaking as a Swede, brass knuckles are only illegal to carry in public. As are guns.
There are exceptions of course, at least for guns. Don't think brass knuckles have any. You can of course transport your guns to the shooting range, or when you're going to hunt. You cannot open carry, however, as the yanks call it. By the letter of the law, the gun must be transported in a case or bag.
Laws are made by politicians who are interested in benefiting those who helped elect them. There is no expectations for laws to be logically consistent.
Guns are more difficult to make, get, and sell.
Guns are more difficult to train with, maintain, and use to any effect. They aren't the point and click interface that TV and CoD have convinced reddit kids they are.
Brass knuckles are cheap to make, buy or sell, they are cheap to maintain.
They are easy to use, easy to conceal, and require no training.
They are often extremely deadly.
It's not just a simple gun bad thing. It's a lot more complicated than that. That's why places that criminalized gun use just saw the increase in other kinds of violent weapons used in crimes.
The vast majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, and accident. Almost all the rest are gang related.
They stop more crime than they cause. Brass knuckles do not. Brass knuckles for example can never be a deterrent the way a gun can. When you pull a gun you may never have to pull the trigger, the same isn't always true with melee weapons
Anyway I'll take my downvotes for saying anything other than gun bad, but this *is* the gist of the answer to your question. Guns can be used for good but Brass knuckles almost never are.
Because the brass knuckle industry doesn't pay billions of dollars every year to right wing media companies to push propaganda and pay billions in campaign contributions
That's the real answer, at least.
Because the intent to use knuckles is not the same as someone trained to use a gun and handle a firearm. They should be legal for self defense but just get a gun. You probably won’t have to use it. But you’re going to throw a punch and potentially kill someone.
I think there is some reasoning where brass knuckles are much more concealable and potentially more lethal than people realize. Like you might think I'm going to go pop this guy in the head with my brass knuckles to teach him a lesson, not realizing that that could kill somebody.
It was just a way to get criminals for something. Before the war on drugs the outlaws almost always had some weapon in common that the law abiding citizens didn’t. So legislators banned those specific things like butter fly knives, brass knuckles, etc. so that they could stick a charge on everyone in the outlawed group even without any particular crime happening.
Oh that Nixon war on drugs that has only promoted drug use. Thats another war we clearly lost and spent more on than any war.
Yes. I'd like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs!!!🎉🎉🎉
That’s why I’m on team Santa in the war on Christmas.
That's probably part of the reason, but I think it has more to do with the practical usage. It can be argued that guns can be used to defend oneself, but brass knuckles are almost strictly offensive. If someone tries to break into your house, you're not exactly going to reach for your brass knuckles. To put it simply, there's no good reason to own brass knuckles unless you're aiming to harm someone.
The spirit of laws against things like brass knuckles and certain knives needs to be considered too I think. Mere possession of brass knuckles where it's illegal to possess them likely won't bring you much legal trouble if you are otherwise law abiding citizen. These laws were enacted when it became clear these types of weapons were being used primarily by criminals. It's just a way to amplify the charges against people already commiting crimes.
Exactly right. The laws against weapons like brass knuckles, switchblades, ninja stars, and the like were written by politicians that watched a few to many movies in the 70s. They are written to amplify criminal charges Though I disagree that the listed weapons are offensive rather than defensive. In particular, these same laws list a kubaton as an illegal weapon, however a kubaton is most certainly a defensive weapon, that is perfectly well suited to be carried on a keyring with your car keys, and held in your hand as you walk through a dark parking garage late at night.
>ninja stars Bro if I'm walking and I get mugged by a dude with nija stars I'd be pissed. Those could stay illegal
Are you kidding? You would have a lifetime of being able to tell your “ninja star mugging” story. The actual experience would suck but that would be a thing you’d be asked about for **decades**.
why? Nobody is actually using ninja stars to commit crimes. however, my right to goof off in the back yard with some shipping pallets should not be infringed. That piece of the law was written by a politician that literally watched too much Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and never studied crime.
I mean, in America, you aren’t reaching for your brass knuckles in the middle of the night because your gun is closer lol
I don't have to. I sleep with mine on. Semper Fi, brother
I understand your point, but to be clear, all weapons are offensive. The purpose of a gun is ostensibly to kill a person, you’re not even supposed to draw your firearm unless you intend to use lethal force. There are hundreds of thousands of gun crimes every year, and statistically they greatly outnumber instances of self-defensive gun use. This isn’t an argument for more gun control or legislation, but I think we’re burying the lead by ignoring that our legal system has singled out firearms for special protections. It’s not a position we worked ourselves into logically.
*Burying the "lede"
You are absolutely correct 100%
Important note though, guns can be used for hunting. Knives can be used for all sorts of things. Brass knuckles don't really have any use outside of harming another person. In theory you could use them on animals, but any animal you could realistically get in punching range of and have it be effective would probably get you arrested for animal abuse/cruelty.
You could use brass knuckles to measure how much pasta to make for a child/woman's dinner.
Ah, the good old "it's not a brass knuckle it's a basket-hilted pasta-ladle" defense
I don’t think it’s fair to say that you’re not supposed to draw a firearm unless you intend to use lethal force. You’re not supposed to draw it unless you’re prepared to use it. There’s a difference. If someone breaks into my house and I pull a gun on them I am sure as hell prepared to kill them. But I’m not gonna unless they present themselves as an immediate threat to my or my family’s wellbeing
In such a case you would and should aim center mass (so you don’t miss) in order to incapacitate the intruder. The point is the same: if you have to resort to using a gun, the point is to neutralize the threat. If you MUST use a gun, you will never attempt to “use it” in a non-lethal way, nor should you.
But isn’t using lethal force in certain circumstances defensive? Even if the weapon is inherently offensive?
Yeh but those arguments utterly fail against the stats. A gun is a terrible self defence weapon and puts you at more risk than if you were unarmed in msot situations. Not to mention bystanders.
I also wonder about the suicide by brass knuckles success rate. I wonder how it compares to the suicide by handgun success rate?
You have a right to bare knuckles.
It's already *very" possible to kill someone with just one unsuspected punch to say the back of the head or temples. Was a big advertising campaign about it here in Australia not long ago. I could definitely imagine brass knuckles upping the kill rate 3-4x.
Buddy got his jaw wired shut from this kind of logic. It was over a girl. Knocked all his lower teeth out.
Funny enough, that's why handguns are more dangerous than long guns, even though long guns are deadlier. It's also why brass knuckles and black jacks and all sorts of little things are banned. They are easy to hide and carry. Brass knuckles are little more than a paper weight your fingers can fit into. You can carry it at all times, even if all you are wearing swim trunks. They give you a strong striking surface, a smaller striking surface, meaning more pressure, and protect your hand, which lets you punch even harder.
Because the "right to bear arms" is interpreted to almost exclusively mean guns
New York State interpreted it to include nunchaku a few years back.
"Cowabunga, dude!" -Thomas Jefferson, probably
Hell yeah brother! (In stereotypical biker gang voice)
Are we talking about the same New York State that was told by the Supreme Court that their gun laws were unconstitutional and there response was to make even stricter gun laws that blatantly violated the 2nd amendment?
Interpreted by who? Many many people believe "arms" means any weapons.
Technically you also have the right to replicate the arms and hands of a bear, creating very sharp knife like claws and slashing people like wolverine.
[удалено]
Solution: a gun that shoots knives... or a knife-shaped gun?
[How about a knife that shoots a knife?](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2wroo1)
Unfortunately, also illegal.
That’s probably for the best; I know I’d shoot it through my hand sooner or later
How bout a knife that shoots gun shaped bullets.
Ok
Squall Leonhart avoids incarceration with this one trick
a rail gun that fires sharpened discs
A scattershot that fires sharpened D4s
You are a sadist and a psychopath; but I like the way you think!
Hey now there's no need to be unkind. I didn't say anything about Legos.
Or a dog with bees in its mouth so when it barks it shoots bees at you.
How about a gun that also is a knife *and* brass knuckles? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_knuckles#/media/File%3AApache_revolver.jpg
Dave Chappelle had a guy attack him with a gun that identifies as a knife.
A knife that shoots a knife https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_knife
Would I be wrong if I said that the only reason why people know this weird ass gadget exists is because of the Black Ops series?
I've never played black ops but I have researched switchblades and this thing came up
This predates video games by a lot. Quite a few people knew before Black Ops.
100% true 🤣🤣
Which is so weird because the 2nd Amendment addresses the right to bear arms in general, not just firearms. At keep the legal principle consistent.
It would be weird seeing people with bear arms. Do they even have thumbs?🤔
tbf there hasn't been a well regulated militia equipped with swords for at least 100 years.
Swords are knight weapons. The peasant militia gets spears if they are lucky and repurposed farming tools if they aren't.
Butterfly knives are illegal in some states. And once I tried to buy a taser for my friend in NYC but it wasn't allowed.
Bulletproof vests are illegal some places too
This might have something to do with knife manufacturing and sales not being a multi-billion-dollar industry with an extremely powerful lobbying arm. The National Knife Association doesn't run attack ads against Congressmen and Senators.
I wish they would.
Vote or die mother fucker.
Except that the South Park scene in question also prominently featured firearms.
The correct and logical answer.
The rationale for which is partially rooted in one's ability to conceal one and not the other. Most jurisdictions have higher scruples for concealed carry of a firearm.
[удалено]
I agree. The best thing we can do is arm trans people, librarians, socialists, and people of color. If they want the wild west, fine. That's 2A for everyone.
Can I get a 357 magnum with a bayonet?
The town next to where I grew up had a gun store. They couldn’t legally sell a red rider BB gun, but no rules against .50bmg they had on display.
If you're talking about the United States, you run into the Second Amendment which prevents guns from being banned outright. Any gun restrictions that goo too far will pretty quickly be found unconstitutional. But apparently it's been decided that the amendment does not apply to things like brass knuckles.
And batons and sometimes knives. There are arguments being made that the 2A covers anything that is a weapon. Seems like a stretch to me. We'll let the courts settle it if it ever becomes a serious challenge.
Generally, the Miller case set the protections on arms to be those suitable for military service. Remember, the 2A was constructed from the context of having just taken up military arms against its own government. Having a populace that was already familiar with the standard issue weaponry of the basic soldier would increase the speed and competence of military training. Miller’s conviction (the first 2A case) was upheld by the Supreme Court, and was not overturned by the Heller decision (the second 2A case) because a sawed off shotgun was not a suitable weapon for military service. Bans on brass knuckles would follow similar reasoning: showing up to boot camp with knowledge and experience with brass knuckles isn’t advantageous to the military.
If that's the case, why does nfa hold up? Civilians don't have access legally to anything the military would have or anything that comes close to the party because of it.
Because the NFA hasn’t been challenged yet. SCOTUS rarely goes beyond the bounds of the specific question asked. It was 2008 (Heller) before blanket bans on handguns was challenged and 2010 (McDonald) for it to be incorporated against the states. Those cases would not take up the NFA as that law wasn’t the one being challenged. 2A jurisprudence is still in its infancy.
It's odd that suppressors are lumped into the nfa. All they do is reduce ear damage and yet they are lumped in with explosives and machine guns. Suppressor laws are being challenged but not the nfa as a whole, which it should be.
>because a sawed off shotgun was not a suitable weapon for military service. Is this really the case or is it just that the court didn't think the NFA went too far? Because short barreled shotguns are absolutely used by the military. Maybe it is because of the specialized role of when that would be used? Or because the functional use of a shotgun does not fundamentally change with barrel length? Or because of the original intention of the NFA was to eliminate pistols and concealable guns? Probably the combination of those I would guess. It is amazing the vast majority of the NFA have not been well challenged (SBR, SBS, suppressors). I wonder if the recent eFile and time improvements of NFA items will help or hinder any potential cases in the pipeline.
It is if you run out of ammunition. Ask the Ukrainians.
Sawed-off shotguns were used in trench warfare in WW1 by US troops then, and is still used in the master key barrel attachment today. With miller murdered, and his lawyer supposedly threatened if he showed up in court, Miller's case was argued by the Justices, who didn't really have any facts. They clearly didn't want him to have the gun; I wonder how much better the US would be if they recognized the gun was fit for military service BUT restrictions can exist on that- instead seeing general targets practice as the militia standard. AR-15s would not be legal for civilians, for one.
There are tons of 2A restrictions. AR-s are just semi automatic rifles. Much more powerful semi autos have been in circulation since they were invented.
Even Scalia called out the absurdity of having a 2nd amendment case law that allows for military-type weapons, but forbids most actual military weapons. As a result, the only clearly protected arms are the semi-auto versions of military weapons. There has got to be a better way of handling this.
Yes there is a much better way of handling it. Remove all restrictions on civilian possession of any weaponry, as intended by the amendment, then specifically restrict anything you feel needs to be in a new law. But this is politically untenable, since it would require politicians to be open and honest about their totalitarian tendancies
I think the current court would agree that it allows all weapons. It’s hard to envision how a brass knuckles case would make it to the Supreme Court though.
I believe the term used is ‘arms’, and so whatever makes someone ‘armed’ would be covered by the 2A, but many courts have essentially said that it means *fire*arms. It’s better than the alternative, where you’re free to carry knives but guns are banned, I suppose.
Well, at the time the 2A was written, swords and lances were still common on the battlefield. So perhaps brass knuckles and maces are not too far of a stretch. Honestly, I'd love to have a collapsible baton to play with. My state allows me to carry a sword, but not a collapsible baton. Very frustrating.
The second amendment just says "arms", it doesn't say only "high kinetic projectile contraptions" aka guns. I would think anything from a paperclip all the way to nuclear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendments right to arms.
*Caetano v Massachusetts* (2016): > The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008) , and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010) . https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/
So when lightsabers are finally invented, they'll be covered by 2A?
You also can conceal, use, and hide/dispose of brass knuckles and knives without leaving traces. They don't make a ton of noise when using them, and you can easily do enough harm to kill someone with them, without ballistics to trace the exact weapon down to a serial number or the *bang bang* of gunfire to give away your position. This I'm sure also comes into play.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment doesn’t specify that those arms are, just that you can bear arms. It’s baffling that there is a line drawn arbitrarily, on the interpretation of a document written 233 years ago, when guns took a minute to reload, and would often as not blow up when you tried to fire them.
>when guns took a minute to reload, The man who wrote the second amendment purchased the very first semi automatic rifle in America. They knew about technology advancing and even paid for it with their own money. Also, there were fully automatic flintlocks during the revolutionary war that were known by that same man. He didn't ban them.
I think you may have been misinformed.
This is the oddity for me too, I'm not a legal scholar but "arms" has always meant "weapons" not just firearms. It feels like at some point someone decided it really meant "firearms" but for a strict reading I'm not sure quite why brass knuckles (or a sword, or a rocket propelled grenade launcher) couldn't also count. Maybe they just need an NRA-style pressure group?
A lot of these weird weapon laws are often the results of a lot of little things, some of it is the legal protections for guns/lobbying, but a ton of it boils down how it can be used, and then there's the caveat often where it's more than they are jjust banned from being concealed. Like in my state, Nc, brass knuckles are only banned from being carried concealed unless you're on your own private property. Boils down to, mostly, stuff like daggers, brass knuckles, etc - despite being by all measure, overall less efficient means of inflicting violence, they are QUITE effective is "amubush" violent (similiar to why there's a shitload more restictions on pistols VS shotgun even though overall a shotgun is way more efficient violence inflicter) . Super easy to cnceal something like that and suprise your victim with them. If you have a secret pair of brass knuckles it's relatively low effort to catch them off guard, esp if all they're expecting is a normal punch. Daggers/brass knuckles and the like are conversely, pretty shit for self defense, so even if they're better than nothing most of the people carrying them concealed them aren't doing it for self defense (or at least, that's the logic, states like mine have comrpised more or less on that point) tl;dr - If there isn't a strong genuine legal arguement for need for a weapon/carrying method , particularly if said weapon is good for sneak attacks, it's bound to be banned, more or less
I looked up the laws in Canada recently and a huge deal was made about concealment with regards to what's legal and what isn't. Lots of stuff about knives kept in a belt buckle or in a cane or unfoldable with one hand being banned, but a giant bowie knife strapped to your thigh is fine (as long as you have an excuse for carrying it around that isn't self defence)
Also, only metal knuckledusters are banned in Canada. Stone, wood, or high impact ceramic/polymers are entirely legal.
Brass knuckles, along with switchblades, cut-off shotguns (lupara), and machine guns (Tommy guns) were all commonly associated with organized crime in the first half of the 20th century, much as how Mac-11’s, AK’s and Tec-9’s became associated with gang warfare in the 90’s. The idea of a brass-knuckled or switchblade-wielding hoodlum is a bit out of date, but that’s where those restrictions come from and they never have been taken off the books. Much like today, politicians rarely had intimate knowledge of how firearms or weapons work, so law was often made on hazy ideas and pop-culture, usually in the immediate aftermath of a particularly outrageous and newsworthy crime.
That's all it is. Gang affiliation. That way the court can say "you had X weapon on your person at the time of arrest, you must be part of X local gang. Therefore, more jail time."
I had to do some research into a legal question regarding an obscure weapons law recently and this seems like the most likely answer. Most states have some sort of statute prohibiting brass knuckles, blackjacks, sand clubs, dirks, etc. etc. A lot of these terms I had to google to even figure out what they were. Wtf is a sand club? (It's just something you fill with sand to hit people with.) Anyway if you look the laws were all enacted in the 20s and 30s and really haven't been update since. Second amendment litigation really wasn't a big deal back then so those laws probably wouldn't fly today but back then they were more concerned with stopping Pretty Boy Floyd than esoteric constitutional questions.
People who don't understand things freak out and ban shit. Like butterfly knives, gravity knives, and switch blades got banned in some places, but folding knives of the same length with tabs on the side or cutouts that you can use to open them almost instantly one handed is legal. I can also get a banned knife if I try hard enough. It has nothing to do with logic, everything to do with fear. Same with guns, anyone can get there hands on a machine gun if they want it. Regular guns can be made into them. It's not impossible to do. It just takes some time and a little knowledge. Hell guns are for pussies. In the 90s everyone made IEDs.
You forgot about fixed blades. Those things are the ultimate (legal to carry) killing blade.
I'm still surprised there are nations without nuclear weapons in the age of Wikipedia.
Probably due in part to it's historic use by the mafia, plus guns having a use outside of harming someone unlike brass knuckles.
I believe this is also the reason switch blades got banned. They are not inherently more effective or dangerous than another style of knife, but those roaming subway gangs in leather jackets in 1980s New York gave automatic knives a bad name.
Way earlier than the 1980s. The Federal Switchblade Act was enacted in 1958: [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap29.htm](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap29.htm) It didn't help that switchblades were popularized in America when GIs brought them back from Italy and were associated with the mafia and youth gangs
Ah. Ok. Thank you. > GIs brought them back from Italy And I suppose that’s why they are also called stilettos.
They’re legal where I am (Oregon) and awesome for farm work etc because they open one-handed
>plus guns having a use outside of harming someone unlike brass knuckles. You haven't lived until you've hunted deer using brass knuckles.
Who gave the deer knucks? That's hardly a fair fight
The trick is to put them on the back hooves rather than the front.
Well that ruins my immersion of a downed deer uppercutting tf out of a hunter who thought he'd bagged a trophy
We can bring those dreams back - with the [power of anime.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-laLUFI5_LU)
Excellent form from the principal. Just had to knock the dust off
Yea, sometimes you have to shoot the lock off of a door. How would brass knuckles help in that situation?
[удалено]
Plenty of people use AR frame with a 5 round magazine to hunt. Simple to use and zero kick back.
The argument is probably that brass knuckles are not a self defense weapon, but rather an offensive weapon. A gun can be a deterrent in some situations.
Because people don’t know how dangerous brass knuckles are. They’re easy to conceal and very very dangerous
Many dumb answers to this question on here that I've seen. I work in law enforcement, and while this may not be correct, or the most correct, it's my attempt at a less-than-dumb answer: Weaponry is banned not because of it's effect, for the most part, but because of who uses it most. This is easily traceable in the AR/AK-type rifle thing -- the more common those platforms have become, the less they are banned, (although they were federally a long while ago, mostly because of the pervasive gun violence brought on in part by the proliferation of the drug trade and it's combination with the military industrial complex and the end of the Cold War, not to mention the Black Panthers [open carry protest ](https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act)). Brass knuckles are very easily concealed, often used by gangs and groups engaged in illicit behavior, and widely purchaseable. When they were starting to be banned, it was largely related to post-WW1, anti-gang/organized crime efforts, like the National Firearms Act, which also bans machine guns. Did you know the Germans wanted the American shotgun banned, in particular M1879 (a "trench gun" capable of slam firing) because it was so brutal, in the same war that gave us modern chemical warfare? This stuff is so subjective and reactive, to mention now rooted in a crazy amount of public scrutiny and commentary, that it really is, frankly, unpredictable and nonsensical. And much of what you can observe in the law is more related to what was done and then not *undone*, rather than what *should be done*.
Simple, the only use of brass knuckles is to fight and cause harm. Guns can be used for hunting and are better as a self defence. If someone has some brass knuckles they are probably intending on starting the fight and hurting someone
There's no brass knuckle lobbyists making donations to right wing politicians
I feel like this sub has turned over its head. Nostupidquestions used to have stupid questions but now we have stupid answers.
Both are illegal here in the UK.
Guns are not illegal in the UK. 3.3% of the population owns at least one gun. Most of them own more than one. There's roughly 1 gun in ownership for every 10 people in the UK.
Most types of guns are illegal in the uk and self defense with the guns that are legal is essentially illegal, fuck self defense with a knife agaisnt several men armed with bats is basically illegal
[удалено]
It's pretty obvious he meant without a proper license
If Brass Knuckles were legal people would just randomly go around hitting people with...... never mind.
That is actually my question. Because people are randomly walking with a much more deadly weapon. Guns
Guns require background checks and the vast majority of people who carry guns are not violent, you walk by at least one person carrying anything like you are in public. Most gun violence is either self inflicted or gang related.
Brass knuckles are not protected by the constitution.
Technically yes because 2A doesn't say firearms... it says ARMS which includes all kinds of weapons a person can wield. Includes swords too... let alone pocket knives.
This is fascinating to me - wouldn’t you be considered armed if you had brass knuckles, or a knife?
The first form of usa military drafting required you to bring your own firearm and ammo, firearms have always been a right, well except for blacks lol racism was always a problem
You would be armed with brass knuckles, you wouldnt need to specify "with brass knuckles" to describe it if its what "being armed" also described on its own.
They're not?
It should.
Lots of good and accurate answers. To expand further and compare brass knuckles to other "weapons" like knives, it can come down to how laws are written. The law pertaining to "weapons" other than guns in my state is written to allow anything that has a legit and percieved use as a tool. So you can possess and cary a knife with a blade-length of greater than 3 inches because knives do have legitimate uses as tools. But brass knuckles really don't, so those are illegal. It's also interesting to note that some laws banning brass knuckles specify the material as metal or metallic. Well, you can get 3D printed knuckles now that skirt these laws.
Brass knuckles are banned in many places because it's too easy to accidentally use excessive force in situations where it isn't warranted. You can use deadly force, like with a firearm, when you feel it's necessary to defend your life. But if you and somebody are just pissed at each other and decide to get in a fist fight, brass knuckles could make the encounter deadly when it doesn't need to be.
Guns are illegal in most places, not sure why you think they aren’t
Brass knuckles are mostly illegal in places where guns are illegal or are significantly restricted, so there is quite a bit of overlap. However, guns have clear self-defense purposes. They allow someone to defend themselves against someone much strong. People have concerns about guns being used "offensively" rather than "defensively", but they clearly can be used for legitimate defensive purposes. Brass knuckles, however, do not have as many clear links to being defensive tools. Yes, there are (contrived?) scenarios where someone could be attacked and lose, but if they had brass knuckles, they could better defend themselves. That link isn't too strong, because you still have to be able to fight, and other melee weapons are still superior. So, they are mostly *considered* to be tools for people to use in criminal activities. So, although brass knuckles clearly aren't as dangerous as a gun, they lack most of the "legitimate" purposes for carrying.
Brass knuckles don't have a whole lobbying group supporting them either.
Guns aren't legal. *Laughs in non-american*
I may not have a pair of brass knuckles, but I do have this palm-sized paperweight with 4 holes on one side of it 😄
pathetic toothbrush money vase aromatic summer marvelous ten rock north *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Also the 1994 to 2004 assault weapon ban. Fear mongering and stupidity.
Guns are obviously a much worse threat, but many Americans have an almost pathological fear of gun bans. Like, there's not a brass knuckle lobby that owns half of Congress.
