Banning weaponry

[Radhnoti]

I've tried to post this a few times, but kept messing up or being interrupted. A wiser/less stubborn man might give it up and write it off as fate intervening...but, on to my point.
California has just outlawed "plastic knuckles" for the article go here:
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1865%257E819165,00.html

Anyway, am I the only one who feels this to be either pointless or a dangerous precendent? The fear is that these plastic knuckles will get past airport security and aid terrorists. What's going to stop some enterprising company from simply changing materials again? Hard wood, shatterproof glass, hardened rubber? And when each of these is outlawed in turn what's to stop a slight variation in "knuckle" design? Making the preferred point of impact the palm, or heel of the hand? My point is, you'll never be able to CONTROL what weapons people can purchase with such specific laws. You'd have to pass a general ban on things that could be carried in a concealed manner. How much work would it be to replace the steel in the following weapons (all of which I found for sale by clicking on the banner on top of the page) with something that can get past a metal detector? Or simply to design them from the outset with no metal...not that the BRASS knuckles are legal in California.
Whip chain, yawara, manriki chain, iron fan, flying weight, rope dart, meteor hammer...? I feel it's naive to assume the martial community won't be impacted by poorly thought out laws like this one in the future.
And STILL there's been no ban on box cutters, which...as I understand it...was the primary weapon used by the terrorists on 9/11.
It's either ridiculous, or small steps toward more restrictions...neither of which should be tolerated.
Any thoughts, comments, arguments or insights are welcome and appreciated.

[dnc101]

Radh, good question. And I agree with you. In the aftermath of any atrocity (911 was not just a 'tragedy') you allways have a lot of politicians trying to outdo each other in getting laws passed to take better care of us. Most are ill concieved and useless for their stated purpose- to make us safer. However, they all take a little more away from our freedoms. But my guess is that most people are not that concerned about it. Like frogs in a slow boiling pot...

[Shadow Dragon]

Putting 9/11 aside for a second.

According to the Article Carlifornia already banned Brass knuckles and the plastic ones are the same type of weapon just made from a different material.

If Brass knuckles are illegal so than should be any version of them.
Looks like the original Law was too specific and they got caught with their pants down and now use 9/11 to justify adding the new law.

Most good Weapons law specify a type of weapon and not a specific weapon.

Cheers.

[Radhnoti]

I've not seen the law, but I can almost guarantee an enterprising manufacturer will be able to find a "loophole" to create almost the exact same product. That is, unless and until the law is made so general that it (eventually) encompasses some traditional martial arts weaponry. This is not ENTIRELY wild conjecture, look at the "assault rifle" legislation and the way it gets picked apart. I'm not saying this is "bad" or "good", it just IS. If there's a demand, there will be a supply and the manufacturers will meet that demand, legally, for as long as possible. Only very general legislation will stop the LEGAL manufacture of these "weapons", but I think it'll also end up forcing some of the weapons I mentioned before underground.
Either that, or it was just wasted legislation.
:rolleyes: :)

[dnc101]

Both of you are talking about the issue of a law being written in specific or general terms, which hits at the heart of the problem. If too specific, it is easy to circumvent the law. If too general, the law is too easily abused and/or effects things that were never intended. For example, I have two plastic hand splints which I occasionally wear. They were prescribed by a doctor and made by a physical therapist. One could easily be mistaken for plastic knuckles, the other would make an awesome ridge hand or heel palm weapon (got major comments when I wore them to a class- mostly before sparing). I don't have the prescription any more. so my choice would be to throw them out or face possible weapons charges. My point is that laws don't solve problems. At best, they confuse the issue, and they usually make things worse. Our society today tends to look to the government to solve all our problems, and all we get are laws that restrict us but do little to deter the bad guys. As martial artists we, of all people, should understand that the responsibility for your safety lies mostly in your own hands. Preparation, awareness, a willingness to act- these are the things that will make you and those arroud you safe. Laws only restrict the options of the law abiding. That is you (I presume), not the hijacker or mugger, or other low life.

[gazza99]

Pens or pencils can be easily used to poke an eye out , or gouge someone in the throat , or ear. I fail to see why a nail file wouldnt be allowed on a plane (or on a Berkley campus) but a ballpoint pen would! The ignorance and unfounded fear of the legal system and people in general is astounding. Im keeping my pen set no matter what and Ill carry it anywhere, **** the future rulings of the paranoid courts.

Gary R.

[ratman201]

In the end it makes no difference. If you read wording of laws in states and cities with high crime rates it is very clear that anything can be deemed a weapon if there is resonable suspicion that it wil be used as one.
I was stopped at Atlanta international for having a skateboard.
In fact in NYC your fist can be lable as weapons; it depends on the condion of the victim. You can also be arrest for assault of stopping a mugging; depending on the muggers condition.
Weapon laws aren't black and white. Basically anything that was designed as a weapon is illegal and anything that wasn't can be deemed so if the situation warrents it (such as a lighter). While this dosen't whole true everywhere Cali, New York, Atlanta, and airports it does (well at least not it does). Remeber most of the people at ariport security haven't been exposed to the wide range of possibilties that the MA has if the do not recognize something as a weapon it won't be confiscated (unless its a skateboard in ATL, im bitter).

[Kristoffer]

What the **** has 9/11 with any of this?? What, u wanna have guns incase a bunch of talibans invade your country? And you don't think your millitary will take care of this matter? That's the weakest argument I've ever heard.

[Cyborg]

Kristoffer, you're apparently short on the concept. The best deterrent to getting invaded is everyone having a gun. After WW2 the Japanese said that they didn't invade our west coast because of that very reason. They wouldn't have just been fighting our military, but also the majority of the civilians.

The fact is that laws don't deter criminals, only honest citizens. What deters criminals is force. So when you pass a law, mostly what happens is that you disarm the honest individual and thus remove his ability to defend himself.

We have a saying here in Texas, "an armed society is a polite society". Perhaps you should look at the armed robbery rates in the UK. They banned all handguns a couple years ago and what did the violent crime rates do? SURPRISE... they went up!
Washington D.C. has the highest crime rate last time I looked, and, SURPRISE... they have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

And those are simply the individuals dealing with each other. Let's think back to Nazi Germany, they began with registration of all guns and eventually took them away in the name of crime reduction. (All those evil Jews ya know...)
Let's see, Mussolini did the same thing...

"Those who would give up liberty for security, deserve neither" Benjamin Franklin

[Boffo]

Originally posted by Cyborg
[B]After WW2 the Japanese said that they didn't invade our west coast because of that very reason.

I never heard this before. Could you provide documentation of this quote?

In addition, the Japanese did invade the West Coast! Early in the war they landed on the Aleutian Islands, which is part of Alaska (then a territory rather than a state, I believe).

Anyway, I always thought the reason that the Japanese didn't invade was a combination of distance and logistics. Not fear of the general level of the armament of the American population.

[Radhnoti]

Cyborg is referring to Admiral Robert Menard's story recounted by numerous pro-gun media outlets. Here it is:
"At the time, the Japanese Empire certainly understood it as it drafted plans to invade the mainland United States. In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.

Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.

Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander’s face as he frankly answered the question. You are right, he told the Americans. We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand. "

Kristoffer, 9/11 was brought up because possible use by terrorists is the senator's rationale for banning the plastic knuckles.

[dnc101]

I don't think kristoffer is missing the concept. He's more likely just using the occasion to rail against those demonic firearms and the evil people who own them. He set up a straw man argument- stating your (alleged) argument as something he could easily beat with twisted 'logic'. But he blew it. Everyone here was just talking about plastics, until he brought up guns.

Any how, good posts from you and Radhnoti.

Boffo, how many households do you think there were in the Aleutians when the Japanese invaded- armed or otherwise? That was lame.

[Cyborg]

Well, I guess I'm not needed! :)

Thanks for the help guys.

And remember "guns don't kill people, I kill people"! heh heh, just kidding:D

[Waidan]

I live in CA, and I've seen some pretty bizarre ideas on what constitutes a "weapon".

Years ago, when I was in highschool, a friend of mine was stopped by police while walking home at night. He happened to be carrying a thin eucalyptus branch he'd found on the sidewalk. Apparently, this useless 1/2" diameter twig was in fact a "club". The cops cuffed him, searched him, sat him in the cruiser, and threatened to take him to jail. Fortunately he was just down the street from his house, and his parents came outside and had it out with the officers, who then decided it wasn't worth their effort and packed it in. Happy ending, sure, but it shows how easily some of these gray laws can be manipulated by a-hole cops. It's enough to really freak me out.

[SanSoo Student]

I think that it should not be a concern for a martial artist that plastic and brass knuckles are outlawed. People that use those type of "weapons" usually do not know how to fight. Think about it... if you were in an airplane and someone was trying to hijack it using plastic knuckles, what would you do? I would walk up to him and pysch him up, then poke him in the eyes and four knuckle punch him in the throat. If you know how to pysch up your opponent, you will have a window of opportunity where he is aggitated and his guard is down. During that time, those "plastic" knuckles shouldn't bother you, you should have attacked him in that 1-2 second frame and crippled or maimed him already.

[Waidan]

Originally posted by SanSoo Student
[B]I think that it should not be a concern for a martial artist that plastic and brass knuckles are outlawed. People that use those type of "weapons" usually do not know how to fight.

That's exactly why it is a concern for me. It's the same reason why people's inability to get a CCW here disturbs me. I don't normally carry any type of weapon, because I don't worry about being mugged or assaulted. Just by virtue of my size I don't make for an appealing target. But what about all the guys and gals out there that could use some help in the defense department? When you strip them of the ability to legally carry even a small knife or baton, it gives the predators an even greater advantage than they already possess. The bad guys are armed (if I was a mugger, for instance, do you really think I'd care whether I was legally allowed to carry a knife, gun, or bludgeon?), and they have the element of surprise. Taking away their prey's right to arm themselves is like giving the bad guys a free pass.

Seriously, if I was bent on a career in violent crime, I'd head straight for California. Why take chances in a concealed-carry state when you can be assured of unarmed prey and good weather here in sunny socal?

[SanSoo Student]

Isn't that what pepper spray and self defense classes for? Those small concealed weapons like brass knuckles aren't usually carried by women and puny men. The are carried by those wannabe gang bangers.

[Waidan]

You have a point, but I'll tell ya, I've known plenty of wanna-be bangers (i live in Costa Mexico) and none of them sport plastic knuckles. I don't think there's been an epidemic of plastic knuckle related crimes recently. And if I wanted to hijack an airliner, rob a liquor store, or threaten my elderly neighbors, I sure as heck wouldn't employ plastic knuckles. However, if I wanted something a bit more effective than a rape-whistle, I might consider a pair. It's a silly law, and the only people it hurts are those who would choose to carry them for self defense. Criminals are going to carry whatever the heck they want, regardless of bans and such.

Beating someone senseless with brass knuckles and taking their wallet should be a crime. Owning a pair shouldn't be. The same could be said for guns, knives, etc.

btw I'd never suggest knuckles, knives, or batons to a weak individual for self defense. Pepper spray, or better yet a .38 is a much better way to go.

[Ryu]

That quote about Menard wasn't biased at all. I believe every word of it. :)


;)

Ryu

[SanSoo Student]

yea I believe that ban these lethal weapons are pretty ludicrious, especially the ninchuku law. I mean it was just one kid that hurt people with them, does everyone go around hurting people with ninchukus or plastic knuckles? I think people are too scared to try and exercise restraint instead of ban every weapon that is "lethal".

[Ryu]

"ninchukus" Are those specially made nunchaku for ninjas? :D


Sorry, I had to. :D I'm just kidding.

Ryu

[SanSoo Student]

Everybody Knows that ninjas can be anywhere....
There might be one behind you right now :eek:
Becareful they are everywhere waiting to hurt us with ninchukus..

[GeneChing]

As 'weapon' sellers, we here in the California-based www.MartialArtsMart.com office are very sensitive to weapon laws. We abide to the letter of the law when it comes to sales of stuff like nunchukus http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/nunchaku.html . I can't even buy one here if I wanted to. We do get audited for this on a regular basis.

The plastic knuckle thing is a little surprising since it was my understanding that anything that crossed the knuckles was illegal wheter it be a plastic knuckle, one of those keychains with the prongs that stick out (which is why we sell these : http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/product---index-75-0.html) or a guard on a knife (like a WWI trench knife.) It sounds like the ban was largely symbolic, some sort of gesture to show how tough the law is here in CA :rolleyes: It's a shame, because I used to collect knuckle dusters. Of course, in the light of this new law, my collection has been properly disposed of ;) FWIW, for many years I used to carry this beer bottle opener/paint can opener that fit comfortably in my hand. Ban that baby, governor, right along with my box cutter.

The tricky part in the law here in CA is that the arresting officer can determine "intention." That means if you are caught with a weapon, the cop looks you over and decides how hard to bust you. He judges whether you were taking that bat to a softball game or a barroom brawl. If you're a punk, or guilty (or maybe of person of color, but we shouldn't get into that :eek:) you probably will get busted. If you can talk to cops, you might be able to get away. I've found that once they get past my long hair and into my martial arts background, cops are pretty into the arts. Thus I've never been busted for weapons.

[Purjo]

As a reply to an earlier post about invasion-prevention by general gun ownership.

If I was to invade a country I would prefer if the civilians had weapons.

Reason 1. Civilians are normaly untrained in organized warfare so the probability that they will shoot friendlies is high. They might shoot good and be accurate but you have to know what to shoot at. The enemy won't stand up with a bullseye on his chest.

Reason 2. You can get away with killing armed civilians. Unarmed civilians requires more resources for concentration camps and such. You don't have to guard a corpse.

In sweden we have pretty restrictive weaponlaws. You have to be a licensed hunter to own a rifle and you have to compete to be allowed to get a license for a pistol or revolver (unless you use one in your occupation).

[Cipher]

It really is not hard to understand why it is a bad thing to have such tight weapon laws. Just take a look at history and that tells us a lot. Heck look at all of the MA weapons that came to be because the countries governments took away all of their weapons so they started learning how to use tools and farm equipment as deadly weapons. Japan is a wonderful example of this.

Look at all of the countries involved in Communism and genocide and what is one of the main things they have in common?........ding, ding you guessed it they have super strict weapons laws. I fear that America will one day go down this path. The problem is the government, Laws, police and military absolutly cannot garantee my protection, so therefore I enjoy the oppurtunity to protect myself. Whats next a ban on studying Martial Arts? It would not supprise me.

And lets not forget the wonderful 2nd ammendment that our country was founded on saying that I have the right to bear arms to protect myself, those silly founding fathers of the country we enjoy.

As many have said already I just have to say it too. A crook will give less that 2 shets in a hail storm that he is carrying an illegal weapon, he is mugging/rapping/robbing a bank/stealing a car the least of his worries is that evil 2.51" fixed blad knife in his belt. Gun and weapon laws hurt the honest people not the crooks, it has been proven over and over but the commie morons in our government what their own agenda filled.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with certain gun and weapon laws lie getting a CC license and having crime checks done when you get a gun but not when they disarm the people.

Ah, okay.... crud....here it is, fine I took the chill pill. I'll be OK.

Purjo,

ROFL, that was a great joke....... that was a joking right?

[Purjo]

Well.. Half joke.. Half serious..

I am VERY happy that I live in a country with restrictive laws. Ok. I have little or no defence against an armed criminal. But on the other hand. I am a lot less likely to get killed as long as I stay calm and don't start waving a gun of my own in front of a person threatening me. It's also very unlikely that I would be caught in crossfire when someone else is trying to defend his/her property. Here, the criminals don't have a reason to kill people just to get some stuff. A burglary seldom results in deaths.

I heard somone say a pretty good thing once: "Locked doors are too keep honest people out. Those that really want to get in do get in".

Even though I am against guns I have to say that it would be a really bad move to ban guns in the US. But this is only because there are so many guns in circulation already that no one has any track of. If such a ban would become a reality there would be no way to enforce it.

[dnc101]

People are people, wherever they are. And human nature is that the strong will try to take advantage of the weak. Some do it by numbers, some use their size and strength to intimidate and dominate, some use weapons- both legal and illegal. The primary equalizing factor is the availability of weapons and the skills to use them for everyone. Size, strength, even numbers are not nearly as important if I can shoot straighter, cut quicker, or bludgeon any one foolish enough to get within striking distance.

[Cipher]

Originally posted by Purjo
......I am VERY happy that I live in a country with restrictive laws......

You don't live in the US do you? I'm proud to say I live in one of the least restrictive (overall) countries.

dnc101,

I agree, crooks will use what they what weather it's legal or not therefore I enjoy the right to protect myself from those people if need be.

[Shisio]

Sorry guys, but I just had to ask. Box cutters are banned because of 9/11 right? (this is going to sound really stupid...)
I still don't completly get why there banned, other than being a blade. Hell, a pencil is more dangerous than a box cutter, or a broken bottle or glass (all still accessible on planes). And as for 9/11, I just can't believe that they used wimpy box cutters to hijack multiple planes! Like in other situations, I 1" or less blade wouldn't be adaquate.

Otherwise I for one make a good mugging target, I'm short, skinny, and white. So I basically poses no intimidation factor. And yes, random jerks have tried to attack me cause of that. So now I carry knives and I act like I'm carrying (not around cops). So I'm grateful that I can legally carry weapons.

[dnc101]

Shis, box cutters are only banned on passenger planes. The 'weapons' being discussed here are being banned statewide.

BTW, looking confident is good, just don't let them know why you are so confident untill it is too late.

[saurian]

Purjo: Maybe your thieves only steal for a living, but here in the US, thrillkilling is quickly becoming the main reason for committing crimes. Until you live in such a society, I feel it is an ignorant assumption on your part to presume what is "good" for us, based on your limited experiences in a very different land. Also (and please correct me if I am wrong), I understand that in order to pay for such "restrictive" legislation and its enforcement, your taxes are so high in Sweden that more and more people are getting on welfare because it is pointless to work, thus destroying the backbone of the working class in an attempt to create a socialist utopia? Does your government still give out free needles to drug addicts?