The intent of this topic is to discuss NON-firearm weapons.
This will necessarily include some comparisons to firearms and firearms laws, but if you want to talk about firearms to advocate for or against, that's a huge topic and starting new threads is free. This thread is to talk about non-firearms weapons.
This thread is spawned from this reader comment on the blog electoral-vote.com
So let's talk about this. Why aren't there big organizations protesting the limits on owning these weapons?
My first pre-discussion theories are two:
Should these weapons be allowed? Is it a good idea for citizens to be versed in their use? Do they have inherent drawbacks or dangers or limitations?
Lets talk about weapons and the law (but not guns).
This will necessarily include some comparisons to firearms and firearms laws, but if you want to talk about firearms to advocate for or against, that's a huge topic and starting new threads is free. This thread is to talk about non-firearms weapons.
This thread is spawned from this reader comment on the blog electoral-vote.com
And speaking of confiscating weapons, I have taught people to use hand weapons for a number of years. Many such weapons in a number of states are illegal to carry; nunchaku, sais, shurikens, and swords are some examples. Some states prohibit knife blades longer than six inches. Any of these weapons require some expertise and training to use, but I submit no more so than a firearm (the dexterity required for many of these is rather exaggerated). The biggest difference I can see is that it's much harder to accidentally injure another person or oneself fatally—a really bad mistake using nunchaku might result in a broken bone or concussion, but it's rather unlikely to kill you, or anyone else. An error using a sai might "put an eye out" if one is particularly clumsy. Firearms, on the other hand, accidentally kill thousands of people every year, and sometimes from some distance away. The logic of this differential treatment escapes me, but perhaps someone can explain it.
So let's talk about this. Why aren't there big organizations protesting the limits on owning these weapons?
My first pre-discussion theories are two:
- There is not a huge profit margin, and so there is not mega backing from manufacturers seeking to make money off of the increased sales that controversy brings
- They require skill, so any old yahoo who thinks he's tough cannot pick one up and be any more dangerous than he was before he owned one.
Should these weapons be allowed? Is it a good idea for citizens to be versed in their use? Do they have inherent drawbacks or dangers or limitations?
Lets talk about weapons and the law (but not guns).




