Do you shoot?

[Nathan F]

. I like shooting Garands. My dad got one through one of those government programs where you have to "qualify" for the right to buy one by shooting at a range. I think his arrived in the mail the day before my sister's wedding.

Through the CMP program? I think that dad bought one of his Garands through it.

[Nathan F]

For hunting shotguns and a few sorts of hunting rifle are still about in the UK, the ban is on handguns....something for which there is no real use save shooting people....

[rant mode]
Self defense? You know what they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

Firearms are the sort of thing that the 'genie has already been let out of the bottle'. Sort of impossible to put it back. I mean, if a criminal wants a gun, banning handguns is not gonna stop him from getting it. And even if they did, he would just find some equally heinous or sickening way to hurt people.
[/rant mode]

[Keevan_Colton]

For hunting shotguns and a few sorts of hunting rifle are still about in the UK, the ban is on handguns....something for which there is no real use save shooting people....

[rant mode]
Self defense? You know what they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

Firearms are the sort of thing that the 'genie has already been let out of the bottle'. Sort of impossible to put it back. I mean, if a criminal wants a gun, banning handguns is not gonna stop him from getting it. And even if they did, he would just find some equally heinous or sickening way to hurt people.
[/rant mode]

So...nasty people are out there and no matter what we do to stop them they will find some way to harm others....so therfore everyone should have easy access to the tools to kill and maim?

[Knife]

For hunting shotguns and a few sorts of hunting rifle are still about in the UK, the ban is on handguns....something for which there is no real use save shooting people....

[rant mode]
Self defense? You know what they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

Firearms are the sort of thing that the 'genie has already been let out of the bottle'. Sort of impossible to put it back. I mean, if a criminal wants a gun, banning handguns is not gonna stop him from getting it. And even if they did, he would just find some equally heinous or sickening way to hurt people.
[/rant mode]

So...nasty people are out there and no matter what we do to stop them they will find some way to harm others....so therfore everyone should have easy access to the tools to kill and maim?

Its better to have a gun and not use it, then to need a gun and not have it.

Personally, I have a Winchester 1300. Nice shotgun for diswading any assholes from taking my shit. My wife, god bless her, has a Burnette 110lbs crossbow. As soon as I have 6 or 700 bucks sitting around, I plan on getting the Baby Eagle or maybe a H&K 40cal.

[Rob Wilson]

Used to shoot, now I don't. I do however have my eye on a reproduction Napoleonic Musket and a Deactivated Lee-Enfield SMLE mk4, because both are such fine looking pieces of work and would look good hanging in the hall.

[RedImperator]

Oy, are there any European countries with gun-control laws that are not overly restrictive?

Define overly....personally I dont mind living in a nation where people dont have a right to own guns with armour piercing amunition for some odd reason I dont see much need.....

For hunting shotguns and a few sorts of hunting rifle are still about in the UK, the ban is on handguns....something for which there is no real use save shooting people....

As you might guess, I dont collect guns and I dont shoot them....I do however use swords, axes, spears and a few types of polearm.....

And the uses for swords, spears, and polearms besides horribly maiming and killing people are...?

[Rob Wilson]

For hunting shotguns and a few sorts of hunting rifle are still about in the UK, the ban is on handguns....something for which there is no real use save shooting people....

[rant mode]
Self defense? You know what they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

Firearms are the sort of thing that the 'genie has already been let out of the bottle'. Sort of impossible to put it back. I mean, if a criminal wants a gun, banning handguns is not gonna stop him from getting it. And even if they did, he would just find some equally heinous or sickening way to hurt people.
[/rant mode]

And what are you going to do with your gun exactly? He has his out nd pointing at you, go on try and use yours and see how much it helps you. Or what about if you see him with a gun commiting a robbery and you shoot at him, first there's no guarentee you'll hit him, second if you do there's fuck all guarantee you'll kill him and there's also the danger of the round continuing on and hitting others. So do tell, apart from giving you a false sense of security and making you feel big, what possible reason do you have for carrying a gun for self-defense?

