Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by rocky on August 7, 2009 at 1:26

rants perfectly fine, actually it's acceptable and approved here so long as it's pro-freedom.lol




I can understand what you mean about throwing stars, but I look at it like this, what if you're one of those types of people that doesn't feel comfortable carrying a gun? but still want a distance weapon?
if that were the case then throwing stars would be ideal, as it's pretty much impossible to kill anyone with one.

And you are right in that law-abiding citizens should have as many options open to them as possible. As far as protecting themselves and their property and their loved ones.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zach Grissom on August 8, 2009 at 16:48

You know what, say me and this guy get into it on the street (for this discussion lets say I bumped him and he spilled his coffee all over his clothes), he gets violent, but I know that my physical abilities with the proper tool do not require deadly force for victory, however, these tools are denied me. I pull my piece (A right perty 1911, for the purposes of this discussion :P), and have to cap him.

I get convicted of manslaughter, when all I needed was to be allowed to carry a kubaton, or even a often lethal weapon, like a knife.

That I think is the more needed one, if you're not comfortable carrying a gun you take the risk, but when not taking the risk puts you at risk for ensuing (no pun intended) litigation, I personally would much rather hit him over the head with the butt of a knife than kill the man.

Z

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rocky on August 8, 2009 at 17:36

exactly, there are situations where a person needs to have a Less lethal level of protection available to them, after all, not all self-defense situations justify presenting a firearm. So why is that our only choice?


There are many knives such as the cold steel scimitar, spyderco police,sog trident or crkt M4 that would serve well as an improvised kubaton so why are we denied them in some areas?

To say nothing of the advantages of carrying say,a crkt ultima or cold steel recon scout, just hitting someone in the leg with the butt of the handle of either of those would be a terrific deterrent, let alone their presentation Having a powerful psychological impact.

Also, I think one of the best weapons compromised ever devised was the whipcane/extendable baton.


not only is it a great impact weapon for less than lethal encounters, it also makes a very psychologically intimidating sound When you open it, which may dissuade the attacker without ever even having to hurt them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rocky on August 8, 2009 at 19:30

Indeed true, but what if the other guy has a size advantage on you that you don't think you can overcome? .In that instance obviously you're justified in pulling your handgun
But what if you're one of those people it doesn't feel comfortable carrying a gun?

it's certainly a nice option to be able to pull out an extendable baton and have the intimidating sound of that cracking open put some fear into them.

Or even better yet have the option to pull out cold steel Trail Master and click them in the head with a blunt side.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rocky on August 8, 2009 at 20:47

I do agree with you that there needs to be different instruction given under different weapons that you would be allowed to carry for concealed carry. But they shouldn't all be separate permits, merely separate qualifications under the same permit so that you're not charged an arm or leg to preserve your right for self-defense.


However, "bullets versus fists leaves you in jail" is somewhat misleading,actually the second he/she starts presenting a real threat to your life is when the gun comes out, whether your attacker is armed or unarmed makes no! difference, let's look at the statutes for self-defense In one of the most anti-gun/ anti-freedom states of all, Illinois

the statute reads

"The justifiable use of deadly force is limited only to situations in which certain requirements are met. Although those requirements may vary somewhat in different jurisdictions, there are some fairly universal guidelines. Deadly force can only be used by an innocent victim of an attack, and only when that attack represents a threat of serious bodily harm or death; it cannot be used to defend property rights. This threat of serious bodily harm or death must be imminent(about to happen immediately) and within the ability of the attacker."

(frankly it's ridiculous that you cant will defend your property with the same zeal you defend your life. Considering that your property may be a necessity you need to keep your life, small rant)

there's no mention of the fact that your aggressor must be armed, he must merely represent a real threat to your life.

most states, as a matter of fact, have self-defense definitions that are very similar to this an usually fall within three criteria.


Three criteria must be present to create that condition of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. These criteria are ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.

By "ability," we mean that the attacker must have at his command the power to kill or cripple. This will typically be some sort of a weapon, but may also include disparity of force.

Disparity of force is the situation that authorizes the law-abiding citizen to shoot what appears to be an unarmed man. In this concept, the law recognizes that the power of the attacker to kill or cripple with "body weapons," fists or feet, may be so great vis-a-vis the defender's stature and ability that this disparity of physical force becomes the aggressor's deadly weapon.

Now obviously to pull a gun in a common fight is uncalled for, however, one should not think that just because their attacker is unarmed, that they do not have the right to present their firearm to defend themselves.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stevens on August 9, 2009 at 13:38

In response to Nate and Zach's concerns , When last I was informed on the statutes regarding self defense , it stated that any person has the legal right to use the "MINIMUM " amount of force necessary to stop an attacker.
Lets say you bump into that man and spill his coffee all over him. he's twice your size and starts kicking the shit out of you. You can't handle him due to the fact he stands a head taller than you and out weighs by 80 lbs. At the time you happen to have a Blackhawk CQD on your person , can you stab him ???? The answer is YES ! you pull the knife and stab him once in the stomach he stops hitting you and staggers off in retreat. You didn't break the law because you used only the amount of force necessary to stop the attack. Now if you lose your temper and cut him to shreads then I think you might be breaking the law LOL. Now I would definetaly keep the exotic stuff ( nunchakus , shuriken stars, sword canes ) out of your arsenals. They are illegal in many states ( even with a CCW permit )and may be frowned upon by the jury.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zach Grissom on August 10, 2009 at 14:43

Lol. Another example is a woman jogging early in the morning, and she has pepper spray.

That isn't going to stop everyone, and requires a fanny pack/sheath to carry. a HAK knife could be on a lanyard around her neck, or an assisted open knife clipped to jogging shorts.

Force needs to be adjustable, the moment the dirt bag grabs her she can reach for her knife and slash his arm, that doesn't stop him, go for the face.

Pepper spray can't do that, and bullets can't do that.

and Nate, that was my point. I used more force than needed to end the situation and get tried and executed in the court of appeals in a matter of days, not to mention the actual jury trial. If I had a knife I could go for his leg while he is kicking me, instead of drawing a gun (and maybe he doesn't see and stop, even after threatening by saying I have a gun, etc).

For that scenario I'd like a karambit, really rip his calf, maybe an emerson with wave open.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rocky on August 11, 2009 at 14:37

I agree, but the whole point of this thread is that I'm asking if there is a reason why we shouldn't be allowed to carry nunchucks throwing stars sword canes etc. under a concealed carry permit.


The question I'm asking is, is there any reason not to allow weapons such as that if you already qualify for carrying a gun.

• ▶ Reply

KnifeMakerPermalink Reply by Nick Arsenault on August 13, 2009 at 9:11

they dont want a bunch of ninja's running around carry nunchucks and throwing stars...lol

i really want a balistic knife for recreation perpouses but there federaly banned, so theres like no chance of me getting one...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zach Grissom on August 13, 2009 at 22:43

One, why would you really want to carry nunchuks? They require a lot of skill to use properly.
Two, why would you really want to carry throwing star? They are one time use in a fight, and you risk getting cut while attempting to get them out.
Three, there is no reason whatsoever. Politicians have found people often much more apt to protect their guns, as compared to their steel. A lot of these anti-switchblade laws came into affect during America's gang era, and as always, it was because of the media. They portrayed a kid with a 'flick knife' slicin' an' dicin' in a street gang, and that imagery took hold as a stereotypical use of often beautiful cutlery, that previously had perfectly legitimate uses.

They're something a kid could get a hold of easier than a gun, so they play 'do you want your kids owning dangerous knives? If not, vote to screw people who do!'

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rocky on September 18, 2009 at 18:55

bump

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeremi Lett on November 7, 2010 at 2:32

I play throwing games with shuriken in backyard with friends,so would I have a legit reason to carry 3 stars?Maybe so.The only legit reason to carry a gun with bullets in it is for defense

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page