I am saving up money to get me a few sick ass swords custom made. I definitely want to carry these bitches around, usually the smaller one concealed but it would be thug to carry the full size one on my back. I can't find much on sword legality on google. If you can carry a fuckin GUN you should be able to carry a sword with the right certification. My friend told me to say FUCK IT and just carry it, I wont get as fucked as if it were an illegal gun, but I don't want my sword jacked by the cops! What do you all think?
lol, you moron. What are you, like 15 years old?
No, carrying a sword around like that is illegal in most states. If a cop sees you he will confiscate it and possibly arrest you for being such a dumbass. You can carry around a gun at age 21 because it is a practical self defense weapon for a responsible adult. A sword doesn't quite fall into that category in the contemporary era. Get real kid. Stop pretending you're Cloud/Rurouni Kenshin/Ichigo Kurasaki/ Roronoa Zoro/ or whatever pretend swordsman you admire. If you want to know how to use a sword take kendo and iaido, don't be a retarded pretender.
Don't take either of these, they're Japanese sword arts... Japanese swords are to swords what Bustin Jieber is to music, states Rolf.
As to your question, it is only acceptable on Halloween or at weird reenactment things, but then you'd need a suit of armour wouldn't you? unless you were imitating a dress-wearing Bustin Jieber wannabe from the Orient.
If you have a permit. I don't think you can just walk around carrying a gun.
are you kidding me?! Katanas (authentic ones, not shitty american remakes) can decapitate people like a knife cutting through butter.
Not to mention there size and shape generally allows them to be swung faster and more accurately than most other types of sword.
Much of the time, youre allowed to carry any blade you own, often with a few rules, such as having a good reason and/or having it concealed. Your local laws may vary.
As for all this elitist sword crap, swords will have similar cutting power, no matter what design they are. Differences in ability will depend on features like blade thickness, hardness and length, and much of the time, they will be pretty much the same. Good and poor metallurgical practices exist everywhere.
Read this: http://www.knife-expert.com/sta-law.htm
No, a gun is for shooting escaped slaves look that shit up brah.
The primary difference: when using a katana you make cuts, whereas when using a straight sword you make blows. One cuts, the other crushes.
This difference gives two distinctivly different fighting styles (besides different types of injuries to your "opponent").
And don´t practice Kendo or Iaido to learn to wield a katana; practice Kenjitsu!
For straight pladed weapons check out Escrima.
As to OP: I think open carry is stupid regardless of weither its a gun or a sword. Why would you reveal the fact that you are armed? Let that come as a suprise.
Please, stop this ignorance.
Broadswords, at least, European "broadswords" (such an incorrectly used term in itself), were not used for blows, why develop a bladed weapon to crush when you have already developed other weapons (such as war hammers and maces) which are superior to bladed weapons in crushing ability?
As armour got better, swords did evolve to better combat them, but not by being heavier or blunter, but instead longer and thinner with a better defined tip in order to penetrate openings in armour (usually the around armpit region).
Sir Rolf states this is a common misconception, the other common misconception being that European swords were heavier and clumsier than their eastern counterparts.
QFT, states The Rolf. Rolf, however, likes poking fun at oriental lovers, specifically, Japanophiles who will defend their sharpened pieces of steel to the death, especially when they mention pattern welding, almost like the Celtic and Germanic "barbarians" didn't do it hundreds of years before the Japanese.
Rolf likes it even more when they mention stories such as the Japanese officer whose sword cut right through the barrel of a BAR during fighting at Guadalcanal in World War II.
lol, that cracks me up every time.
Also, some people carry extendable batons, tazers. pepper spray, knives, guns. I will chose to carry my sword, likely the shorter version. I can defend myself just as well as all as those, except gun, but I also will have a chance to fight some epic to the death battle with a sword so fuck you and your shit boring lives.
Rolf, you have always seemed intelligent to me, so please think about this one a bit more.
For a straight edge sword to deliver a cut you would have to make contact and THEN draw the blade back. That is very akward and exposes you to counter attacks.
The true power of a "broad"sword (long sword or whatever straight bladed sword of the middle ages) lies in the power delivered by the very thin (or even sharp) edge (= big force on small area) but that is still a crushing blow though it might sever limbs. Some medieval swords weren´t even sharp...
As to why they were used when hammers and maces were invented is simple: with a sword you can strike with the entire length of the blade, the hammer only works when striking with the head. Also the balance and center of gravity of a sword makes it a lot easier to swing than a hammer.
That and they tend to cut and sever as opposed to crushing, Rolf was going to give a detailed argument, but Rolf doesn't like talking to walls. The swords of thou must be different to Rolf's (and the friends of Rolf's) if thou finds it hard to make quick accurate cuts with them, however.
Seriously; this is a real law. Honest.
Though they are not trying to kill eachother please check this vid:
Does is seem/look farely realistic as to how you picture medieval swordfights?
If so, at what time do you see a single cutting move?
And please do the same with this one:
It might be that we are arguing some technicality but as I see it the development in swords and armour in Europe dictated a fighting style of crushing blows. As armour evolved the fights became fights of endurance with only a few "specialist" weapons meant to pierce the armour. The better armour gave way with the introduction of gunpowder weapons and in turn lighter armour was adapted. Only then did the general sword evolve to an Epee or Rapier and cuts against unarmoured bodyparts became relevant.
This not saying that you can´t chop an arm of with a viking sword, but its a chop and not a cut. I hope that this allows for the "detailed argument"
Kenjutsu? If you can find a teacher. Not a good chance of that. Don't be silly and tell this guy that the only japanese swordplay he could do is the one that would be nearly impossible to find.
This video is completely staged and entirely fake, one just needs to look at all the edge banging going on here to see it, Rolf sees this, does thou?
It's a couple of overweight re-enactors flailing their arms about, but at least they're having fun, states Rolf.
Rolf states that we are arguing on quite a technicality, a simple technicality which is weather European swords "cut" or "crush", truth being any lightweight, well balanced bladed weapon is going to be far more inclined for cutting and thrusting than crushing. Crushing itself can only happen when there is enough weight behind each swing, which is what you would get with various weapons such as maces and Rolfish axes, states Rolf.
As to the statement of there being only a few "specialist" weapons designed for armour piercing, this is simply incorrect, Spears, Halberds, Pollaxes and Pikes were very widespread, with the Spear (and other simple polearms) being the most common battlefield weapon, Rolf states, does Rolf now? why yes Rolf does!
But if you find the idea of Swords being designed to thrust, you should have a look at Oakeshott's Typology of the Medieval Sword, which shows that from about the late 13th century onwards, most swords had very distinct tips so they could both cut and thrust. These tips wouldn't thrust through plate armour armour, but through the lesser protected gaps in the armour, such as the armpits, states Rolf. Later on, a full suit of plate armour had become essentially sword proof, except from the sword of Rolf, states Rolf.
Rolf states armour and Gunpowder coexisted for quite a while, considering that full suits of plate armour were still in use during the 1500's and that Gunpowder had been introduced to Western Europe during the late 1200's (I can't remember the exact date, I think it was 1262, Spain). Early gunpowder weapons were horribly inaccurate, for quite a while gunpowder weapons were often considered a triviality, states Rolf.
As to lighter armour being adapted, that is incorrect, as gunpowder weapons became more prevalent, armour became thicker and heavier but covered much less area due to the inaccuracy of firearms, states Rolf. Rolf asks you to compare the plate wearing late-medieval Knight to the more modern Cuirassier, which succeeded medieval Knights as heavy cavalry.
The Epee and Rapier are both civilian weapons which were developed for unarmoured fighting off the battlefield, they developed alongside swords designed for battlefield use, a.k.a war swords, states Rolf.
Rolf states that the post-migration period "Viking Sword", known as "Type X" in Oakeshott's typology was primarily designed for cutting. The Vikings (and everyone else during the period) had Axes for chopping and Spears for thrusting, both of which were more common than the Sword.
Rolf would suggest this link to you, it is a good read, specifically points 5, 7 and 11. Rolf also suggests both the German and Italian schools of Swordsmanship and Oakeshott's Typology. Rolf requests that further replies be made on the profile of Rolf, apart from possibly derailing this thread, we wouldn't want to bore people with this argument now would we? Asks Sir Rolf.
I am not going to pretend to know the laws on swords in all 50 states as you have done. However I will state that it is a matter that varies greatly from one state to another. For example here is the New York statute which governs this topic. While nowhere in this legislation are swords specifically mentioned, in Section 265.15 it does state that "The possession by any person of any dagger, dirk, stiletto, dangerous knife or any other weapon, instrument, appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon, is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another."
However in Washington state it is legal to carry a sword provided it is not done "at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." (see RCW 9.41.270 section 1.)
That is just 2 statutes from 2 out of 50 states so to make the blanket statement that "carrying a sword around like that is illegal in most states" without researching so much as your home state really does nothing to improve this thread or this site.
It would seem to me, after just 15minutes of looking up and reading some of the state statutes that deal with this topic that there are some states where it will get you in a jam quicker than shit, some states where it can jam you up if you are an ass or the arresting officer is a bigger ass, and some states where unless you threaten someone with the sword it is no big deal.
I hope this helps you in the future when you answer questions for others.
Concerning defense effectiveness, I would say it's a bit of a double-edge sword...
*cue faint laughter*
On one hand, you're going to scare pretty much everyone away unless you're incredibly weak and geeky looking. Nobody is going to attack you unless their intent is to specifically kill you, in which case it would probably be done in a manner where having a firearm wouldn't be any superior.
On the other hand, if you mosey around with an expensive custom sword, someone is just as likely to hold you up so they can steal it from you. And they'll get the sword one way or another because they'll have a gun.
Rolf is correct on European swords and anyone who wants proof need only do a cursory YouTube search to see videos of ARMA and other personnel using them with equal or even more finesse than that of a Kenjutsu practitioner. I believe they even find that the typical 2-hand longsword is completely unfair against the Katana in crossover sparring because it has better reach. People squabble about Knights vs. Samurai and talk about armor and technology. Fact is, a knight with just his sword would fare just fine against Samurai from any era. The miracle of looking past the stereotypes...
Agreed PM sent.
EDIT: Also, some states (Probably most) have restrictions on carrying knives who's blades exceed a certain length.
Sigh...you're right. I made a very misleading generalization. Though its just damn common sense that most states would take issue with a minor carrying around a sword with intent to use it.
Here, knife laws for all 50 states: