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).
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.
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 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.
People in Shakespeare plays have swords, but then again in some Shakespeare plays everyone dies by the end.
So what I take from this is that we should also legalize transparent poisons. The great equalizer! Typically a crime committed with guns rewards the person the drew first/surprised the other, so it makes sense in terms of awful precedents. Actually, any kind of violent crime usually favours the assailant. Unless it is an honourable duel, of course!
On February 23 2012 09:38 Chef wrote: People in Shakespeare plays have swords, but then again in some Shakespeare plays everyone dies by the end.
So what I take from this is that we should also legalize transparent poisons. The great equalizer! Typically a crime committed with guns rewards the person the drew first/surprised the other, so it makes sense in terms of awful precedents. Actually, any kind of violent crime usually favours the assailant. Unless it is an honourable duel, of course!
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).
I like this, actually. Lets form our own interest group, NSFA. (National Sword Fighters of America) then call the president a socialist pig when we aren't allowed to carry them around in public. I'll start on some slogans.
Defending yourself with a sword is the same as defending yourself with a firearm. Why wouldn't you want the most effective method of defending yourself? If you use it improperly, the consequences are the exact same for shooting someone as stabbing them. Life in prison no questions asked. It is also larger, heavier, and just as difficult to use properly as a firearm. This is a dumb idea as it overlaps with more effective ways to defend yourself and offers absolutely zero benefit.
I own a jian and I carried it on Halloween once when I was a teenager. Spooked some kids but that's about it. Not gonna speak to normative legality of carrying them.
On February 23 2012 10:15 Mr. Nefarious wrote: Defending yourself with a sword is the same as defending yourself with a firearm. Why wouldn't you want the most effective method of defending yourself? If you use it improperly, the consequences are the exact same for shooting someone as stabbing them. Life in prison no questions asked. It is also larger, heavier, and just as difficult to use properly as a firearm. This is a dumb idea as it overlaps with more effective ways to defend yourself and offers absolutely zero benefit.
Let's assume guns are banned. And the best legal defense you can carry is a sword.
On February 23 2012 10:22 Blasterion wrote: Let's assume guns are banned. And the best legal defense you can carry is a sword.
Then I'd use my vehicle. A 4,000 pound object traveling at 40mph is way more effective than even a firearm or sword. For some reason people don't realize that a vehicle being used improperly is way more effective than anything you could carry. We've already determined that the consequences are the same for firearm vs sword, the effectiveness is less, the benefit is zero... why not just campaign to own firearms? As someone who was personally been the victim of random violence, I can assure you that the police are not an acceptable means to protect yourself. Police do a lot of investigating, not a lot of saving. It took about ten minutes for the police to arrive when my life was in danger and that entire time I was running for my life, hiding and praying I wasn't going to be found or killed. For about ten minutes, my life and future depended on pure luck. Never again. I can completely empathize with the idea that you want to protect yourself and not leave your safety in another's hands (only a fool would), however trying to find a realistic alternative to firearms is pointless. Martial Arts fall short when your attacker is significantly larger than you and also has training or in a situation with multiple assailants, swords were replaced in the mid 1800's due to their ineffectiveness at dealing with more than a single attacker and the high difficulty of attaining a level of competence with one. A vehicle is an excellent means, however obviously is not always available. What's needed is something a reasonable and sane person could carry on them at all times and could provide them with the means to save their own life in the most extreme of emergencies. Oh wait, free countries already have that. Maybe it's time to move if you treasure your personal safety. If you'd rather not move, campaign and open people's eyes to the thought that violence can be random. It can be thoughtless and it can be deadly. Imagine if you REALLY had lost your mind and wanted to hurt someone. Look down the street. No police? Nothing to stop you. Not for about 10 minutes at least, which last time I checked, is long enough to hurt or kill someone with even a pencil. Unless that person has taken their personal safety into their own hands with a firearm and proper training, you would most likely succeed in maiming or even killing them. This is reality. Insane and dangerous people do exist and yes, it really can happen to you for no reason at all. I learned the hard way and now take my safety seriously by carrying.
On February 23 2012 10:22 Blasterion wrote: Let's assume guns are banned. And the best legal defense you can carry is a sword.
Blasty, I dunno about you, but I've been taught since I could understand words that the smartest thing you can do when someone has a weapon is to run, whether or not you yourself have a weapon.
Beaten into me by my dad (martial artist) and my kendo sensei, who says only dumb people try to fight others in the street with a shinai or something if they have an avenue of escape open to them. Also, every fencing coach I've ever had too.
On February 23 2012 10:22 Blasterion wrote: Let's assume guns are banned. And the best legal defense you can carry is a sword.
Blasty, I dunno about you, but I've been taught since I could understand words that the smartest thing you can do when someone has a weapon is to run, whether or not you yourself have a weapon.
Beaten into me by my dad (martial artist) and my kendo sensei, who says only dumb people try to fight others in the street with a shinai or something if they have an avenue of escape open to them. Also, every fencing coach I've ever had too.
This is only slightly related, but I figured i would share. At home, in pittsburgh, theres this like little park, right next to a very major road, that every sunday afternoon theres like 20 people all dressed up in suits of armor and shit sword fighting each other. Its not like a rennaisance fair or anything like that, these dudes I guess just like to dress up in medeival outfits and just practice sword fighting.
On February 23 2012 10:22 Blasterion wrote: Let's assume guns are banned. And the best legal defense you can carry is a sword.
Then I'd use my vehicle. A 4,000 pound object traveling at 40mph is way more effective than even a firearm or sword. For some reason people don't realize that a vehicle being used improperly is way more effective than anything you could carry..We've already determined that the consequences are the same for firearm vs sword, the effectiveness is less, the benefit is zero... why not just campaign to own firearms?
vehicles are an invalid alternative because they are not pragmatic. if you were attacked by someone there is no way they would let you reach a car, even if you were right next to your vehicle it wouldn't work -- the time you take to get in and start the car is way more than what it takes to slash your tires.
also you miss the point, the original idea here is that in a hypothetical/alternate reality guns are completely banned + destroyed and the best anyone can have is a sword. the main (positive) issue that i think the op is trying to address would be that you can't escape from someone with a gun but you can from someone threatening you with a sword -- and in extension that anyone is able to point and shoot someone (although proper handling of a firearm is a technique in itself), it is a lot easier for someone with no experience to actually hurt/kill with a standard pistol than it is if he were to try with a sword
i don't know how to respond to the rest of your post since its kinda just 10 lines of text about an unfortunate event that happened to you in the past(to which i can sympathize, i was mugged at gunpoint a few years back) and how the police suck(which they do)
Those first three posts were hilarious! Was that orchestrated? As for the swords, well, I prefer knives, but there's always a place in my heart for a rather large katana.
Personally i wished we used dueling pistols form like the 18th century, you get 1 shot and those things are inaccurate as hell. Disputes to settle? Slap them with the white glove (comes in the mail when you turn 18) and FIGHT.
On February 23 2012 11:35 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Those first three posts were hilarious! Was that orchestrated? As for the swords, well, I prefer knives, but there's always a place in my heart for a rather large katana.
On February 23 2012 11:46 Disregard wrote: Obviously gun blade.
Gunblades are fire arms so no go there.
Technically they're not. At least not the ones in FF8. :O
The "gun" part doesn't fire bullets, it just sends a shockwave through the blade when you strike so as to cause maximum damage and to make the enemy (hypothetically) explode into a bunch of red flesh. Either that or give them a severely fatal wound.
On February 23 2012 11:46 Disregard wrote: Obviously gun blade.
Gunblades are fire arms so no go there.
Technically they're not. At least not the ones in FF8. :O
The "gun" part doesn't fire bullets, it just sends a shockwave through the blade when you strike so as to cause maximum damage and to make the enemy (hypothetically) explode into a bunch of red flesh. Either that or give them a severely fatal wound.
I was under the impression that most gunblades were a gun with a HUGE bayonet in the form of a sword
On February 23 2012 11:46 Disregard wrote: Obviously gun blade.
Gunblades are fire arms so no go there.
Technically they're not. At least not the ones in FF8. :O
The "gun" part doesn't fire bullets, it just sends a shockwave through the blade when you strike so as to cause maximum damage and to make the enemy (hypothetically) explode into a bunch of red flesh. Either that or give them a severely fatal wound.
I was under the impression that most gunblades were a gun with a HUGE bayonet in the form of a sword
I think the ones that were modified in the later FFs (like the FF7 spin-offs and such) are more like the ones you're thinking of, but FF8 (where the gunblade first showed up) is more of a sword with a gun component than the other way around.
In Final Fantasy VIII, all forms of gunblade consist of a sword blade with a gun action built into the hilt, the barrel running inside the length of the blade. They are mostly used like normal swords, but triggering a round sends a shock wave through the blade as the weapon passes through an opponent to increase damage.
On February 23 2012 11:46 Disregard wrote: Obviously gun blade.
Gunblades are fire arms so no go there.
Technically they're not. At least not the ones in FF8. :O
The "gun" part doesn't fire bullets, it just sends a shockwave through the blade when you strike so as to cause maximum damage and to make the enemy (hypothetically) explode into a bunch of red flesh. Either that or give them a severely fatal wound.
I was under the impression that most gunblades were a gun with a HUGE bayonet in the form of a sword
I think the ones that were modified in the later FFs (like the FF7 spin-offs and such) are more like the ones you're thinking of, but FF8 (where the gunblade first showed up) is more of a sword with a gun component than the other way around.
In Final Fantasy VIII, all forms of gunblade consist of a sword blade with a gun action built into the hilt, the barrel running inside the length of the blade. They are mostly used like normal swords, but triggering a round sends a shock wave through the blade as the weapon passes through an opponent to increase damage.
oh so it's like a Belka Cartridge System from Nanoha.
Depends on state laws, in NY as long as you're sword is sheathed its fine. On the contrary, in Texas(Im pretty sure) its illegal to carry any weapon in public. Gun laws are extremely strict here in NYC, you cant own BB or airsoft guns. So it pretty much reflects on the severity of carrying anything in public that can obviously apply deadly force.
On February 23 2012 12:27 SkyBlaze wrote: I would want a sword to carry around, that would be boss. If a Demon came out of know where i would be ready to fight and or kill it.
All jokes a side, the idea quite interesting but that would not happen =D
A robber comes in the store drawing a sword. (since gun laws are strict in this scenario only to see the shop keeper and every customer in the store draws their sword.... awkward... the robber runs.
On February 23 2012 11:46 Disregard wrote: Obviously gun blade.
Gunblades are fire arms so no go there.
Technically they're not. At least not the ones in FF8. :O
The "gun" part doesn't fire bullets, it just sends a shockwave through the blade when you strike so as to cause maximum damage and to make the enemy (hypothetically) explode into a bunch of red flesh. Either that or give them a severely fatal wound.
I was under the impression that most gunblades were a gun with a HUGE bayonet in the form of a sword
I think the ones that were modified in the later FFs (like the FF7 spin-offs and such) are more like the ones you're thinking of, but FF8 (where the gunblade first showed up) is more of a sword with a gun component than the other way around.
In Final Fantasy VIII, all forms of gunblade consist of a sword blade with a gun action built into the hilt, the barrel running inside the length of the blade. They are mostly used like normal swords, but triggering a round sends a shock wave through the blade as the weapon passes through an opponent to increase damage.
yeah but Cartridge System > gunblade. The difference is the cartridge system amplifies the overall "magic" (we know Nanoha magic is really just high-tech mecha) for a period of time. A gunblade relies on the force created by the moment of the trigger to increase damage. I suppose you could say gunblades are like the prototype to the Cartridge System.
I think we should bring back the topic to allowing people to carry swords on person. @ airports they should have a sword locker for people when they board the plane =P. Now what should the age requirement be for a sword license?
On February 23 2012 14:04 Blasterion wrote: I think we should bring back the topic to allowing people to carry swords on person. @ airports they should have a sword locker for people when they board the plane =P. Now what should the age requirement be for a sword license?
Well, judging by my knowledge of RPGs, which seem to set the precedent for this sort of society...
On February 23 2012 14:04 Blasterion wrote: I think we should bring back the topic to allowing people to carry swords on person. @ airports they should have a sword locker for people when they board the plane =P. Now what should the age requirement be for a sword license?
Well, judging by my knowledge of RPGs, which seem to set the precedent for this sort of society...
About 8.
sounds about right, but does that mean they get to carry swords to school? Or rather what would be required to obtain a sword license? Other than paying for the required sword insurance
On February 23 2012 14:04 Blasterion wrote: I think we should bring back the topic to allowing people to carry swords on person. @ airports they should have a sword locker for people when they board the plane =P. Now what should the age requirement be for a sword license?
Well, judging by my knowledge of RPGs, which seem to set the precedent for this sort of society...
About 8.
sounds about right, but does that mean they get to carry swords to school? Or rather what would be required to obtain a sword license? Other than paying for the required sword insurance
Well, swords would be taken upon entering the school, but handed back out (including during recess) when the students left the school.
The requirement for the sword license would be to pass the SCE (Swordsman Competency Examination), which would test on basic skills and techniques.
On February 23 2012 08:54 Blasterion wrote: But I am generally curious on TLer's opinions of this
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.
What other purpose does guns have other than killing more so than a sword? Hunting? That's killing. What about explosives? The only other purpose for explosives is high level construction such as mining operations, what's the use for your average guy for explosives other than killing?
I had a sword umbrella but I got black-out drunk at a club and lost it TT so SAAAAAAAD! I think New York Laws are much more concerned with concealed weapons. It's illegal to carry a concealed blade longer than 6-inches I believe. Also, opening having a weapon is pretty safe imo. It's a deterrent for crime, and any law enforcement knows exactly what they are dealing with. Carrying concealed handguns or switch blades is far more dangerous imo. I'd rather deal with you knowing you have a sword, than not knowing if you have a gun or knife under your jacket.
On February 23 2012 08:54 Blasterion wrote: 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." 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.
On February 23 2012 08:54 Blasterion wrote: 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." 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.
spoken like a true armchair warrior
Well you can't run away from guns, but you can probably run away from a sword wielding person. most people can point a barrel and shoot (even though proper use is an art of itself). Guns are also concealable where as swords are not.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xDffu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thepiratetradingco.com/SH2004.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.likecool.com/Gear/Other/Samurai%20sword%20umbrella/Samurai-sword-umbrella.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.likecool.com/Gear/Other/Samurai%20sword%20umbrella/Samurai-sword-umbrella_1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XQXEl.jpg)
