swords in the news

Merkles wrote:

Wow...the radical difference of opinion between those in the US and those outside the US are startling (though not sure of Mr. Skeletor's take). I hardly EVER chime in on political issues on the internet--esp on forums where I enjoy visiting--but I'm used to being able to go out for a beer with those that I disagree with...even vehemently.

My reaction is the polar opposite of Schwieg's. Some of the reactions decrying this action of self-defense make me worry about the future of Western Civilization. From what I understand, places like Belgium do not even allow defensive measures like Pepper Spray. That's what is scary...and only encourages further disorder and criminality.

I sympathize with Schweig's and other's concern about the ultimate value of human life---I do not rejoice in the death of the intruder; but I do not think the student with the sword fighting back in self-defense on his property is in the wrong at all (from what I have read). There's a difference between self-defense and vigilantism that is often overlooked. It is important not to conflate them.

To end on an analytical note, I believe the difference of opinion has something to do with a civilization's (or individual's) approach to self-reliance and liberty.

In which country are you more likely to be the victim of crime, the US or Belgium, and in which country are you more likely to be the victim of violent crime?

In Europe, self defence means defending yourself against someone attacking you who you believe has an intention to kill or severely injure. Defence of property is not considered self defence and is not really covered by law.

I think the difference is a very deep cultural difference in the view of humanity. In the US, I think there is an idea that there are good people and there are bad people. The good people are free to do whatever they have to to protect themselves from the bad people. In Europe, the view is that there are just people and if they do bad things this is because society has failed them. This means that society must do what it can to make these people good again and stop. It is not as simple as that. Each country is somewhere on that scale. I'd say the UK is somewhere in the middle. It is noticeable that the further towards the society failing side a county is the less crime it has.

To answer your first question--and, more specifically, on rates of violent crime per 100,000 residents as of 2009:

Belgium: 1,006 (rate per 100,000 residents)
US: 466 (rate per 100,000 residents)

Seems to point to the wisdom, utility, and safety of the US model.

As to the other--you're probably right when it comes to a view of humanity. Europeans hold a wholly Enlightenment model of human nature. Very much like Emile by Voltaire. Any problems are a result of bad education or bad environment...change the environment, then the "sickness" of the problem will go away.

The US has such Enlightenment beliefs in the possibility of good in every man, but also holds onto the notion from the Founding Fathers (with a good dose of Calvinism) regarding the role of public virtue and a healthy skeptical attitude towards human nature

Believe it or not, I'm viciously anti-NRA as well. I don't want to live in a society where the police are outgunned by average citizens, because then the laws become a joke and justice is replaced with just us. I'm not a big fan of hunting, but I don't begrudge hunting if the season is reasonably short, the regulations are enforced and the animal population is monitored and maintained at a decent minimum level. Otherwise, I think that the only proper place for guns is in the home for self-defense. And it's insane that people are required to get at least as much safety-training for guns as they get for operating a motor vehicle.

Matt, good point about weapon length in closed-in spaces. I'm not sure of the legality of a sawed-off shotgun around here, though, and I'm still not ready to bring guns into my home. It seems like too many gun-related deaths in the U.S. still involve accidents with children or domestic disputes that spun out of control. Anyway, while a sword is nice in terms of reach, my gothic bastard sword would be absolutely awkward in certain parts of our place. The katar would be a much better choice... a little bit of reach, but still short enough for any space. And it isn't meant to be swung, it's designed to impale with a punching motion, so it doesn't require a lot of space. Also, the guards alongside the grip make it less likely that anybody will disarm me.

In America, a criminal who is breaking into your house has already decided that he is willing to risk his life to steal your property. To kill him is to validate his choice.

This thread is becoming political, if it isn't already. So if you continue reading don't bitch and whine later that you're leaving the site over it. Its your own fucking fault because Lord Humungus is giving you this warning to walk away from it.

wow this thread has really grown some legs! I'm going to have to read back and see if Schewig or others share my point of view. My main points/concerns were:

1) I'm surprised that the police don't automatically put this guy up on charges. He took another human life. If he gets off, then that's fine. But I think the second you take someone's life outside of being in a state of war, you need to go through due process to ascertain if it's manslaughter, criminal negligence, legitimate self-defence or something far far worse a la O.J.

2) I'm surprised to learn that you can pretty much automatically kill someone who enters your home in the States. Giving them warning or not seems almost irrelevant since you can say anything.

3) I'm not surprised to see many people here and outside of here think that it's valid to kill someone who enters your home. Why is this all or nothing? Why the hell would you just simply kill the person instead of pursuing any number of different avenues outside of this brutal solution? Seems like incapacitating him is very extreme but probably the best choice if you can't talk them down.

Anyway, I'll reread the thread cuz I'm interested to see how many people aren't all about just taking the life of another human being because you feel justified in doing so.

I would guess that a large majority of people that enter homes aren't looking for a confrontation and would retreat quite quickly and easily if met with any kind of opposition. I don't think that the vast majority of people entering homes are looking to kill children or families. They are trying to steal valuables or get their hands on Space Hulk cuz it's sold out.

The argument that "well, how can I know he's not here to kill my children?" is super weak because technically, why don't you just kill every single person that starts walking towards your kid. We're human beings and are capable of rational thought.

In the end I think this will just boil down to those that are for the death penalty versus those that are against.

edit: after rereading the thread, i sure have lots of respect for Schewig. I think we're on the same page. Thinking that someone who breaks into your home is ready to lose their life is ridiculous. No one that breaks into someone's home is banking/planning on getting killed. Quite the opposite and I think they would retreat quite readily and quickly like a frenchman if they saw some dude with a Katana.

To the guy that said he'd rather use a frying pan than a Katana. Respect for that for sure. But i'd say that's only true if you intend to use one of them. If I had both in my house, I'd grab that Katana cuz sure as shit no one is going to lunge at you or call your bluff if you're holding a fucking Katana. Which leads me to think this story is horseshit, who the hell charges someone holding a sword, I don't want to force some lunatic's hand and get my head cut off. "oh shit, you have a sword? You must be nuts or one of those swordowners that is always talking about how badly they would love to use their sword on a home intruder. Peace out, I'm outta here"

Well first, I'm totally against the death penalty, mostly because there is no way that the government isn't fucking it up and killing innocent people.

I think there is a big difference between actually being brought up on charges and just being investigated. You don't need to be charged for the cops to thoroughly figure out what went down. And with the legal system the way it is, there would then be an even heavier bias towards the wealthy who could afford great lawyers to get them off.

To me it's generally all or nothing because 1. I have no idea what you might actually be about, and I don't intend to punch you in the mouth only to have you pull a weapon on me. 2. I'm just going after you till you stop, you might be dead, you might just be incapacitated, I'm not going to give you an opportunity to strike back by stopping to check out your situation 3. by talking first, you're basically gambling that they do not have any ill intent towards you, otherwise you just gave up a huge tactical advantage and put yourself at much greater risk.

I dunno how many drugged out criminals you've been around, but dudes are pretty not giving a fuck around these parts and I could easily see some dude going after a "punk ass college boy wanna be ninja bullshit bitch" with little concern for the sword.

I do totally agree with the failure of society model for understanding crime and it's causes.

There is a huge difference between someone walking near you and someone breaking into your home when it comes to potential expected threat level. Statistically in the US, there are a huge number of burglaries that turn into murders because the intruder is confronted.

Also, with regards to the taking of another's life, recognize that everyday all of us who live in first world industrial capitalist societies and partake in the luxuries of said society are at the very least indirectly responsible for the death and exploitation of tens of thousands of people around the world every year. How much money have you spent on games, a total luxury, that you could have spent to prevent starvation? We all make decisions that kill other people, some of them are just more hands on than others.

Another reason why it's so important to be able to defend yourself in your own home is that inside, it's a lot less likely that a bystander will come to your assistance. Somebody mugs you on a city sidewalk, there are all kinds of possible witnesses who might call for help or interfere, like other pedestrians, drivers, people coming out of buildings, etc. Inside your home, you are potentially more isolated and vulnerable. An intruder just may have the leisure of raping and/or torturing you or your loved ones.

Also, with regards to the taking of another's life, recognize that everyday all of us who live in first world industrial capitalist societies and partake in the luxuries of said society are at the very least indirectly responsible for the death and exploitation of tens of thousands of people around the world every year. How much money have you spent on games, a total luxury, that you could have spent to prevent starvation? We all make decisions that kill other people, some of them are just more hands on than others.

Call me crazy, but I see about 10 light years of difference between buying a copy of Le Havre and slicing through someone's rib cage with a Katana.

You're right about the difference between investigation and charges though. That's very true. The problem with investigation is that the investigator might be someone like you. "Oh, he broke into your house and you killed him? You say he charged you? Sounds good."

I'm curious to see how robust these statistics are. Huge number of burglaries that turn into murders because the intruder is confronted? Absolute numbers don't really mean much, is there any data on what percentage of these confrontations end peacefully? The overwhelming majority, no? Something like 99.7% would not surprise me in the least.

Also, I think that if you confront an intruder with a katana and are menacing him with it, haven't you now opened the door wide open for the intruder to kill you AND he can now legally get away with it? An intruder that plans on stealing and is legally carrying a firearm in one of those backward States enters a home illegally and is confronted by the owner who charges at him with a weapon. It would seem logical that the intruder who had no intent to use his firearm could now shoot the homeowner in self-defence AND get away with it, no?

I hope my kids never in their lives carry around weapons because it seems to just force an end result. Why even bother exploring other avenues when you're holding a gun?

Black Barney wrote:

Also, I think that if you confront an intruder with a katana and are menacing him with it, haven't you now opened the door wide open for the intruder to kill you AND he can now legally get away with it? An intruder that plans on stealing and is legally carrying a firearm in one of those backward States enters a home illegally and is confronted by the owner who charges at him with a weapon. It would seem logical that the intruder who had no intent to use his firearm could now shoot the homeowner in self-defence AND get away with it, no?

Nope, doesn't work that way.

Black Barney wrote:

Also, I think that if you confront an intruder with a katana and are menacing him with it, haven't you now opened the door wide open for the intruder to kill you AND he can now legally get away with it? An intruder that plans on stealing and is legally carrying a firearm in one of those backward States enters a home illegally and is confronted by the owner who charges at him with a weapon. It would seem logical that the intruder who had no intent to use his firearm could now shoot the homeowner in self-defence AND get away with it, no?

Wait...what? You've got to be kidding, right?

ok whew. I would imagine if you enter someone's home with a weapon of deadly force (gun, etc). that that alone should get you into a load of shit with the justice system.

i've heard of so many of these cases were some burglar trips and breaks his leg and sues the homeowner AND wins! It's nuts

I think that the resident gets into trouble if they are setting up traps designed to injure or kill intruders.

Macaulay Culkin belongs in jail!!

Shellhead wrote:

I think that the resident gets into trouble if they are setting up traps designed to injure or kill intruders.

Absolutely they get into trouble. Imagine a fireman kicking in your front door to try and save your life only to get a shotgun blast to the face or stepping in a bear trap on his way in.

i've heard of so many of these cases were some burglar trips and breaks his leg and sues the homeowner AND wins! It's nuts

I read a story in the news a while back that went like this. A couple comes home from vacation to find their house totally ransacked and the burglar still there. The husband has a gun and uses it to prevent the burglar from leaving. A few hours later they call the cops. The burglar complains to the cop that the couple made him clean their house. The cop says "you got off easy, I'd have shot you."