Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An armed society is a civil society; a knifed and booted society is a dangerous one
BookwormRoom.com ^ | 12-5-2012 | Bookworm

Posted on 12/06/2012 5:00:33 AM PST by servo1969

I grew up deathly afraid of guns. This wasn’t like my fear of snakes and spiders, which seems to be pretty atavistic. Instead, this was a learned fear: Guns kill people. Guns also kill innocent animals that should, instead, die nice clean deaths in factory farms, before being sliced up and packaged in cellophane. I knew the truth: guns are bad, very, very bad.

Then I went to England and learned that guns aren’t the only bad things. My sojourn in England coincided with the explosive rise of soccer hooligans, louts who traveled the length and breadth of England, and periodically spilled over into the rest of Europe, bringing jack-booted violence with them wherever they went. (Among the Thugs is a horrifying account of these louts and the carnage in which they delighted.) Up in the north of England, where I lived, I could always tell when the local soccer team was having a home game because all the businesses near the soccer stadium boarded up their windows. England may not have had mass shootings, but it had death by a thousands cuts and boot stomps.

When I returned to America, I still hated guns (I had, after all, been carefully taught to do so), but I began to wonder — Are guns really the only bad thing out there? Will doing away with guns turn America into an Eden that sees that loutish lion and the helpless lamb lie down together? England, which was a less armed country than America, wasn’t necessarily a safer one. People still got victimized; it was just that guns weren’t the weapons doing the victimizing.

Upon my return to the states, Second Amendment supporters to whom I spoke told me that, while bullets have the advantage of distance, in the close quarters of a bar fight, knives or broken bottles are much more dangerous. They made the logical argument, then, that no one ever suggests outlawing knives or bottles. Likewise, the fact that more people die from car accidents than gunshot wounds doesn’t mean we’re about to outlaw cars. (Although, I must say, the climate change people are making a good stab at outlawing cars.)

When I was still in my liberal phase, I always had the right answer at hand when I heard these logical arguments: knives and bottles and cars all have a primary utility separate from their secondary, dangerous uses. Guns, however, exist only to kill.

With age, thankfully, I’ve gained wisdom. I’ve figured out that guns are extremely useful: you can get your own food if you’re nowhere near a market with tidy cellophane packages; you can have the sheer pleasure of target practice; you can discourage looters in the wake of a disaster; if you’re a woman and a large man is threatening you, guns are the great equalizer; if you’re alone and a crazy man is at your door, you don’t have to die like the screaming teen in a slasher movie; and guns are the only defense against the single largest and most deadly entity known to man — a totalitarian government that has turned on its citizens.

As I know from my gun hating years, even though all of the above are good reasons to cheer the Second Amendment, these facts make no headway with the anti-gun crowd. Instead, they just keep pulling out this tired old poster:




Well, I think we’ve finally got a new poster in our Second Amendment arsenal:



Here’s an interesting point about those numbers. In 1997, Britain’s Labour government worked overtime to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens:

After Hungerford [a massacre in 1987], the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 criminalised most semi-automatic long-barrelled weapons; it was generally supported by the Labour opposition although some Labour backbenchers thought it inadequate.After the second incident, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 criminalised private possession of most handguns having a calibre over .22; the Snowdrop Campaign continued to press for a wider ban, and in 1997 the incoming Labour government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, which extended this to most handguns with a calibre of .22 (there are exceptions for some antique handguns and black-powder revolvers.)

And not coincidentally, since 1997, the year law-abiding Brits were denied arms, violent crime in England has skyrocketed:

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Britain used to be famed as a polite society. It is no longer. It is also a society that full lives up to the saying that “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

People will kill. They always have, and they always will. Culture matters, in that cultural norms can encourage or discourage violent crime. But only guns will be there when you’re small and alone, and that’s true whether you’re facing a home invader, a street thug, or a modern-day Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; guncontrol; selfdefense
Some people love to tout how many crimes are committed by armed individuals. It's truly unfortunate there can never be a count of all the crimes cut short because a potential victim was armed. I'd be willing to bet for every crime committed with a gun there are at least 5 or more crimes that never happen because someone knows they risk catching a bullet in return.

And on another note regardless of whatever Bob Costas may think Kasandra Perkins’ only chance to survive a life and death encounter with Jovan Belcher would have been, ironically enough, to be armed with a gun herself. Even a tiny woman can pull a trigger. Belcher was a big, big man but a single bullet is all it takes to put a big, big man in the ground. Belcher proved that very fact with his last act.

