I've heard that many of these types of laws were specifically to target "weapons" commonly employed by gangs.

As a result, you get lots of laws outlawing random things like "brass knuckles" and "switchblades".

I think the "logic" they are employing commonly looks like this:

To the public: "gangs use <x>, so if we outlaw <x>, we'll reduce gang violence."
To the police: "gangs use <x>, so if we outlaw <x>, we give you a tool to arrest/disarm gang members."

I feel this logic is flawed in a number of ways.

One, people intent on doing harm will. Laws to not deter the unlawful. By definition, the unlawful don't follow the law.

But most importantly, and this part we seem to always tip-toe around, you deny law abiding citizens a tool that they might need to defend themselves.

As RSilvers already noted, assault, assault with a deadly weapon are already covered. There *are* legal tools in place already.

For example in WA state, anything becomes comes illegal the instant you use it to menace someone with it. But the same object isn't illegal if you use it to defend yourself. This makes sense to me.

The reality is, as someone has already pointed out, banning various objects is the easy way out. They get to say they are doing something against crime.

But the reality is, it isn't the objects, it is what is done with them.

Focusing on the objects only distracts us from the real issues. And yes, the reality is allowing certain items to be available to the general public makes the justice process more difficult. But, nobody said freedom was easy. But I think it is a critical and differentiating building block of our country.

-john