Does that not sound ridiculous to you? I hope so.
This is a discussion on Alternative Weaponry, Part Two: Machetes within the Defensive Knives & Other Weapons forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; What is with some of the presumptions made in this thread? Point 0: The banner up there says "Edged Weapons". Many of the readers here ...
What is with some of the presumptions made in this thread?
Point 0: The banner up there says "Edged Weapons". Many of the readers here carry/train with tactical folders and similar implements. Discussion of the machete as defense tool is as valid as any other edged implement. If swords and machetes are automatically assumed to be felonious in any jurisdiction, why not any other edged weapon?
Point 1: The article simply discusses the hoplophobia of irrational people and then presents a primer on the utility of a machete in a given context. Nothing is advocated whatsoever. The reader is told to do nothing legal or illegal. The information is factual and objective. The author discusses machetes in the context of current trends and phenomenons, and then discusses how it could be used.
Point 2: If I use a Charter Arms .44 Bulldog for personal protection, will I be associated with the Son of Sam in court? If I use an AK47 pattern rifle will I be seen as a member of a terrorist faction? In the eyes of the law in my state, any tool be it a bat or a machete or a gun is simply lethal force, and it is either warranted or it is not.
Point 3: What is with the assumption that if I purchase a firearm for the express purpose of using it as a weapon if need be I will be forgiven, yet if I do that with any other object I'm breaking some kind of law when in fact no such law exists?
Does that not sound ridiculous to you? I hope so.
while edged weapons can be used, I strongly suggest one gets training in the use of what ever edged weapon you pick. Blades are as unforgiving as guns, it isn't hard to hurt yourself with em.
Yes machetes will work ,so will alot of other weapons too. If you slip and fall on a bat , you might get bruised, a machete may very well cut ya deep. also taking a BG's arm off, or leaving deep cuts will look even worse in court than bruising from blunt trauma. Finally, blunt trauma can be used to end a fight with less permanent damage.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
I think what everyone is saying is that a short sword, or machete, is not a practical weapon to defend yourself and have the expectation that you are going to stay free after using one in a defensive situation. It is my belief that whatever you have at hand when the SHTF, use it. But if you are caught carrying either a machete or a sword of any kind you are going to go to jail and a jury is probably going to convict you. There is a difference between a pocket knife and a sword/machete. You can say it's "like this" and "like that" all you want. IMHO, anyone that uses one is going to be rotting in jail. Quite frankly, the use of a "long blade" is impractical and a bit "out there". Possibly a better place to post this is on a martial arts forum rather than here. At least that's my opinion, yours may differ....
Last edited by QKShooter; February 4th, 2007 at 12:04 AM.
Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.
Case in point:
A 65 year old grandmother A is accosted in public in Arizona by 3 thugs wielding, let's say, tire irons. They tell her they are going to kill her in front of a half dozen credible witnesses. She asks them firmly to leave her alone and they refuse and advance on her. She produces a Glock 26 and wounds all three of them, killing two. Let us assume that she is legally carrying the weapon.
Odds are pretty good, grandmother A has a pretty solid case.
A 65 year old grandmother B is also accosted in public in Arizona by 3 thugs wielding tire irons. They tell her they are going to kill her in front of a half dozen credible witnesses. She asks them firmly to leave her alone and they refuse and advance on her. She produces an Ontario machete and wounds all three of them, killing two. Let us assume that she too is legally carrying the weapon.
Explain to me why grandmother B is going to rot in prison forever?
You may say that's a ridiculous scenario, but it's not more ridiculous than a blanket assertion that Tool A is always blessed by the gods, and Tool B is one way ticket to the slammer.
There was a long time in my life I owned a machete that I had with me almost everywhere. I couldn't yet afford a handgun. It's true that in any self defense scenario we have to be ready for the ensuing legal battle, but we have to live through the fight first. Are we not judged by a jury of our peers? How many times have I read here, better to be judged by 12 than carried by six?
Maybe the idea of a machete as a serious defensive tool is not the most practical one for everybody on the planet. That's okay, but we can't assume that's true for everyone, everywhere, every time. Respectfully I submit my conclusion as follows: The objections to the article are all based on either claiming the author said something he didn't, or else constructing some defeatist situation no less ridiculous than the one I just proposed.
I agree with Bumper that a martial arts forum is a better venue for this type of discussion. We can all argue theoretical this vs that all we want, but our opinions do not really matter. A District Attorney's and Petit Jury's opinions are all that matter in the real world.
Play "sidewalk samurai" all you want - but you're much more likely to do time if you do.
Is there any statistical breakdown of likelihood-of-conviction for using various weapons in legitimate self-defense?
While we are dreaming up ridiculous scenarios, let's say that Granny had a fully articulated infant arm growing out of her head that caught the whole thing on video.
Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.
There's no escaping that "fringe" tools are feared ... by today's society in general, and by extension the jury pool. The last time most folks on the jury pool will have heard of the use of a machete (at least in the U.S.) was regarding the murderous rampage in Rwanda, in the 1990's.
A machete ain't yo' daddy's .45, in the eyes of the jury, and this is about the only thing that matters, practically speaking. Why does Justice wear a blindfold? 'Cause it's embarrassing. Is a machete or "long blade" a practical alternative weapon? Sure. And likely to get you hung if you actually use it, at least at this time in the USA. What a country.
Edged weapons are certainly viable SD tools be it a folder, broken bottle, and yes even sword. But, the consequences of using some weapons depend more on perception of the tool which directly reflects in a jury's mind to the character of the person.
Here's part of the perception problem. LEO shoot people. Hence our society has accepted the use of guns for personal defense. The use of a sword, simply is not a viable SD weapon in the eyes of our society. Japan's society may have a much more amenable perception toward a sword because the sword has been so much a part of their history. But we aren't in Japan, and swords are not a part of our history, guns are.
Even some knives generate a negative perception - switch blades, butterfly knives, knives with spikes etc., and in TN, hawkbill blades are illegal. Why? Society's perception of these weapons.
Carrying a long knife for SD, anywhere, is gonna cause perception problems if you use it for SD. smaller knives would be bad enough. Most people's perception of knife defense is you stab someone and the fight is over. Little do they realize that trained knife fighters will cut muscle attachments to disable limbs, make long, powerful, slashing cuts on the torso in the classic underlined 'X' pattern, and guts just may be oozing out, blood every where, and sickening deep cuts with flesh laid open. Now mulitiply that a bit by what a sword can do and you'll have some idea how ugly and vicious a sword 'victim' can look to a jury.
In fact, a shooting would pale in comparison wouldn't it?
I think I've noticed a disturbing trend here and for fear of having myself booted for sticking my boot in my mouth I'll try to keep it short. It seems to me, many of you are displaying the same phobia of the perception of an edged weapon that we daily attack the anti-gunners for. So the perception is bad...did that stop you from carrying a side-arm? If public perception were to change and guns were suddenly lopped into the same boat in this country as they have been in notso great Britain in the past, would you stop carrying your 1911? The simple fact of the matter is that there is a myriad of tools useful at any given time for the defense of self and family. Don't discount any of them just because you fear the public perception or because you THINK you already have the right tools to cover all occassions (contrary to public opinion a sledge-hammer isn't the best tool to solve all problems)
again this is all amoot point here as if i leave my house carrying anything longer than 3 or 3.5" i dont remember for sure i go to jail
so for me im in the who cares catagory
if im in my house thats what a gun is for lot easier to store than a swoard or machete
When one CC member is concerned about a weapon being perceived badly by the courts, he is showing genuine concern for the legal safety of a fellow member. It is a serious concern not to be taken lightly by another member who is quick to use the "well, you're thinking just like them" defense.
On the other hand, there are people who are unable or unwilling to use a firearm for self-defense but who are willing and able to use other means.
We must always remember that we as individuals represent the whole. What one of us does ends up affecting all the others, which is why we must always put our best faces forward.
We must follow the laws of our states and chose our weapons carefully and use them carefully. Choosing a weapon and learning how to use it are only parts of being a warrior. If we are going to be successful warriors, we must not only be able to defend ourselves in the street, we must be able to come home to hug our families at the end of the day, which means we must be able to defend ourselves in court. Therefore, we cannot merely pick a weapon and then brush aside how it will be perceived in the courts.
What we defend ourselves with and how we defend ourselves will be dissected by the courts, who are more than likely going to be not one of us, which is why we try to so hard to avoid and de-escalate a situation at all costs, because when we do end up in court, we know the odds can be against us, no matter how in the right we were to defend ourselves. It's unfortunate, but that's how things are.
We have two opinions here and validations for both. I think what needs to be said about this topic has already been said.
"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa