Sword Control :)
Anne M. Marble
Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
Particularly in a satirical way.
"Blades don't kill people, barbarians bearing blades kill people."
"My concubines, yes. My wolf, maybe. My sword, never."
James Nicoll
Anne M. Marble <ama...@abs.net> wrote:
>Here's a counterpart to all those discussions on "gnu control."
>
>Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
>Particularly in a satirical way.
>
featured in one of Elizabeth Lynn's fantasies.
--
"Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering
draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would
sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility
for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw
Ananda Gupta
<r_Rl6.1311$0L6.4...@news.abs.net>:
In RL one of the reasons unarmed fighting systems developed in the East was
just that -- "sword control." Europe had less of this, largely because the
feudal system there allowed commoners to become men-at-arms. That's also
why many Eastern martial arts that do use weapons use weapons that are
descended from farm implements. The system I study, which is Okinawan, has
a kata using an oar as the weapon. Pretty sensible weapon for a fisherman
to learn to use.
-ASG
>Here's a counterpart to all those discussions on "gnu control."
>
>Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
>Particularly in a satirical way.
--
Ananda Gupta
"Some folks are dissatisfied with free enterprise if it doesn't work
perfectly, and satisfied with government if it works at all."
--Daniel B. Klein
Remove "nospam" from my address to reply by e-mail.
JoatSimeon
effectively "sword control".
-- S.M. Stirling
Joe Morris
>Here's a counterpart to all those discussions on "gnu control."
>Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
>Particularly in a satirical way.
>"Blades don't kill people, barbarians bearing blades kill people."
From maybe 30 years ago, a bumper sticker seen on a VW Bug:
"Register Saxons, not swords"
Since another bumper sticker on the car read "Honk if you wear
chain maile" [sic] I suspect that the owner was an SCA member.
Joe Morris
Marco S. Subias
example, weapons used in the classical Japanese styles include various swords,
the spear, etc., Chinese weapons also tend to be "real" weapons, such as,
again, various swords, the spear, etc., I've only been exposed a bit to their
weapons arts, but Thais tend to use a sort of heavy curved sword (not like a
machete though, and clearly not an agricultural tool).
Some Filipino weapons that were/ are agricultural tools (such as the bolo,
which is basically a machete that may have a thrusting tip) were used not
necessarily because other weapons were made illegal, but were employed simply
because they were commonly carried by people living in a rural environment, and
they had them on them when they needed to fight. It was simply a practical
option. Many other weapons used in the Filipino arts are clearly weapons of
war. Indonesian weapons are cousins of Filipino weapons, and are very often
similar in design.
Indian martial arts weapons include many with no appreciable value as tools,
such as a weird whip-sword with a springly and flexible steel blade, a
thrusting only sword with an odd guard, though they have also used more
conventional weapons.
As far as Okinawa goes, I've heard that claims that the supposed illegality of
weapons of war may have not actually existed. Even if swords were legal, would
poor Fisherman who was not a professional warrior really be likely to spend his
limited resources on a good sword? Maybe learning to use an oar or other handy
tool would have been more a more reasonable option for a poor individual who
was not a professional soldier.
Even if you look at Japan, you see most of the legal limitations on weapons
that can be documented (see Draeger's master's dissertation, printed
commercially in a three volume set) came about very recently. In Japan weapons
laws were linked to strengthening the central government, weakening the
regional aristocracy, and creating a unified modern state. Even the Samurai
class lost the legal right to carry swords. In the schools the state promoted
arts that focused on empty handed skills, such as judo or karate, and/or
sporting arts, such as kendo (a form of sports fencing which does not focus on
teaching how a real sword is used).
These arts, done within the context of state control, accustomed Japanese young
people to operating in a standardized heirarchial system of rank defined by
belts, and helped indoctrinate the youth of the Empire to be obedient cogs in
the Japanese war machine.
A read of Japanese history will show you that commoners could become men at
arms until a fairly late date, and that until the sixteenth century it was not
at all unusual. As I recall, Miyamoto Musashi, probably Japan's most famous
swordsman, was not of noble birth, and he spent most of his adult life in the
seventeenth century. Spearmen and gunners were commoners. From what I know, in
other Asian countries it was easier for commoners to become warriors of one
sort or another.
In any case, I suspect that in Asia (As in medieval Europe) people who were
poor, and were not professional soldiers, and could not afford expensive
weapons made do with tools, many of which could be very deadly. I also disagree
with your main point that "many Eastern martial arts that do use weapons use
weapons that are descended from farm implements" because of a lack of class
mobility in Asia. The Asian weapons systems I've seen employ many weapons that
are clearly not tools, but were weapons of war, and the ability of commoners to
become a warrior in Asia varied considerably from country to country and period
to period.
Marco
Chris Byler
Gupta) wrote:
>ama...@abs.net (Anne M. Marble) wrote in
><r_Rl6.1311$0L6.4...@news.abs.net>:
>
>In RL one of the reasons unarmed fighting systems developed in the East was
>just that -- "sword control." Europe had less of this, largely because the
>feudal system there allowed commoners to become men-at-arms. That's also
>why many Eastern martial arts that do use weapons use weapons that are
>descended from farm implements. The system I study, which is Okinawan, has
>a kata using an oar as the weapon. Pretty sensible weapon for a fisherman
>to learn to use.
ISTR that one of the Japanese shogun (I think it was Ieyasu, but not
sure on this) confiscated some significant percentage of all the
swords in the country, claiming he needed the metal to construct a
giant iron statue of Buddha. Of course, the real reason was to reduce
the number of dangerous sword-waving lunatics - and more to the point,
potential rebels.
Because gnus require little physical strength to use effectively (at
least relative to low-tech weapons), magic control might be a better
analogy - and I can think of several fantasy stories where the Evil
Arch-Wizard kills everyone else who has any magical talent to keep
them from being a potential threat to his rule. Harry Potter, for
one.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
rr...@lanminds.com
This may be more along the lines of "gun control", but Bradley's
Darkover series eventually comes up with the Compact, which has the
provision that all fighting must occur with weapons that put you
within reach of your opponent. It caused a lot of fuss, because many
of the herders/farmers depended on bows for protection from the local
wolf-equivalent.
Rebecca
Ananda Gupta
<20010224150248...@ng-bk1.aol.com>:
>Many RL jurisdictions have limits on the length of blade you may carry;
>this is effectively "sword control".
>-- S.M. Stirling
Yes indeed -- and after the murders of the two Dartmouth professors, there
is talk of enacting stronger controls on knife sales as well.
Ethan A Merritt
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <r_Rl6.1311$0L6.4...@news.abs.net>,
>Anne M. Marble <ama...@abs.net> wrote:
>>Here's a counterpart to all those discussions on "gnu control."
>>
>>Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
>>Particularly in a satirical way.
>>
> It'd been 20 years since I read them but ISTR sword control
>featured in one of Elizabeth Lynn's fantasies.
Yes, the city of Kendra-on-the-Delta (IIRC) in _The Northern Girl_
has a long history of sword control. Through some legal shenanigans
one faction starts training with wooden swords, and destabilizes
the balance of power. Quite the best of Lynn's book, I think,
and I believe it's recently back in print?
Ethan A Merritt
Ananda Gupta
<3A98179C...@ix.netcom.com>:
First, forgive me for snipping some very interesting stuff.
>I'd argue that relatively few Asian weapons descended from farm
>implements. For example, weapons used in the classical Japanese styles
>include various swords, the spear, etc., Chinese weapons also tend to be
>"real" weapons, such as, again, various swords, the spear, etc., I've
>only been exposed a bit to their weapons arts, but Thais tend to use a
>sort of heavy curved sword (not like a machete though, and clearly not
>an agricultural tool).
With Chinese martial arts in particular it is important to distinguish
between the "noble" systems and the systems that were developed outside the
upper classes. In particular, kung fu systems that emphasize the staff
tend to fall into the latter category.
>Some Filipino weapons that were/ are agricultural tools (such as the
>bolo, which is basically a machete that may have a thrusting tip) were
>used not necessarily because other weapons were made illegal, but were
>employed simply because they were commonly carried by people living in a
>rural environment, and they had them on them when they needed to fight.
>It was simply a practical option. Many other weapons used in the
>Filipino arts are clearly weapons of war.
But the most well-known Filipino weapon is just a pair of sticks.
>As far as Okinawa goes, I've heard that claims that the supposed
>illegality of weapons of war may have not actually existed. Even if
>swords were legal, would poor Fisherman who was not a professional
>warrior really be likely to spend his limited resources on a good sword?
>Maybe learning to use an oar or other handy tool would have been more a
>more reasonable option for a poor individual who was not a professional
>soldier.
Of course economic considerations played a role, but then why don't we see
elaborate fighting techniques using staves and oars in Europe as well?
>Even if you look at Japan, you see most of the legal limitations on
>weapons that can be documented (see Draeger's master's dissertation,
>printed commercially in a three volume set) came about very recently
This is contrary to what I've read; since I am not an expert I would be
interested in following that up.
>In Japan weapons laws were linked to strengthening the central government,
>weakening the regional aristocracy, and creating a unified modern state.
>Even the Samurai class lost the legal right to carry swords. In the
>schools the state promoted arts that focused on empty handed skills,
>such as judo or karate, and/or sporting arts, such as kendo (a form of
>sports fencing which does not focus on teaching how a real sword is
>used).
I didn't know there was sufficiently unified political control in Japan to
confiscate a right from an entire class of people, at least not until
Meiji.
>In any case, I suspect that in Asia (As in medieval Europe) people who
>were poor, and were not professional soldiers, and could not afford
>expensive weapons made do with tools, many of which could be very
>deadly. I also disagree with your main point that "many Eastern martial
>arts that do use weapons use weapons that are descended from farm
>implements" because of a lack of class mobility in Asia. The Asian
>weapons systems I've seen employ many weapons that are clearly not
>tools, but were weapons of war, and the ability of commoners to become a
>warrior in Asia varied considerably from country to country and period
>to period.
Yet this doesn't explain two things: first, the presence of weapons such as
nunchaku, kama, and kusari-gama, all of which are clearly descended from
farm implements, as well as the omnipresence of staves (long and short) in
Asian martial arts. Of course staff combat is hardly unheard of in Europe,
for much the same reason, but there are no pitchfork kata.
Second, I'm interested in why you think unarmed systems flourished so much
in Asia, rather than in Europe where until the 19th century all we see is
wrestling, and even then all we get is savate. I don't mean this in a
snarky way; you're clearly more well-versed in the subject than I am.
Ananda Gupta
<3a981d37...@news.vt.edu>:
>On 24 Feb 2001 18:39:44 GMT, asg...@attglobal.net.nospam (Ananda
>Gupta) wrote:
>
>>ama...@abs.net (Anne M. Marble) wrote in
>><r_Rl6.1311$0L6.4...@news.abs.net>:
>Because gnus require little physical strength to use effectively (at
>least relative to low-tech weapons), magic control might be a better
>analogy - and I can think of several fantasy stories where the Evil
>Arch-Wizard kills everyone else who has any magical talent to keep
>them from being a potential threat to his rule. Harry Potter, for
>one.
I disagree that gnus require little physical strength to use effectively.
In the Third Battle of Gnufoundland, a gnu-armed force failed to hold the
center against a cavalry charge; the gnus panicked and broke the ranks,
leaving their wielders defenseless. Previous to that, of course, gnus had
often proven useful on the battlefield, as their ferocious baa-ing struck
fear into undisciplined conscript forces. Thence comes the description of
seasoned troops as being "the bearers of bad gnus."
Jordan S. Bassior
>Yes indeed -- and after the murders of the two Dartmouth professors, there
>is talk of enacting stronger controls on knife sales as well.
Yeah, that's really gonna work.
(Hint: what common implement is seen in most kitchens?)
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Nancy Lebovitz
Chris Byler <cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu> wrote:
>
>Because gnus require little physical strength to use effectively (at
>least relative to low-tech weapons), magic control might be a better
>analogy - and I can think of several fantasy stories where the Evil
>Arch-Wizard kills everyone else who has any magical talent to keep
>them from being a potential threat to his rule. Harry Potter, for
>one.
Doranna Durgin's written several books (maybe more) about a world
where magic is strictly and sensibly controlled by a guild.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Nancy Lebovitz
rather disreputable.
Rick
news:9052C8111asgup...@32.97.166.128...
> joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote in
> <20010224150248...@ng-bk1.aol.com>:
>
> >Many RL jurisdictions have limits on the length of blade you may carry;
> >this is effectively "sword control".
> >-- S.M. Stirling
>
> Yes indeed -- and after the murders of the two Dartmouth professors, there
> is talk of enacting stronger controls on knife sales as well.
That's typical statist thought. If the kids had used baseball bats to beat
the people to death, there would be talk of restricting sales of baseball
equipment.
Chuck Bridgeland
I remember some talk somewhere of "Saturnalia Specials".
--
Micro$oft Windows Intelligent Reinstall Agent(R) -- after 28 days it
reformats your hard drive, reinstalls Windows and all your Micro$oft
apps, so you don't have to.
chuck bridgeland, chuckbri at mwci dot net
Chuck Bridgeland
<cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu> wrote:
>Because gnus require little physical strength to use effectively (at
interesting diversion into the realm of Open Source software. . .
>least relative to low-tech weapons), magic control might be a better
>analogy -
JoatSimeon
>Because gnus require little physical strength to use effectively
-- the main difference is actually that they require little training to use.
You can teach someone to use an arquebus in a couple of weeks -- it's not a
precision weapon, anyway.
Provided you have good drillmasters, you can teach him how to use it
effectively in mass formations in a couple of months.
Most edged weapons take much longer to learn. So do bows -- you have to train
for _years_ to be a really good archer, and you have to train constantly to
keep it up.
A good bow is a much better weapon than a 16th-century arquebus, in really
skilled hands. In fact, the Snider-Enfield breechloading rifle of the 1860's
was the first British weapon which matched the 14th-century Englis/Welsh
longbow in range, accuracy, and rate of fire.
Being under an arrow-storm from massed longbowmen was like getting hit by fire
from magazine repeating rifles.
Each longbowman could put 12 shafts into the air in a minute, one every 5
seconds -- several would be in the air when the first one hit.
And they hit _hard_. At under 200 yards, they'd go through chain mail as if it
were cloth, and with bodkin heads they could penetrate good-quality steel plate
armor too.
It wasn't uncommon to nail a knight right through his outer thigh armor,
through the thigh, through the inner layer of armor, through the heavy wood and
leather of the saddle, and then right through the horse.
One known longbow shaft went through 4 inches of seasoned oak. (A church door
in Wales -- it's still there.)
The problem is that the high degree of skill involved in archery training makes
it much more expensive to field an army of archers than one of musketeers.
Either you have to pay recruits for years, or the men involved must have enough
leisure to spend a lot of time using the bow -- hence English longbowmen came
mostly from the franklins and yeomen, the rural middle class; men with farm
laborers and servants of their own. Really poor men couldn't afford the time
or equipment.
In social terms, muskets increase the power of central governments, not
individual peasants.
One man with a smoothbore musket is not very formidable; not nearly as much as
a good horseman who knows how to use a sword.
A mob of men with smoothbore muskets aren't very formidable either; they just
get in each other's way.
But a _drilled unit_ of musketeers is very formidable indeed; failing
higher-tech weapons, the only thing that can match it is another such
formation.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yes indeed -- and after the murders of the two Dartmouth professors, there is
talk of enacting stronger controls on knife sales as well.
-- now, that really _is_ silly. There are plenty of kitchen knives that would
make quite effective fighting blades.
IIRC, there was "social sword control" in medieval and early-modern Europe; if
you wore a sword and weren't a gentleman and/or a gentleman's retainer, you
were likely to get beaten up or killed by the gentlefolk.
But if you look at Flemish paintings of genre scenes, the drunken peasants are
usually wearing 18-inch double-bladed knives, as well as carrying staves. And
nobody wears that sort of knife to cut their bread and cheese.
-- S.M. Stirling
Ananda Gupta
<Jc_l6.2259$SG.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>:
>>
>> Yes indeed -- and after the murders of the two Dartmouth professors,
>> there is talk of enacting stronger controls on knife sales as well.
>
>That's typical statist thought. If the kids had used baseball bats to
>beat the people to death, there would be talk of restricting sales of
>baseball equipment.
Well, the pretext in this case is that the knife sale took place over the
Internet. And the Internet, as we all know, is the new source of all that
is evil in the world.
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Feb 2001 02:22:46 GMT, jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
wrote:
>Ananda Gupta said:
>
>>Yes indeed -- and after the murders of the two Dartmouth
>>professors, there is talk of enacting stronger controls on knife
>>sales as well.
>
>Yeah, that's really gonna work.
>
>(Hint: what common implement is seen in most kitchens?)
Many jurisdictions place an upper limit on how large a knife can be
carried under routine circumstances (for example, a 3-inch
pocketknife is legal, but a carving knife or a machete isn't legal).
Provided there are common-sense exceptions, such as bringing a
newly-purchased knife home from the store, or taking a knife to be
sharpened, this seems like a reasonable compromise.
I worked one summer as a door-to-door salesman, selling kitchen
knives. The largest knife in my sample kit was a French chef knife
with a blade about 1 foot long. This would have been illegal (not to
mention awkward) for me to carry on my belt, but it was legal as a
sales sample, carried in a briefcase. Also, I was bonded as a
salesman.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBOpiOsDMYPge5L34aEQKjNQCg6yKd/9qk+kW5qNK8DBLiglzIZZsAoKJc
Oq6+xEPAEOlAWMCKQ/QHfN42
=Kt4c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- eldr...@earthlink.net, eldr...@poboxes.com
PGP key available from:
http://home.earthlink.net/~eldredge/
"There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power;
not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace." - Woodrow Wilson
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:20:44 -0800, "Marco S. Subias"
<msu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I'd argue that relatively few Asian weapons descended from farm
>implements. For example, weapons used in the classical Japanese
>styles include various swords, the spear, etc., Chinese weapons also
>tend to be "real" weapons, such as, again, various swords, the
>spear, etc., I've only been exposed a bit to their weapons arts, but
>Thais tend to use a sort of heavy curved sword (not like a machete
>though, and clearly not an agricultural tool).
One example of a weapon that was derived from a household implement
is the type of truncheon that has a short handle extending from it at
right angles. From what I have read, this was derived from the
handle used for household grain mills. Peasant women were trained in
how to use the mill handles for self-defense if bandits attacked.
Various types of flails also originated as farm implements, where
they were used for threshing grain.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBOpiMRzMYPge5L34aEQL6bgCcCvMHrVHeIFkDMWzYWcdC2sDQMLcAnin0
dvGEBQypV+QHvEge9w9lIWIQ
=odQj
rr...@lanminds.com
wrote:
>>>
>>This may be more along the lines of "gun control", but Bradley's
>>Darkover series eventually comes up with the Compact, which has the
>>provision that all fighting must occur with weapons that put you
>>within reach of your opponent. It caused a lot of fuss, because many
>>of the herders/farmers depended on bows for protection from the local
>>wolf-equivalent.
>>
>I thought that hunters could use bows at the cost of being considered
>rather disreputable.
>--
>Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
>
Yep, that's the solution that they came up with. Bows were considered
a "lower-class" tool, not a weapon that honorable people would use
against each other. So it would be ok for the shepard to use it
against a wolf, but not against someone stealing a sheep. It all got
to be an honor thing.
Rebecca
Mark Atwood
>
> Many jurisdictions place an upper limit on how large a knife can be
> carried under routine circumstances (for example, a 3-inch
> pocketknife is legal, but a carving knife or a machete isn't legal).
> Provided there are common-sense exceptions, such as bringing a
> newly-purchased knife home from the store, or taking a knife to be
> sharpened, this seems like a reasonable compromise.
In the People's Republic of Massachusetts, you need a CPL to carry a
firearm home, where you are allowed to keep it without a CPL.
There used to be an interesting market of people with CPLs who, for a
small fee, would carry your piece to your house from the store, and/or
to a gunsmith and back again as necessary. (The state later, IIRC,
banned that activity.)
Dont *ever* ever assume that "common-sense exceptions" will be available
when it comes to anti-weapons laws.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
barnacle
the power (mandate from heaven) but the Shogunate had the swords...and made
damn sure nobody else got them...
--
I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost...
barnacle
http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk
Del Cotter
Ananda Gupta <asg...@attglobal.net.nospam> said:
>msu...@ix.netcom.com (Marco S. Subias) wrote in
>>I'd argue that relatively few Asian weapons descended from farm
>>implements. For example, weapons used in the classical Japanese styles
>>include various swords, the spear, etc., Chinese weapons also tend to be
>>"real" weapons, such as, again, various swords, the spear, etc., I've
>>only been exposed a bit to their weapons arts, but Thais tend to use a
>>sort of heavy curved sword (not like a machete though, and clearly not
>>an agricultural tool).
>Yet this doesn't explain two things: first, the presence of weapons such as
>nunchaku, kama, and kusari-gama, all of which are clearly descended from
>farm implements, as well as the omnipresence of staves (long and short) in
>Asian martial arts. Of course staff combat is hardly unheard of in Europe,
>for much the same reason, but there are no pitchfork kata.
>
>Second, I'm interested in why you think unarmed systems flourished so much
>in Asia, rather than in Europe where until the 19th century all we see is
>wrestling, and even then all we get is savate. I don't mean this in a
>snarky way; you're clearly more well-versed in the subject than I am.
I think (and what follows is all just My Humble Opinion) it may have to
do with the greater availability of iron, which in turn comes from the
greater availability of wood (hence charcoal) and coal (called "sea
coal" in the South of England, because it came by ship from Newcastle).
So in Europe (aka "North West Asia" :-) there was enough iron knocking
around the place anyway that it wasn't really practical to expect that
farmers not own any edged weapons. My impression of farmers in South
East Asia is that they largely worked without the use of as many metal
implements as farmers in Europe.
The availability of wood also shows up in the different cooking styles
of Europe and Asia, where Europe has the never-ending stockpot, the
roast meat, the stew, and boiled vegetables, while East Asia has the
steamed rice in a pile of baskets, and the quick stir fry.
ObSF: _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_ by Diana Wynne Jones, where all
fantasy novels are based on a set of generic mediaevaloid European
cultural assumptions. You never get steamed rice and stir-fried
vegetables in a fantasy inn, it's always bloody stew.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:rnelleTheBurningCity:StevenBrustJhereg:HomerHHickhamRocketBoys
:GKChestertonTheNapoleonofNottingHill:RudyardKiplingCaptainsCourageous:
ToRead:NealStephensonCryptonomicon:CSLewisTheLionTheWitchAndTheWardrobe
Del Cotter
Ananda Gupta <asg...@attglobal.net.nospam> said:
>cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu (Chris Byler) wrote
>>Because gnus require little physical strength to use effectively (at
>>least relative to low-tech weapons), magic control might be a better
>>analogy - and I can think of several fantasy stories where the Evil
>>Arch-Wizard kills everyone else who has any magical talent to keep
>>them from being a potential threat to his rule.
>
>I disagree that gnus require little physical strength to use effectively.
>In the Third Battle of Gnufoundland, a gnu-armed force failed to hold the
>center against a cavalry charge; the gnus panicked and broke the ranks,
>leaving their wielders defenseless. Previous to that, of course, gnus had
>often proven useful on the battlefield, as their ferocious baa-ing struck
>fear into undisciplined conscript forces. Thence comes the description of
>seasoned troops as being "the bearers of bad gnus."
*groan*
Old Toby
>
> Wasn't this the reason for the success of the Samurai culture? The emperor had
> the power (mandate from heaven) but the Shogunate had the swords...and made
> damn sure nobody else got them...
Err, no.
First of all, the "mandate of heaven" was a Chinese idea that
was never incorporated into Japanese thought.
Second of all, although the fact that the Samurai were the
predominant military force in Japan allowed the Shoguns to
rise to power, the Samurai didn't actually monopolize owning
weapons, and were hardly a unified force responsible to the
During the Tokugawa Shogunate, established 400 years after
the rise of the Samurai, weapons were indeed restricted,
weapons held by commoners were confiscated, only Samurai
were allowed to carry swords, guns were highly restricted.
However even this didn't monopolize power in the Shogun,
rather both the Bakufu (Shogunate) and the Han (Feudal
domains) maintained extensive military forces.
Furthermore, these regulations weren't entirely consistant.
For example, by the end of the Tokugawa many wealthy non-Samurai
had gained the right to carry a sword.
After the Meiji Restoration the Samurai class was abolished
and the right to carry a sword was restricted to the military
and certain police units.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Damien Raphael Sullivan
>Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
>Particularly in a satirical way.
It's neither fantasy nor satirical, but Bujold's Barrayar restricts weapon
carrying; Koudelka can't receive a swordstick because he's not Vor, until the
Regent gives him permission.
-xx- Damien X-)
Ken Vale
Ananda Gupta wrote:
<snip>
> >As far as Okinawa goes, I've heard that claims that the supposed
> >illegality of weapons of war may have not actually existed. Even if
> >swords were legal, would poor Fisherman who was not a professional
> >warrior really be likely to spend his limited resources on a good sword?
> >Maybe learning to use an oar or other handy tool would have been more a
> >more reasonable option for a poor individual who was not a professional
> >soldier.
>
> Of course economic considerations played a role, but then why don't we see
> elaborate fighting techniques using staves and oars in Europe as well?
Actually there was an elaborate fighting system in England using the
Quarter Staff and you can see evidence of it in most of the classic Robin Hood
stories. I would speculate that it faded from use because of two factors, one,
introduction of the gun, and two, improved law enforcement. With the
introduction of the gun, a far better weapon that required less training to use
and was effective at range, people just stopped using the Quarter Staff. With
increased law enforcement there was no need for you to go around armed anymore,
therefore there is no need to train in the use of the Quarter Staff anymore.
These two factors are responsible for the loss of a unique and elaborate
European Fighting technique.
And since someone is going to jump in and say "How come Fencing is still
around then?" I might as well answer that right now. I would guess that the
reason fencing is still around today has to do alot with socio-economic
factors. First you have the fact that the upper classes had more spare time
available to be spent learning time intensive skills/sports/activities
(fencing, court dances, theatre, horseback riding, show jumping, fox hunting,
etc.) and they had to fight off boredom somehow. Second you have the fact that
a sword has always been considered the weapon of a gentleman and the upper
class does have a reputation to maintain (its stupid I know, but how many
people here learned to play the piano because their parents thought it would be
a good idea...).
Ken
John Ringo
news:r_Rl6.1311$0L6.4...@news.abs.net...
> Here's a counterpart to all those discussions on "gnu control."
>
> Particularly in a satirical way.
>
>
> "My concubines, yes. My wolf, maybe. My sword, never."
>
>
>
>
I'm sorry to bring up "real life" but does anyone know the reason Chinese
people eat with chopsticks?
ObSfref: Pratchett touches on it in "Interesting Times." Which, back on
topic, included quite a bit about "sword control."
And, actually, his contrast of the Counterweight Continent and Ankh-Morpork
is awfully...conservative in its cast.
:-)
John
--
A Hymn Before Battle: http://www.johnringo.com/AHBB/AHBBCover.htm (Number 6
on Locus Hardcover for October 2000)
Gust Front: http://www.johnringo.com/GustFront/GustCover.htm (April 2001,
Baen Books)
March Upcountry: http://www.johnringo.com/MUCover.htm (with David Weber, May
2001, Baen Books)
March To The Sea: (with David Weber, August 2001, Baen Books)
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>"Ananda Gupta" <asg...@attglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
>> Yes indeed -- and after the murders of the two Dartmouth professors, there
>> is talk of enacting stronger controls on knife sales as well.
>That's typical statist thought. If the kids had used baseball bats to beat
>the people to death, there would be talk of restricting sales of baseball
>equipment.
And to think I was just saying that there could be nothing more
tedious and less welcome than another round of the "all non-western
cultures are inferior" thread...
Later,
OilCan
Rick
news:3a9938ae....@news.earthlink.net...
There's nothing more tedious than some bore whining about how some thread or
another is tedious. :-)
barnacle
>>(Ananda Gupta)
>
>>Yes indeed -- and after the murders of the two Dartmouth professors, there is
>talk of enacting stronger controls on knife sales as well.
>
>-- now, that really _is_ silly. There are plenty of kitchen knives that would
>make quite effective fighting blades.
The purchase of these is already controlled to some extent in the UK.
>
>IIRC, there was "social sword control" in medieval and early-modern Europe; if
>you wore a sword and weren't a gentleman and/or a gentleman's retainer, you
>were likely to get beaten up or killed by the gentlefolk.
>
>But if you look at Flemish paintings of genre scenes, the drunken peasants are
>usually wearing 18-inch double-bladed knives, as well as carrying staves. And
>nobody wears that sort of knife to cut their bread and cheese.
>
Of course, it could just be a comment on the edibility of Flemish bread and
cheese...
barnacle
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, in rec.arts.sf.written,
>Ananda Gupta <asg...@attglobal.net.nospam> said:
>
>>cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu (Chris Byler) wrote
>>>Because gnus require little physical strength to use effectively (at
>>>least relative to low-tech weapons), magic control might be a better
>>>analogy - and I can think of several fantasy stories where the Evil
>>>Arch-Wizard kills everyone else who has any magical talent to keep
>>>them from being a potential threat to his rule.
>>
>>I disagree that gnus require little physical strength to use effectively.
>>In the Third Battle of Gnufoundland, a gnu-armed force failed to hold the
>>center against a cavalry charge; the gnus panicked and broke the ranks,
>>leaving their wielders defenseless. Previous to that, of course, gnus had
>>often proven useful on the battlefield, as their ferocious baa-ing struck
>>fear into undisciplined conscript forces. Thence comes the description of
>>seasoned troops as being "the bearers of bad gnus."
>
>*groan*
>
Got to disagree here - the main use of gnus in battle obviously comes from
their annoyance at being misidentified...
'I'm a gnu
agnother gnu
you really ought to k-now w-ho's w-ho
..
nor am I in the least
like that dreadful wildebeast,
oh gno, gno, gno, I'm a gnu!
Jordan S. Bassior
>But if you look at Flemish paintings of genre scenes, the drunken peasants
>are usually wearing 18-inch double-bladed knives, as well as carrying staves.
>And
>nobody wears that sort of knife to cut their bread and cheese.
18-inch double-bladed? Wow, that's almost a shortsword in and of itself!
Adam Benedict Canning
Ethan A Merritt wrote:
>
> In article <978rpe$sh8$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <r_Rl6.1311$0L6.4...@news.abs.net>,
> >Anne M. Marble <ama...@abs.net> wrote:
> >>Here's a counterpart to all those discussions on "gnu control."
> >>
> >>Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
> >>Particularly in a satirical way.
> >>
> > It'd been 20 years since I read them but ISTR sword control
> >featured in one of Elizabeth Lynn's fantasies.
>
> Yes, the city of Kendra-on-the-Delta (IIRC) in _The Northern Girl_
> has a long history of sword control. Through some legal shenanigans
> one faction starts training with wooden swords, and destabilizes
> the balance of power. Quite the best of Lynn's book, I think,
> and I believe it's recently back in print?
Jordan's Winters Heart has a city that bans usable swords and magic.
Adam
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> >Second, I'm interested in why you think unarmed systems flourished so much
> >in Asia, rather than in Europe where until the 19th century all we see is
> >wrestling, and even then all we get is savate. I don't mean this in a
> >snarky way; you're clearly more well-versed in the subject than I am.
> I think (and what follows is all just My Humble Opinion) it may have to
> do with the greater availability of iron, which in turn comes from the
> greater availability of wood (hence charcoal) and coal (called "sea
> coal" in the South of England, because it came by ship from Newcastle).
I think the difference was more cultural. The Japanese were panic-
stricken at the idea of surrender in WWII because they expected the
Americans to kill or enslave all the men, rape all the women and loot
everything of value. It is what they would have done, given the chance.
In fact, that is exactly what they did in China, Okinawa, Korea, Burma,
etc. The Japanese weren't the only ones, either. The Orient never
invented Chivalry.
A peasant with a weapon in conquered territory was a dead peasant. It
made no difference that they needed metals to do their work. Their only
option was to defend themselves with sticks and bare hands. I don't see
much difference between an oar and a quarterstaff. It's a good enough
weapon to give your average soldier with a sword a real workout.
--
No one can ever have enough books, pockets, friends, guns, or garlic.
J.B Moreno
> On 25 Feb 2001 02:28:35 GMT, na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz)
> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>This may be more along the lines of "gun control", but Bradley's
> >>Darkover series eventually comes up with the Compact, which has the
-snip-
> >I thought that hunters could use bows at the cost of being considered
> >rather disreputable.
>
> Yep, that's the solution that they came up with. Bows were considered a
> "lower-class" tool, not a weapon that honorable people would use against
> each other. So it would be ok for the shepard to use it against a wolf,
> but not against someone stealing a sheep. It all got to be an honor
> thing.
That and they fry you if you violate it. The compact works for two
reasons -- one every hand is raised against you if you violate it, and
two, they are afraid of what happened before.
--
JBM
"Moebius strippers only show you their back side." -- Unknown
Larry Caldwell
> Second you have the fact that
> a sword has always been considered the weapon of a gentleman and the upper
> class does have a reputation to maintain (its stupid I know, but how many
> people here learned to play the piano because their parents thought it would be
> a good idea...).
My bother-in-law has a US Army cavalry saber. He came by it the hard way
(22 year veteran), knows how to use it, and keeps it sharp.
Gareth Wilson
>
> I'm sorry to bring up "real life" but does anyone know the reason Chinese
> people eat with chopsticks?
They generally cut up the meat into small pieces so it would cook faster in the
pot and save fuel, making table knives superfluous.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Atwood
>
> My bother-in-law has a US Army cavalry saber. He came by it the hard way
> (22 year veteran), knows how to use it, and keeps it sharp.
They teach "useful" saber in the Army?
Anton Sherwood
:> Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
:> Particularly in a satirical way.
Damien Raphael Sullivan <pho...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes
: It's neither fantasy nor satirical, but Bujold's Barrayar restricts
: weapon carrying; Koudelka can't receive a swordstick because he's
: not Vor, until the Regent gives him permission.
Not permission, delegation.
"Hm. Am I right in guessing I paid for this?" . . .
He smiled a little. "Lieutenant Koudelka, as your
commanding officer and a vassal secundus to Ezar Vorbarra,
I am officially issuing you this weapon of mine, to carry
in the service of the Emperor, long may he rule."
--
Anton Sherwood -- br0...@p0b0x.com -- http://ogre.nu/
Dan
>is the type of truncheon that has a short handle extending from it at
>right angles. From what I have read, this was derived from the
>handle used for household grain mills. Peasant women were trained in
>how to use the mill handles for self-defense if bandits attacked.
>Various types of flails also originated as farm implements, where
>they were used for threshing grain.
The truncheon you mention is properly called a tonfa. Commonly used in pairs
and quite an effective weapon, IMO. The modern version is the policeman's
nightstick, obviously. The info on flails is correct, AFAIK...
-Dan, Bodhisattva of Chocolate
Jordan S. Bassior
>The purchase of these is already controlled to some extent in the UK.
How? Anything which can reliably and easily cut _meat_ can reliably and easily
cut human flesh. How can you ban _kitchen knives_ and still have people make
meat dishes?
(or do you also ban whole chops save to butchers and restaurants?)
Tapio Erola
Umm. The regent _issues_ that weapon to him. Legally same as issuing any
trooper his weapons.
Technically that swordstick is still Aral's property as regent
(I don't know about what kind of legal tap-dancing happened when
Gregor was crowned.) and a military weapon wielded by a soldier.
--
Tapio Erola (t...@rieska.oulu.fi) No mail to t...@rak061.oulu.fi please!
"Things settled at the point of gun seldom remain settled."
--Jefferson Davis
Tapio Erola
This must be in FAQ, but here goes anyway: Would lightsaber be legal under
the compact?
Tony von Krag
<m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> writes:
> >
> > My bother-in-law has a US Army cavalry saber. He came by it the hard way
> > (22 year veteran), knows how to use it, and keeps it sharp.
>
> They teach "useful" saber in the Army?
On most US military bases you can learn/teach all most any subject,
boredom is rampant and PTB like solders "learning!". :)
Rachel Brown
> One example of a weapon that was derived from a household implement
> is the type of truncheon that has a short handle extending from it at
> right angles. From what I have read, this was derived from the
> handle used for household grain mills.
If you're thinking of what I'm thinking of, it's called a tonfa. I'm not
sure if that was ever used as a weapon anywhere but Okinawa (or possibly in
isolated domestic disputes ;) ).
> Various types of flails also originated as farm implements, where
> they were used for threshing grain.
AKA nunchaku.
Rachel
Taki Kogoma
to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>pho...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Raphael Sullivan) writes:
>
>> "Anne M. Marble" <ama...@abs.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Are there any fantasy novels deal with the issue of "sword control"?
>> >Particularly in a satirical way.
>>
>> It's neither fantasy nor satirical, but Bujold's Barrayar restricts weapon
>> carrying; Koudelka can't receive a swordstick because he's not Vor, until the
>> Regent gives him permission.
>
>Umm. The regent _issues_ that weapon to him. Legally same as issuing any
>trooper his weapons.
>
>Technically that swordstick is still Aral's property as regent
>(I don't know about what kind of legal tap-dancing happened when
>Gregor was crowned.) and a military weapon wielded by a soldier.
IIRC, Aral issued the swordstick to Koudelka before the former was
confirmed as Regent. The authority for issuing the weapon was Aral's
as a Vassal Secundus to the Emperor and as Kou's commanding officer.
Aral's fealty oath to Gregor upon Ezar's death took care of the immediate
transfer of authority problems.
The legal situation when Aral retired would be the tricky bit. Aral
retains his Vassal Secundis status, but Kou is clearly no longer his
subordinate. Perhaps Gregor personally re-issued the swordstick? ;-)
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> writes:
>>
>> My bother-in-law has a US Army cavalry saber. He came by it the hard way
>> (22 year veteran), knows how to use it, and keeps it sharp.
>
>They teach "useful" saber in the Army?
No, but junior officers have an annoying habit of giving their commanders
the damn things at fairwell ceremonies, and you have to know how to keep
from spitting yourself.
--
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They
have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of
government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their
principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine
for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times
out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by
looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage,
and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
- H. L. Mencken
J.B. Moreno
> pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B Moreno) writes:
>
> > <rr...@lanminds.com> wrote:
-snip Bradley's compact-
> > That and they fry you if you violate it. The compact works for two
> > reasons -- one every hand is raised against you if you violate it, and
> > two, they are afraid of what happened before.
>
> This must be in FAQ, but here goes anyway: Would lightsaber be legal under
> the compact?
Sure. The reason for the Compact is that there were people walking
around that were the equivalent of nukes, their going "off" was bad for
the landscape and there seemed no easy way of stopping this without
giving it up completely -- so that's just what they did. All weapons
were banned except hand weapons where there's a solid connection between
the user and the target -- i.e. whips, swords, knives, staves that sort
of thing, anything where you can strike beyond the reach of target is
forbidden (even throwing stones could probably get you in serious
trouble).
Marco S. Subias
Ananda Gupta wrote:
> msu...@ix.netcom.com (Marco S. Subias) wrote in
> <3A98179C...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
> >Some Filipino weapons that were/ are agricultural tools (such as the
> >bolo, which is basically a machete that may have a thrusting tip) were
> >used not necessarily because other weapons were made illegal, but were
> >employed simply because they were commonly carried by people living in a
> >rural environment, and they had them on them when they needed to fight.
> >It was simply a practical option. Many other weapons used in the
> >Filipino arts are clearly weapons of war.
>
> But the most well-known Filipino weapon is just a pair of sticks.
This only means that most modern people with a very limited knowledge of the
background of these arts are ignorant of the many other weapons that have been
associated with them, and which many serious students of these arts do know
something about. Many people get their knowledge of the martial arts from
dubious articles and many seminars that feature watered-down versions of
various martial arts. Don't confuse what if "well-known" with what has
historically been true. Read Wiley's "Filipino Martial Culture" for more info
on this. A good general purpose weapons encyclopedia that includes Asian arms
will list barongs, bolos, and other Filipino arms. I have two that do.
>
> >As far as Okinawa goes, I've heard that claims that the supposed
> >illegality of weapons of war may have not actually existed. Even if
> >swords were legal, would poor Fisherman who was not a professional
> >warrior really be likely to spend his limited resources on a good sword?
> >Maybe learning to use an oar or other handy tool would have been more a
> >more reasonable option for a poor individual who was not a professional
> >soldier.
>
> Of course economic considerations played a role, but then why don't we see
> elaborate fighting techniques using staves and oars in Europe as well?
>
Those who do the reasearch do know something about these arts that largely fell
out of use after the rise of professional armies and the widespread use of
gunpowder. Some martial manuals from Europe's middle ages and Renaissance have
survived. Quarterstaff fighting has been mentioned in this thread. If European
peasants had oar-based martial arts, and the style died out, how many manuals
do you think such commoners would have left to show such arts existed? If you
want to learn more about European fighting arts, Amazon has a few titles on
European medieval martial arts. Here are a few more links to get you started...
http://www.aemma.org/index2.htm
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/western-arts
> >Even if you look at Japan, you see most of the legal limitations on
> >weapons that can be documented (see Draeger's master's dissertation,
> >printed commercially in a three volume set) came about very recently
>
> This is contrary to what I've read; since I am not an expert I would be
> interested in following that up.
I should warn you that I often tend to think of "recently" in terms of
centuries when discussing history.
> >In Japan weapons laws were linked to strengthening the central government,
> >weakening the regional aristocracy, and creating a unified modern state.
> >Even the Samurai class lost the legal right to carry swords. In the
> >schools the state promoted arts that focused on empty handed skills,
> >such as judo or karate, and/or sporting arts, such as kendo (a form of
> >sports fencing which does not focus on teaching how a real sword is
> >used).
>
> I didn't know there was sufficiently unified political control in Japan to
> confiscate a right from an entire class of people, at least not until
> Meiji.
It was a gradual process. You confiscate one sort of weapon from the commoners,
then another a few decades later, etc., etc., then eventually do the same thing
to the samurai.
> >In any case, I suspect that in Asia (As in medieval Europe) people who
> >were poor, and were not professional soldiers, and could not afford
> >expensive weapons made do with tools, many of which could be very
> >deadly. I also disagree with your main point that "many Eastern martial
> >arts that do use weapons use weapons that are descended from farm
> >implements" because of a lack of class mobility in Asia. The Asian
> >weapons systems I've seen employ many weapons that are clearly not
> >tools, but were weapons of war, and the ability of commoners to become a
> >warrior in Asia varied considerably from country to country and period
> >to period.
>
> Yet this doesn't explain two things: first, the presence of weapons such as
> nunchaku, kama, and kusari-gama, all of which are clearly descended from
> farm implements, as well as the omnipresence of staves (long and short) in
> Asian martial arts. Of course staff combat is hardly unheard of in Europe,
> for much the same reason, but there are no pitchfork kata.
The nunchaku is hardly designed to be practical as a grain flail due to the
equal lengths of each end, and the argument that it was a horse bit is pretty
dodgy in my opinion. Ths kama probably was descended from a farm implement,
but I challenge you to tell me what the kusari-gama (a short sickle with a long
weighted chain attached to it) was used for on the farm. A kusari-gama was
clearly _designed_ as a weapon. It was not a practical tool that someone just
made do with as a weapon.
Also, I never claimed _no_ Asian weapons were descended from farm implements.
This is what I said...
"In any case, I suspect that in Asia (As in medieval Europe) people who were
poor, and were not professional soldiers, and could not afford expensive
weapons made do with tools, many of which could be very deadly. I also disagree
with your main point that "many Eastern martial arts that do use weapons use
weapons that are descended from farm implements" because of a lack of class
mobility in Asia. The Asian weapons systems I've seen employ many weapons that
are clearly not tools, but were weapons of war, and the ability of commoners to
become a warrior in Asia varied considerably from country to country and period
to period."
> Second, I'm interested in why you think unarmed systems flourished so much
> in Asia, rather than in Europe where until the 19th century all we see is
> wrestling, and even then all we get is savate. I don't mean this in a
> snarky way; you're clearly more well-versed in the subject than I am.
--
Ananda Gupta
See the links I provided as a start. There did used to be unarmed and armed
martial arts systems commonly practiced in Europe, though most of them
effectively died out.
Please remember too that I am simply arguing that Asian martial arts _weapons_
were very often not farm implements and/or that the weapons that _were_ tools
were often (depending on the era and region) used not because of the law, but
simply because people who were not professional soldiers could not afford to
(or in some cases had limited reason to) buy professional soldiers' weapons. I
am not particularly concerned about arguments about unarmed systems in the
context of this thread.
Marco
Anton Sherwood
:> The purchase of [kitchen knives]
:> is already controlled to some extent in the UK.
Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> writes
: How? Anything which can reliably and easily cut _meat_
: can reliably and easily cut human flesh. How can you ban
: _kitchen knives_ and still have people make meat dishes?
Well, vegetarianism could get very popular in Britain about now ...
(on another hand, is it easier to cut onions than to cut meat?)
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<msu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The nunchaku is hardly designed to be practical as a grain flail due to the
>equal lengths of each end, and the argument that it was a horse bit is pretty
>dodgy in my opinion.
Seen nunchakus that looked like a trashing tool: one long stick and
one short. Then also three-parted nunchakus.
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/index.htm
Interviews: Jo Walton, David Langford, Ken Macleod
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Old Toby
>
> Barnacle said:
>
> >The purchase of these is already controlled to some extent in the UK.
>
> How? Anything which can reliably and easily cut _meat_ can reliably and easily
> cut human flesh. How can you ban _kitchen knives_ and still have people make
> meat dishes?
In theory, you are right. In practice, live human beings
rarely lie still on a cutting board so that you can slice
through them at your leasure.
Perhaps some people keep their knives sharper than I do,
but cutting through meat involves slow, steady strokes
with the meat pressed down on hard. You may have to
saw a bit to get through the tough bits. I certainly
wouldn't want to have to defend myself with one of the
knives in my kitchen.
Oh yeah, and Mr. Soldier is gonna be a lot firmer than
a well marbled cow.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Adam Benedict Canning
Old Toby wrote:
>
> "Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
> >
> > Barnacle said:
> >
> > >The purchase of these is already controlled to some extent in the UK.
> >
> > How? Anything which can reliably and easily cut _meat_ can reliably and easily
> > cut human flesh. How can you ban _kitchen knives_ and still have people make
> > meat dishes?
>
> In theory, you are right. In practice, live human beings
> rarely lie still on a cutting board so that you can slice
> through them at your leasure.
And the ban is going equipped. I.e. carrying them around in public when
you can't convince a magistrate you had good reason to.
Knives in your own kitchen you have reason to have there.
Adam
Rick
news:3A9A6DAF...@rdg.ac.uk...
>
>
> Old Toby wrote:
> > In theory, you are right. In practice, live human beings
> > rarely lie still on a cutting board so that you can slice
> > through them at your leasure.
>
Umm...it doesn't really matter. If you stab someone in the heart or liver
with a sharp kitchen knife, they're still going to die. A "military-style"
knife is not necessary to kill someone.
> And the ban is going equipped. I.e. carrying them around in public when
> you can't convince a magistrate you had good reason to.
>
> Knives in your own kitchen you have reason to have there.
Again, are criminals intent on using knives for crime going to be bothered
that they are breaking the law by carrying them?
rr...@lanminds.com
Moreno) wrote:
>
>Sure. The reason for the Compact is that there were people walking
>around that were the equivalent of nukes, their going "off" was bad for
>the landscape and there seemed no easy way of stopping this without
>giving it up completely -- so that's just what they did. All weapons
>were banned except hand weapons where there's a solid connection between
>the user and the target -- i.e. whips, swords, knives, staves that sort
>of thing, anything where you can strike beyond the reach of target is
>forbidden (even throwing stones could probably get you in serious
>trouble).
>
>--
>JBM
>"Moebius strippers only show you their back side." -- Unknown
I think they were also going for the psychological affect. If you
have to be in arm's reach of the person you are fighting, you have to
actually see them die. And that is a little bit harder on people than
dropping a bomb on city. Thus by being in close contact, you
hopefully limit your fights to the ones that really matter, and don't
go to war over trivialities.
Rebecca
James C. Ellis
>
> IIRC, there was "social sword control" in medieval and early-modern
> Europe; if you wore a sword and weren't a gentleman and/or a
> gentleman's retainer, you were likely to get beaten up or killed by
> the gentlefolk.
>
> But if you look at Flemish paintings of genre scenes, the drunken
> peasants are usually wearing 18-inch double-bladed knives, as well as
> carrying staves. And nobody wears that sort of knife to cut their
> bread and cheese.
This juxtaposition of swords-and-bread brings to mind the introduction
of Paul the Samurai in The Tick comics (who gets away with carrying his
katana around by baking it into a long baguette).
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
barnacle
>: Barnacle said:
>:> The purchase of [kitchen knives]
>:> is already controlled to some extent in the UK.
>
>Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> writes
>: How? Anything which can reliably and easily cut _meat_
>: can reliably and easily cut human flesh. How can you ban
>: _kitchen knives_ and still have people make meat dishes?
>
>Well, vegetarianism could get very popular in Britain about now ...
>
>(on another hand, is it easier to cut onions than to cut meat?)
Not according to my family - partner's mother, partner. and daughter have all
been savaged by a vegetable knife which has never cut me...I don't think it
likes them!
(partner's mother managed to take a lump out of her thumb before we'd even
bought the damn thing - I think it got its taste for blood then...shades of
'Stormbringer')
--
I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost...
barnacle
http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk
Jordan S. Bassior
>Umm...it doesn't really matter. If you stab someone in the heart or liver
>with a sharp kitchen knife, they're still going to die. A "military-style"
>knife is not necessary to kill someone.
Not only that, but some "kitchen-style" knives are easily large and sharp
enough to do the job. Admittedly, they are less _rugged_ -- the kitchen knife
would be more likely to snap on a bone or something than a true combat knife.
>Again, are criminals intent on using knives for crime going to be bothered
>that they are breaking the law by carrying them?
... especially when they can get one from their own kitchens!
Incidentally, how does one, then, lawfully transport a knife from the store to
one's kitchen?
Jordan S. Bassior
>In theory, you are right. In practice, live human beings
>rarely lie still on a cutting board so that you can slice
>through them at your leasure.
"Knives" really _do_ work as weapons. Trust me on this!
>Perhaps some people keep their knives sharper than I do,
Do you know what a Ginsu is?
>but cutting through meat involves slow, steady strokes
>with the meat pressed down on hard.
That's because one normally cuts _food_ for _control_, not _damage_. If the
meat were restrained by 150-200 lbs of inertia and standing in front of you (as
a human being does) you could easily _damage_ it by slashing and stabbing more
vigorously than one would use to slice meat for the table.
>You may have to
>saw a bit to get through the tough bits.
When one tries to injure another human being with a knife, the point is to
_avoid_ the "tough bits".
>I certainly wouldn't want to have to defend myself with one of the
>knives in my kitchen.
I wouldn't either, but more out of fear that the knife would _break_ than that
it would fail to injure. I have some _sharp_ steak knives.
>Oh yeah, and Mr. Soldier is gonna be a lot firmer than
>a well marbled cow.
"Soldier?" My reasons for not wanting to face a rifle-armed soldier with a
_knife_ (of any kind) have more to do with the capabilities of _his_ weapon
than of mine, or the firmness of his flesh.
Tony von Krag
<plai...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
> >
> > Barnacle said:
> >
> > >The purchase of these is already controlled to some extent in the UK.
> >
> > How? Anything which can reliably and easily cut _meat_ can reliably and
> > easily
> > cut human flesh. How can you ban _kitchen knives_ and still have people make
> > meat dishes?
>
> In theory, you are right. In practice, live human beings
> rarely lie still on a cutting board so that you can slice
> through them at your leasure.
>
> Perhaps some people keep their knives sharper than I do,
> but cutting through meat involves slow, steady strokes
> with the meat pressed down on hard.
Well speaking as a pro Chef, I _NEVER_ have to press hard, I use
enought force to keep what I'm cutting place and then let the knife do
the work.
You may have to
> saw a bit to get through the tough bits. I certainly
> wouldn't want to have to defend myself with one of the
> knives in my kitchen.
Get a good sharping sys (Spiderco etc.) and a steel (I like the flat
F.Dick) and your life spent cutting w/be much nicer.
>
> Oh yeah, and Mr. Soldier is gonna be a lot firmer than
> a well marbled cow.
Not much more tho, a well sharpend entrenching tool does a great job in
dispatching humans. Remember cowhide is tough!
Rodrick Su
>John Ringo wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm sorry to bring up "real life" but does anyone know the reason Chinese
>> people eat with chopsticks?
>
>They generally cut up the meat into small pieces so it would cook faster in the
>pot and save fuel, making table knives superfluous.
One common conception of Chinese regarding bringing forks & knive to the
table: "We are too civilized to bring weapons to the table".
[ Rodrick Su [ ]
[ r...@tigana.com [ I might be crazier than you think. ]
J.B. Moreno
> pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote:
>
> >Sure. The reason for the Compact is that there were people walking
> >around that were the equivalent of nukes, their going "off" was bad for
> >the landscape and there seemed no easy way of stopping this without
> >giving it up completely -- so that's just what they did. All weapons
> >were banned except hand weapons where there's a solid connection between
> >the user and the target -- i.e. whips, swords, knives, staves that sort
> >of thing, anything where you can strike beyond the reach of target is
> >forbidden (even throwing stones could probably get you in serious
> >trouble).
>
> I think they were also going for the psychological affect. If you
> have to be in arm's reach of the person you are fighting, you have to
> actually see them die. And that is a little bit harder on people than
> dropping a bomb on city. Thus by being in close contact, you
> hopefully limit your fights to the ones that really matter, and don't
> go to war over trivialities.
Possibly so, but the prime criteria is to make sure that the planet
sticks around and stays suitable for human life instead of getting blown
up or turned into a giant glass marble, and ditto for cities because
their destruction leads to escalation.
They had an arms race, they ended up with some pretty terrible weapons,
instead of using MAD to prevent the weapons use (which wouldn't be a
good idea since the inbreeding tended to lead to madness) they chucked
them all and created the Compact to ensure that it didn't start up
again.
Joe Slater
>Perhaps some people keep their knives sharper than I do,
>but cutting through meat involves slow, steady strokes
>with the meat pressed down on hard. You may have to
>saw a bit to get through the tough bits. I certainly
>wouldn't want to have to defend myself with one of the
>knives in my kitchen.
You really need to get yourself some good knives. You'll pay a lot
more for them than the "Amazing Lazer Serrated Diamond Edge Cuts
Through Cans and Tomatoes Without Ever Getting Blunt", but a chef's
knife will cut through meat without pressure and without effort. I
simply cannot describe the difference that using a proper knife makes.
jds
--
A penguin, found by police wandering dazed and confused in suburban
Melbourne, was treated today for depression.
_The Age_, 2 February 2001
http://www.theage.com.au/frontpage/2001/02/02/FFXYM5B7PIC.html
Del Cotter
Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> said:
>"Marco S. Subias" <msu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>The nunchaku is hardly designed to be practical as a grain flail due to the
>>equal lengths of each end, and the argument that it was a horse bit is pretty
>>dodgy in my opinion.
>
>Seen nunchakus that looked like a trashing tool: one long stick and
^^^^^^^^
Should that word have been "threshing"?
>one short. Then also three-parted nunchakus.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:KChestertonTheNapoleonofNottingHill:RudyardKiplingCaptainsCour
ageous:NealStephensonCryptonomicon:CSLewisTheLionTheWitchAndTheWardrobe
ToRead:IanMcDonaldDesolationRoad:DorothyDunnettTheDisorderlyKnights:Jac
John Ringo
Adam Benedict Canning <siu9...@rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A9A6DAF...@rdg.ac.uk...
snip
> And the ban is going equipped. I.e. carrying them around in public when
> you can't convince a magistrate you had good reason to.
>
> Knives in your own kitchen you have reason to have there.
Define "carrying around." I have been told by, what I consider a reputable
source, that in Britain, if a kitchen knife is used in self defense in your
livingroom, the homeowner is charged. (There is some fact to the argument
that "self defense" is not a legal right in Britain anymore.)
The reference on this is a conversation at a seminar I attended. I'd love to
have a fixed reference. If someone has a cite, please post it.
And, by the way, if someone just thinks it's too stupid to be possible, go
find a cite that it is false before arguing it. (My reference was from a
retired MI-5 "chappie" who thought it was utter bunk. Especially since the
Sinn Fein still have a rather large price on his head.)
John
--
A Hymn Before Battle: http://www.johnringo.com/AHBB/AHBBCover.htm (Number 6
on Locus Hardcover for October 2000)
Gust Front: http://www.johnringo.com/GustFront/GustCover.htm (April 2001,
Baen Books)
March Upcountry: http://www.johnringo.com/MUCover.htm (with David Weber, May
2001, Baen Books)
March To The Sea: (with David Weber, August 2001, Baen Books)
Heather Garvey
>
>Define "carrying around." I have been told by, what I consider a reputable
>source, that in Britain, if a kitchen knife is used in self defense in your
>livingroom, the homeowner is charged. (There is some fact to the argument
>that "self defense" is not a legal right in Britain anymore.)
Er, so are you just supposed to stand there when there's an
intruder in your house between you and an exit? Or do they allow you
whiffle bats and those padded Q-tip staffs? ("Remove the assailant with
a gentle swabbing motion.")
--
Heather Garvey | We who stride like giants across the
ra...@xnet.com | world and allow all the systems to
The Lady with the LART | speak, each unto the other.
http://home.xnet.com/~raven/ | -- Chad Robinson, BOFH
Tony von Krag
Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
> Rick said:
>
> >Umm...it doesn't really matter. If you stab someone in the heart or liver
> >with a sharp kitchen knife, they're still going to die. A "military-style"
> >knife is not necessary to kill someone.
>
> Not only that, but some "kitchen-style" knives are easily large and sharp
> enough to do the job. Admittedly, they are less _rugged_ -- the kitchen knife
> would be more likely to snap on a bone or something than a true combat knife.
I've used my forged knives for 10-12 hrs a day 6 days a week, a good
chef's knife can break down bone, chocolate, any and all vegies and
still require little care beyond cleaning and sharpening. To look at a
good knife that will do the job on ANY thing a human might cut:
http://www.BigTray.com/productdetails.asp!sku.MTC8144721,catid.16930.htm
l
BTW even the stamped knives are still incredibly sturdy and comfy to
use.
>
> >Again, are criminals intent on using knives for crime going to be bothered
> >that they are breaking the law by carrying them?
>
> ... especially when they can get one from their own kitchens!
>
> Incidentally, how does one, then, lawfully transport a knife from the store to
> one's kitchen?
>
>
> --
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan
> --
> "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
> the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
> late." (Churchill, 1934)
> --
Tony
Chef Anthony von Krag ACF retired
Have spices will travel
Beliver in cast iron cookware
User of sharp knives
Washer of hands and cutting boards
You want Me!!! To cook that well done?
Steinn Sigurdsson
> And the ban is going equipped. I.e. carrying them around in public when
> you can't convince a magistrate you had good reason to.
> Knives in your own kitchen you have reason to have there.
Tony von Krag
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> Old Toby <plai...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Perhaps some people keep their knives sharper than I do,
> >but cutting through meat involves slow, steady strokes
> >with the meat pressed down on hard. You may have to
> >saw a bit to get through the tough bits. I certainly
> >wouldn't want to have to defend myself with one of the
> >knives in my kitchen.
>
> You really need to get yourself some good knives. You'll pay a lot
> more for them than the "Amazing Lazer Serrated Diamond Edge Cuts
> Through Cans and Tomatoes Without Ever Getting Blunt", but a chef's
> knife will cut through meat without pressure and without effort. I
> simply cannot describe the difference that using a proper knife makes.
>
> jds
I'll second that. If anyone needs/wants more info I'll be glad to help.
Write to me at my email, removing the nospam.
Craig S. Richardson
Byler) wrote:
>Because gnus require little physical strength to use effectively (at
>least relative to low-tech weapons), magic control might be a better
>analogy - and I can think of several fantasy stories where the Evil
>Arch-Wizard kills everyone else who has any magical talent to keep
>them from being a potential threat to his rule. Harry Potter, for
>one.
An interesting variant is Barbara Hambly's "Darwath" and "Windrose"
books, which have both magic and
gunpowder-based-weapons-that-some-grep-for. And both are, more or
less, controlled by the powers that be. For pretty much the exact
reason above - it makes it too easy for a small group of people (in
the case of magic, this has within memory been a group of one) to do a
lot of damage to the existing society.
--Craig
--
David Collins from Burnley: 70K pounds
Luke Weaver from Spurs: 500K pounds
Matthew Etherington from Grasshoppers-Zurich: 1.2M pounds
Leyton Orient 1-0 St. Mirren in the 2003 UEFA Cup Final: Priceless
Sockii
> In article <3A995D44...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz>, Gareth Wilson <gr...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> >John Ringo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm sorry to bring up "real life" but does anyone know the reason Chinese
> >> people eat with chopsticks?
> >
> >They generally cut up the meat into small pieces so it would cook faster in the
> >pot and save fuel, making table knives superfluous.
>
> One common conception of Chinese regarding bringing forks & knive to the
> table: "We are too civilized to bring weapons to the table".
ObHongKongMovie: it's amazing the damage a pair of well-applied
chopsticks can do.
Sockii
Chad R. Orzel
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, in rec.arts.sf.written,
>Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> said:
>>Seen nunchakus that looked like a trashing tool: one long stick and
> ^^^^^^^^
>Should that word have been "threshing"?
Not if you've ever seen _Enter the Dragon_...
The nunchaku in that film were definitely used for trashing...
Later,
OilCan
(And then, in accordance with the Iron Laws of Action Cinema, tossed
away in favor of some different weapon...)
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, in rec.arts.sf.written,
>Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> said:
>
>>"Marco S. Subias" <msu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The nunchaku is hardly designed to be practical as a grain flail due to the
>>>equal lengths of each end, and the argument that it was a horse bit is pretty
>>>dodgy in my opinion.
>>
>>Seen nunchakus that looked like a trashing tool: one long stick and
> ^^^^^^^^
>Should that word have been "threshing"?
Should have, but the switch-typo is aquite appropriate, isn't it? :-)
Joe Slater
>>(There is some fact to the argument
>>that "self defense" is not a legal right in Britain anymore.)
ra...@typhoon.xnet.com (Heather Garvey) wrote:
> Er, so are you just supposed to stand there when there's an
>intruder in your house between you and an exit? Or do they allow you
>whiffle bats and those padded Q-tip staffs? ("Remove the assailant with
>a gentle swabbing motion.")
Consider the source of your information. Does he live in the UK? No.
Is he a lawyer? No. Is he someone who goes on and on about guns and
self defence and the god-given right to slice people up for sticking a
toe over his boundary? Yes.
J Greely
>Perhaps some people keep their knives sharper than I do,
>but cutting through meat involves slow, steady strokes
>with the meat pressed down on hard.
I was sitting in a nominally good restaurant in Los Angeles, and they
delivered my steak just right. The only problem was that I couldn't
cut it with the oversized butter knife they provided. I asked for a
steak knife. They claimed they'd given me one. I demonstrated the
sawing/ripping motion necessary to hack off a hunk with their knife,
then pulled out my pocket knife and swiftly sliced the meat into
bite-sized pieces. They backed away in terror from this customer who
carried such a vicious item of cutlery.
I didn't have the heart to tell them that it was overdue for
sharpening.
>You may have to saw a bit to get through the tough bits.
A dull knife in the kitchen is considerably more dangerous to the user
than a sharp one, even if the sharp one would be more dangerous as a
weapon. Any time you have to apply extra force to cut, you risk losing
control of the blade and cutting the wrong thing, usually yourself.
>I certainly wouldn't want to have to defend myself with one of the
>knives in my kitchen.
Feel free to borrow one from my kitchen. Folks looking for a set of
excellent kitchen knives with *very* thinly-ground blades should take
a look at:
http://www.agrussell.com/agrussell/agkt.html
With a steel and a set of crock sticks, you can easily keep a
hair-scaring edge on these, which makes cooking both safer and more
enjoyable.
>Oh yeah, and Mr. Soldier is gonna be a lot firmer than a well marbled
>cow.
The outer layer would likely show some resistance to slashing, yes.
-j
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:57:40 +0100, Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:43:22 -0800, "Marco S. Subias"
><msu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>The nunchaku is hardly designed to be practical as a grain flail
>>due to the equal lengths of each end, and the argument that it was
>>a horse bit is pretty dodgy in my opinion.
>
>Seen nunchakus that looked like a trashing tool: one long stick and
>one short. Then also three-parted nunchakus.
Also, arguing that a given weapon is derived from an agricultural
implement doesn't necessarily mean that it is still identical to that
implement. Wood-cutting axes and headsmen's axes presumably started
out with a common "ancestor", but they certainly didn't stay
identical.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBOpsghTMYPge5L34aEQL2jwCg0UmgNS3kOqBKG1A9iMoODSymaTkAn1Sj
9osXg3AZrHQZnNyF56fNHR3W
=l439
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- eldr...@earthlink.net, eldr...@poboxes.com
PGP key available from:
http://home.earthlink.net/~eldredge/
"There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power;
not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace." - Woodrow Wilson
Phil Fraering
> Consider the source of your information. Does he live in the UK? No.
> Is he a lawyer? No. Is he someone who goes on and on about guns and
> self defence and the god-given right to slice people up for sticking a
> toe over his boundary? Yes.
That's your opinion of everyone who actually believes in the right to
self defense, I guess.
Now that I think about it, the belief (on your part) that anyone who
believes in self defense is a nutjob seems to reinforce Mr. Ringo's
point that it is no longer a viable right in many commonwealth countries.
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
And you can't have my shiny thing!
Joe Slater
>Now that I think about it, the belief (on your part) that anyone who
>believes in self defense is a nutjob seems to reinforce Mr. Ringo's
>point that it is no longer a viable right in many commonwealth countries.
Yes; a false antecedent implies any consequent.
Mark Atwood
>
> then pulled out my pocket knife and swiftly sliced the meat into
> bite-sized pieces. They backed away in terror from this customer who
> carried such a vicious item of cutlery.
I've gotten that reaction from onlookers after snapping open my
multitool and cutting thru cardboard and shipping straps like they
were wet toilet paper. Pretty near everyone in my family carries a
knife with that kind of cutting ability. I carried a razor sharp
pocket knife EVERY DAY in my later public school career.
I *never* even considered it a "weapon". It's a tool. And a damn useful
one at that.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
JoatSimeon
>Perhaps some people keep their knives sharper than I do,
-- well, carving knives, certainly. You want a sharp, but not threaded, edge.
With something like that, any slash will open human flesh deeply, often down to
the bone.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
> If you stab someone in the heart or liver
with a sharp kitchen knife, they're still going to die.
-- true. Although -- OT a bit -- stabbing is not really an effective technique
fighting with an ordinary-sized knife against someone who's resisting you.
(Really _big_ knives, and swords, are a different matter).
With an ordinary-sized or small knife, most of the quickly vital targets for
stabbing are armored in bone.
Getting close enough for a lethal stab is also very risky, if done from the
front against an alerted opponent.
Even if you're taking someone by surprise from behind, a deep stab-slash in the
throat is the most effective. Don't try for the kidneys or liver, and the
heart is right out.
Reach around and push the point in at the base of the throat on the side
opposite from your knife hand and rip it across sharply, with a wrenching
motion, if possible while keeping the chin immobilized with the other hand,
then release the opponent and skip backward if you can.
If not, fall on top of them and pin them while they bleed out.
What you want to get is massive blood loss, as quickly as possible -- that
produces unconsciousness. Opening the big vessels in the throat is the
quickest, of course.
Failing that, with a resisting opponent, just cut at anything you can reach,
long slashes. Keep the blade moving and make as many contacts as you can.
Even if you only get cuts on the arms and torso, the opponent will probably
bleed out fairly quickly. (These are the classic "defense cuts" of forensic
investigations.)
This is also the basis, incidentally, of the old joke that the _winner_ of a
knife-fight goes to the hospital.
It's extremely difficult to parry a knife without taking a cut. Knife-fights
get real messy real quick.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
razor-sharp edge is too likely to turn on bone.
-- S.M. Stirling
J Greely
>I've gotten that reaction from onlookers after snapping open my
>multitool and cutting thru cardboard and shipping straps like they
>were wet toilet paper.
I once had a secretary timidly ask me "why are you carrying
a... *knife*?". I pointed to the large pile of shrink-wrapped software
boxes I was installing for her and said "guess". Oddly enough, I got
less such reactions when I switched from a pocket knife to carrying a
belt-clip kit that included shears, leatherman, screwdriver, and a
large razor-sharp sheath knife. The "tool belt look" apparently made
them feel safer, even though the items involved were far more
objectively dangerous than the tiny 2.5-inch lockback I used to carry.
>I *never* even considered it a "weapon". It's a tool. And a damn useful
>one at that.
I'd say that 90% of the people who ask me why I carry a sharp knife
turn around and ask to borrow it within fifteen minutes, usually after
trying to open packages with their fingernails or teeth. I figure a
few more years of anti-smoking hysteria, and I'll be able to scare
them off with a lighter, too, at which point we will have brought the
human race full circle, with only a small percentage of us possessing
the secrets of fire and tool-using.
-j
Rachel Brown
> >
> > then pulled out my pocket knife and swiftly sliced the meat into
> > bite-sized pieces. They backed away in terror from this customer who
> > carried such a vicious item of cutlery.
I got some interesting looks from my neighbors after my job came to a
sudden and sticky end, causing me to stay late packing everything in my
office into my car and then to drive straight to my dojo. After class I
was too tired to bother changing, and when I got home, I was too tired to
remove anything but the two items that I absolutely would freak out if they
were stolen from my car.
Which is how I came to trudge wearily up the stairs in a sweat-soaked
karate uniform, with a laptop in my left hand and a battle axe leaning on
my right shoulder.
Rachel
J Greely
>Which is how I came to trudge wearily up the stairs in a sweat-soaked
>karate uniform, with a laptop in my left hand and a battle axe leaning on
>my right shoulder.
I think I read the novel that had that picture on the cover. :-)
-j
John Ringo
As I said, I do not have a fixed cite. I would like one.
Do _you_ live in the UK? If so, could you ask a bobby if you have the
absolute right to self-defense? And until you can find a cite to refute me,
bugger off.
To answer Heather, rather than reflexively frothing at the mouth, your
answer is "yes." According to the source of my information (to whom I asked
much the same baffled question) if an intruder enters your home in Britain,
you can use any item which is immediately at hand to distract or damage the
intruder long enough for you to flee your home and contact the police. You
do not have the implied, legal or common law right, as you still do in the
US, to put the intruder in the grave. Any intent on your part to do "undo
harm" to the home invader is treated as simple battery or assault with a
deadly weapon.
Strangely enough, the one area where England, as a unit per one hundred
thousand, assuredly has a higher rate than the US is "armed home invasions."
And, again, the person who was discussing this was a retired member of MI-5,
their equivalent of the FBI as I understand it, who more or less assumed
that some day, as soon as they figured out where he lived, he'd be visited
by a couple of well armed chaps with Irish accents. And he would, of course,
be totally unarmed. And not permitted to defend himself if he _did_ find a
weapon.
He's applied to emigrate to the US.
John
--
A Hymn Before Battle: http://www.johnringo.com/AHBB/AHBBCover.htm (Number 6
on Locus Hardcover for October 2000)
Gust Front: http://www.johnringo.com/GustFront/GustCover.htm (April 2001,
Baen Books)
March Upcountry: http://www.johnringo.com/MUCover.htm (with David Weber, May
2001, Baen Books)
March To The Sea: (with David Weber, August 2001, Baen Books)
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:cf1m9tsl3j0ejrfqb...@4ax.com...
Niall McAuley
>And, again, the person who was discussing this was a retired member of MI-5,
>their equivalent of the FBI as I understand it, who more or less assumed
>that some day, as soon as they figured out where he lived, he'd be visited
>by a couple of well armed chaps with Irish accents.
The MI stands for Military Intelligence, so MI5 (or 6)
is a bit spookier than the FBI, although they do some
similar work combatting terrorists and people with
Irish accents.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Joe Slater
>As I said, I do not have a fixed cite. I would like one.
And I would like world peace.
>Do _you_ live in the UK? If so, could you ask a bobby if you have the
>absolute right to self-defense?
What do you mean by "an absolute right to self defense"? You
originally claimed that there was *no* right of self defense, which
means that there's not even a relative right of self defense, whatever
that might be.
>And until you can find a cite to refute me, bugger off.
The burden of proof is traditionally left to those making a claim.
>To answer Heather, rather than reflexively frothing at the mouth, your
>answer is "yes." According to the source of my information (to whom I asked
>much the same baffled question) if an intruder enters your home in Britain,
>you can use any item which is immediately at hand to distract or damage the
>intruder long enough for you to flee your home and contact the police. You
>do not have the implied, legal or common law right, as you still do in the
>US, to put the intruder in the grave.
This paragraph seems to acknowledge a right to self defence.
>Strangely enough, the one area where England, as a unit per one hundred
>thousand, assuredly has a higher rate than the US is "armed home invasions."
I don't know that, and I'd be very careful of comparing international
statistics. For instance, do both countries use the same definition of
a home invasion? Of a weapon?
Frank Ney
von Krag <von...@yahoo.nospam.com> to write:
>> > My bother-in-law has a US Army cavalry saber. He came by it the hard way
>> > (22 year veteran), knows how to use it, and keeps it sharp.
>>
>> They teach "useful" saber in the Army?
>
>On most US military bases you can learn/teach all most any subject,
>boredom is rampant and PTB like solders "learning!". :)
If you're in the real army. Unfortunately I was assigned to Fort Myer, VA,
where I was considered 'strange' for not wanting to spend my time off drinking
until I puked.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley
Just Say No to Gestapo Tactics http://www.freespeech.org/justsayno
Abuses by the BATF http://www.hamnet.net/~n4zhg/batfabus.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Frank Ney
an...@home.ogre.nu (Anton Sherwood) to write:
>: How? Anything which can reliably and easily cut _meat_
>: can reliably and easily cut human flesh. How can you ban
>: _kitchen knives_ and still have people make meat dishes?
>
>Well, vegetarianism could get very popular in Britain about now ...
They may as well, since at the rate they're going eating mutton will soon be
considered cannibalism...
Frank Ney
Benedict Canning <siu9...@rdg.ac.uk> to write:
>And the ban is going equipped. I.e. carrying them around in public when
>you can't convince a magistrate you had good reason to.
Oh, like the guy in London who got sent to jail for a year. Had three box
knives in his car, his job was opening boxes on a loading dock. Wasn't a good
enough reason in the eyes of the magistrate.
Q: What do you call a barrister with a room temperature IQ?
A: "My Lord."
Mark Atwood
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:m3zof87...@flash.localdomain...
> > "John Ringo" <john...@mindspring.exthisout.com.> writes:
> > >
> > > And you _don't_ want to hear his stories of what the IRA tends to do to
> > > anyone they get their hands on.
> >
> > The thing with a drill press?
> >
> > I pissed off a few people in Boston by relating that little item.
>
> The pig-pen is much, much worse.
What is worse than running a milling bit thru your knees? Burning
at the stake?
Frank Ney
caused ra...@typhoon.xnet.com (Heather Garvey) to write:
>>Define "carrying around." I have been told by, what I consider a reputable
>>source, that in Britain, if a kitchen knife is used in self defense in your
>>livingroom, the homeowner is charged. (There is some fact to the argument
>>that "self defense" is not a legal right in Britain anymore.)
>
> Er, so are you just supposed to stand there when there's an
>intruder in your house between you and an exit? Or do they allow you
>whiffle bats and those padded Q-tip staffs? ("Remove the assailant with
>a gentle swabbing motion.")
If there's an intruder in your home the proper response is to grease your
butt-crack and bend over. Asking him to use a condom is considered excessive
force.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
If you're a politician, bureaucrat, or cop whose livelihood depends on
the drug war, you're fully as contemptible as any pusher, smuggler, or
cocaine baron -- more so, because, unlike them, you profit directly by
destroying what was once the greatest freedom ever known to humankind.
-- Mirelle Stein, _The Productive Class_
Frank Ney
"John Ringo" <john...@mindspring.exthisout.com.> to write:
>In Britain, first of all, you're not permitted to carry weapons anywhere at
>any time. Carrying a weapon, even if there is a clear threat to your life,
>is assumed to be premeditation of harm and is so prosecuted.
There is running around the net a possibly apocryphal story about a US woman
prosecuted and imprisoned in the UK for fending off a rapist with a melon
knife that was carried in her purse.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley
Frank Ney
"John Ringo" <john...@mindspring.exthisout.com.> to write:
>Strangely enough, the one area where England, as a unit per one hundred
>thousand, assuredly has a higher rate than the US is "armed home invasions."
Not the only category, anymore:
> London Times
> http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/
> Sunday, January 11 1998
> FOCUS
>
> More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of
> 40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains
> the crime capital of the West.
>
> Dick Hobbs, a criminologist at Durham University, said crime now
> permeated every aspect of society. "We have
> been encouraged to think over the last 15 years that crime is
> exceptional, but it's now normal for people to commit crime. "For many
> young people, it's a routine activity. In some areas you find up to 90%
> of the youths involved in crime. It provides excitement, it provides
> status among their peers, and it can provide a living. It provides many
> of the functions that you would hope work provides."
>
> To sceptics who say such views exaggerate the decay of green and
> pleasant England, experts reply that violent
> crime, burglary and theft are, proportionally, more prevalent in England
> and Wales than in America.
>
> Since 1979 the number of crimes in England and Wales has doubled -
> rising faster than any western country and 10 times faster than in the
> US. America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema screens,
> is a safer country.
>
> The only European country to come near England and Wales for levels of
> crime is the Netherlands. We are, it
> seems, the crime blackspot of the western world.
>
> THE most detailed study to analyse the percentage of the population
> convicted of crime started with a group of
> people born in 1953 and tracked their progress through four decades.
> About 8% of males had notched up at least
> one conviction by the age of 15; 20% by 20; 31% by 30; and 34% by 40.
> After that age, offences tail off and first offences among older men are
> rare.
>
> It is a mistake to imagine that the crimes are predominantly petty or
> drug-related. The son of Jack Straw, the home secretary, may yet receive
> a criminal record for his alleged involvement with cannabis, but drugs
> formed only about 3% of the convictions in the study. Burglary, theft
> and acts of violence were more common.
>
> The study was conducted by Michael Hough, former deputy head of the Home
> Office research and planning
> unit, and Julian Roberts, a professor at Ottawa University. They now
> estimate that 40% of men have at least one conviction before they reach
> the age of 40. (By contrast, only 8% of women were convicted by the same
> age.)
>
>
> Crime scene: how countries compare
>
> (+) In 'contact crimes', involving violence, England and Wales is just
> ahead of America with a rate of 3.6% of the population being victims. In
> France the rate is 2.2%; in Austria 1.6%
>
> (+) Since the second world war, violent crimes have been rising in
> England and Wales at an average annual rate of 6.5%
>
> (+) Given the general rise in crime, violent offences still account
> for only 6% of the total. Between 1987 and 1995 total offences recorded
> by police rose from 3,892,200 to 5,100,240
>
> (+) Since 1979, the number of recorded crimes in England and Wales has
> doubled, though there has been a decline in recent years. Since 1954,
> there has been a twelvefold increase
>
> (+) A car goes missing in Britain every minute, nearly twice as many
> as in France
>
> (+) 3% of car owners in England and Wales had their vehicles stolen in
> 1995; in America 2.1%; in Switzerland 0.1%
>
> (+) 6.1% of people in England and Wales were victims of burglary
> attempts in 1995; in America 4.9%; in Finland
> 1.2%
>
> (+) In 1996 the burglary rate fell, but there were still 1,164,000
> offences, of which nearly 600,000 were
> domestic break-ins - or 1,600 a day.
>
> (+) More convicted criminals are being jailed: 58,400 were sent to
> prison in 1993 compared with 79,100 in 1995. But a criminal is still
> less likely to be jailed today than in the 1950s
>
> (+) England and Wales have approximately 110 people for every 100,000
> of the population serving a prison sentence while America has about 615
> incarcerated for every 100,000 of the population
>
> (+) Since 1979 the number of crimes in England and Wales has doubled -
> rising faster than any western country and 10 times faster than in the
> US. America, apparently so violent on the television and cinema screens,
> is a safer country.