As to target shooting, there's more skill involved in playing darts that shooting a pistol on a 15m or 20m range. Hell t least archery has some real skill involved in it.

[Keevan_Colton]

Oy, are there any European countries with gun-control laws that are not overly restrictive?

Define overly....personally I dont mind living in a nation where people dont have a right to own guns with armour piercing amunition for some odd reason I dont see much need.....

For hunting shotguns and a few sorts of hunting rifle are still about in the UK, the ban is on handguns....something for which there is no real use save shooting people....

As you might guess, I dont collect guns and I dont shoot them....I do however use swords, axes, spears and a few types of polearm.....

And the uses for swords, spears, and polearms besides horribly maiming and killing people are...?

The noble and lost art of the duel springs to mind....though with such weapons you can at least also come up with personal fittness....something rather lacking in "point-and-click" technology......

[Rob Wilson]

As you might guess, I dont collect guns and I dont shoot them....I do however use swords, axes, spears and a few types of polearm.....

And the uses for swords, spears, and polearms besides horribly maiming and killing people are...?

He's not advocating carrying them around for self-defense for one thing, and for another they will probably be replica's and as such dulled.

[RedImperator]

Define overly....personally I dont mind living in a nation where people dont have a right to own guns with armour piercing amunition for some odd reason I dont see much need.....

For hunting shotguns and a few sorts of hunting rifle are still about in the UK, the ban is on handguns....something for which there is no real use save shooting people....

As you might guess, I dont collect guns and I dont shoot them....I do however use swords, axes, spears and a few types of polearm.....

And the uses for swords, spears, and polearms besides horribly maiming and killing people are...?

The noble and lost art of the duel springs to mind....though with such weapons you can at least also come up with personal fittness....something rather lacking in "point-and-click" technology......

That's a pretty thin justification for owning lethal bladed weapons if you're going to turn around and argue that one shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol for target shooting and collecting. You could use wooden mockups to duel and last I checked, free weights and jogging pants were considerably less lethal than battle axes.

[Knife]

For hunting shotguns and a few sorts of hunting rifle are still about in the UK, the ban is on handguns....something for which there is no real use save shooting people....

[rant mode]
Self defense? You know what they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

Firearms are the sort of thing that the 'genie has already been let out of the bottle'. Sort of impossible to put it back. I mean, if a criminal wants a gun, banning handguns is not gonna stop him from getting it. And even if they did, he would just find some equally heinous or sickening way to hurt people.
[/rant mode]

And what are you going to do with your gun exactly? He has his out nd pointing at you, go on try and use yours and see how much it helps you. Or what about if you see him with a gun commiting a robbery and you shoot at him, first there's no guarentee you'll hit him, second if you do there's fuck all guarantee you'll kill him and there's also the danger of the round continuing on and hitting others. So do tell, apart from giving you a false sense of security and making you feel big, what possible reason do you have for carrying a gun for self-defense?

As to target shooting, there's more skill involved in playing darts that shooting a pistol on a 15m or 20m range. Hell t least archery has some real skill involved in it.

Sorry Rob, but the point of having a gun is to use it to defend yourself and others. Your situation is a no go with a gun, but what if you are witnessing this situation. I wouldn't try to quickdraw my way out of a situation when someone is already pointing a gun at me. But if I was in the room and someone pointed a gun at someone else, then I just might shoot the bastard.

As far a robbery? No, that is a crime that I wouldn't kill someone over. But if I had a gun and some shit head was going to kill someone else, well....boooom. Guns are not a end all, they are a tool and therefore need to be used correctly like all tools. Just because some misuse it doesn't mean it can be used correctly.

[Darth Wong]

Americans tend to have a different take on guns than people in Europe or even Canada.

We recently had a few shipments of cheap handguns that flooded into Toronto (we're almost up to a tenth of the typical American city's homicide rate). We had a huge spike of murders immediately following the release of these guns into public hands. If you want to commit murder, a handgun is the weapon of choice. It doesn't mean that no other weapon will work, and it doesn't mean that it's impossible to kill someone without a handgun, but that's the weapon murderers prefer.

Canadian and American gun ownership rates are actually not much different, but there's a much different attitude toward them. Americans tend to buy a lot of handguns and have a lot of guns per owner (which explains why the sheer number of guns is so much higher even though the rate of gun ownership is similar), build arsenals, often with self-defense as a justification. Canadians tend to use them for hunting purposes only.

[RedImperator]

As you might guess, I dont collect guns and I dont shoot them....I do however use swords, axes, spears and a few types of polearm.....

And the uses for swords, spears, and polearms besides horribly maiming and killing people are...?

He's not advocating carrying them around for self-defense for one thing, and for another they will probably be replica's and as such dulled.

I never brought up self-defense precisely because I didn't want to get drawn down that side-argument (I only brought up collecting and hobby-shooting in my response to him), though now that you mention it I have a hard time seeing what good having an unalienable right to life is if you don't have a right to defend said life.

And from Keevan's previous posts on the subject, I'd gathered that they were not dulled replicas. Perhaps I was wrong about that. At any rate, even if they are dulled, they're still potentially lethal (if he's using them to duel, they're not just cheap knockoffs that'll break as soon as you hit somebody with them).

[Rob Wilson]

And what are you going to do with your gun exactly? He has his out nd pointing at you, go on try and use yours and see how much it helps you. Or what about if you see him with a gun commiting a robbery and you shoot at him, first there's no guarentee you'll hit him, second if you do there's fuck all guarantee you'll kill him and there's also the danger of the round continuing on and hitting others. So do tell, apart from giving you a false sense of security and making you feel big, what possible reason do you have for carrying a gun for self-defense?

As to target shooting, there's more skill involved in playing darts that shooting a pistol on a 15m or 20m range. Hell t least archery has some real skill involved in it.

Sorry Rob, but the point of having a gun is to use it to defend yourself and others. Your situation is a no go with a gun, but what if you are witnessing this situation. I wouldn't try to quickdraw my way out of a situation when someone is already pointing a gun at me. But if I was in the room and someone pointed a gun at someone else, then I just might shoot the bastard.

As far a robbery? No, that is a crime that I wouldn't kill someone over. But if I had a gun and some shit head was going to kill someone else, well....boooom. Guns are not a end all, they are a tool and therefore need to be used correctly like all tools. Just because some misuse it doesn't mean it can be used correctly.

And were you trained for years in th use of your weapon? Do you have the training to properly assess a dangerous situation? Do you know how to react calmly and correctly in a high stress situation? Can you say the same for every tom, dick and harry carrying a pistol on your streets? Remember the person he might hit by accident could be you -or me on a business trip.

You want to carry a gun in heavily populated places, you should be required to undergo training and attend regular brush-up courses (the failure of which see's your gun licence yanked until you pass again).

[Keevan_Colton]

And the uses for swords, spears, and polearms besides horribly maiming and killing people are...?

He's not advocating carrying them around for self-defense for one thing, and for another they will probably be replica's and as such dulled.

I never brought up self-defense precisely because I didn't want to get drawn down that side-argument (I only brought up collecting and hobby-shooting in my response to him), though now that you mention it I have a hard time seeing what good having an unalienable right to life is if you don't have a right to defend said life.

And from Keevan's previous posts on the subject, I'd gathered that they were not dulled replicas. Perhaps I was wrong about that. At any rate, even if they are dulled, they're still potentially lethal (if he's using them to duel, they're not just cheap knockoffs that'll break as soon as you hit somebody with them).

Wooden weapons that were mentioned before are very different in the way they handle than metal ones....actually dulled blades are better for blade on blade contact than sharp weapons, sharp weapons are better for blade on opponent contact. For sparring dulled weapons are the prefrence, the blades take less damage than sharp ones....and just because a blade is dulled doesnt mean its low quality....the first thing to avoid looking for a sword is a shiny blade, stainless steel is not the best material and the chromium content of the shiny blades mean they are likely to break.....

I dont advocate carrying them around, though if you notice above I seperated handguns (which most mentioned) and hunting rifles/shotguns....one is justifiable for hunting the other exists purely for shooting people.....

[Keevan_Colton]

And what are you going to do with your gun exactly? He has his out nd pointing at you, go on try and use yours and see how much it helps you. Or what about if you see him with a gun commiting a robbery and you shoot at him, first there's no guarentee you'll hit him, second if you do there's fuck all guarantee you'll kill him and there's also the danger of the round continuing on and hitting others. So do tell, apart from giving you a false sense of security and making you feel big, what possible reason do you have for carrying a gun for self-defense?

As to target shooting, there's more skill involved in playing darts that shooting a pistol on a 15m or 20m range. Hell t least archery has some real skill involved in it.

Sorry Rob, but the point of having a gun is to use it to defend yourself and others. Your situation is a no go with a gun, but what if you are witnessing this situation. I wouldn't try to quickdraw my way out of a situation when someone is already pointing a gun at me. But if I was in the room and someone pointed a gun at someone else, then I just might shoot the bastard.

As far a robbery? No, that is a crime that I wouldn't kill someone over. But if I had a gun and some shit head was going to kill someone else, well....boooom. Guns are not a end all, they are a tool and therefore need to be used correctly like all tools. Just because some misuse it doesn't mean it can be used correctly.

And were you trained for years in th use of your weapon? Do you have the training to properly assess a dangerous situation? Do you know how to react calmly and correctly in a high stress situation? Can you say the same for every tom, dick and harry carrying a pistol on your streets? Remember the person he might hit by accident could be you -or me on a business trip.

You want to carry a gun in heavily populated places, you should be required to undergo training and attend regular brush-up courses (the failure of which see's your gun licence yanked until you pass again).

Thats a big difference too....an idiot with a sword is most likely going to get himself killed....an idiot with a gun is most likely to get someone nearby killed....

[Rob Wilson]

And the uses for swords, spears, and polearms besides horribly maiming and killing people are...?

He's not advocating carrying them around for self-defense for one thing, and for another they will probably be replica's and as such dulled.

I never brought up self-defense precisely because I didn't want to get drawn down that side-argument (I only brought up collecting and hobby-shooting in my response to him), though now that you mention it I have a hard time seeing what good having an unalienable right to life is if you don't have a right to defend said life.

He was answering a post advocating them for self-defence, I thought the context was evident.

Yes you have the right to life, and self-defence. You don't have the right to take someone elses life or endanger others not involved in your self-defence action. As I pointed out, a pistol is not going to help you when your opponent also has one, and the right to self-defence does not mean handguns anymore than it means Chainguns or Flamethrowers.

And from Keevan's previous posts on the subject, I'd gathered that they were not dulled replicas. Perhaps I was wrong about that. At any rate, even if they are dulled, they're still potentially lethal (if he's using them to duel, they're not just cheap knockoffs that'll break as soon as you hit somebody with them).

Really, where in his reply has he shown he uses them in real combat with anything other than a dulled/blunted replica? As to the lethality, when you dul, you wear protective clothing.

[Knife]

Rob wrote:

And were you trained for years in th use of your weapon? Do you have the training to properly assess a dangerous situation? Do you know how to react calmly and correctly in a high stress situation? Can you say the same for every tom, dick and harry carrying a pistol on your streets? Remember the person he might hit by accident could be you -or me on a business trip.

So what does it come down too, you rather some poor shithead gets killed because a jackoff wants the ten bucks in his wallet or the hundred bucks in the cashregister or someone takes the chance of possible hitting a uninteded target and kills the assailent. Its a trade off, but I'd rather the criminal gets a round than me or the poor shit who is being threatened.

You want to carry a gun in heavily populated places, you should be required to undergo training and attend regular brush-up courses (the failure of which see's your gun licence yanked until you pass again).

Actualy I agree with you, and so does the States who have concealed weapons permits (atleast Utah does and I am pretty sure the other ones do to). This permit issue is really quite a hot topic in my state and the lefties want to reverse the law. The problem is that they don't have one instance in which a concealed weapons permit holder has fucked up and shot someone. There are a couple who didn't qualify for the permit, and some who were drinking and driving and got their permit yanked, but no permit holder has violated the permit by being "John Rambow".

[Rob Wilson]

So what does it come down too, you rather some poor shithead gets killed because a jackoff wants the ten bucks in his wallet or the hundred bucks in the cashregister or someone takes the chance of possible hitting a uninteded target and kills the assailent. Its a trade off, but I'd rather the criminal gets a round than me or the poor shit who is being threatened.

No, however if he's robbing the guy nd gets the cash, why does he shoot him? And if you're witnessing the robbery how do you know he'll kill him? However, you interfere and suddenly there could be a whole lot more dead people. I can 95% guarentee that with a headshot from a rear angl i could kill the guy without him reflexively shooting the guy his robbing when he dies, how many others do you know could guarentee even that high a figure. Joe Public shoots and the clerk gets killed by the shot perp jerking the trigger in reflex after being shot. That helped, didn't it!

And if you wait until he's no longer pointing the gun at the victim, then it's no longer assisting the self-defence of another, it's Manslaughter at best.

You want to carry a gun in heavily populated places, you should be required to undergo training and attend regular brush-up courses (the failure of which see's your gun licence yanked until you pass again).

Actualy I agree with you, and so does the States who have concealed weapons permits (atleast Utah does and I am pretty sure the other ones do to). This permit issue is really quite a hot topic in my state and the lefties want to reverse the law. The problem is that they don't have one instance in which a concealed weapons permit holder has fucked up and shot someone. There are a couple who didn't qualify for the permit, and some who were drinking and driving and got their permit yanked, but no permit holder has violated the permit by being "John Rambow".[/quote]

As long as they know what they're doing and keep passing the tests and training, then fine. I have no problem with trained people having a weapon, as long as they know it's limitations and how to handle a situation.

[RedImperator]

He's not advocating carrying them around for self-defense for one thing, and for another they will probably be replica's and as such dulled.

I never brought up self-defense precisely because I didn't want to get drawn down that side-argument (I only brought up collecting and hobby-shooting in my response to him), though now that you mention it I have a hard time seeing what good having an unalienable right to life is if you don't have a right to defend said life.

And from Keevan's previous posts on the subject, I'd gathered that they were not dulled replicas. Perhaps I was wrong about that. At any rate, even if they are dulled, they're still potentially lethal (if he's using them to duel, they're not just cheap knockoffs that'll break as soon as you hit somebody with them).

Wooden weapons that were mentioned before are very different in the way they handle than metal ones....actually dulled blades are better for blade on blade contact than sharp weapons, sharp weapons are better for blade on opponent contact. For sparring dulled weapons are the prefrence, the blades take less damage than sharp ones....and just because a blade is dulled doesnt mean its low quality....the first thing to avoid looking for a sword is a shiny blade, stainless steel is not the best material and the chromium content of the shiny blades mean they are likely to break.....

I dont advocate carrying them around, though if you notice above I seperated handguns (which most mentioned) and hunting rifles/shotguns....one is justifiable for hunting the other exists purely for shooting people.....

Can your weapons be sharpened? I know some blades are too dull to ever be given a killing blade, but these are the same cheap, shiny pieces of junk that you say will break in a sparring match.

My point in all of this is that you have made a hobby out of collecting lethal weapons. They have only two legal uses: hanging on the wall and looking pretty and simulating non-lethally what they were designed to do originally in a sparring match. They were invented to kill people. Likewise, my family has a few pistols which are owned entirely for the purpose of collecting (hanging on the wall and looking pretty) and target shooting (simulating what they were designed to do non-lethally). Setting self-defense aside for the moment, there's not much difference between a weapon-quality sword, axe, or polearm and a pistol. Yes, the pistol is more lethal, but that's a matter of degrees, not any fundamental difference in the philosophies behind the weapons.

[Nathan F]

And what are you going to do with your gun exactly? He has his out nd pointing at you, go on try and use yours and see how much it helps you. Or what about if you see him with a gun commiting a robbery and you shoot at him, first there's no guarentee you'll hit him, second if you do there's fuck all guarantee you'll kill him and there's also the danger of the round continuing on and hitting others. So do tell, apart from giving you a false sense of security and making you feel big, what possible reason do you have for carrying a gun for self-defense?

As to target shooting, there's more skill involved in playing darts that shooting a pistol on a 15m or 20m range. Hell t least archery has some real skill involved in it.

Well, let's see. If you are in your house one night and you hear glass breaking and a door being forced open. You either a)have your .45ACP sitting next to your bed with fragmenting bullets that dissipate energy inside the target, you go out to investigate and see an intruder digging through your wifes jewelry cabinet in your den, so, you pull out your pistol, order the intruder to the ground and your wife calls the police OR b) you have no firearm, so you go out to investigate, you yell 'get out of my house!' so the criminal pulls his gun on you and ends up holding you and your family hostage or worse.

Now, tell me, what would be the better situation to be in? I sure know which one i would want, and it isn't B.

Oh, and about saying that 'shooting requires little skill'. Tell me, have you ever attempted to shoot a small 3" disc flying away from you or across in front of you and blinding speeds? It requires MUCH skill and practice. Just asmuch as your dart throwing. Just ask anyone who has ever done any target shooting and played darts, both of which I have done.

Owning a gun is a huge responsiblity. You must know what you are doing and have training in the usage of the firearm, which can be obtained through most any city police agency. In the State of Tennessee, to obtain a handgun permit, you must take a training course and pass a written exam. You must also go through background checks. Now, go tell the woman who is being stalked by her ex or the old store clerk who has no other way to defend himself that they can't have a gun to defend themselves.

[Sr.mal]

I own and shoot many firearms and i know that the self defense argument is shit. However, if someone does break into my house they firs deal with my dog; the MEANEST Siberiean Husky you will ever meet.

[Knife]

Rob wrote:

No, however if he's robbing the guy nd gets the cash, why does he shoot him? And if you're witnessing the robbery how do you know he'll kill him? However, you interfere and suddenly there could be a whole lot more dead people. I can 95% guarentee that with a headshot from a rear angl i could kill the guy without him reflexively shooting the guy his robbing when he dies, how many others do you know could guarentee even that high a figure. Joe Public shoots and the clerk gets killed by the shot perp jerking the trigger in reflex after being shot. That helped, didn't it!

And if you wait until he's no longer pointing the gun at the victim, then it's no longer assisting the self-defence of another, it's Manslaughter at best

Your situations tend to favor your argument. A guy with a concealed weapon would have the training that you want. Maybe not to the degree as you have but training nonetheless.

Any robbery with a gun pointed at a victim and the gun holder has a reasonable assumption that the robber intends to shoot the victim, has the responsibility to defend the victim. If the victim gets shot and you had the ability to prevent it, you don't need to have that gun at all and you are a moraly bankedrupt individual. If the robber (in this situation) holsters his gun, then you are right, he doesn't need to be killed. But if his gun justs strays off target for a second, then he is a deadman.

You are right in that no one wants a idiot with a gun to spray the area to try to kill some jackoff with a gun. But most people with concealed weapons permits are responsible people who have payed the money, put the time in training, and have gone through the background checks to get their permits. These are not the people we need to worry about.

[Keevan_Colton]

I never brought up self-defense precisely because I didn't want to get drawn down that side-argument (I only brought up collecting and hobby-shooting in my response to him), though now that you mention it I have a hard time seeing what good having an unalienable right to life is if you don't have a right to defend said life.

And from Keevan's previous posts on the subject, I'd gathered that they were not dulled replicas. Perhaps I was wrong about that. At any rate, even if they are dulled, they're still potentially lethal (if he's using them to duel, they're not just cheap knockoffs that'll break as soon as you hit somebody with them).

Wooden weapons that were mentioned before are very different in the way they handle than metal ones....actually dulled blades are better for blade on blade contact than sharp weapons, sharp weapons are better for blade on opponent contact. For sparring dulled weapons are the prefrence, the blades take less damage than sharp ones....and just because a blade is dulled doesnt mean its low quality....the first thing to avoid looking for a sword is a shiny blade, stainless steel is not the best material and the chromium content of the shiny blades mean they are likely to break.....

I dont advocate carrying them around, though if you notice above I seperated handguns (which most mentioned) and hunting rifles/shotguns....one is justifiable for hunting the other exists purely for shooting people.....

Can your weapons be sharpened? I know some blades are too dull to ever be given a killing blade, but these are the same cheap, shiny pieces of junk that you say will break in a sparring match.

My point in all of this is that you have made a hobby out of collecting lethal weapons. They have only two legal uses: hanging on the wall and looking pretty and simulating non-lethally what they were designed to do originally in a sparring match. They were invented to kill people. Likewise, my family has a few pistols which are owned entirely for the purpose of collecting (hanging on the wall and looking pretty) and target shooting (simulating what they were designed to do non-lethally). Setting self-defense aside for the moment, there's not much difference between a weapon-quality sword, axe, or polearm and a pistol. Yes, the pistol is more lethal, but that's a matter of degrees, not any fundamental difference in the philosophies behind the weapons.

Blades made from decent materials can hold an edge quite reasonably.

As for the simulating in a non-lethal manner what thry were designed to do, there is a world of difference there.....while the competent use of a gone does require concentration and co-ordination, the use of bladed weapons to spar is a mental activity as much as it is a physical one. Think of it as more akin to chess with aerobic qualities....

For hanging looking pretty you only need a replica, as for...shooting on a range.....I see a point to that only for those in the military......or at a stretch those who hunt.....

As for the lethality....a sword is only trully lethal in well trained hands.....without skill you are more likely to injure yourself than another.....

Guns are far more "point and click" technology (the difference between a long bow, which takes skill to use with even a tiny amount of success.....and a crossbow....which you can get reasonable results just by pointing...)

[RedImperator]

He's not advocating carrying them around for self-defense for one thing, and for another they will probably be replica's and as such dulled.

I never brought up self-defense precisely because I didn't want to get drawn down that side-argument (I only brought up collecting and hobby-shooting in my response to him), though now that you mention it I have a hard time seeing what good having an unalienable right to life is if you don't have a right to defend said life.

He was answering a post advocating them for self-defence, I thought the context was evident.

Ah, didn't read that. I should have made my position clearer.

Yes you have the right to life, and self-defence. You don't have the right to take someone elses life or endanger others not involved in your self-defence action. As I pointed out, a pistol is not going to help you when your opponent also has one, and the right to self-defence does not mean handguns anymore than it means Chainguns or Flamethrowers.

If I'm not permitted to use lethal force to counter the threat of lethal force, then for all intents and purposes I don't have a right to defend myself. In regards to the usefulness of pistols in self-defense, yes, it's true that if I wake up with the perp's weapon pointed at my ear, then a pistol will be quite useless, as will any other weapon. It's an entirely different story if I'm woken up by the sound of the back door being kicked in. Likewise, on the street, if I'm surprised and I find a mugger's gun pointed at my face, it doesn't matter if I'm carrying a pistol, a can of mace, or a phaser. But if some fucknut decides he's going to shoot up the Buger King in which I'm enjoying my double cheeseburger, then carrying a weapon could prove useful.

And from Keevan's previous posts on the subject, I'd gathered that they were not dulled replicas. Perhaps I was wrong about that. At any rate, even if they are dulled, they're still potentially lethal (if he's using them to duel, they're not just cheap knockoffs that'll break as soon as you hit somebody with them).

Really, where in his reply has he shown he uses them in real combat with anything other than a dulled/blunted replica? As to the lethality, when you dul, you wear protective clothing.

I was thinking back to a post in another thread where I believe he mentioned he nearly got badly hurt in a duel. I think it was the "How did you almost earn your Darwin" thread. I probably misread the thread. And I meant a dulled weapon could still be lethal used against an innocent third party, not the duelist, especially some of the heavier bladed weapons (axes and the like).

EDIT: Fixed a "quote" tag