Yep, this is what going mad feels like. by Fremdfirma

And now for the obligatory Dark Humor bit...

Obviously the church was a "sword free zone" and if someone had been packin some steel of their own things mighta come to a different conclusion.
*sarcasm*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 4:36 PM

FREELANCERTEX

that's just..I'm sorry man.

ok, so what if one of the 'collectors of genuine samurai swords' is a complete psycho and uses one of his 'genuine samurai swords' to go to town on a group of unsuspecting innocent people, or does a thomas crown and uses it in a plot to steal something, getting rid of the guards on the way? it just seems stupid to ban swords EXCEPT for a select few. @_@

__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."

A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 5:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yeah, that's just what we need - a return to the old west. Fastest gun wins.

***************************************************************
And peace in our time.
Not.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 5:23 PM

LEADB

Apparently there's a typo in the constitution; we just aren't sure whether the founding fathers wanted us to have the right to bare arms or perhaps the right to have the arms of a bear. Obviously, we shouldn't be having weapons of any sort; clearly we cannot be trusted with such things. Nor steak knives. Forks... no, no forks. Perhaps a spork. For now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 5:26 PM

LEADB

O wait, I'm tired. I didn't read closely; that's the UK. Well, that explains things. Ignore that previous post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 5:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Tired. HHHmmph ! No excuse for you ! Here I am feverish - I would gladly use some of that conventional medicine if only I wasn't allergic to it --- and I'm posting. And so is Frem, and in much worse shape that I could even imagine being. So : drags LeadB by the ear : what do you have to say for yourself, young man ?

Anyway, my posting before was rather short, but I was hoping in an indirect way to allude to the fact that murder rates in the UK are very low compared with the US. It has something to do with it being so much harder to murder someone with a sword - or butter-knife, or screwdriver - than point and shoot. An' I don't mean camera-wise.

Speaking of cameras. got to get on with the x-mas shopping ....

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 6:33 PM

Okay, I'm a sword enthusiast, so you can imagine my thoughts on this:

YOU MORONIC ASSHOLES.

Okay, you outlaw cheap 'sam-yoo-rye' swords. Fine. Next year you'll see psychos with European swords. So you'll outlaw those. See how all the British reenactment and western martial arts groups respond to that.

Then you'll see psychos with...oh fuck I dunno, Chinese tai chi swords. Or Thai dharbs. Or Egyptian khopeshes. Or African takoubas.

Yeah, you try and take those sgian dubhs from the Scots, see what happens.

And as far as 'cheap' goes, there's a whole spectrum of prices, from $30 stainless steel junkers to $400 bamboo cutters to $9000 nihonto. Google Rick Barrett or Peter Johnsson and tell me you wanna outlaw their art. Where's the fucking cutoff you ignorant polifucks?

Criminals will always find tools with which to commit crimes. Honest enthusiasts of all budgets who understand the inherent deadliness of swords are the least likely to misuse them (probably due to personal experience. Ouch!).

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but venting is good, right?

Shameless plug: Here are some of mine

:

http://www.angelfire.com/fang/invicta/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 6:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Eric - I agree, mostly. But by extension since 'criminals will always get weapons', why not just let everyone have nukes ? At a certain point the logic breaks down. And what I don't agree with (which is an opinion you didn't express but was expressed elsewhere) is the vision that arming everyone to the teeth will make us all safer.

The US was there - it was called the Old West. And most people who lived back then were in favor of the law ending the mayhem.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Eric - I agree, mostly. But by extention since 'criminals will always get wespons', why not just let everyone have nukes ? At a certain point the logic breaks down. And what I don't agree with (which is an opinion you didn't express but was expressed elsewhere) is the mentality that arming everyone to the teeth will make us all safer.

Well you're right about that, but I think an important distinction is that sword collectors have no intention of their swords actually ever being used for their original purpose, which is to kill people. Can't speak for anyone else, but for me the thrill of swinging exquisitely balanced sharp steel around, slicing through boxes, and just ogling the gorgeous craftsmanship of a truly historical reproduction is the apogee of the hobby. Can't say that with modern weapons, really.

I think the slippery slope from nukes down to steak knives needs to be cut off at the point of pragmatic effectiveness, where you can answer the question of whether this really is preventing crimes or just letting politicians look like they're preventing crimes so they can win re-election. It's not an easy question, and I can't claim to be unbiased, but the idea that I can't be trusted with my $800, 1075 monosteel, custom-colored grip, distal-tapered, Oakeshott blade Type XVIa, pommel type J, crossguard type 2, 14th-century longsword...why that's just silly.

Edit: I DO think those crappy sharpened stainless steel swords, of whatever style, should not be sold, because the very nature of stainless steel makes it very brittle, and at 'sword' lengths are very likely to shatter and injure bystanders if some idiot tries to cut something with it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 7:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've read about the making of samurai swords. Do you have a genuine one ?

***************************************************************
added - People are still trying to figure out how much of that was metallurgy and how much vodoo. It's fascinating.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 7:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Outlawing samurai swords and only outlaws will have samurai swords.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 7:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geeze Rap, what an amazing piece of drivel. Are you trying to top your last post ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've read about the making of samurai swords. Do you have a genuine one ?

Me? Oh Lord no, way too expensive for a grad student. My main area of interest is (perforce) repro Euro swords. I think Japan has some very strict rules about exporting traditional nihonto. Some of the master smiths carry the title of "Living National Treasure." It's truly amazing how much goes into their construction. I think a lot of the 'voodoo' is due to misunderstanding of the fundamental differences in design and application of Japanese vs Euro style swords. Each were very well suited to their respective contexts (especially when considering armor developments, which is necessary to any understanding), plus there's a lot of the 'mysteries of the East' perceptions involved...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 7:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I was wondering.

I've been told that European swords weren't so much cutting edges as bludgeons with something like a sharper side. That they were heavy and big b/c the style of fighting (and armor) were different from the Japanese style.

Any light you care to shed on that ?

(I realize you're probably busy - such is the life of a chemistry grad student. But any time you spare on this would be much appreciated.)

***************************************************************
Don't want to pull the thread too far off - but this is a great opportunity for me to learn.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Outlawing samurai swords and only outlaws will have samurai swords.

I don’t think violent criminals will go out of their way to get samurai swords. They switch to something else. If you make every violent weapon difficult to get, they’ll just go back to guns. But without question, you can’t make violent weapons difficult enough to get without making the government totalitarian to stop violent criminals.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
I DO think those crappy sharpened stainless steel swords, of whatever style, should not be sold, because the very nature of stainless steel makes it very brittle, and at 'sword' lengths are very likely to shatter and injure bystanders if some idiot tries to cut something with it.

Those kinds of swords are designed to be hung on your wall, not used in combat. Only an idiot takes them out and starts swinging them.

Incidentally, I have a genuine New Guinea tribal sword from, probably, New Guinea. I’ve had it appraised at the anthropology department of U of M to around five grand. Pretty good deal, considering my mother bought it for my when I was 16 at a garage store for $5.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 8:24 PM

Strange that it may seem, he's got a point.

Look, I ain't been sayin anything, but I been following some of this stuff lately...

Mall shooting, Utah, not so recent, gun free zone - stopped in progress by an off-duty cop who didn't obey that particular rule, prolly saved some lives too.

Mall shooting, recent, Omaha, gun free zone, total slaughter, mayhem only ended when shooter heard sirens and offed himself.

Church shooting one, Colorado, gun free zone, gunman acts with impunity, escapes long before police arrive.

Church shooting two, Colorado, armed citizen confronts and stops gunman.

You cannot make em un-exist, folks, and once again, the idea that words on paper are some kind of magical brick wall that will stop a criminal in their tracks is lunacy - they've already decided to kill some folk, and most of em are hell bent on suicide too, so exactly what concern do they have for breaking a few weapons laws and carrying into a gun-free zone ?

Nada.

It just makes easy victims, although I HAVE mentioned before that I don't have so much of an issue with a weapon free area if the venue has well trained, well armed security and enough of it for 100% coverage.

And given what I do, give me credit that I am trying to stop it at the very root by addressing how our society screws people up in the first place, and at the earliest possible points of intervention...

Till that gets done, have the decency to allow me some argument at hand beyond hiding and hoping while bodies hit the floor, my ratty II-A isn't gonna stop a headshot, or a rifle bullet you know.

As for that whole wild west argument, it's been so thoroughly debunked it's a wonder anyone keeps using it, Kennesaw proved that, and so did Flint cause when MI went right-to-carry the crime rate there dropped like a rock immediately, just as it has done anywhere, every time restrictions to firearm ownership have been reduced.

Law abiding citizens who carry are generally just that, law abiding, they jump through the hoops, learn what they're doing, and act with restraint and good sense to avoid catching the brunt of the absolute vilification of self-defense, which is the TRUTH of what the whole matter is about, really.

What you are asking me to do, is to believe that stupid sign is going to stop a complete nutter who's gone over the edge in his tracks - do YOU believe that ? do you think it's gonna stop him ?

Do you think the law is some kind of magic force that will prevent him from buying or stealing a firearm ? sure doesn't stop anyone from buying drugs, does it now ?

You are also asking me to assign motive and intent to an inanimate object, a tool - yes, sure, it's a tool designed for the express purpose of blowing holes in folk, but in the end it's a TOOL, an OBJECT, it's not some cursed artifact that turns a mother of three into some berserk rambo wannabe the instant she wraps her hand around the grip, which is what your wild-west anology requires that one believe in order for it to be effectively applied.

What this is really about, or at least I see it so, is the total vilification of self defense in general.. we see it in schools who suspend both parties involved in a fight, even if it was an outright attack, even if a bully who is already failing uses it to wreck the grades of an honor roll student for malicious purpose...

We see it when homeowners are prosecuted for defending their home and family, in the outlawing and banning of every possible means of effective defense on campuses and in large cities.

We see it every time a convenience store clerk takes the asinine advice "cooperate and don't resist" and then gets blown away to remove the witness.

And folks, I am sick of it, watching good people die because the concept of self-defense is more horrific to the status quo than the murder of innocents - that just makes me wanna fucking puke, ok ?

I pointed out back in December 2001 that even in spite of superior numbers, folks were so well trained not to resist or defend themselves, that a handful of asswipes with freakin box cutters was able to murder somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 people... nobody liked hearin that, and I am sure no one wants to hear it now, but the more you vilify self defense, the more you cripple peoples right to do it...

The more power you give those gun toting crazies, and the closer we come to that rule of the gun environment that you and I both never wanna see - by removing any defense against it, any resistance to it, you're virtually gauranteeing it.

I've never shot anyone, and I hope to never have to, but if I happen to be xmas shopping in a wheelchair and some nutter decides he's gonna light up a bunch of people at the mall, for damned sure I would like to have some argument at hand beyond YOUR faith that the no guns sign is gonna stop him in his tracks.

If you don't wanna carry one, more power to ya, but to take from me, to even desire it... immediately classes those that do in with any other criminal element intent on victimizing me, a form of aiding and abetting that in the end, is every bit as responsible for the deaths above as the shooters bullets.

We've been through this - how many bodies on the ground is it gonna take for folks to get it ?

http://www.a-human-right.com/

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was wondering.

I've been told that European swords weren't so much cutting edges as bludgeons with something like a sharper side. That they were heavy and big b/c the style of fighting (and armor) were different from the Japanese style.

Any light you care to shed on that ?

Argh! My eyes! Heresy!

Hehe, I know this is way off topic, but...Euro swords were as light or lighter than katana. A typical single hander weighed about 2-2.5 pounds, a longsword about 3 pounds. A more important parameter than weight was point of balance- earlier swords meant to deal with unarmored or mail-clad opponents were balanced further out (~4.5-5.5" from the hilt) for shearing cuts, while later models were pointier to penetrate the weak spots in plate armor and balanced closer (~3.5-4"), and the ease of handling is more influenced by this. My katana (~2.5 pounds) is a purely cut-oriented sword, with a point of balance about 7" out. Probably very effective against lacquer-armored samurai or unarmored ashigaru foot soldiers. It is true that Euros are not as sharp or as hard as kats, because the greater incidence of steel armor on a battle field (due to greater availability of raw iron ore in Europe) made a razor sharp edge very fragile and not very useful. But most opponents in a battle did not wear steel armor but thick cloth gambesons, which could potentially be cut through. I can attest that they are still quite sharp, though. Euro swords are also much more flexible.

In neither culture was the sword the primary weapon- spears were much more prolific. But neither style of sword was inherently superior- each was designed, through a long history of trial and fatal error, to maximize its utility in its own environment.

It's a fascinating topic, and the feature articles on

http://www.myarmoury.com/home.html

are a good beginning resource.

Quote:

(I realize you're probably busy - such is the life of a chemistry grad student. But any time you spare on this would be much appreciated.)

Hardly! It's 1030 pm here, and just me and some Admiral Nelson's spiced rum. My dissertation's finished, and I can graduate as soon as I find a job!

Plus my boss goes on vacation tomorrow...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 9:25 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Some people are big. Big and strong. I don't know if they are born that way, or if they devote the necessary free time to become that way.

I've heard that in prison, there is little to occupy one's time with other than exercise.

Some people aren't big. Some people aren't strong. Maybe they were born that way. Maybe they don't devote the necessary free time to become strong. Maybe they were strong, once. But maybe they are infirm or old, now.

Or maybe they are strong, too. But someone stronger always comes along, sooner or later.

Strong guys can do what they want to weaker guys. Morality stops some of them, but not all of them.

There's things that sometimes level the playing field. These things are weapons. The best weapons are the ones that don't rely on great physical aptitude.

Ninety pound weakling...

Two-hundred pound monster...

A snub-nosed revolver doesn't care who is holding it. It doesn't care who it's pointed at. It'll treat everyone equally, regardless of their physical might.

If you believe that most people are bad, then the revolver doesn't help you. It just lets 90 pound weaklings get away with the same stuff that only 200 pound monsters used to be able to do.

If you believe that most people are good, then the revolver is a great boon. It makes everyone equal, and if the majority of everyone is good, then the good power outnumbers the bad power.

But if most people are bad, then you'd think to be better off with lots of police. So many police, that you see one wherever you go. The police can have weapons, but no one else can. The police can protect you against the 200 pound monsters.

Lots and lots of police. Police everywhere. Police with weapons.

And most people are bad.

I hope the police aren't people...

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 10:04 PM

I’m not very familiar with Medieval European or Japanese weapons, but the Roman Gladius was a precision thrusting weapon designed to be stabbed between and around armor and generally used to inflict gut wounds. The gladius certainly wasn’t, as it was used, anything that could be described as a bludgeon. Prior to the adoption of the gladius, Roman swords were similar to Greek Xiphos used by Hoplites, which were less precision weapons that were often used for slashing and hacking. But as the Roman legion developed into a highly disciplined fighting force they shed the philosophy of heroic combat, unlike the Greeks, which was both an advantage and a disadvantage. The Roman legions relied much more on the sword then the Greeks. Greek Hoplites were essentially spear wielding troops, and the Romans did have Hoplites of a fashion, but they were rarely used for much more then defense. The Roman tactic was to engage the enemy in close combat by forcing the enemy to either throw themselves against Roman shields or to drive the Roman Phalanges against the enemy like a tank. The Romans fought in very tight formation and as long as they maintained that formation they were all but invincible. If that formation was broken they were in trouble. This is what made Hannibal such a thorn in the Roman side - he figured out that the Roman formation was the Achilles heel of the Roman legion. Using heavy cavalry, including war elephants, he was able to twice break the Roman legions and twice slaughter the entire Roman military. The Romans, like idiots, insisted upon driving their phalanges like a tank into Punic forces, but when your enemy has war elephants, this is likely going to be impossible. Scipio Africanus in the battle for Africa that ended the Punic Wars, figured this out and avoided breaking formation by having the line maneuver around War Elephants, and in doing so he was able to crush the Punic army.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by freelancertex:
that's just..I'm sorry man.

ok, so what if one of the 'collectors of genuine samurai swords' is a complete psycho and uses one of his 'genuine samurai swords' to go to town on a group of unsuspecting innocent people, or does a thomas crown and uses it in a plot to steal something, getting rid of the guards on the way? it just seems stupid to ban swords EXCEPT for a select few.

Because those select few have licences and have been vetted. We know they're trust worthy and responsible enough to own a deadly weapon like a sword.

I own swords, I have a martial arts licence, I know I can be trusted with it. I'm not so sure about some of the people I've seen going in to my local armourers asking to see the "Samurai Swords 'cause they're cool".

They're so cool you can go charging around your house with it swinging it around at your mates like an idiot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Strange that it may seem, he's got a point.
...
You cannot make em un-exist, folks, and once again, the idea that words on paper are some kind of magical brick wall that will stop a criminal in their tracks is lunacy - they've already decided to kill some folk, and most of em are hell bent on suicide too, so exactly what concern do they have for breaking a few weapons laws and carrying into a gun-free zone ?

Yeah, they may be gun free zones, but they are surrounded by guns 'comparatively easy to get and own' zones, so it's hardly a good comparison to make for weapon control on a national level.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Outlawing samurai swords and only outlaws will have samurai swords.
I don’t think violent criminals will go out of their way to get samurai swords. They switch to something else. If you make every violent weapon difficult to get, they’ll just go back to guns. But without question, you can’t make violent weapons difficult enough to get without making the government totalitarian to stop violent criminals.

Right, because violent criminals are ever so mindful of obeying the law when they committ their violent crimes.

It was the use of these swords in the 1st place which led to this ban. Used how ? In violent crimes!

Might be they should focus on who is doing these crimes, and not how they're being committed. Am I the only one who finds it odd that the two cases mentioned in the article happened 7 and 8 years ago ?

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Might be they should focus on who is doing these crimes, and not how they're being committed. Am I the only one who finds it odd that the two cases mentioned in the article happened 7 and 8 years ago ?

Since they're stopping the kind of people that commit these crimes (i.e. irresponsible owners and those without weapons licences) from having them, and not responsible people with said licences, surely they are doing exactly what you suggest and focusing on those 'doing these crimes'?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Outlawing samurai swords and only outlaws will have samurai swords.
I don’t think violent criminals will go out of their way to get samurai swords. They switch to something else. If you make every violent weapon difficult to get, they’ll just go back to guns. But without question, you can’t make violent weapons difficult enough to get without making the government totalitarian to stop violent criminals.
Right, because violent criminals are ever so mindful of obeying the law when they committ their violent crimes.

It was the use of these swords in the 1st place which led to this ban. Used how ? In violent crimes!

Might be they should focus on who is doing these crimes, and not how they're being committed. Am I the only one who finds it odd that the two cases mentioned in the article happened 7 and 8 years ago ?

I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying that criminals wouldn’t use samurai swords regardless of their legality. I’m saying that they probably don’t want to sue samurai swords at all, because they’d rather be using guns. If you make samurai swords as difficult to get as a gun - they’re more likely to simply use guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I've often wondered whether machetes and similar gardening implements are legal in the British Isles.

You see, while 'wallhangers' (cheap, stainless-steel sword-like-objects) are not designed for rugged use, machetes and similar implements are.

[Please edify yourselves by watching the famous stainless-steel sword video here: http://theunreachablestar.com/sssword.mpg ]

I would much rather encounter an idiot wielding an SLO (sword-like-object) than a serious tool. After all, you can kill someone with anything, but a garden tool is durable enough to kill time and time again.

I wonder at what point you stop blaming the implement (in this case, decorative swords) and start blaming the people behind them. I note with interest that replica non-firing firearms have also been made illegal in the UK.

It would seem that only 'licensed, vetted, authorized' persons are allowed to have an inexpensive wall display of fake weapons in that country.

That means only rich people who can afford museum-quality authentics need apply.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:57 AM

Lemme simplify that a bit...

Gee, prohibition worked so WELL with alcohol, and continues to perform so EFFECTIVELY on drugs, so why don't we apply it to weapons ?

Do we, mankind, never learn ANYTHING ?
See Sig Line for details.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Lemme simplify that a bit...

Gee, prohibition worked so WELL with alcohol, and continues to perform so EFFECTIVELY on drugs, so why don't we apply it to weapons ?

Drugs aren't weapons, weapons aren't drugs. There's a few million points of deviation, that should be obvious.

We expect people to have licences to operate cars, why not Weapons?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:00 AM

I don't have a problem with that, Cit

As long as the testing process is based on training, discipline, responsibility and competence.

Rather than based on how intensively you'll prostrate yourself to the established order on command.

Two VERY different things.

If you know how to clean, reload and operate it properly, including clearing first and second order malfunctions...

Can make proper Fire/No-Fire decisions when presented with them, and show a responsible and safe handling and demeanor...

And can actually hit your target at the proper engagement ranges for the weapon often enough for effective use...

Then by all means,
carry the weapon of your choice!

Competence-based testing and licensing as a condition of sale by the manufacturer or dealer isn't a bad idea for ANY powerful, dangerous tool... although I am having a few chuckles over the mental images of proving to Lowes while purchasing a cordless power drill, that I can swap the battery, chuck a bit, and know the difference between a masonry bit and an auger bit.

As for swords - you wanna hang it on your wall, fine... but if you wanna CARRY it, the same philosophy applies, doesn't it ?

I got no issue with licensing, I got an issue with BANNING - taking my sole effective defense (remember, i'm stuck in a wheelchair for like, a month now..) from ME cause YOU are scared, that's just fucking stupid.

