If a Shit Mod doesn't make this a sticky, I will throw an Internet conniption.
Okay, I get this, but I don't really get this. What's wrong with carrying something that's specifically intended for self-defense (and I realize this will vary widely based on jurisdiction, so let's play "worst case scenario")?
The
SOB Puncher recently became legal in Texas (the "dagger/dirk" provision was repealed... I think). I've never bought one because it was, "specifically for self-defense." When I asked how that accusation could be addressed in court, I received the reply, "Nonsense. It's a plastic gardening implement."
Why is it somehow more credible to claim that you just happen to carry around a "plastic gardening implement" at all times, rather than to say, "I have it for self-defense"? I don't understand why we have to be seen using a knife for "common tasks" to explain the fact that we carry it all the time.
<And this isn't directed specifically at you, Mr. O&D, just a question in general.>