|
Post by Derzis on Nov 6, 2016 12:40:45 GMT
Darn, and I was SOOO looking forward to hanging in an inner city liquor store . Seriously, I do get your point, scott, as I have just about every bladed thing under the sun in my home, but would be thrown in jail, the morgue, or a rubber room if I carried much of the stuff down the street. In any case, the firearm kind of makes the whole discussion theoretical anyway. Getting in a real knife fight would be the definition of insanity. Still, sometimes I carry my Cuda Maxx 5.5", Cold Steel XXL Voyager and Vaquero 5.5" knives (stubborn lint sometimes needs an extra long blade to cut letters open). If you think about it, our melee weapon laws make no sense these days..i can carry a firearm but not a shortsword. Or heaven forbid, a deadly switchblade or brass knuckles. The law is a peculiar thing in this country. Think about it..a sword or shortsword would be a deterrent to most criminals, they prey on the weak whenever possible. But you cant carry one..why? Is dueling still a problem? Yet you can carry a much more dangerous weapon, concealed..? In theory the law makes sense: to get a weapon you should pass a test regarding your background especially mental one. But this is theory. Now, would you accept to not be capable to buy a sword without a paper from a doctor that states that you are mentally sound? How come duelling wouldn't be a problem? If police comes and try to stop a duel, what are the options other than to use lethal force in 99.9% cases? PS Your affirmation with a short sword being a deterrent is not standing unless you think the said criminal is empty handed. Criminals with weapons will prey on anybody - not just on weak. You know why? Because they will chose the moment to attack, not you. And if the criminal is a sword fan, what easiest way to grow a collection without spending money than killing guys with swords you know? Death sarcasm here.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Nov 6, 2016 13:03:27 GMT
Are you saying that in order for me to carry, or even buy for that fact, a ball point pen I need a license and all of the paper work that goes with it, or a belt? I should also include kitchen knives, rope, baseball bat... Oh my I’ll stop there as there is no end to the list.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Nov 6, 2016 13:21:49 GMT
Are you saying that in order for me to carry, or even buy for that fact, a ball point pen I need a license and all of the paper work that goes with it, or a belt? I should also include kitchen knives, rope, baseball bat... Oh my I’ll stop there as there is no end to the list. I am saying that in order to carry a weapon in public - in theory - you should be mentally checked based on the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Now, if for you a ballpoint pen is a weapon, it is another story. Too many ninja movies or just stating absurd things to dismiss the real problem?
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Nov 6, 2016 15:24:08 GMT
Are you saying that in order for me to carry, or even buy for that fact, a ball point pen I need a license and all of the paper work that goes with it, or a belt? I should also include kitchen knives, rope, baseball bat... Oh my I’ll stop there as there is no end to the list. I am saying that in order to carry a weapon in public - in theory - you should be mentally checked based on the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Now, if for you a ballpoint pen is a weapon, it is another story. Too many ninja movies or just stating absurd things to dismiss the real problem? You don’t think that I can’t plant my pen in you? Granted probably not much stopping power. And then there’s my belt, not to mention someone carrying a pair of scissors. I boils down to “weapon” and most anything can be a weapon, so where do you draw the line? That is something that can be debited from now until... And then there are canes, which are considered a medical device and are internationally not barred.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Nov 6, 2016 15:31:52 GMT
I am saying that in order to carry a weapon in public - in theory - you should be mentally checked based on the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Now, if for you a ballpoint pen is a weapon, it is another story. Too many ninja movies or just stating absurd things to dismiss the real problem? You don’t think that I can’t plant my pen in you? Granted probably not much stopping power. And then there’s my belt, not to mention someone carrying a pair of scissors. I boils down to “weapon” and most anything can be a weapon, so where do you draw the line? That is something that can be debited from now until... I think that if you want to kill someone, you will do it. It boils down to common sense, that's a rarity these days. Most of the laws are based on common sense. Give me a reason to wear a short sword going to groceries. Why would you? Are you afraid for your life? Big bad pumpkins are watching you? It makes you feel more secure? Or just because you have it you are entitled to use it?
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,346
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 6, 2016 15:56:21 GMT
You can kill a person with a big wrench or a crowbar and you can make breakfast with a dagger, but the primary intended function of a tool is some work and the primary intended function of a weapon is to hurt or kill humans or animals. To judge the primary intended function of a thing you use common sense.
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Nov 6, 2016 18:43:42 GMT
If you think about it, our melee weapon laws make no sense these days..i can carry a firearm but not a shortsword. Or heaven forbid, a deadly switchblade or brass knuckles. The law is a peculiar thing in this country. Think about it..a sword or shortsword would be a deterrent to most criminals, they prey on the weak whenever possible. But you cant carry one..why? Is dueling still a problem? Yet you can carry a much more dangerous weapon, concealed..? In theory the law makes sense: to get a weapon you should pass a test regarding your background especially mental one. But this is theory. Now, would you accept to not be capable to buy a sword without a paper from a doctor that states that you are mentally sound? How come duelling wouldn't be a problem? If police comes and try to stop a duel, what are the options other than to use lethal force in 99.9% cases? PS Your affirmation with a short sword being a deterrent is not standing unless you think the said criminal is empty handed. Criminals with weapons will prey on anybody - not just on weak. You know why? Because they will chose the moment to attack, not you. And if the criminal is a sword fan, what easiest way to grow a collection without spending money than killing guys with swords you know? Death sarcasm here. I think you either missed or ignored my point entirely. And I disagree, weapon laws in the United States make no sense to any but the fearful and those that don't believe in the principled laws set forth by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I didn't say dueling wouldn't be a problem,(it would be a rare thing) I was asking if it currently was one, to make a point..and if you think everyone would start dueling if swords were legal to carry, you probably also believe that everyone armed with a handgun wants to live in the wild west, so I won't go any further with that. By the way, I see you're one of these people that worry about people taking your stuff.. you've lost before the fight has even begun, so why have anything? Some big bad criminal might come and take it, because they want it..I have lots of nice stuff. I've carried a handgun for 20 years. Nobody's ever taken anything from me. Nobody ever will. And hell, if they manage it, I probably won't be around to see it. And by the way, the majority of theives ARE weaponless, a very large majority. At least, that's been my experience. Any law enforcement reading this? Am I wrong? Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, lmsao!
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Nov 6, 2016 18:57:04 GMT
In theory the law makes sense: to get a weapon you should pass a test regarding your background especially mental one. But this is theory. Now, would you accept to not be capable to buy a sword without a paper from a doctor that states that you are mentally sound? How come duelling wouldn't be a problem? If police comes and try to stop a duel, what are the options other than to use lethal force in 99.9% cases? PS Your affirmation with a short sword being a deterrent is not standing unless you think the said criminal is empty handed. Criminals with weapons will prey on anybody - not just on weak. You know why? Because they will chose the moment to attack, not you. And if the criminal is a sword fan, what easiest way to grow a collection without spending money than killing guys with swords you know? Death sarcasm here. I think you either missed or ignored my point entirely. And I disagree, weapon laws in the United States make no sense to any but the fearful and those that don't believe in the principled laws set forth by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I didn't say dueling wouldn't be a problem,(it would be a rare thing) I was asking if it currently was one, to make a point..and if you think everyone would start dueling if swords were legal to carry, you probably also believe that everyone armed with a handgun wants to live in the wild west, so I won't go any further with that. By the way, I see you're one of these people that worry about people taking your stuff.. you've lost before the fight has even begun, so why have anything? Some big bad criminal might come and take it, because they want it..I have lots of nice stuff. I've carried a handgun for 20 years. Nobody's ever taken anything from me. Nobody ever will. And hell, if they manage it, I probably won't be around to see it. :) And by the way, the majority of theives ARE weaponless, a very large majority. At least, that's been my experience. Any law enforcement reading this? Am I wrong? Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, (censored)! Huh? You complained that you can carry a gun but not a sword. And I said to you, to carry a gun usually you have to pass a background check. Normal people are supposed to do that. Now, imagine you want to carry a sword in the crowd. In this case, applying the same rule of carrying weapons, you should pass a background check to have the right to own a sword and have it on you in public. Would you like this to happen? Your common sense is THAT off? For the rest, I give 0 on your assumptions regarding me. It's funny how you think the fact that you carry a concealed gun it makes you invulnerable. Until it doesn't. Hope you'll never find you were not.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Nov 6, 2016 19:38:15 GMT
Back in the time before young children devoured every waking moment not spent toiling for bread and circuses, I would somewhat regularly hunt to fill the larder with sweet venison morsels. Here in Texas, we have some of the most restrictive knife carry laws in the union, but under most circumstances they are rarely enforced (at least for those of us fortunate enough to be born into life's easy mode). I would always carry a couple good skinning knives (always within the legal carry size), and also a large knife capable of cutting bone (field dressing game), slitting throats (euthanizing injured game), and any other uses in the field that may call for a sturdy blade. The knives have always been larger than the law allows, but I have noticed that most hunters in South Texas are either unaware of any knife restrictions, or are unconcerned about their enforcement. Over the many years of hunting, and subsequently dismantling, human-sized game I have used a number of field knives of various shapes and sizes. My observations have led me to believe that minor details in size or form are pretty insignificant when it comes to dissecting animals. Toughness and edge retention are pretty high on my list of requirements, as are enough mass to chop bone and enough point to penetrate hide. I think using what you are familiar with is fairly important. I would hate to get in a knife fight with a butcher.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 6, 2016 20:07:21 GMT
In theory the law makes sense: to get a weapon you should pass a test regarding your background especially mental one. But this is theory. Now, would you accept to not be capable to buy a sword without a paper from a doctor that states that you are mentally sound? How come duelling wouldn't be a problem? If police comes and try to stop a duel, what are the options other than to use lethal force in 99.9% cases? PS Your affirmation with a short sword being a deterrent is not standing unless you think the said criminal is empty handed. Criminals with weapons will prey on anybody - not just on weak. You know why? Because they will chose the moment to attack, not you. And if the criminal is a sword fan, what easiest way to grow a collection without spending money than killing guys with swords you know? Death sarcasm here. I think you either missed or ignored my point entirely. And I disagree, weapon laws in the United States make no sense to any but the fearful and those that don't believe in the principled laws set forth by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I didn't say dueling wouldn't be a problem,(it would be a rare thing) I was asking if it currently was one, to make a point..and if you think everyone would start dueling if swords were legal to carry, you probably also believe that everyone armed with a handgun wants to live in the wild west, so I won't go any further with that. By the way, I see you're one of these people that worry about people taking your stuff.. you've lost before the fight has even begun, so why have anything? Some big bad criminal might come and take it, because they want it..I have lots of nice stuff. I've carried a handgun for 20 years. Nobody's ever taken anything from me. Nobody ever will. And hell, if they manage it, I probably won't be around to see it. And by the way, the majority of theives ARE weaponless, a very large majority. At least, that's been my experience. Any law enforcement reading this? Am I wrong? Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, (censored)! Violent crime/homicide rates have been cut by 2/3 in the United States in the last 20 years or so. The only problem now (statistically) is GANGS. Firearms (statistically) are a non issue...but that doesn't stop them from being a political one. An armed society is a polite society...unless, again, we are talking about inner city gangs.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 6, 2016 20:14:06 GMT
If you think about it, our melee weapon laws make no sense these days..i can carry a firearm but not a shortsword. Or heaven forbid, a deadly switchblade or brass knuckles. The law is a peculiar thing in this country. Think about it..a sword or shortsword would be a deterrent to most criminals, they prey on the weak whenever possible. But you cant carry one..why? Is dueling still a problem? Yet you can carry a much more dangerous weapon, concealed..? In theory the law makes sense: to get a weapon you should pass a test regarding your background especially mental one. But this is theory. Now, would you accept to not be capable to buy a sword without a paper from a doctor that states that you are mentally sound? How come duelling wouldn't be a problem? If police comes and try to stop a duel, what are the options other than to use lethal force in 99.9% cases? PS Your affirmation with a short sword being a deterrent is not standing unless you think the said criminal is empty handed. Criminals with weapons will prey on anybody - not just on weak. You know why? Because they will chose the moment to attack, not you. And if the criminal is a sword fan, what easiest way to grow a collection without spending money than killing guys with swords you know? Death sarcasm here. Your right on the "theory" thing, but (as you probably know) it ALWAYS breaks down in real world application with the "Show Me Your Papers" Orwellian police state ending. NO WAY will bureaucratic statist politics NOT be involved in these "so called" tests, paperwork, history, etc...add infinitum.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 6, 2016 20:17:42 GMT
You can kill a person with a big wrench or a crowbar and you can make breakfast with a dagger, but the primary intended function of a tool is some work and the primary intended function of a weapon is to hurt or kill humans or animals. To judge the primary intended function of a thing you use common sense. Yup, a weapon (in the end) is INTENT. Sure, things can be considered more or less efficient in use as a weapon...but it is the USE.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 6, 2016 20:29:17 GMT
I think you either missed or ignored my point entirely. And I disagree, weapon laws in the United States make no sense to any but the fearful and those that don't believe in the principled laws set forth by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I didn't say dueling wouldn't be a problem,(it would be a rare thing) I was asking if it currently was one, to make a point..and if you think everyone would start dueling if swords were legal to carry, you probably also believe that everyone armed with a handgun wants to live in the wild west, so I won't go any further with that. By the way, I see you're one of these people that worry about people taking your stuff.. you've lost before the fight has even begun, so why have anything? Some big bad criminal might come and take it, because they want it..I have lots of nice stuff. I've carried a handgun for 20 years. Nobody's ever taken anything from me. Nobody ever will. And hell, if they manage it, I probably won't be around to see it. And by the way, the majority of theives ARE weaponless, a very large majority. At least, that's been my experience. Any law enforcement reading this? Am I wrong? Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, (censored)! Huh? You complained that you can carry a gun but not a sword. And I said to you, to carry a gun usually you have to pass a background check. Normal people are supposed to do that. Now, imagine you want to carry a sword in the crowd. In this case, applying the same rule of carrying weapons, you should pass a background check to have the right to own a sword and have it on you in public. Would you like this to happen? Your common sense is THAT off? For the rest, I give 0 on your assumptions regarding me. It's funny how you think the fact that you carry a concealed gun it makes you invulnerable. Until it doesn't. Hope you'll never find you were not. I understand what your saying, but the background check (computer database check for criminal activity before purchase) on firearm purchases would simply be impossible in stopping felons from purchasing large kitchen knives and such (or simply making them), as it is just too basic. Now, we already have knife laws (just like gun), so it comes down to carry laws, and with me (my opinion) being on the side of illegal USE...if you break the law with anything USED as a weapon, you should be dealt with accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Nov 6, 2016 20:32:06 GMT
In theory the law makes sense: to get a weapon you should pass a test regarding your background especially mental one. But this is theory. Now, would you accept to not be capable to buy a sword without a paper from a doctor that states that you are mentally sound? How come duelling wouldn't be a problem? If police comes and try to stop a duel, what are the options other than to use lethal force in 99.9% cases? PS Your affirmation with a short sword being a deterrent is not standing unless you think the said criminal is empty handed. Criminals with weapons will prey on anybody - not just on weak. You know why? Because they will chose the moment to attack, not you. And if the criminal is a sword fan, what easiest way to grow a collection without spending money than killing guys with swords you know? Death sarcasm here. Your right on the "theory" thing, but (as you probably know) it ALWAYS breaks down in real world application with the "Show Me Your Papers" Orwellian police state ending. NO WAY will bureaucratic statist politics NOT be involved in these "so called" tests, paperwork, history, etc...add infinitum. You are trapped in this big fight between individual vs society. Until the 'State of One' will happen, nothing will change. And that 'State of One' is not in our nature, we need numbers to survive. But I went off topic too much.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 6, 2016 20:32:55 GMT
Back in the time before young children devoured every waking moment not spent toiling for bread and circuses, I would somewhat regularly hunt to fill the larder with sweet venison morsels. Here in Texas, we have some of the most restrictive knife carry laws in the union, but under most circumstances they are rarely enforced (at least for those of us fortunate enough to be born into life's easy mode). I would always carry a couple good skinning knives (always within the legal carry size), and also a large knife capable of cutting bone (field dressing game), slitting throats (euthanizing injured game), and any other uses in the field that may call for a sturdy blade. The knives have always been larger than the law allows, but I have noticed that most hunters in South Texas are either unaware of any knife restrictions, or are unconcerned about their enforcement. Over the many years of hunting, and subsequently dismantling, human-sized game I have used a number of field knives of various shapes and sizes. My observations have led me to believe that minor details in size or form are pretty insignificant when it comes to dissecting animals. Toughness and edge retention are pretty high on my list of requirements, as are enough mass to chop bone and enough point to penetrate hide. I think using what you are familiar with is fairly important. I would hate to get in a knife fight with a butcher. "I would hate to get in a knife fight with a butcher"...I have to remember that one.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Nov 6, 2016 20:34:18 GMT
Back in the time before young children devoured every waking moment not spent toiling for bread and circuses, I would somewhat regularly hunt to fill the larder with sweet venison morsels. Here in Texas, we have some of the most restrictive knife carry laws in the union, but under most circumstances they are rarely enforced (at least for those of us fortunate enough to be born into life's easy mode). I would always carry a couple good skinning knives (always within the legal carry size), and also a large knife capable of cutting bone (field dressing game), slitting throats (euthanizing injured game), and any other uses in the field that may call for a sturdy blade. The knives have always been larger than the law allows, but I have noticed that most hunters in South Texas are either unaware of any knife restrictions, or are unconcerned about their enforcement. Over the many years of hunting, and subsequently dismantling, human-sized game I have used a number of field knives of various shapes and sizes. My observations have led me to believe that minor details in size or form are pretty insignificant when it comes to dissecting animals. Toughness and edge retention are pretty high on my list of requirements, as are enough mass to chop bone and enough point to penetrate hide. I think using what you are familiar with is fairly important. I would hate to get in a knife fight with a butcher. "I would hate to get in a knife fight with a butcher"...I have to remember that one. ??? A butcher knows anatomy and it's not from books.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 6, 2016 20:43:38 GMT
Your right on the "theory" thing, but (as you probably know) it ALWAYS breaks down in real world application with the "Show Me Your Papers" Orwellian police state ending. NO WAY will bureaucratic statist politics NOT be involved in these "so called" tests, paperwork, history, etc...add infinitum. You are trapped in this big fight between individual vs society. Until the 'State of One' will happen, nothing will change. And that 'State of One' is not in our nature, we need numbers to survive. But I went off topic too much. Well, yes, the "trap" as you call it, is indeed the human condition. The human condition is a fascinating topic (and we are meandering, I suppose), but the questions are still interesting. The 'State of One' probably happens when we die, with either a unifying afterlife...or blissful nothingness. I view the society thing as (at best) governed loosely by common sense, as the more power/control/resources given to the STATE, the less there is common sense. Back on topic, legally, the best "fighting" knife would be determined by legal environment, with the longest, sturdiest blade legally possible, and ideally a fixed blade rather than folder. The fact that some states allow a firearm for carry, but not a blade of greater than 5" or so length is archaic and silly.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 6, 2016 20:45:09 GMT
"I would hate to get in a knife fight with a butcher"...I have to remember that one. A butcher knows anatomy and it's not from books. He/she also knows how to wield the (very sharp and nasty) blades, as well.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,346
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 7, 2016 6:46:36 GMT
To ban other weapons makes much sense to the sellers of firearms. A lenght limit to knives for allowed carrying is based on the common sense, that a longer blade isn't usefull for a tool-knive any more and makes it a weapon. The same with a second edge.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 7, 2016 7:51:28 GMT
To ban other weapons makes much sense to the sellers of firearms. A lenght limit to knives for allowed carrying is based on the common sense, that a longer blade isn't usefull for a tool-knive any more and makes it a weapon. The same with a second edge. Your right about most of the utility uses, of course, but the question would be "why not defense with blade, just like firearms...which are even more potentially lethal to larger numbers of people"?
|
|