Freedom ain't safe, at times it can be kinda scary, and if folks are more afraid of freedom than they are a police state, why don't they move to one then* ?

-Frem

PS* - Yes, that last comment is extremely tongue in cheek, as a deliberate smack on the same logic in the other direction.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for swords - you wanna hang it on your wall, fine... but if you wanna CARRY it, the same philosophy applies, doesn't it ?

But isn't this what it's all about? Surely the only people who have shown themselves competent and responcible enough to own a sword are martial arts students who have passed that grade? I know I'm not allowed to buy a Tan Tow until I've passed the course, and I wasn't allowed to buy a Staff until I'd passed that course either. You also don't get to take the course, until the master decides your good enough and responcible enough to do so.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:19 AM

FREELANCERTEX

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen: Because those select few have licences and have been vetted. We know they're trust worthy and responsible enough to own a deadly weapon like a sword.
I own swords, I have a martial arts licence, I know I can be trusted with it. I'm not so sure about some of the people I've seen going in to my local armourers asking to see the "Samurai Swords 'cause they're cool".
They're so cool you can go charging around your house with it swinging it around at your mates like an idiot.

*under her breath* they thought hannibal lecter was trustworthy - I KNOW! FICTION, BUT STILL. you never know, ya know?

Those people are just idiots who want something cool for the sake of having something cool. ppl with martial arts licenses are different. they're not stupid about weapons :-P

screaming like an idiot huh? lol XD silly.

__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."

A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:57 AM

I've aways thought that a sword would make an excellent home defense weapon. You're much less likely to kill an innocent bystander with a sword. Plus, I think they have a better deterrent effect than a gun. In the US you see stories in the newspaper all the time with titles like "Burglar Shot by Homeowner". Don't you think a headline like " Burgler Beheaded by Homeowner" would get a little more notice in the criminal community. I mean for tens of thousands of years a severed head on a stick has been the universal sign for "NO TRESPASSING".

Any of you sword experts have any recommendations on a good "home defense" sword. On the other hand, that would be just one more thing they will have to pry from "my cold dead hand".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:58 AM

CHRISISALL

I have a Samuri sword; I use it to cut my hedges- it takes 'em down in one.
The only way you'll get it from me is to pry it from my cold, dead hand.
M-effer!

First blood Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by freelancertex:
*under her breath* they thought hannibal lecter was trustworthy - I KNOW! FICTION, BUT STILL. you never know, ya know?

Your solution to the VERY occasional misjudgement of trustworthiness is, perhaps, allowing people we know aren't trustworthy to have weapons too? Please tell me if I misunderstand your apparent sarcasm, but that seems like it would be worse, not better.

Quote:
Those people are just idiots who want something cool for the sake of having something cool. ppl with martial arts licenses are different. they're not stupid about weapons :-P

screaming like an idiot huh? lol XD silly.

Yes they are. As for the last part it comes from personal experience of how people who haven't earned a weapon react when they get one.

You're comparing someone who has studied HARD for something, and have had the seriousness of it's responsibility impressed upon them at every turn, to someone who really really wants a sword.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:33 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

Any of you sword experts have any recommendations on a good "home defense" sword.

A machete is a good close-to-mid-ranger, easy to wield, and won't break the lamps by mistake.

Samuri is my choice though...I was gonna get a second, but like it's been said, there can be only one.

Connorisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I've aways thought that a sword would make an excellent home defense weapon. You're much less likely to kill an innocent bystander with a sword. Plus, I think they have a better deterrent effect than a gun. In the US you see stories in the newspaper all the time with titles like "Burglar Shot by Homeowner". Don't you think a headline like " Bugler Beheaded by Homeowner" would get a little more notice in the criminal community. I mean for tens of thousands of years a severed head on a stick has been the universal sign for "NO TRESPASSING".

Any of you sword experts have any recommendations on a good "home defense" sword. On the other hand, that would be just one more thing they will have to pry from "my cold dead hand".

The best response to a home invader tends to be giving them a route of escape. Home defence weapons are often turned on the home owner. No one should have a sword, or any other weapon, with the idea to actually use it.

No sword would make a good home defence weapon, they're difficult to use, require constant practice, and need more skill than a gun to use effectively. Anyone prepared to learn how to wield a bladed weapon well enough to be effective with it, won't be doing it merely to defend their home.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
[BThe best response to a home invader tends to be giving them a route of escape. Home defence weapons are often turned on the home owner. No one should have a sword, or any other weapon, with the idea to actually use it.

No sword would make a good home defence weapon, they're difficult to use, require constant practice, and need more skill than a gun to use effectively. Anyone prepared to learn how to wield a bladed weapon well enough to be effective with it, won't be doing it merely to defend their home.

This might be true if the intruder is a Ninja crack head but around here they're more likely to be a Crack Head, crack head. Any dumb ass can swing a sword with some effectiveness and those that can't shouldn't. No better way to get an intruder looking for a "route of escape" than to start swinging a sword like a mad man.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This might be true if the intruder is a Ninja crack head but around here they're more likely to be a Crack Head, crack head. Any dumb ass can swing a sword with some effectiveness and those that can't shouldn't. No better way to get an intruder looking for a "route of escape" than to start swinging a sword like a mad man.

No better way to get someone looking for an escape route than by being there and telling them the police are on their way. They don't want to get caught, but you come out with a sword screaming and hollering, you're going to elicit a flight or fight response that could as easily turn to fight, especially in a 'crack head'. If your knowledge of using your weapon amounts to 'swinging it', the likelihood is that you're going to come off worse, no, not any 'dumb ass' can swing a sword with some effectiveness. A sword is a skilled weapon, you swing it like 'any dumbass', all you'll end up doing is getting stabbed to death while you try to pull your broad sword out of the banister post.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This might be true if the intruder is a Ninja crack head but around here they're more likely to be a Crack Head, crack head. Any dumb ass can swing a sword with some effectiveness and those that can't shouldn't. No better way to get an intruder looking for a "route of escape" than to start swinging a sword like a mad man.

Never bring a sword to a gun fight. My concern with swords is that, even if you are a master swordsmen, if the intruder pulls out a gun, you’re screwed. Frankly, I don’t buy the “be a pussy and he’ll leave you alone” routine either, but loosing your head won’t help you any better. Avoiding confrontation by providing the intruder an escape route is the best solution all around, but that does not mean providing a weak and easy target. Instead arm yourself and maintain a concealed defensive position, while informing the intruder that you are armed and that you have called the police (whether you have or not.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:05 PM

"Home defence weapons are often turned on the home owner."

Pure fiction, impressed into the public consciousness in the same fashion as Iraq being directly responsible for 9-11, and every bit as much lacking factual basis for the claim.

Starting from four to eight feet away, and you believe a typical criminal when he realizes his target is armed, is going to try to close and disarm them ? and stands ANY REAL CHANCE of doing it ?

Or worse, starting from 16-20 feet away, against a homeowner with a firearm, is going to attempt to close for a disarm, and COULD PULL THAT OFF ?

Whatever you're smoking, pass left, Bogart, I could use it about now...

The best home defense weapon IMOP, is a shotgun loaded with 2-3/4" single O buckshot, good balance between coverage and lethality, and also between over penetration and stopping power.

One thing you're right about is the escape route, you don't wanna FIGHT a home intruder, even if you win you'll prolly be charged, sued, face some scumwad like Hero in court with the deck pre-stacked against you and even if you pull a miracle and preserve your freedom, you'll lose the firearm for sure and be out a minumum of $30,000.00 USD in legal defense fees.

Oh, and did I mention needing a VERY expensive kit to clean up blood and bodily fluids, replacing carpet, drywall, panelling.. and the like ?

Trust me, you don't wanna fight em if you don't have to.
You want them to LEAVE, NOW.

Just that, to GO AWAY - ain't your job nor responsibility to catch, arrest or incarcerate em, leave it to the cops, who do such a great job that you don't NEED a weapon, right ?
*SNARK*

Get yourself a Remington 870 express with 7 round mag and a surefire light.

Someone starts coming through the door, you beam them with that light and shout, LEAVE NOW, I AM ARMED!

95% of the time, they'll leave, and double-damned quick, too.

If they don't, start firing, and they'll either be leaving via nike express, or feet first, but they'll be leaving without robbing/raping/assaulting you, that's for sure.

The hardest one to handle is when they surrender!
(about 0.5% of the time, this does happen)

In that case you get on the horn to the police and make VERY sure the officers en route know the situation and which one is homeowner and perp.

Then when they arrive put the gun down quickly and brace yourself to be thrown into the floor, stomped on, kneed in the back of the neck and cuffed.. "for your own safety" as a slap in the face for having the temerity to defend yourself.

Usually once they get it sorted, they'll uncuff you, and if yer really lucky and the lords are feeling merciful, you MIGHT even get your weapon back.

One thing you DON'T do is discuss it with em, cause they'll be looking for something, anything, to charge you with, because you're a vile self-defender and a threat to their extortion racket - you simply state that you were in fear for your life and defended yourself, then demand your lawyer and shut the hell up.

I really wouldn't reccommend a sword for home defense - but in the rare case when your main entrance is a confined hallway for several feet, one might suggest a boar spear or footmans pike.
(Yes, I am kidding)

Seriously, get a Remington 870, cheap, effective home defense, great for clay pidgeon, skeet, trap shooting, even hunting just about anything.

And if you wanna, you can pretty it up however you like.. I know some chick with a PINK one, glarg.. or you could go all "tactical" and hang endless amounts of "cool looking" crap on it like some riced-out CRX owned by someone with lots of money and no taste...

Or just leave it standard-issue, it's pretty nice as it is.
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/shotguns/model_870/model_87
0_express_synthetic_7-round.asp

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This might be true if the intruder is a Ninja crack head but around here they're more likely to be a Crack Head, crack head. Any dumb ass can swing a sword with some effectiveness and those that can't shouldn't. No better way to get an intruder looking for a "route of escape" than to start swinging a sword like a mad man.
Never bring a sword to a gun fight. My concern with swords is that, even if you are a master swordsmen, if the intruder pulls out a gun, you’re screwed. Frankly, I don’t buy the “be a pussy and he’ll leave you alone” routine either, but loosing your head won’t help you any better. Avoiding confrontation by providing the intruder an escape route is the best solution all around, but that does not mean providing a weak and easy target. Instead arm yourself and maintain a concealed defensive position, while informing the intruder that you are armed and that you have called the police (whether you have or not.)

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Alrighty then, you guys have convinced me. I 'll just stick with the Kimber 1911 until I get all practiced up on my sword fighting skills. As far as the “be a pussy and he’ll leave you alone”. In Florida we have the "Castle Doctrine" which means I don't have to provide an avenue of escape for the scumbag. I can shoot him in the back while he's trying to escape and be legally justified.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Alrighty then, you guys have convinced me. I 'll just stick with the Kimber 1911 until I get all practiced up on my sword fighting skills. As far as the “be a pussy and he’ll leave you alone”. In Florida we have the "Castle Doctrine" which means I don't have to provide an avenue of escape for the scumbag. I can shoot him in the back while he's trying to escape and be legally justified.

I’m not sure that it makes you a very good person to shoot someone in the back, but I also don’t think that the responsibility should be on the homeowner. If you invade someone’s house with the intent to commit a crime, I don‘t think you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:29 PM

FREELANCERTEX

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen: Your solution to the VERY occasional misjudgement of trustworthiness is, perhaps, allowing people we know aren't trustworthy to have weapons too? Please tell me if I misunderstand your apparent sarcasm, but that seems like it would be worse, not better.

yes, totally misunderstood my sarcasm.

Chrisisall: lol XD u make me laugh.

__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."

A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pure fiction, impressed into the public consciousness in the same fashion as Iraq being directly responsible for 9-11, and every bit as much lacking factual basis for the claim.

Erm, no it isn't. I'd like to point out your own claim isn't exactly brimming over with objective facts, more conjecture.

Most people would disarm (like for instance getting that sword stuck in a wall), someone breaking into your home is most likely used to fighting, where as your average home owner isn't. Self-defence experts try to leave without a fight, or else wise remove themselves for danger, fighting only when they're back is to the wall. Have a go hero's charge in because it's 'their house'.

Next day they're loved ones are identifying them in the morgue.

Those people are idiots, there's a difference between self-defence and stupidity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by freelancertex:
yes, totally misunderstood my sarcasm

Then maybe you could make yourself clear?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, and did I mention needing a VERY expensive kit to clean up blood and bodily fluids, replacing carpet, drywall, panelling.. and the like ?

Best reason I've heard yet not to shoot them.

My primary concern is that the intruder not escape to continue on his crime spree. A person that would break into another's home is the lowest form of scum and can't be allowed to run free. Next house he breaks into he might kill a defenseless old lady. The reason there is so many unsolved murders is because they don't leave witnesses when they encounter unarmed residents and run away when confronted with deadly force.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:08 PM