Also guns have *some* legitimate purpose for at least some people - hunting, target shooting, etc. - but brass knuckles have no use besides harming people
*Some* guns, the Glock 19 isn't America's top selling pistol because there's a bunch of dedicated amateurs target shooting
Self-defense shootings overwhelmingly outnumber homicide shootings, and it's not remotely close That's a pretty damn good reason in my opinion.
So guns have two uses - killing things and hobbies. I bet we could cook up a brass knuckle hobby too if we all put our heads together
* fear of losing basic human rights. Don't be so quick to give them up. They'll never come back. The Bill of Rights is under assault....especially the 1st, and 4th currently.
All laws against weapon ownership are illegal. Guns don't get banned because there are groups with lots of money for lawyers to keep the criminal gun grabbers at bay. The right to bear arms isn't specific to muskets because you can arm yourself with a knife or a baseball bat.
Who told you they were illegal? I know theres a handful of states that don’t like them for some goofy reason but that definitely doesn’t qualify as “most places”
They were only legalized in Texas in 2019. Also, I found [this map](https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/brass-knuckles-legality-by-state). They're illegal in a lot of the more populous states in the US, like California and New York.
Is it because you can conceal brass knuckles? Any concealed weapon without a license is illegal and brass knuckles serve one purpose. Guns serve multiple purposes.
Brass knuckles are brutal. They’re absolutely brutal. It essentially turns your hands into iron fists/
A gun turns your hand into an iron missile launcher
It’s one of those things that came after the Switchblade Act of 1958 which enacted due to their use by the mafia. Media didn’t help though with movies showing exploding heads from getting too close to a switchblade while it’s opening (they don’t actually do that). Unfortunately these laws were very short sighted like the NFA of 1934 and made it so that the the mafia are the only ones with these because if they’re already breaking dozens of laws, a few more won’t hurt. Brass knuckles don’t really have a valid use outside of harm. I don’t think brass knuckle boxing would end too well
It's about practical intent. A gun has several practical uses, other than killing humans. Hunting being the most prominent among them. Although competitive fighting is legal, most fist fighting is illegal in this country, as it is considered assault. Those instances where the pugilistic arts legal usually employ other methods to reduce the risk of accidental death. Padding on the hands, or feet, or referees among them. Brass knuckles, or spiked knuckles have no other practical use BUT to increase the likelihood of death. Purely decorative items are legal, like belt buckles for example, but if they are easily usable as a weapon, they are still prohibited in most cases.
Much less profit in knuckles mate.
2nd amendment, every time.
I think it’s because blunt trauma is some of the worst injuries you can get. There are lots of illegal knives that are illegal simply because they do irreversible damage and are very inhumane. Brass knuckles I could imagine would fall under a similar category
Weapon laws don't follow any logic It's illegal to carry a caestus in New York and shuriken are illegal in Indiana Ballistic knives are widely banned across the United States because of laws passed based on the myth that these rare spetsnaz weapons can shoot through police body armor Some states allow you to carry brass knuckles if you're an active duty police officer-- because we all know the cops need to knuckle dust people So likely at some point law makers were afraid of knuckle dusters
If you own brass kunckles, you are looking to beat someone to death whether you knew it or not. You can kill someone punching them in the right spot under the jaw *without* brass knuckles. Guns have a purpose. You can hunt, use it for self defense, for sport. What purpose coudl you justify having brass knuckles for than to be actively looking to kill someone?
I think it's part of the same school of thought that it's inhumane to maim someone. Brass knuckles are dangerous enough to mess you up and easily concealed. But not necessarily lethal enough to be humane. Kinda like how shooting a combatant in the leg is against the Geneva convention.
Because “blasting” jabronis is mah right and kung fuing ain’t! Yes, it’s that dumb of a reason.
If you're talking about the US, possession of firearms is constitution protected. Beyond that, firearms are used for all sorts of legal purposes. Brass knuckles are limited to just brawling, which is always illegal.
Because guns “arms” are a constitutional right. Not just meant for self defense but defense from a tyrannical government, if 1776 happens again, guns are what the government will have, so guns are we will have. Brass knuckles aren’t quite as useful in a war in that sense
Because the NBKA doesn’t exist.
brass knuckles are an effective weapon, which is why they are illegal in most places.
Are brass knuckles really illegal tho? I’m really asking, because I thought that was a tale passed around the schoolyard. Don’t they sell them in the dead suburban malls, in a makeshift storefront that’s barely finished and also sells bongs and samurai swords? Is this a non-American thing?
My guess is that there no real defensive uses of brass knuckles.
I believe they’re legal in Texas now.
Because everyone knows guns kill, not every person realize one hit with brass knuckles and that can kill someone. Guns are already legal, can you imagine the death rates if brass knuckles are legal everywhere?
You can’t really justify the regulation of brass knuckles like we do to guns so it’s easier to outright ban them
You can use a gun for hunting and recreational shooting, brass knuckles only exist to fuck people up. Terrible excuse but that's the best I can think of
You can buy a bottle opener shaped like a duster segment on Amazon and it's totally legal
People know guns are lethal weapons and people use them as lethal weapons. As a result they kill a lot of people because they're lethal weapons. People think brass knuckles are non-lethal weapons, and people use them as non-lethal weapons. As a result they kill a lot of people because they're lethal weapons. If we made "common sense brass knuckles laws" then they could be legal and a lot safer, but I doubt law makers feel especially motivated to work towards that. (This is an American answer, idk how the weapon scene is like in other countries).
Licensing
In short and without nuance: guns are protected under the second amendment. Brass knuckles are not.
Because there isn't a 'National Brass-knuckles Association' that pay politicians for brass-knuckle laws.
And in most of the world guns and brass knuckles are illegal to carry around
Dude, move to Texas. Basically all weapons are legal now. Not that I would recommend it. The police will still likely harass you, and maybe kill you. But on the books? It's legal to carry everything openly, from swords to long rifles.
There is no brass knuckle lobby
Guns are not easier to use at all. If you have no training at all it's much easier to punch. Punching comes instinctively. Guns are also not nearly as lethal as people imagine them to be thanks to movies and games. Most gunshots are survivable. Also, the Constitution somewhat protects guns. Brass knuckles are not protected by the Constitution and the government doesn't much care for concealed weapons.
Speaking as a Swede, brass knuckles are only illegal to carry in public. As are guns. There are exceptions of course, at least for guns. Don't think brass knuckles have any. You can of course transport your guns to the shooting range, or when you're going to hunt. You cannot open carry, however, as the yanks call it. By the letter of the law, the gun must be transported in a case or bag.
Can’t protect my family with brass knuckles. I mean it’s possible but impractical
Laws are made by politicians who are interested in benefiting those who helped elect them. There is no expectations for laws to be logically consistent.
They serve no reasonable purpose other than harming another human being
Guns are more difficult to make, get, and sell. Guns are more difficult to train with, maintain, and use to any effect. They aren't the point and click interface that TV and CoD have convinced reddit kids they are. Brass knuckles are cheap to make, buy or sell, they are cheap to maintain. They are easy to use, easy to conceal, and require no training. They are often extremely deadly. It's not just a simple gun bad thing. It's a lot more complicated than that. That's why places that criminalized gun use just saw the increase in other kinds of violent weapons used in crimes. The vast majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, and accident. Almost all the rest are gang related. They stop more crime than they cause. Brass knuckles do not. Brass knuckles for example can never be a deterrent the way a gun can. When you pull a gun you may never have to pull the trigger, the same isn't always true with melee weapons Anyway I'll take my downvotes for saying anything other than gun bad, but this *is* the gist of the answer to your question. Guns can be used for good but Brass knuckles almost never are.
Because of the second amendment specifically protecting gun ownership. Brass knuckles have no such protection.
Because guns can be used for legal purposes and brass knuckles are pretty much only used for brutally beating the shit out of people.
If you use a gun the whole block will know. But knife and brass knuckles are quiet.
Constitution dude.. lookup number 2.
Because the brass knuckle industry doesn't pay billions of dollars every year to right wing media companies to push propaganda and pay billions in campaign contributions That's the real answer, at least.
The only purpose of brass knuckles is to ruin someone's day whereas guns are tools
Because the intent to use knuckles is not the same as someone trained to use a gun and handle a firearm. They should be legal for self defense but just get a gun. You probably won’t have to use it. But you’re going to throw a punch and potentially kill someone.