|
Since this is duplicate OP that the mods felt it shouldn't be in General I am remaking it as a blog
But I am generally curious on TLer's opinions of this
I got this idea from reading the gun threads. To be honest I am not a fan of guns since they don't require THAT much training to use properly, But I do like the idea of somehow arming yourself against the "just incase." Of course a license may be required but I like the idea of citizens being able to own and carry swords. why is this?
1.It looks totally boss
2.It provides some self-defense.
3.It take some form skills to actually kill someone with it unlike gunfights.
4.It's pretty much un-concealable.
So now you have something for self defense to carry on you that looks totally boss, If you are about to commit a crime it actually requires you to have some remote skill with the weapon. And it's not like you can hide it.
That would be awesome.
In most places it is legal to own swords but illegal to carry them.
I mean certain places shouldn't allow them and have sword lockers at the entrance (such as government offices and such)
I also think if both parties agree and are willing to sign the insurance paper works, Court Sanctioned duels with strict rules should be a legal option to settle disputes between sword owning gentlemen.
On crime rates. If everyone owns a sword you would think twice before attempting robbery or something unlike guns where your skills with swords come into play a lot more than point the barrel and pull the trigger.
Also unlike marksmanship Swordsmanship can be a recreation like fencing to better people's physical abilities.
Of course insurance paperworks and a license might be required but I think it would be a good idea to let people carry swords around as a part of personal self-defense.
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a horrible idea, because you did not specify the type of sword able to carried. A light rapier? Or a heavy 2-handed claymore? Obviously there are differences, just like there are differences between a pistol and an automatic machine gun, and you cannot lump all the varieties of swords together like that. 
Kidding of course. Really nice piece of satire. I like it.
|
On February 23 2012 09:02 Bagration wrote:This is a horrible idea, because you did not specify the type of sword able to carried. A light rapier? Or a heavy 2-handed claymore? Obviously there are differences, just like there are differences between a pistol and an automatic machine gun, and you cannot lump all the varieties of swords together like that. Kidding of course. Really nice piece of satire. I like it.
well how about we settle for 1 handed swords that do not exceed a certain length or weight.
|
On February 23 2012 08:54 Blasterion wrote:
But I am generally curious on TLer's opinions of this
Absolutely not.
1) Generally, and historically, swords have just one purpose - killing or hurting other humans.
Explosives, Bows, guns, knives, axes, hammers, bats, whatever, they have other purposes and uses as well. Swords? That's for killing.
No reason why they should be carried around except by those that do so as part of the nations armed forces (including, yes, military).
2) Swords aren't an equalizer between people. They are a way for those that already can inflict the most damage, to be able to inflict more damage. Young fit men in particular. Now look at crime statistics ... which group is most likely to be involved in violent crime? Guns on the other hand allows most people, even older or infirm, to face down intruders. It's an equalizer. Swords are not.
So basically ... mostly young fit men (and those that are real experts with the weapons) would be able to defend themselves with swords, and ... they would then be able to inflict more damage on each other
3) If carried it's a recipe for disaster whenever you come across someone with a gun - whether it's a police officer or a criminal, because it is a deadly weapon the other person will be threatened by. And he have a deadlier weapon.
So ... uhm ...
It's a really stupid idea with no positive effects?
Also - it doesn't work as an analogy because of point 2).
|
United States1252 Posts
|
A katana would be nice for the zombie apocalypse. Or dual wielding wakizashi perhaps?
|
You can take my sword when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
|
One does not simply own a sword but rather a lifestyle of ownage...
|
As an avid sword collector I am all for this blasty.
I have a strong feeling muggings would go down.
Also if you just look like some bad ass out of anime you're virtually safe anywhere people have access to televisions and Adult Swim.
|
Should people be allowed to make "should" threads anymore? >=(
lol but no seriously...
i really dont think people should be carrying around swords.. just because accidents can happen. whether a person is dangerous or not;
the only reason why some people are legally allowed to carry guns in the states is because it's in their constitution or something?
|
Of course they should be allowed to do so. I have a sword at home but unfortunately, here, we are only allowed to carry them when they are completely wrapped in something(bandages for example) and you are unable to draw them in an instant. So sad.
|
+ Show Spoiler [Not relevant but bothers me] +Fixing the ordering: On February 23 2012 08:58 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
You have my sword. On February 23 2012 09:01 Primadog wrote:
And you have my bow. On February 23 2012 08:59 Trotske wrote:
And my Axe. I'd like to shame Trotske as publically as I possibly can for that.
Here's the thing. The whole point in allowing guns is that anyone can use it as a rather absolute defence.
If we up the requirements for weapon skill, it doesn't really accomplish the same thing.
|
On February 23 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:54 Blasterion wrote:
But I am generally curious on TLer's opinions of this 2) Guns on the other hand allows most people, even older or infirm, to face down intruders. It's an equalizer. Swords are not.
I'll believe swords aren't a equalizer for older people the day I can best my almost 50 mother in a bout.
but I think it might be pretty cool. It's not a ranged weapon so you actually have to be up close. Also swords are not brute force weapons but technique weapons so brute strength advantage of young people aren't that great.
|
On February 23 2012 09:13 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:On February 23 2012 08:54 Blasterion wrote:
But I am generally curious on TLer's opinions of this 2) Guns on the other hand allows most people, even older or infirm, to face down intruders. It's an equalizer. Swords are not. I'll believe swords aren't a equalizer for older people the day I can best my almost 50 mother in a bout.
He's obviously never heard of Mr. Miyagi
|
Should they? Absolutely
Will it ever happen? Absolutely not
|
Faeblades (KoA:R) on my back sounds fucking sick.
|
as someone who threatened countless kids with a saber in the past i approve
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