An armed society is a polite society because violent people are forced to be mindful of other people's rights. The one's who aren't get removed from society in due course no matter how physically tough they might be. Like the old saying goes, “God created man. Samuel Colt made them equal.”
1 posted on 12/06/2012 5:00:46 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969
When I returned to America, I still hated guns (I had, after all, been carefully taught to do so), but I began to wonder — Are guns really the only bad thing out there?

Oh don't worry, the UK also have some of the strictest knife laws in the world as well. No locking blade folding knives are allowed.

2 posted on 12/06/2012 5:11:36 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
while bullets have the advantage of distance, in the close quarters of a bar fight, knives or broken bottles are much more dangerous.

Generally good article, but this is just nonsense.

One can make a case, though not a particularly good one, that a knife or broken bottle might be just as dangerous under such circumstances, but not that it is more dangerous. Even less much more dangerous.

This is of course why we don't have a saying about the foolishness of bringing a gun to a knife fight.

3 posted on 12/06/2012 5:25:38 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

The quote should be attributed properly:

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” — Robert A. Heinlein.


4 posted on 12/06/2012 5:35:51 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

You are incorrect sir, knife wounds are more often fatal than bullet wounds with today’s medical care. The reason is knife wounds tend to bleed much more,being generally much wider,causing the victim to bleed out before they can be treated. Check out the most recent reseach.


5 posted on 12/06/2012 5:41:54 AM PST by E.Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The writer cites the greater effectiveness of a knife (over a handgun) in close quarters, and is correct if the handgun is undrawn or even uncocked. An attacker can close the short distance and thrust a knife a lot faster than most defenders can even draw their handguns - let alone fire. Ten feet can be closed in a flash.

The most important step is to maintain distance from an attacker so you can fire before he closes and strikes, and a handgun in the well-trained hands of an alert defender is certainly the best tool for that job. But proper distance is vital to defend against being knifed or disarmed by a skilled attacker.

6 posted on 12/06/2012 5:45:29 AM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

One thing is suggested is extremely important: at close range, a knife is superb as a weapon.

It complements a gun well, as it is at its best “within the minimum range” of a gun. And if you have a gun, and your opponent has a knife, this minimum range is quite large, as they can “close the gap” very quickly.

World War I trench warfare is the best illustration of optimal mid and short range combat, and is cleanly extrapolated to indoor combat as well.

Men in trenches had as their primary weapon a rifle, for mid to long distance shooting. But when one side or the other advanced to enter the enemies’ trenches, a rifle had much less value, as because of the zig-zag nature of the trench, fighting distances were limited to mid and short range.

So the best combination for trenches was a pistol in one hand, and a trench knife in the other, optimized with brass knuckles for very close combat.

http://i.imgur.com/ouhSy.jpg

It is very easy to imagine how dark and narrow corridors in a building are much like this, especially if your opponent is desensitized with alcohol or drugs. And unfamiliar with the layout, as this is “your” trench, not theirs.

The downside to knives is that they do take a degree of skill and experience for optimal use. But, as with a gun, this training provides a strong advantage, so is well worth it.


7 posted on 12/06/2012 5:46:00 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E.Allen
knife wounds are more often fatal than bullet wounds with today’s medical care.

Well, here's one study showing a 22% mortality for bullet wounds, and 4% for knife wounds.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/knives/msg00006.html

If you have alternate data, I'd like to see it.

8 posted on 12/06/2012 5:55:55 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

If the shooter even manages a wound.

The pistol is a difficult weapon if you never train.

Just put the thing away, and you might as well throw it at the target.


9 posted on 12/06/2012 6:03:18 AM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
...the single largest and most deadly entity known to man...is man himself...
10 posted on 12/06/2012 6:24:22 AM PST by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

For whatever reason there will always be those who think that removing weapons from the hands of the citizenry will make for a less violent society. Archie Bunker would ask if it made his daughter feel better if they were pushed out windows instead.

I one individual wants one or more people dead and is serious enough to act on that thought....then they will find the means to make that happen.


11 posted on 12/06/2012 6:36:20 AM PST by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Ask a cop which he is more afraid of, gun or knife.

You would be surprised.

That is why cops do not give one inch to a guy with a knife.


12 posted on 12/06/2012 6:48:13 AM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
the true British homicide rate has been camouflaged
13 posted on 12/06/2012 6:52:26 AM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

The purpose of our Founding Fathers stipulating that Americans have the absolute RIGHT to Bear Arms was to keep any oppressive Government in check.

It was true then with the British, and it is becoming even more true today as we are slowly being taken over by Obama’s Communist Administration.

Seen from that perspective, Bob Costas is just another Liberal Enabler for Obama’s creeping Communism.


14 posted on 12/06/2012 6:54:10 AM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade
The pistol is a difficult weapon if you never train.

And using a knife to kill effectively comes naturally? I don't buy it.

15 posted on 12/06/2012 8:02:19 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Lol. Buy whatever you want. It’s your funeral.


16 posted on 12/06/2012 8:51:12 AM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

I’m curious about something. If a knife is so much more deadly than a pistol, why do Freepers concerned about self-defense spend so much time talking about guns and so little talking about knives?


17 posted on 12/06/2012 9:05:28 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

A pistol is an incredibly easy weapon to use. Handguns were designed to be easy to use. Even with minimal instruction at 10-15 ft its pretty much point and click. Especially a revolver. Try shooting one sometime.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.


18 posted on 12/06/2012 9:08:52 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

One disruptive aspect of knives, boots, and broken bottles versus guns, is that a group with knives can overcome a single knife-armed victim with fairly low risk of any of the attackers being seriously harmed. A victim with a gun is likely to seriously injure at least one of his attackers, even if they have guns too. Thus, cowardly predators are more likely deterred in an environment where many potential targets may be armed.


19 posted on 12/06/2012 9:17:27 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I don’t know about anyone else but on that Brady Campaign poster where it says “God Bless America” I always imagine the speaker spitting on the ground after saying it. It seems to convey such deep disdain as to be disrespectful. I mean it literally might as well say “F*** You America.” I wonder if that’s the message they were going for? ‘Cause it’s the one I get.


20 posted on 12/06/2012 11:06:58 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Lol. Been shooting pistols for 40 or so years, competition.

Some of my old clubmates are in here: http://www.fastgun.no/Shootabout.htm

Real knife distances gets very much closer than 10-15 feet. At toe to toe you wear your innards for shoelaces faster than you can blink.


21 posted on 12/06/2012 11:23:36 AM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon; Sherman Logan; Hardraade

I have probably disarmed/and or faced more people with guns or knives empty handed, than the average cop, and I fear the gun more than the knife.

The fear of the knife is similar to the fear of snakes, it isn’t based on logic or experience, but on some vague, primal thing.

During the days that I used to spend a lot of time with knives and sticks, I preferred the stick or thin pipe, over the knife, and when possible, always a blocking agent in my other hand, anything from a light chair, to a lamp, or a small rug, knife attacks are easy to interfere with and disrupt.

The gun trumps all.


22 posted on 12/06/2012 11:34:23 AM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

http://i.imgur.com/ouhSy.jpg

I own one of those, an original, and sometimes I place it in the hand of females when discussing women in combat, and I point out the different weaponized features of the knife and how they are used, most of them agree that women do not belong in an environment where such a horrible device is needed and used.


23 posted on 12/06/2012 11:39:12 AM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I have, thankfully, a great deal less (as in zero) experience in this area than you.

But what you say makes a great deal of sense. Any weapon that allows one to kill by literally twitching your finger is a great deal more dangerous than one that requires physical strength and dexterity.

The studies I’ve seen indicate that you are likely to survive a serious stab wound by a significant multiple over the equivalent bullet wound. This is, of course, exactly why edged weapons were largely abandoned for firearms some centuries ago.

There have been a lot of claims to the contrary posted, but no evidence that I’ve seen.


24 posted on 12/06/2012 12:28:12 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Love the title.


25 posted on 12/06/2012 12:30:12 PM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Place two average but manly 20 year olds in a typical furnished apartment, and give one a knife, and tell them the killing is on, well, what you have is an athletic competition, and you don’t know what the result will be, or how long it will take to find out who wins, or even if they won’t both survive the contest, with injuries and exhaustion.

Replace that knife with a pistol, and the outcome is more predictable, actually, the one with the pistol can be replaced by just about any person, male, female, old, young, as long as they are manly enough to pull the trigger, and the outcome is still predictable.

Knives scare people, but a fighter knows that when the other guy only has a knife, then he is still a long, long, long, way from killing you.


26 posted on 12/06/2012 12:52:35 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Tag line material, just to long to fit it all.


27 posted on 12/06/2012 1:29:17 PM PST by Eaker (Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” — Robert A. Heinlein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

In the hands of a novice in close quarter combat, I would rather they have a gun than a knife. There are various reasons.

You can control the gun or the gun hand, you can’t control the knife, just the knife hand. In fact if you grab the muzzle of the gun, you have total control of it and there are various leveraging techniques to disarm and disable your opponent.

Put your Gi on and arm someone with a rubber combat knife, chalk the end with any color you choose that will show up on your Gi and try and disarm your opponent while they are trying to cut you. Do the same with nerf type gun.


28 posted on 12/06/2012 1:52:02 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

The whole idea of the gun is that you don’t let them get that close. 40 years of shooting you should know that distance is your friend. Not to mention that when they show you a knife and you show them a gun its usually pretty much over at that point.

Then there’s the one in a million who sees the gun and charges and then its 2 to the chest 1 to the head.


29 posted on 12/06/2012 2:10:01 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; All
There is a minority position that talks of knives. I know a number of firearm trainers. Every one of them carries a quality locking folder with them as part of their daily kit.

You have to study knives if you seriously teach self defense with guns.

Having said that, most people who use either guns or knives do not study them or train. If facing an amateur, I would rather face one with a knife.

However, I carry a knife all the time, and I know that I could inflict tremendous damage and death with it. It also does not run out of ammo and is less likely to inflict collateral damage.

30 posted on 12/06/2012 2:19:44 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I have probably disarmed/and or faced more people with guns or knives empty handed, than the average cop, and I fear the gun more than the knife. The fear of the knife is similar to the fear of snakes, it isn’t based on logic or experience, but on some vague, primal thing. During the days that I used to spend a lot of time with knives and sticks, I preferred the stick or thin pipe, over the knife, and when possible, always a blocking agent in my other hand, anything from a light chair, to a lamp, or a small rug, knife attacks are easy to interfere with and disrupt. The gun trumps all.

Good post. Sticks are very useful things.

31 posted on 12/06/2012 2:21:50 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
In the hands of a novice in close quarter combat, I would rather they have a gun than a knife. There are various reasons.

And most users are novices. If someone is serious about using the knife, there is a good chance you will never see it until after you are cut or stabbed.

32 posted on 12/06/2012 2:26:23 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Sticks, long and short are great, as are canes for those who work with them.

When I used to have to go out and accost the alley guys here in California, I would carry a longish club,fighting stick, if he looked normal, but I would carry a 5/16s”, or 1/2”, short piece of pipe if he looked like a for sure, knife guy.


33 posted on 12/06/2012 2:35:35 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Place two average but manly 20 year olds in a typical furnished apartment, and give one a knife, and tell them the killing is on, well, what you have is an athletic competition, and you don’t know what the result will be, or how long it will take to find out who wins, or even if they won’t both survive the contest, with injuries and exhaustion.

Replace that knife with a pistol, and the outcome is more predictable, actually, the one with the pistol can be replaced by just about any person, male, female, old, young, as long as they are manly enough to pull the trigger, and the outcome is still predictable.

Knives scare people, but a fighter knows that when the other guy only has a knife, then he is still a long, long, long, way from killing you.


Not correct.

There are several videos where the participants are capable shooters.

The attacker stands 21 ft. from the armed person.

The attacker charges the armed person and gets him every single time before he can draw.

And this is in a situation where the armed person KNOWS that he will be charged. No element of surprise.

Now here is the problem for the shooter...his gun is still in the holster or maybe partialy drawn. At that point, he is totally at the mercy of the knife. The attacker does NOT have to be Jim Bowie because he has the total upper hand unless the shooter is a highly experienced hand to hand fighter.

I don’t have the link, but facts are facts and the videos are there.

This is why cops so readily shoot a knife threat.

Mooma may go on TV and talk about how her boy was such a good boy and the cops should have just taken the knife away from him and not shot him, but they know better.

No cop is going to let a knife get within 21 ft. of him.

The idea that knives are not dangerous compared to guns is BS.


34 posted on 12/06/2012 3:18:22 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Which is of course what everyone has been saying.

Moderate distance is the place for the gun, and one who never uses a handgun stand little chance against a target which is closing the distance in a second or two, or one that is close enough to poke you in the navel.

The gun isn’t magical, and that mozambique doesn’t place itself.


35 posted on 12/06/2012 4:12:37 PM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

That demonstration video gets dredged up all the time.

You take a knife, and give me a gun, and I will guarantee that you end up dead in a real life situation, there is a heck of a lot more going on than merely crossing 21 feet under ideal situations, and assuming that I am not ready to shoot you. The fight isn’t over when you yell ‘tag’.

We still have to settle the part of which one of us actually kills the other one, closing on me with a knife isn’t enough, if my personal life is any evidence.

I carry a fighting knife and spent years practicing close combat with a knife and other weapons, in California I can carry a full size sheath knife, and I sometimes do in certain bars, I have even carried my Hell’s Belle Bowie, but it draws too much attention, but I much prefer a pistol and so does any other sane person.

A sane person would much rather fight a knife than a gun, when a man pulls a knife on you, then he is engaging you in a fight, an athletic struggle because he still only has a short hand tool to work with, that why a simple pool stick goes so far in equalizing the fight with a knife, even pool balls can chase off a guy with a knife if he isn’t determined.

Your average wino, with a dull, $5.00 pocket knife and in ill health is a lot less dangerous than the same wino with a 38.


36 posted on 12/06/2012 5:11:43 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade; Georgia Girl 2
The gun isn’t magical, and that mozambique doesn’t place itself.

Neither is the knife, that is why so few knife attacks result in death, the knife doesn't just magically kill people like in the movies, it is a short, cutting and stabbing tool, and the target has an opinion on where and if you are going to strike blows.

This doesn't even get into the condition of most street knives, again, this isn't a movie where you will be facing a trained knife fighter with a custom made fighting knife.

37 posted on 12/06/2012 5:21:23 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo; servo1969
I see they have banned weapons such as the Japanese kusarigama. the level of skill required to (effectively) wield a kusarigama or a kyoketsushoge is prodigious, and it is ridiculous to assume that out of the plethora of weapons a criminal would be using exotic martial arts weapons that very few people can use without hurting themselves, let alone use effectively to hurt another. The only weapon more exotic than those two would probably be the Chinese rope-dart, and that one is probably banned too.

I think the authorities simply went through a martial arts magazine and started banning anything that looked dangerous. Hence the banning of throwing stars for instance (not as deadly - at all - as they are made out to be in martial arts movies), or the similar banning on nunchaku in some American cities (another weapon that is difficult to use without hurting oneself, and is very difficult to use offensively in an effective manner ...all the twirling you see in martial arts demos are mostly flash and show. A simple stick is far more capable).

A simple kitchen knife is more lethal in the hands of 99.9998% of the human population than any of these exotica are, yet they get banned. A ballpoint pen is more of a 'danger' than these things, yet it is an offense to own one?

I'd like to ask one of the people who drafted such laws when it was that a person was last killed with a kusarigama? This is also why those who stand firm against people who would like to ban certain firearms (e.g. the so called 'aggressive-looking-assault-rifles') need to never let their resolve ebb. Not even for a moment. Because the same forces that ban 'ninja stars' (actually shuriken/shaken were not an exclusive ninja weapon) because they 'look' dangerous (and played a role in a stupid movie from the early 80s) would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to ban firearms if they could. It's that pesky amendment thingii that messes things up for them in the US. However, they will try to ban 'some' weapons, with the premise that they are aggressive or can 'shoot down a plane' (argument used to try and ban 50 caliber rifles), and they will simply continue from there.

Again, look at how certain stuff has been banned in places like the UK. They simply cannot stop themselves, and whatever looks 'dangerous' is put on the list. If any FReeper reading this has firearms in the house, look at them and see how some Liberal lawmaker could easily find them 'dangerous looking.' Maybe it is because of the pistol grip? Maybe it is because it is black in color (as if a pink gun can't shoot)? Maybe it is because the gun furniture is amped in some way? Maybe the attachments make it look like something from a Rambo film the guy hated? If they can ban a weighted chain, they would LOVE to ban any gun you have in your possession right now. However, because they cannot do so, they will try and ban firearms that are at the periphery of usage/caliber/function/etc (e.g. the aforementioned 50 cal weapons), and then from there they will go for certain caliber types (e.g. the FN5.7 pistol rounds), then 'sniper' rifles (and any hunting rifle with a scope that is not used for hunting will be considered as one by these chaps). A lot of people bring up slippery slope arguments that are not based on fact, but this is one slippery slope that is for real.

Just look at the silly stuff they ban in places like the UK. They can't help themselves. They even tried to introduce kitchen knives that do not have a tip (to prevent them from being used as stabbing weapons). Once they get going they simply cannot stop, and thus there is no reason to give up any ground to them. All lost ground is simply used as territory to launch new attacks.

38 posted on 12/10/2012 1:46:12 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson