Weapon legality

[Despairbear]

Greetings,

Here is my question to the group, do you belive that people should be legaly able to carry a non-firearm melee weapon of their choise? Any melee weapon? Only knives? Swords? Clubs? Wiffle ball bats?





Despair Bear

 

[Rubber Ducky]

Yes. Owning, carrying, and using weapons is, IMHO, a fundamental human right that should never be breached.

If we assume that we have the right to defend ourselves against unwanted physical assault, then by extension we MUST have the right to own and use weapons - including firearms. Otherwise the right to defend ourselves becomes a theoretical right only when faced with an otherwise overwhelming assailant.

A government that bans weapons shows the ultimate in distrust of its own citizens.

Weapon's control legislation is inevitably a huge load of horsesh!t; just look at the list of locally banned weapons in your area. Heck, in Texas it's legal and reasonably easy to get a CCW for your firearm but you can't carry a baseball bat without a ball and glove. Ridiculous.

Pierre

 

[Cthulhu]

I believe people should be allowed to carry personal weapons, after completing a safety course, showing competency, and gaining a required permit.

To me, it should be regulated similar to driver's licenses. Basically, a person completes a weapons safety course, and perhaps a course covering state and federal weapons laws. After this, they are tested on the material. If the person passes this test, and a required background check, then they are allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

Many people wouldn't like a system like this, but I say it's in the best interests for everybody. If a licensed person is involved in some incident where a firearm is involved (accidental shooting, accidental shooting involving a child, crime), then they cannot plead ignorance because by having the license, it is understood that they were aware of the dangers and laws regarding firearms. Furthermore, penalties involving weapons-related crimes should be made more stiff to further reflect this.

I am not against firearms in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I enjoy shooting, though I no longer own a firearm of my own. However, something that dangerous should be regulated. Not banned, just regulated, to help ensure everybody's safety. It's not a cure-all for keeping firearms out of criminal hands, or the hands of those who are just too stupid, but it would certainly help.

There are too many firearm-related accidents that could be avoided by common sense and/or proper safety training. Recently, a rookie police officer was killed when he took his service belt off at his home. His toddler child took the gun out of the holster and accidentally shot his father, killing him. This kind of thing should never happen. The officer should have known better.

Cthulhu
gonna stop now, because I could probably go on forever

 

[fist of fury]

I agree I think we should be able to carry weapons around as a form of self defense, with a prerequsite course. Especially gun safety. Just becuase a weapon is illegal doesn't mean a criminal won't use it, and with the way society is today we need to use what we can to defend ourselves.

 

[Rubber Ducky]

I used to agree with you, but I've seen what the government does when they "regulate" - basically you're then at the whim of the local yay-hoos at that point.

So in some jurisdictions, where the Powers-That-Be are Hoplo-Friendly it's relatively easy to jump the hoops and get your shiny certificate. In others, it's next to impossible because the PTB are Hoplo-Hostile. Or your ugly, or you drive the wrong car, or your cousin used to beat them up in grade school, etc.

Pierre

 

[fist of fury]

Well I wasn't really thinking of of required govermental course, but your right the goverment would step in to regulate it eventually.

 

[Cthulhu]

Regardless of how local goveernments may handle licensing, licensing and regulation is preferrable over outright bans, no?

Granted, the banning of many traditional martial arts weapons by various states is largely based on ignorance, but the same can't really said of firearms. It requires no training to kill someone with a firearm. In fact, people with no training are the reason for accidental shooting deaths.

The only way to stop this is to force education to eliminate ignorance and complacency with firearms. To this day, I never put my finger in the trigger guard of any firearm, water gun, paintball marker, even toy guns, unless it is trained on my target. I credit this to good training, and a wee bit amount of common sense. How many shooting accidents could be prevented if Glock owners followed that simple guideline?

Education of safety and the law is, to me, of the utmost importance when it comes to firearms. One of the best ways to get this across to would be firearm owners is to mandate it and enforce licensing. It may not be the perfect solution, but like I said at the beginning of this post, it's better than outright bans.

Which would you rather have: a law requiring safety and legal training to get a firearm license, or a situation similar to Australia, where nearly all firearms were rounded up and destroyed?

Cthulhu

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Personally, I wish swords were allowed. I've worn 1 at several events for various organizations, and always feel naked afterwards without it.

I agree there should be some level of competancy and safety associated with it though. Possibly 1 of those 18 yrs old, must pass a couple of tests (similar to pistol ownership requirements and driving licenceing).

Of course, I also agree...government + rules = mess.

:asian:

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Personally, I wish swords were allowed. I've worn 1 at several events for various organizations, and always feel naked afterwards without it.

I agree there should be some level of competancy and safety associated with it though. Possibly 1 of those 18 yrs old, must pass a couple of tests (similar to pistol ownership requirements and driving licenceing).

Of course, I also agree...government + rules = mess.

:asian:

That would be cool. Walkng down the street to see a good sword duel going on. Watching some 70 year old grandma kicken some muggers *** with her sword cane.

 

[Cthulhu]

The thing is, walking down the street with a sword, or some other type of 'ancient' weapon, is just asking for trouble. Sooner or later, somebody or a group of somebodies is going to start picking on you for carrying a sword, nunchaku, bo, etc. around.

Furthermore, it would be very difficult to regulate and license that. Under whose guidelines would you grant somebody a licence of proficiency? Shinkage ryu? Katori Shinto? The Iaido or Kendo organizations?

For martial arts weapons, I think the bans should be lifted all over the U.S. The bans were pretty much placed into effect during the karate and kung fu 'boom' times during the 60's and 70's and that was primarly due to idiotic people and ignorant government. As long as you're buying it for MA training, and carrying it to MA training, there should be no problem with a non-projectile MA weapon.

I don't think there's any law in Florida banning someone from carrying a katana unconcealed...but you're going to get mighty strange looks from people, and nearly every LEO who sees you is going to strongly advise that you put it away.

Besides, it's just silly.

Cthulhu

 

[Yari]

I can't discuss the situation in The States, but I believe that carrying wepons isn't a good idea. There would be to many people who don't understand the consequence of the wepon. They would resolved to using the wepon they are carrying. Regerstering people is like "Big Brother" is watching, and still there's to many people who'll use there wepon when not needed.

And I believe that if you let the major population carry wepons, the level of injuries/deaths will highten. The other part of it is, where does it end. If I need a wepon to defend myself, it has to have an effect, so it has to be bigger/faster/longer, at least more scarier than the other guys wepon. When everybody thinks like that, we'll end up looking like Rambo, ready for war. What about the police? What kind of wepons should they carry considering that the major population has a gun (i.e. magnum 45?).

I think it is better to hold back on wepons, and even though I don't like "Big Brother" mentallity, I think registering your swords/knifes and so on, is a good idea.

/Yari

 

[Cthulhu]

I think it is better to hold back on wepons, and even though I don't like "Big Brother" mentallity, I think registering your swords/knifes and so on, is a good idea.

/Yari [/B]

I think I may need to clarify my personal position on the matter: I believe people should have the right to bear arms, subject to federal and state licensing, which would require safety course certification to obtain. However, I definitely do not think anyone should carry a weapon, merely because they can.

There are a couple of ways to sort of discourage this. One is to make the cost of the courses and the license fairly high, so not just any shmuck who can scrape together enough quarters is going to get a license. Another, which may be less palatable to some, is to provide a reason for wanting to carry a firearm (e.g., live/work in a bad neighborhood, security work, etc.).

I feel it necessary to stress that I also advocate much stiffer penalties for the abuse and negligence of firearm use.

Cthulhu

 

[Rubber Ducky]

I have to disagree with you.

Carrying weapons is a fundamental right, as I said above. It is related to, and indeed the same right as, the right to self defense. The right to defend yourself is utterly meaningless unless you have the means to do so, and for most of us that means weapons. There's just not enough of us able to turn our bodies into living weapons to think otherwise.

This right should not be restricted by artificially expensive courses. In fact, if courses are mandated by the government then they should be costed out on an ability-to-pay basis - that is if you can pay the full cost you do, and if you can't then you're subsidized. But that's the Canadian in me talking.

We live with our neighbours and we trust them to help us choose our government. So in my mind it's a bit silly to worry about them going nuts with their Rambo-blade-o-death or Shoot-em-up-o-matic. The solution to violators is fairly simple:
1) make it a defense to prosecution to stop someone from making an *** of themselves with a weapon;
2) prosecute harshly those who do make an *** of themselves with a weapon.

We have existing laws to punish those that violate the rights they have to carry and use personal weaponry. We shouldn't use the mechanism of the state to supress that right by way of bans or bans through regulation - which it seems you are proposing Cthulu. Please forgive me (and maybe explain it a bit better for me) if I'm wrong; I don't want to deliberately mis-represent your position.

Personally I don't see any problems with carrying weapons simply because you can. After all, you never know when you'll need one. I live in a good neighbourhood yet a man was stabbed to death blocks from my house because he *declined* to "step outside" with some other man. Sh!t happens, and I'd rather be prepared.

Banning weapons, any way you decide to do it, arms criminals and disarms "just folk"; and that, IMNSHO, is a
bad thing.

Pierre

 

[tshadowchaser]

I can not agree with a high cost pricetag
on a licence to carry a weapon. This only helps create more of a cast system with the richer being able to carry and flont their weapons. This causes bad feelings and only leads to trouble.
Again who will set up the requirement tests: TKD, FMA, local "big names",politictions, or some abstract committe of so called experts and well social "do gooders"?
I will agree that the more people carrying weapons on the street the more incidentces of problems will arise. But I still belive the basic right to carry.
Shadow

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by tshadowchaser
I can not agree with a high cost pricetag
on a licence to carry a weapon. This only helps create more of a cast system with the richer being able to carry

Ageed . That just isn't fair. It does amount to a caste system of sorts.

I will agree that the more people carrying weapons on the street the more incidentces of problems will arise. But I still belive the basic right to carry.

I agree on both parts--it would cause more problems but people should have the right to bear arms, within limits. It's got no easy resolution.

 

[GouRonin]

It would certainly cut down on the bullcr@p that flies. People would think twice about what they say and do if we were all armed.

Weapons originally were used to feed ourselves. They're good things.

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by GouRonin
It would certainly cut down on the bullcr@p that flies. People would think twice about what they say and do if we were all armed.

Weapons originally were used to feed ourselves. They're good things.

Well there's is definately alot of B.S out there.

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by GouRonin
It would certainly cut down on the bullcr@p that flies. People would think twice about what they say and do if we were all armed.

Weapons originally were used to feed ourselves. They're good things.

I agree, that there's to much simple minded talk. To them I say read your history, and you'll see how things were when everbody had weapons and could use them.

Weapons are not good or bad. It's the person behind using the weapon. That's why it really wont help if you uppen the price of carrying a weapon.

One of the big problems with todays weapons, and I'm thinking mostly about guns, is that they have really extrem consequences, for a simple act even a monkey can do. Not letting people carry guns, I believe that would "save" lives.

 

[KumaSan]

Originally posted by GouRonin
It would certainly cut down on the bullcr@p that flies. People would think twice about what they say and do if we were all armed.

Weapons originally were used to feed ourselves. They're good things.

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes (I can't remember who it's from): "An armed society is a polite society."

 

[superdave]

I have to agree with the way that the state of Vermont confronts the issue of concealed carry.
You don't need a license in Vermont to carry a handgun upon your person, and they have one of the lowest homicide rates in the US. When the bad guys know that they may become ventilated if they attack someone, then they will think twice about their chice of occupation.

Having to obtain a license for a firearm is against the 2nd amendment. You don't need permission in order to execute a fundamental right. I say the hell with it, you have the right to defend yourself by what ever means neccesary.
I would rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

If the police would do their jobs and lock up the thugs then maybe we might be safer than we are today. Banning a tool won't solve the problem.:soapbox: