Ceramic/Plastic Knives and Air Travel.

Discussion in 'Misc. Knife Arts' started by Cruentus, Aug 9, 2006.

  1. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    Busy Travel Puts Pressure on Screeners


     
  2. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    Ceramic Knives for the Kitchen.

    But Don't Ditch Steel, Yet


    Cooks have more options for slicing and dicing these days, as ceramic knives become widely available.


    Enthusiasts say the knives have several benefits over steel ones. The blades require less-frequent sharpening and don't rust or stain. They're also lighter than steel knives, which some cooks say makes them easier to handle.


    But they have drawbacks, too. You can't pry with them because the blade might snap. Cutting through bone or frozen foods is a no-no, since this can chip the blade. Putting them in the dishwasher also risks chipping the blade or other dishes. And you'll need to take the knives to a professional for sharpening.


    In our testing, we found that the knives generally worked well.
     
  3. geezer

    geezer Member

    Back in my student days in the '70s I studied a bit of Anthropology/Archeology and took up Flint Knapping as a hobby for a bit. A well chipped obsidian or flint blade may be fragile, but is wicked sharp. For a more durable stabbing weapon without much of a blade, sanded bone, ivory or hardwood do just fine. I wonder if airport screeners are on the lookout for "natives" in loincloths carrying chunks of flint who could make their own weapons onboard during the flight? --LOL.

    Personally, after 911, I can't imagine anyone ever again trying to highjack a flight again with a knife. First off, he'd never get access to the cockpit, and secondly he'd have to face a hundred or more enraged passengers wielding pens, brief cases, shoes and laptops with the rightious "wrath of god" in their eyes. I would not want to be the highjacker with a boxcutter facing that bunch of "peasants with pitchforks". They'd have to clean up what was left of him with a mop and sponge!!!
     
  4. chubbybutdangerous

    chubbybutdangerous CHUBBY MEMBER

    Hey Geezer! I didn't know you knew flint knapping?! Hey, maybe you can teach me out to "flint knap" a piece of stone into a springfield XD in .45 acp? Or maybe just a barong!?
     
  5. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    Yes, this is my thought too. Now that the passengers know that not stopping the hijacker could mean certain death (as opposed to the old advice to be patient), it'd be much harder!
     
  6. Shonin

    Shonin New Member

    What all of those airplanes needed on board was more, not fewer knives in the possession of passengers. By this I mean absolutily no disrespect to all those brave and tragic victims of those terrorist barbarians. What I do mean, is that stupid security measures, put in place by what Jeff Cooper aptly termed "hoplophobes" ultimately get people killed. It is an incontrovertable truth that disarming everyone makes for a much more victim rich environment. That is precisely why those animals chose planes in the first place.

    But I do feel so much safer knowing that I will not be attacked with your keychain knife. This is idiotic in the extreme. The ability to own and carry weapons is the premier mark of a free people. Sheep, sheep, everywhere.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2008
  7. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    But remember that the advice pre-9/11 was always to cooperate with the hijackers as that had the best record of getting everyone down on the ground safely. It wasn't an easy call then (though it would have been clear to some of the passengers at least that they were killing flight attendants); it would be now.
     
  8. Shonin

    Shonin New Member

    I think I have my facts correct --the first known hijacking to Cuba was one man with a 6 shot revolver taking 230 odd passengers hostage. My comment should be inserted long prior to 9/11 when we started the "cooperate with the terrorists" mindset. Air passengers were already gelded by the government long before then. Once you disarm them, exactly what other options do you have except cooperate?

    I am in no way suggesting that any of the victims were doing anything but what they thought they were supposed to do, nor am I suggesting they were being timorous. But they, courtesy of the Feds, had few other options. Every act of cooperation reinforces the terrorist mindset. As Kipling says, "once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane".

    And even though, as you say, it would be clear now what would be happening, there remain even fewer options for anyone wishing to intervene, again courtesy of the Feds.

    I live next to DC where they have the same stupid policies about weapons. The thugs are getting weapons and killing citizens. So what should we do -- ah yes, make it more difficult for citizens to get weapons. Now don't we all feel better.

    I'm certainly not suggesting that we extend "open carry" of firearms to airplanes. What I am suggesting is that for years this country has had a hoplophobic mindset that "decent" people should not take steps to defend themselves. That is the government's job to do for us. Decent people just to not train with and carry weapons. Moreover, the burden of proof is usually on the one who prevails in a confrontation, regardless of circumstances.

    It all started long before 9/11. That tragic day was, in my opinion, the fruit, not the seed.
     

Share This Page