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/Storie...819165,00.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.

[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

[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.