Police seize klingon weaponry in raid

[His Divine Shadow]

Just because you have a gun for self defence doesn't mean it'll always be a good idea to draw or that it'll work in all situations, nor does it mean the opposite i.e. that there won't be any times where drawing a gun would work? There's also the third desperate option of having no choice and trying or dying, which I grant is likely much rarer occurance.

[Dark Hellion]

Just a point of curiosity, to see where everyone is coming from. How many of the participants of this thread had a large exposure to guns/weapons growing up? Personally, for the first 18 years of my life, I was never without a gun within 30 seconds reach. So, how much exposure do others in this debate have?

[Darth Wong]

Just a point of curiosity, to see where everyone is coming from. How many of the participants of this thread had a large exposure to guns/weapons growing up? Personally, for the first 18 years of my life, I was never without a gun within 30 seconds reach. So, how much exposure do others in this debate have?

What difference does that make to any of the points being raised here?

[Glocksman]

My parents were divorced when I was 7, so while my custodial parent (Mother) had no weapons in the house and was in fact anti gun, my Father owned both a .22 rifle and a 12 gauge shotgun and taught me how to shoot during the time we spent together.

[His Divine Shadow]

Just a point of curiosity, to see where everyone is coming from. How many of the participants of this thread had a large exposure to guns/weapons growing up? Personally, for the first 18 years of my life, I was never without a gun within 30 seconds reach. So, how much exposure do others in this debate have?

I agree with DW but anyway to answer your question. I've handled firearms of the .22LR since I was maybe 7, i.e. I was allowed to practice shoot with my dads weapon under his supervision. Since then I've had maybe 5-6 air guns between 10-15, then I bought my one and only firearm. A CZ-452 .22LR rifle.

I also had my assault rifle during my time in the army ofcourse, it was an RK-76 (7.62x39mm AK clone). I've also fired heavier machineguns as part of my training.

[Dark Hellion]

Umm... I stated that in the opening line Mr. Wong. It is a point of curiosity on the background of the major posters in the thread. It may show some correlations between positions, or it may show nothing, I just have really wanted to know for the past couple of similar threads, so I thought I would ask.

[Coyote]

I'm sick of the "just fucking with you" style of excuse when someone says something that's fucking stupid. Either post intelligently or don't post at all.

If the entire post was offensive, why quote only the obviously sarcastic part? From that it looks like you took the first thing I said and fucking ran with it. The point of the rest of my post was that the discussion of guns or knives is a symptom, not the actual problem. Discussing the legality of knives is an excersize in minutae.

...your entire post contains the same logic: your idiotic notion that people who advocate arms control are treating anyone who wants to carry a weapon as if he has criminal intent.

In regards to a statement such as this:

How is saying I can’t carry bladed weapons a ‘a significant infringement of my rights’? What is so important about that particular right? Particularly when granting it will cause the deaths of people? ~~emphasis added

What is the cause and effect being advocated here? You want to talk armchair psychologist bullshit, this kind of thinking is more of that "the mere prescence of a weapon = violent intent where none may have existed previously". It's obfuscation. You and I and everyone else can rest assured that the thought expressed here is not unique to Plekhanov's point of view.

Perhaps if you write something that's fucking stupid, you should blame yourself rather than blaming others, shithead. Do you really think you can rattle my cage by playing this armchair psychologist bullshit on me?

I'm not trying to rattle anyone's cage in particular. That sarcastic comment I led with was not directed at you, Plek, or anyone else. It was just tossed out there and you were the one that jumped on it like a Rottweiler on a wounded kitten. Sorry if you took things so goddamn personally, but you went off like a hair-trigger. Even if I did post something stupid-- and I think the lead sentence was the only thing that was, but that's my fucking opinion-- I'm not the one that got my panties so easily bunched. Slam a few tequilas and calm down.

Why don't you explain what your real position is, since you now seem to be adopting the tactic of claiming that your previous post had nothing to do with your actual opinion?

I thought it was clear enough, but apparantly not. My position, then, more clarified for the sarcasm-impaired:What is going on with the knife control debate has nothing so much to do with knife control in and of itself, nor gun control in the UK that preceeded this. Getting bogged down in the specifics of gun/knife/club etc is to get distracted from the over-arching problem of who in a society trusts (or doesn't trust) people with weapons.

It also has to do with the role of weapons in society; as I mentioned in my post and as others have also picked up, this is more than just some mugger in an alley. Some feel that weapons have a place in civilian hands as a means to deter government tyranny and they feel that it is a valid and realistic point of view; other think that is farcical thinking at best.

A few years ago, especially after the Dunblane school shooting, there was a great deal of (what I think) of fallacious thinking in the UK that guns in and of themselves were the problem and if they were rounded up things would be fine. Turns out not to be the case. Now we're seeing similar mindsets regarding knives.

Now, this is a repeating pattern that has demonstratedly failed to address the underlying problem of social violence. Now, it seems that even at a cursory glance that if knife band are followed through, society will still face problems with violence. More things can and will be banned based on this emotive response. Pepper spray will be banned; clubs, etc. It's all bullshit, and the problem of social violence and who is responsible for dealing with it and how citizens can or should protect themselves is being addressed in a half-assed manner, if at all.

Banning a gun or knife is like arguing that since a bank robber's getaway car was red, then banning red cars will eliminate robberies.

[weemadando]

OK, having been in this kind of situation MULTIPLE TIMES...

4 guys with knives have me trapped against a chainlink fence in the middle of a large nature reserve/sports fields area with NO FUCKER around to even see what's going on (and I'm only 13/14 at the time). What do I do? Nothing, I just fucking stand there and try not to shit my pants, stalling/talking until eventually some other people came into sight and the fuckers scarpered leaving me unhurt and my possessions with me. Despite the fact I was had a hockey stick on the ground next to me (was waiting for a lift home from training and my mother was running WAAAY too late) it was an easy decision not to even reach for it. Because, as the fucking bible tells us - violence begets violence, and 4 bogans with knives can beget a lot of fucking violence. The police were helpful, they recognised my very detailed descriptions of the 4 (I wasn't just standing there doing nothing) and apparently, they were all later arrested and charged with that, amongst other crimes. So, I'm safe, the dickheads are in gaol and there was no need at all for any of this "but it was in self defense" bullshit.

Several times I've been drawn into bar/streetfights where people have had weapons (makeshift or otherwise) and every time, all you do is the fucking minimum required to get the fuck out. In any of these situations having a gun would have achieved fucking nothing. Having a knife of my own would have achieved nothing. All it would have done is led to me probably being charged with at the very least - reckless endangerment or attempted murder.

However, in every case, anytime someone else had a weapon, under the law it meant that they got a much harsher treatment from the police and magistrates. Even if they were just carrying it. That's the advantage of a law such as the one being discussed. I'm not for a wholesale ban of knives (its a retarded concept to attempt), but I do enjoy the fact that simply carrying a weapon such as a knife can get a person into ALL SORTS of trouble if they don't have a very good reason for it.

[Jadeite]

I don't think anyone's addressed the fact that criminals and gang members are still not going to give a shit about weapons restrictions.

[Broomstick]

In similarly messed up ways, I beleive swords up to the claymore are legal, providing your not concealing them.

How the hell do you conceal a Claymore? Up a Clydesdale's ass?

My God - the blade of an authentic Claymore is longer than I am tall!

(There's a story about how I found that out - let me just say that while my husband's legs aren't too good at one point in his younger years he had the upper body strength to swing a Claymore one-handed.)

[Stark]

I don't think anyone's addressed the fact that criminals and gang members are still not going to give a shit about weapons restrictions.

Yeah, and the fact that anyone who IS armed will be picked up on sight has nothing to do with it, right? Or that these restrictions significantly increase the penalties for the commision of a crime using restricted weapons?

But hey, I forgot that you're the uber knife lord, and you'll outfight muggers at the drop of a hat, regardless of the situation!

[General Brock]

I don't think anyone's addressed the fact that criminals and gang members are still not going to give a shit about weapons restrictions.

No, but the laws restrict availability and use of those weapons. At the height of the recent biker wars in Quebec, they weren't hosing each other with berettas and Mac 10s. The 'war' wasn't like a bad night in Washington, D.C.; well, except for the car bombs.

The point of most of the pro-control threads was that law abiding citizens have no advantage, for the most part, in carrying a weapons-grade knife, and that regulating their use helps prevent law abiding citizens from misusing knives in anger, drunkeness, idleness, or ego.

Firearms, at least can be regulated through training and licensing. Perhaps a carrying 'permit of arms' might help solve this problem. I believe Sikhs are allowed to carry their ceremonial daggers, but there are cultural and legal restrictions that commit them to using them responsibly.

[Broomstick]

So if I carry a knife or even a gun what good will that do me? The mugger will likely have their weapon drawn making any attempt of mine to fight foolish, my best bet is to run failing that give em my wallet and then run, I’m not gonna risk my life just for £20 and a few cards.

My husband is physically unable to run. What is he supposed to do? Hand over his wallet, then get beaten unconcious?

Oh, wait - that's right, last time someone pulled a knife on him he shot the guy with a crossbow. I suppose crossbows are illegal in Britain, too, though?

I've actually been in a couple of knife fights. Most people don't know how to handle one as a weapon. In both cases I disarmed my attacker and beat the living shit out of them with bare hands, despite being a cute little girl-thing. I'd prefer to live the whole rest of my life never needing to do that again, but a knife isn't the same as a gun. Knife defense is nowhere near as impossible as trying to catch bullets mid-air. Yes, best to run away when you can, always best to avoid trouble, but if you can't run it's not necessarially hopeless.

Yeah, you're right, it's utterly ridiculous to think that anybody could ever cause any real trouble or threaten anybody with a knife.

Gee, Wong, think you could possibly find a more provacative image to throw into this thread?

As I mentioned, I have been threatened by someone with a knife. Perhaps it is significant that I stopped carrying weaponry around some considerable time before that and disarmed my attacker in both cases without having or needing a weapon on me at the time.

That said, I do often carry a small blade with me. I use it for a variety of things, such as peeling apples, opening letters, cutting yarn or thread on my craft projects, and so forth. It actually conforms to the legal limit for blades in Chicago. When I go to O'Hare or Midway or other commercial airport I make sure I do not take it with me - and I did that even before 9/11.

Knives are tools as well as weapons. I do not object to banning them when there is a valid reason to do so, but I DO have objections to just categorically stating "no, knives are too dangerous for adults to ever carry". Particuarly since I live with someone disabled who is UNABLE to run as a defense, I also see a role for them as frank weapons. Perhaps only the disabled should be licensed to carry weapons, as their defense options otherwise are more limited than for us able-bodied folks. Maybe everyone should be compelled to learn unarmed combat and defense techniques. I am willing to discuss the merits and liabilities of all these positions, but I will not yield my right to defend myself. I would prefer that I never have to physically defend myself ever again, but if it's me or the other guy I'll do my damnedest to make sure it ain't me. Again, I'd prefer not to use lethal force, and so far I have not had to do so, but if I thought it was lethal force or death I would use lethal force.

If you do not live in such an environment, and have never done so, then more power to you. Unfortunately, I have not been so fortunate. I have moved repeatedly in my life to get out of such situations, I really do prefer to avoid trouble, yes, even to run away --- but that has not always been an option for me.

If you are blessed enough to live somewhere you do not have to fear violence to you and yours, where you can truly depend on the authorities to get there in time to save your ass - again, more power to you. For me, that has not been reality, which no doubt colors my view of the world.

Unlike many, even if legal to carry a knife that is solely a weapon I would not do so - I do not feel a need to go around armed, even in the violent US. I have never owned a gun. The knife I do carry is unsuited to be a weapon. However, not everyone is as able to defend themselves as I am, nor am I as able to do so as I was when I was 20 years younger. I do find it annoying, inconvenient, and limiting to be denied one of mankind's oldest tools - a sharp blade - because some other people can't behave themselves.

[Jadeite]

I don't think anyone's addressed the fact that criminals and gang members are still not going to give a shit about weapons restrictions.

Yeah, and the fact that anyone who IS armed will be picked up on sight has nothing to do with it, right? Or that these restrictions significantly increase the penalties for the commision of a crime using restricted weapons?

Oh yeah, because anyone carrying a knife obviously has a bright green neon sign and megaphone that shouts:

"I HAVE A FUCKING KNIFE, ARREST MY ASS!"

http://www.ytindustrial.com/products/im ... 001-10.jpg

Apparently you're enough of a retard to think such a thing can't be concealed in something like say...a pocket? Or shall you ban those next?

Goddamn pockets, always being used to smuggle illegal weapons and drugs....

Also, if you're getting searched by a police officer and he happens to find an illegal weapon on you, chances are that you just did something illegal enough that the weapon itself doesn't matter.

But hey, I forgot that you're the uber knife lord, and you'll outfight muggers at the drop of a hat, regardless of the situation!

Fuck you assjack. I don't even own a knife, nor know how to use one. I just don't like the law restricting personal privileges and freedoms on potential activities that criminals will do anyway.

Go sodomize yourself with a chainsaw. Oh wait, that's assuming your nanny-state still lets you have one.

[Stark]

Fuck, you're stupid. You even say 'lolz if they find a weapon on you, you must have already committed a crime'! Do you sniff paint?

But hey, outlawing weed doesn't work either! They MIGHT PUT IT IN A POCKET! So why bother? RIGHT? Oh yeah, it's so that people pulled in with weapons/drugs get busted. Nobody ever gets busted for possesion of anything, right? Since it's hidden, and they can just drop it? RIGHT, JADEITE?

I'm not going to bother to point out that you didn't address my post - it's more fun making fun of you.

[Jadeite]

I don't think anyone's addressed the fact that criminals and gang members are still not going to give a shit about weapons restrictions.

No, but the laws restrict availability and use of those weapons. At the height of the recent biker wars in Quebec, they weren't hosing each other with berettas and Mac 10s. The 'war' wasn't like a bad night in Washington, D.C.; well, except for the car bombs.

Use and availability of those weapons. This just means that the biker gangs didn't have access to them before the restrictions. If they did, do you think they'd have honestly given them up? And even besides that, there's still the proof in your post itself of that if their access to one sort of weapon is restricted, they'll just use another.

The point of most of the pro-control threads was that law abiding citizens have no advantage, for the most part, in carrying a weapons-grade knife, and that regulating their use helps prevent law abiding citizens from misusing knives in anger, drunkeness, idleness, or ego.

Oh, I'll readily concede people do stupid things when not thinking clearly, but that doesn't mean that a privilege or right should be taken away from everyone else just because it gets abused by a few.

Hell, look at cars. They're arguably worse to society than knives. Accidents claim thousands of lives every year, they produce pollution, funnel money into the hands of corrupt corporations, and are often used in crimes themselves (ramming or getaway vehicles). But yet you don't see people advocating for their banning do you? (at least, not any sane people)

Of course, one might argue that cars are a large part of society while weapons are not, but people could get along just fine without them. Expanded and free public transport for example.

Or what about fast food? It cuts the lifespans of a lot of people due to health risks, raises insurance costs because of the problems associated with it, and other assorted problems.

Don't even get me started on alchohol.

But yet knives (I'll ignore guns for the purpose of this argument, last thing we need is to open another debate front) should be restricted, because people might get mad and stab someone else. Nevermind that in a bar for example, a person looking to do serious injurty to another has a choice of things to use. A pool stick as a blunt spear (using the pointy end) or club (using the thick end), a pool ball (bash their face in ala Boondock Saints), or a beer bottle used as a club or broken and used to stab them in the face or gut.

Hell, looking around the room I'm in right now, I can bring up an entire list of things I could use in a fight.

I could attempt to strangle someone with some headphone cords, hit them with a webcam, break a glass and stab them, toss a laptop at them, stab them with a pen or pencil, stab them with a letter opener, beat them with either of two lamps, or any of three seperate speakers, or even a folding table that weighs about 15 lbs.

The point is, anyone intent to harm another will find a way to do it if they put their mind to it, and the problem itself is them not whatever they use to inflict that harm.

Firearms, at least can be regulated through training and licensing. Perhaps a carrying 'permit of arms' might help solve this problem. I believe Sikhs are allowed to carry their ceremonial daggers, but there are cultural and legal restrictions that commit them to using them responsibly.

As long as its not too hard to get one by citizens who prove themselves responsible and mature, it's not a bad idea, but actually restricting the ownership of something just because its abused by a number of people is just ridiculous.

[Jadeite]

Fuck, you're stupid. You even say 'lolz if they find a weapon on you, you must have already committed a crime'! Do you sniff paint?

But hey, outlawing weed doesn't work either! They MIGHT PUT IT IN A POCKET! So why bother? RIGHT? Oh yeah, it's so that people pulled in with weapons/drugs get busted. Nobody ever gets busted for possesion of anything, right? Since it's hidden, and they can just drop it? RIGHT, JADEITE?

Are you drunk or high?

Because you're that much of a retard at the moment.

YOU were the retard who claimed that anyone carrying an illegal weapon would be automatically picked up by the police. I merely pointed out that if the police have a reason to pick them up, chances are that the weapon is the least of their problems (providing they aren't just a retard that became belligerent at a traffic stop...although, considering you become belligerent at the drop of a hat in response to a single post, perhaps you're just that type of retard)

I'm not going to bother to point out that you didn't address my post - it's more fun making fun of you.

In other words you're flagrantly admitting you won't bother to debate. Concession accepted motherfucker.

[Glocksman]

I do not feel a need to go around armed, even in the violent US. I have never owned a gun.

As you're probably aware, here in our state the only requirements to get a concealed carry permit are that you pay $25, be over 18 and otherwise allowed under Federal law to own a handgun.
In other words, it's not bureaucratic bullshit or idiotic laws that prevent you from doing so if you wanted to (in Indiana at least, Illinois is another story).

As far as being disabled goes, the guy that owned the gunshop I bought some of my guns from is confined to a wheelchair and has enough armament stashed in it to fight a small war.
However to my knowledge he's only had to draw a gun once when someone tried to carjack his van in a McDonald's parking lot.
According to the newspaper article I read, the would-be carjacker ran away when confronted with a drawn Glock 17 and the incident ended without a shot being fired.

[Stark]

Jadeite, I'm trying to get my head around you crying 'lolz omg nanny state' and on the other hand supporting weapons licencing.

PS, my nanny state is massively safer than the US, so I don't feel the loss of my ability to fight the evil government or get stabbed trying to draw my gun. I don't even lock my door.

[Darth Wong]

If the entire post was offensive, why quote only the obviously sarcastic part?

It's not a matter of it being "offensive"; it's a matter of it being a ridiculous strawman. Why should I have to quote the whole post when the strawman in question is repeated several times? Just to make you happy?

In regards to a statement such as this:

How is saying I can’t carry bladed weapons a ‘a significant infringement of my rights’? What is so important about that particular right? Particularly when granting it will cause the deaths of people? ~~emphasis added

What is the cause and effect being advocated here?

The cause and effect seems to be "Plekhanov says that weapons tend to result in escalation of violence, Coyote interprets that as weapons making people turn to crime." Those are two different concepts, moron.

You want to talk armchair psychologist bullshit, this kind of thinking is more of that "the mere prescence of a weapon = violent intent where none may have existed previously". It's obfuscation. You and I and everyone else can rest assured that the thought expressed here is not unique to Plekhanov's point of view.

You do not need violent intent at the beginning of the evening in order for an altercation later in that evening to escalate much more severely due to the presence of a weapon, fool. I've made this point very clearly, and you are obviously ignoring it. Nor do you need violent intent in order to panic and shoot somebody in some misguided attempt at self-defense or vigilante justice. Glocksman once admitted that he actually started pulling his gun out of his holster and was about to shoot a couple of punks playing paintball with each other on the street once because he thought they were packing authentic heat, remember?

I'm not trying to rattle anyone's cage in particular. That sarcastic comment I led with was not directed at you, Plek, or anyone else. It was just tossed out there and you were the one that jumped on it like a Rottweiler on a wounded kitten. Sorry if you took things so goddamn personally, but you went off like a hair-trigger.

What's this "hair-trigger" horseshit? You made a strawman distortion (and don't give me that "sarcastic" bullshit; you're defending it when challenged so it's obviously not sarcastic and you're a fucking liar).

Even if I did post something stupid-- and I think the lead sentence was the only thing that was, but that's my fucking opinion-- I'm not the one that got my panties so easily bunched. Slam a few tequilas and calm down.

How the fuck is the lead sentence any different than the rest of the post, liar? You consistently argue that anyone who thinks that weapons will tend to lead to more violence must be assuming that anybody with a gun in his hand will suddenly want to become a criminal, when no one but you ever claimed that this was the mechanism.

I thought it was clear enough, but apparantly not. My position, then, more clarified for the sarcasm-impaired:What is going on with the knife control debate has nothing so much to do with knife control in and of itself, nor gun control in the UK that preceeded this. Getting bogged down in the specifics of gun/knife/club etc is to get distracted from the over-arching problem of who in a society trusts (or doesn't trust) people with weapons.

And how does that justify the strawman that you claim you made in "sarcasm" but which you mysteriously defended anyway when it was challenged?

It also has to do with the role of weapons in society; as I mentioned in my post and as others have also picked up, this is more than just some mugger in an alley. Some feel that weapons have a place in civilian hands as a means to deter government tyranny and they feel that it is a valid and realistic point of view; other think that is farcical thinking at best.

Well, we all know how private Iraqi gun ownership kept Iraq a safe and secure society during Saddam's reign and continued to do so now

A few years ago, especially after the Dunblane school shooting, there was a great deal of (what I think) of fallacious thinking in the UK that guns in and of themselves were the problem and if they were rounded up things would be fine. Turns out not to be the case. Now we're seeing similar mindsets regarding knives.

You obviously can't eradicate violent crime by taking away the weapons. Care to explain why this means that the idea of gun control must be wrong? Tell me, do harsh prison sentences for murderers make murder go away? No? Well, I guess that means that by your logic, we should eliminate them, since you seem to think the only conceivable justification for a law pertaining to violent crime is that it successfully eliminate violent crime.

Now, this is a repeating pattern that has demonstratedly failed to address the underlying problem of social violence.

The same could be said of prison sentences. So what?

[Jadeite]

Jadeite, I'm trying to get my head around you crying 'lolz omg nanny state' and on the other hand supporting weapons licencing.

PS, my nanny state is massively safer than the US, so I don't feel the loss of my ability to fight the evil government or get stabbed trying to draw my gun. I don't even lock my door.

I live in Indiana just like Glocksman, IIRC, the only thing firearm I need a license for is a handgun. The admission that a weapons license might be a good idea was a simple compromise. In my own state, I wouldn't support such an idea simply because it'd inconvenience me.

Also, do you live in a safe neighborhood or a bad neighborhood? Forgive me if I'm skeptical that there aren't areas of Australia in which you'd rather not set foot in, let alone live, just like the US.

I live in one of the suburb towns of Indianapolis, the only reason I lock doors is because I'm slightly obsessive-compulsive about it, not because I fear criminals.

But nevertheless, I don't want my rights restricted just because some other people abuse the same rights, because the point still stands, they won't give up access to weapons they already have just because they're now illegal, and if they somehow do lose access, they'll just switch to something else to use.

[Broomstick]

My husband is physically unable to run. What is he supposed to do? Hand over his wallet, then get beaten unconcious?

Erm, your kind over reaching here, 99.9999% of the time all they want is your money. People get hurt when they RESIST.

Can you back up that statistic with a cite?

You know - I'd rather hand over $20 than take on someone in a knife fight. On the other hand, I've been in two knife fights - sometimes, the Bad Guy isn't interested in money. There's rape, for instance.

Then there are just plain psycho people, like the guy who tried to rob my husband at Howard and Paulina in Chicago - he sliced at hubby first, then asked for money. Probably wanted hubby to know he was SERIOUS.

So was the husband - he pulled out a reed knife, slashed the guy up pretty bad, then started beating him up with the car door and, when the guy ran, pursued him with the car.

Hmm.. guess I'm not the only bad-ass in the family...

Anyhow - while I agree that handing over money is preferable to a knife fight, I disagree that that is always an option available to a crime victim.

What the fuck? Where on earth do you live - 16th century France or something?

No sir, I live in Indiana. I've only visited France. (and strictly 20th Century France at that.)

Your husband pulled a crossbow on someone who pulled a knife on him?!

Yes. Someone was fucking with our pickup truck. The husband went to inquire as to what was up. (Actually, it was more like "HEY MOTHERFUCKER! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING TO MY TRUCK?!). The guy then went from using the knife to attempt to jimmy the lock on the truck to using it to threaten my husband. The blade by the way, was about two feet long. About 60 cm for you metric folks. Really, it qualified as a short sword, but being a long, flat blade not only worked as a weapon but as a slim jim. Under the circumstances, shooting him with a crossbow seemed quite sensible.

A crossbow because, as Edi point out just after your post, we do not own a gun of any sort. I bought the crossbow for amusement and target practice, and really it's more of a "crosspistol", but the bolts can still split a 2x4 at a good distance, or plant a bright red arrow in someone's ass when it seems expediant.

If this is true, remind me never to cross you guys...

Probably not a good idea, true.

You have nothing to fear from me physically if you do not threaten me physically. I am quite happy to keep sparring to merely the verbal I do not start that sort of fight. I do not carry weapons. However, I know how to improvise. I know how to fight. Most importantly, when it comes to defense of my physical self I am completely, totally, and absolutely ruthless.

As you're probably aware, here in our state the only requirements to get a concealed carry permit are that you pay $25, be over 18 and otherwise allowed under Federal law to own a handgun. In other words, it's not bureaucratic bullshit or idiotic laws that prevent you from doing so if you wanted to (in Indiana at least, Illinois is another story).

Yes, I know. I just don't feel a need to own a gun. As I mentioned, I don't feel a need to carry any weapon, and I haven't done so for at least 30 years. I like having the option to own a gun, but have not exercised the option at this time.

[Darth Wong]

Gee, Wong, think you could possibly find a more provacative image to throw into this thread?

It doesn't matter how "provocative" it is; it only matters that you presented an unverifiable personal anecdote as proof that knife-armed assailants aren't that dangerous, and I simply decided to post a rather well-known incident where they were.

As I mentioned, I have been threatened by someone with a knife. Perhaps it is significant that I stopped carrying weaponry around some considerable time before that and disarmed my attacker in both cases without having or needing a weapon on me at the time.

Well goody for you. Would you like a medal? How does this change anything?

That said, I do often carry a small blade with me. I use it for a variety of things, such as peeling apples, opening letters, cutting yarn or thread on my craft projects, and so forth. It actually conforms to the legal limit for blades in Chicago. When I go to O'Hare or Midway or other commercial airport I make sure I do not take it with me - and I did that even before 9/11.

Knives are tools as well as weapons. I do not object to banning them when there is a valid reason to do so, but I DO have objections to just categorically stating "no, knives are too dangerous for adults to ever carry".

I've never stated that; in fact, I stated earlier in this thread that I don't think a knife ban will accomplish much of anything. But that doesn't mean I have to tolerate the bullshit rebuttals, strawman distortions, and grandstanding that I'm seeing from the opposing side in this thread.

[General Brock]

That said, Mike's pic of the WTC attacks raises the question of when it's better to resist and when it's better to go along with the attacker.

Noted defensive tactics instructors such as Massad Ayoob have written in the past that you should have a wad of small bills as 'throwdown money' if you find yourself in a high crime area even if you're legally armed in order to avoid having to shoot someone.
...

It's all subject to your own 'read' of the situation of course, but when I worked at a '7-11' type store and legally carried a gun despite company rules to the contrary, I wouldn't have shot a robber if all he did was demand money and leave after getting it.

Instead the gun was there to give me one final option in case the situation deteriorated to me being forced into the back room and then being killed.
I might have died resisting, but better that than to die without resisting.

Well, being forced to leave the location to one more advantageous to the criminal is escalation, therefore should be avoided or resisted. Basic self defense is like basic first aid; it buys time but can't resolve every extreme situation. Even without a weapon, though, the line in the sand is pretty clear; complete submission is unacceptable. Self-defence classes teach techniqes for physical resistance as well as verbal for that very reason.

Of all else fails, a gun in the hands of a trained and licenced user is obviously a much better option than a knife, but if the criminal also has a gun, and the victim does not have one immediatly in hand, it will probably be a valiant last stand but a much better way of going than what the criminal has in mind. Might even save someone else from being troubled by the criminal.

Part of Britian's knife problem may be the lack of firearms in the hands of responsible owners, as some statistics indicate where responsible gun ownership is endorsed, the level of violent crime goes down. Responsible knife regulation can compliment responsible gun ownership.

As for the 911 scenario, if the passengers were allowed to have guns, that would also mean the hijackers have guns, so there might not be a great deal of difference in the final outcome. The 911 was unique in the history of jetliner hijackings by terrorists and could not have been anticipated by the passengers, even the ones who did resist.

[Rogue 9]

So they're going to arrest every non-cripple out on the streets? The human body itself is quite a lethal weapon when you get down to it.

A knife is a tool. Not a weapon. A tool. It can be used for violent purposes, but so can hammers (as I well know), screwdrivers, bats, sticks, and paint cans. It is quite easy to kill someone with your bare hands in the right situation. This ban serves no purpose at all.

Oh, and why hand in the bat'leth? I assume the guy wasn't planning on carrying it around, so what's the point?