Plan9

Sweet! Disagreement. I feel like I've been here before.

I know very little about the murky Jello that is the law. I'm not a lawyer. Yet.

I'd go and reference my previous comments as a response, but I'm lazy.

...


Facts from earlier:

A: (Useful) guns are more lethal and require minimal effort to use. Point and click.
B: Swords are not instantly lethal (operator dependent) and require physical effort to wield, they also require intimate contact and some level of physical ability.

I'm not talking about end results, I'm not talking about "experts" using them... I'm talking about the initial stance during a confrontation. Can a sword kill a man from across a room? No. A gun will do it every time. Controlled pair.

Anybody can use a gun. The bullet from grandma's gun is the same hard-hitting lethal projectile as the one from a Green Beret's gun. Inner city kids and senior citizen rednecks throw the same blows with their .357s.

Guns bring near equality to the self-defense table through ease and range.

This may change the opinion of the court / jury in a home defense situation.

...

It's all opinion anyway. I'd consult "On Killing" by David Grossman if I was feeling all nitpicky, but I think this thread has really run a good course.

IMHO: Anybody that defends their house with a sword in the age of the Glock is a douchebag that deserves to be shot. Hell, haven't they seen that sword scene in that Indiana Jones flick? Get with it, people. Use a baseball bat, use a table leg, use a gun... don't try to be a ninja.

Unless you are a ninja and then just use your handy shuriken.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

I think TFP just found a new tag line.

Plan9

Amen, brother. Godsmack'd! For this thread I'm alive, for this thread I'm awake.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Suave

Yes, use of a sword would likely sway a jury, and probably against the sword-user. As you said, they are fucking antiquated. For someone to use something that seems so rare and archaic, they MUST have some vile ulterior intent, non?

Anyway, my original post about legal interpretation was from the point of view of legal folk (lawyers, judges) most likely. Though I could be slightly incorrect, as the legal system seems to have a hardon for demonizing firearms.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

Plan9

You're absolutely correct.

They demonize. They demonize everything and anything. Their job, ya know?

The difference in the gun / sword debate would be:

General End Result: DEAD BODY OF INTRUDER
How it got there:
A: Firearm. It was dark, I identified the intruder with a flashlight and shot twice.
B: Sword. It was dark, I identified the intruder with a flashlight and proceeded to exert barbaric force on them with a long, heavy blade until they died.

Which is more subtle? Which is more humane? Neither.

What do the masses generally believe? Your actual result.

Shown the crime scene photos, the gun looks more humane.

Once again... the sword is an intimate weapon and if there is one thing the uptight American yuppie can't stand... it is intimacy. The very idea of it.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."