It's attitudes like this (legislate everything! Doesn't matter if it's enforceable let alone in violation of constitutional rights!) and their accompanying flawed arguments that make me weep for the future of America.
You say handheld projectile weapons, this includes bows, crossbows, and spears, you understand? Those things are basically ways of getting a blade into your opponent, the goal of the dueling you propose, and so functionally identical to your sword. If we say only blunt handheld projectiles, then do we outlaw marbles for slingshots and good, old-fashioned fist-sized rocks? Where do we stop?
You also say that 99.9% of the earth's population would have to learn a skill, and I have to respond with a hearty WTF? The 99.9% statistic was so much crap, but, disregarding it, how much skill does it take to swing a stick? Hominids have done that for millions of years. They even stepped it up by using the shoulder bone of an antelope (that ball joint makes a frigging great skullcracker!). As to the "dueling" that you mention, it was, much like boxing, an instituted thing. The essence of it was to avoid the "heat of the moment" and make death-dealing a serious thing, which it should be. But it was also entertainment! Real life doesn't follow rules, as any victim of a violent crime will tell you.
Jesus Christ, what makes you think that a burglar or a rapist will challenge you to trial of arms?
Why not delegislate instead, hmm? Make everything legal and what you're strong enough to hold, you get to keep? It's as legitimate as what you propose, and has the precedent of nearly a billion years of success here on earth!
As to it being much harder to "accidently"(sic) kill instead of merely injure with blade or blunt weapons, you do understand that a puncture wound is a puncture regardless of delivery methods? That an untended gut wound will get septic whether you got it from a bacteria-infested kitchen knife or a solvent-cleaned slug? That trauma surgeons would rather see small-caliber arms wounds than lacerations because they, in fact, are less likely to kill because bleeding is more easily stopped?
As to your contention as to whether there seems to be more respect for the handling of such than for the handling of guns, well, of course there is! People see blades every single day--they're not afraid of them! People hardly ever see firearms except on television, even more rarely do they handle them. In this case, unfamiliarity breeds contempt because you only hear the bad stories about firearms, not the fact that more than 2.5 million times a year, firearms are used by private individuals to prevent crime. Too, most people have been cut once or twice, and, like the lesson of playing with fire, have learned safe procedures to handle blades. Knives are tools--sometimes of self defense--and people handle them that way. Guns are the self-defense equivalent of powertools and too many people don't wear their safety glasses or stand in puddles when they plug them in.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-05-24 09:12 pm (UTC)You say handheld projectile weapons, this includes bows, crossbows, and spears, you understand? Those things are basically ways of getting a blade into your opponent, the goal of the dueling you propose, and so functionally identical to your sword. If we say only blunt handheld projectiles, then do we outlaw marbles for slingshots and good, old-fashioned fist-sized rocks? Where do we stop?
You also say that 99.9% of the earth's population would have to learn a skill, and I have to respond with a hearty WTF? The 99.9% statistic was so much crap, but, disregarding it, how much skill does it take to swing a stick? Hominids have done that for millions of years. They even stepped it up by using the shoulder bone of an antelope (that ball joint makes a frigging great skullcracker!). As to the "dueling" that you mention, it was, much like boxing, an instituted thing. The essence of it was to avoid the "heat of the moment" and make death-dealing a serious thing, which it should be. But it was also entertainment! Real life doesn't follow rules, as any victim of a violent crime will tell you.
Jesus Christ, what makes you think that a burglar or a rapist will challenge you to trial of arms?
Why not delegislate instead, hmm? Make everything legal and what you're strong enough to hold, you get to keep? It's as legitimate as what you propose, and has the precedent of nearly a billion years of success here on earth!
As to it being much harder to "accidently"(sic) kill instead of merely injure with blade or blunt weapons, you do understand that a puncture wound is a puncture regardless of delivery methods? That an untended gut wound will get septic whether you got it from a bacteria-infested kitchen knife or a solvent-cleaned slug? That trauma surgeons would rather see small-caliber arms wounds than lacerations because they, in fact, are less likely to kill because bleeding is more easily stopped?
As to your contention as to whether there seems to be more respect for the handling of such than for the handling of guns, well, of course there is! People see blades every single day--they're not afraid of them! People hardly ever see firearms except on television, even more rarely do they handle them. In this case, unfamiliarity breeds contempt because you only hear the bad stories about firearms, not the fact that more than 2.5 million times a year, firearms are used by private individuals to prevent crime. Too, most people have been cut once or twice, and, like the lesson of playing with fire, have learned safe procedures to handle blades. Knives are tools--sometimes of self defense--and people handle them that way. Guns are the self-defense equivalent of powertools and too many people don't wear their safety glasses or stand in puddles when they plug them in.