Rapier v. court sword

[Bryan J. Maloney]

ortonmc+rsf@erols.com (Mark C. Orton) nattered on
thusnews:3f862005.2831462@news.verizon.net:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:42:10 GMT, Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:
>
>> At least there is one other person -- far more knowledgeable than I am
>> -- who thinks that the rapier was the penultimate duelling weapon,
>> save for the handgun.
>
> What, then, would be the ultimate duelling weapon?

Twelve guys in the alley beforehand.

[Paul Elliot]

Well, perhaps there is some validity for the notion that "An armed society
is a polite society" after all, however one must also remember never to
bring a knife (or sword) to a gun fight!

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
P.Elliot
San Jose, CA
"William Marshal" <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dc7987e.0310081703.76ffa472@posting.google.co m...
> ortonmc+rsf@erols.com (Mark C. Orton) wrote
>
>
>
> > > A strong cut, on the other hand---well, a missing sword arm is pretty
> > > hard to shrug off...and a head even harder.
> >
> > In the latter case, it hardly seems necessary to shrug.
> >
> > -Mark-
>
> Touche!
>

[William Black]

"Paul Elliot" <pelliot@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5dcrb.374$ry.36800644@newssvr21.news.prodigy. com...
> Well, perhaps there is some validity for the notion that "An armed society
> is a polite society"

Except in Elizabethan England...

Actually the only armed societies I've ever encountered were re-enactors,
who are usually extremely rude to each other, despite being armed to the
teeth, and Texas where the people where polite and charming.

The Texas re-enactors I met were also polite and charming.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Jonathan Jefferies]

One assumes the "Texans" were armed to the teeth as well
as "polite and charming"?

J.

William Black wrote:
> "Paul Elliot" <pelliot@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:5dcrb.374$ry.36800644@newssvr21.news.prodigy. com...
>
>>Well, perhaps there is some validity for the notion that "An armed society
>>is a polite society"
>
>
> Except in Elizabethan England...
>
> Actually the only armed societies I've ever encountered were re-enactors,
> who are usually extremely rude to each other, despite being armed to the
> teeth, and Texas where the people where polite and charming.
>
> The Texas re-enactors I met were also polite and charming.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
>
>

[Mark Thompson]

> >>Well, perhaps there is some validity for the notion that "An armed
society
> >>is a polite society"

> > Actually the only armed societies I've ever encountered were
re-enactors,
> > who are usually extremely rude to each other, despite being armed to
the
> > teeth, and Texas where the people where polite and charming.
> >
> > The Texas re-enactors I met were also polite and charming.

> One assumes the "Texans" were armed to the teeth as well
> as "polite and charming"?

Absolutely, they live in America where the government sensibly decided not
to limit the carrying of arms to those of a violent or criminal bent, as
they have inexplicably done in Britain. This is why you are six times more
likely to be mugged in London than New York[1], more likely to be burgled
than those in America etc.

[1] It's true too!

[John Hasler]

Mark writes:
> It's true too!

It is not, however, true that most Texans are "armed to the teeth". Most
Americans who could legally carry firearms do not do so (which is not to
say that I support anti-gun legislation).
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin

[Mark Thompson]

> It is not, however, true that most Texans are "armed to the teeth". Most
> Americans who could legally carry firearms do not do so (which is not to
> say that I support anti-gun legislation).

True. Pistols are still a bit too big and heavy to be practical, plus I
presume the practice is frowned upon by most people - I've always felt a bit
uncomfortable around people with weapons - and that was on a range! Most
imporatnt, you'd probably feel a bit of a tit carrying a pistol everywhere
with you. Living in Manchester, however, I would like the chance to carry
*something* to defend myself from the scum. A firearm may be OTT, but I'm
sure the thought that law abiding people can legally defend themselves when
attacked without fear of arrest would put at least some of the scallys off.

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

Mark Thompson wrote:

>>It is not, however, true that most Texans are "armed to the teeth". Most
>>Americans who could legally carry firearms do not do so (which is not to
>>say that I support anti-gun legislation).
>>
>>
>
>True. Pistols are still a bit too big and heavy to be practical, plus I
>presume the practice is frowned upon by most people - I've always felt a bit
>uncomfortable around people with weapons - and that was on a range! Most
>imporatnt, you'd probably feel a bit of a tit carrying a pistol everywhere
>with you. Living in Manchester, however, I would like the chance to carry
>*something* to defend myself from the scum. A firearm may be OTT, but I'm
>sure the thought that law abiding people can legally defend themselves when
>attacked without fear of arrest would put at least some of the scallys off.
>
>

I do wonder if there's laws on the books to prohibit people from
carrying about sharpened bladed objects (swords obviously). I recall one
story (urban legand?) about Congress trying to prohibit the sale of any
blade greater than 10 inches. Then they realized every household in
American with a butcher's knife would be in violation and that ended that.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[Mark Thompson]

> >>It is not, however, true that most Texans are "armed to the teeth".
Most
> >>Americans who could legally carry firearms do not do so (which is not to
> >>say that I support anti-gun legislation).
> >
> >True. Pistols are still a bit too big and heavy to be practical, plus I
> >presume the practice is frowned upon by most people - I've always felt a
bit
> >uncomfortable around people with weapons - and that was on a range! Most
> >imporatnt, you'd probably feel a bit of a tit carrying a pistol
everywhere
> >with you. Living in Manchester, however, I would like the chance to
carry
> >*something* to defend myself from the scum. A firearm may be OTT, but
I'm
> >sure the thought that law abiding people can legally defend themselves
when
> >attacked without fear of arrest would put at least some of the scallys
off.
>
> I do wonder if there's laws on the books to prohibit people from
> carrying about sharpened bladed objects (swords obviously). I recall one
> story (urban legand?) about Congress trying to prohibit the sale of any
> blade greater than 10 inches. Then they realized every household in
> American with a butcher's knife would be in violation and that ended that.

In Britain carrying a sharpened comb would get you into trouble (because
it's been sharpened, it would be classified as an offensive weapon). Seiks
(sp?) can carry ceremonial swords in public, and you can carry a blade if
it's part of a costume. Fencing swords have to have the blade covered in
public places. This means a scabbard to me. Now who's gonna try anything
when I walk down the street with the guard of a sabre on show? No-one.
Unfortunately they'll all be laughing at me instead! Ho hum, back to the
drawing board.

[Jonathan Jefferies]

Afraid so. And there are laws on most state law books forbidding
dueling. As with most legal systems someone wants to control what
others do.
J.

Amy & Joseph Kormann wrote:

>>
>
> I do wonder if there's laws on the books to prohibit people from
> carrying about sharpened bladed objects (swords obviously). I recall one
> story (urban legand?) about Congress trying to prohibit the sale of any
> blade greater than 10 inches. Then they realized every household in
> American with a butcher's knife would be in violation and that ended that.
>

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:

> Afraid so. And there are laws on most state law books forbidding
> dueling. As with most legal systems someone wants to control what
> others do.


If I'm not going off to a duel, I don't see how they can claim dueling.
Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> nattered on
thusnews:bopeeu$n18$1@news.monmouth.com:

> Jonathan Jefferies wrote:
>
>> Afraid so. And there are laws on most state law books forbidding
>> dueling. As with most legal systems someone wants to control what
>> others do.
>
>
> If I'm not going off to a duel, I don't see how they can claim dueling.
> Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.
>

You know of salles that permit dueling on premises? That could get the
whole place shut down, owners charged, etc. Of course, by "duel" you mean
an actual duel--sharp weapons, intent to do great harm or kill, not a
fencing bout that is cheaply masquerading as a duel, right?

[William Black]

"Amy & Joseph Kormann" <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:bopeeu$n18$1@news.monmouth.com...

> Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.

And go straight to jail...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Mark Thompson]

> > Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.
>
> And go straight to jail...

Hmm, I'm not sure a simple flick to the wrist will resolve the disagreement,
so jail would be likely result. I suppose we could snap off the tips of the
epee's before the fight to make it look like a tragic accident. Just
replace the losers sword with a new one and no-one will suspect. Bwa Ha Ha

[William Black]

"Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bored0$3pc$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.
> >
> > And go straight to jail...
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure a simple flick to the wrist will resolve the
disagreement,
> so jail would be likely result. I suppose we could snap off the tips of
the
> epee's before the fight to make it look like a tragic accident. Just
> replace the losers sword with a new one and no-one will suspect. Bwa Ha Ha
>

Many years ago I was at a re-enactment when a 'sharp' used for a
demonstration went into a participants lower leg, the injured party needed
a couple of stitches at the local hospital.

It was an accident, both people involved agreed this and both went to the
hospital, mainly because someone had to drive the victim and we were all
going to the pub.

And both ended up giving statements to the police...

Wounds from edged weapons attract attention. I don't know how they arrange
things in the US but in the UK it is not uncommon for a policeman to be on
duty at the local Accident & Emergency unit.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

William Black wrote:

>And go straight to jail...
>
>
Hmm. Maybe I should have clarified the 'duel' as being a single-touch
combat with non-sharpened weapons. Nothing in
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=duel about it being to the
death, just about honor. I'll settle for cash or attractive prizes..

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:19:42 -0500
Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
>>And go straight to jail...
>>
>>
> Hmm. Maybe I should have clarified the 'duel' as being a single-touch
> combat with non-sharpened weapons. Nothing in
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=duel about it being to the
> death, just about honor. I'll settle for cash or attractive prizes..


If there is no risk, there is no question of honour.

All a single touch tells you is that you both had a bog-standard
practice bout.

Now, if you each put up say $1000, winner take all, then that has enough
risk that it might be in the same ballpark as a duel with sharps.

Try it one day, Seeif it changes how you fence and how important the
outcome is to you.

Oh, and the "first blood" thing wasn't the only way or even the most
common way to end a duel. The majority were "till satisfaction".
Sometimes the single simple touch was enough, but most times it needed
to be more than that. Indeed, it was common to wear gloves and to bind
a kerchief around the wrist so there was less chance of a simple nick,
to make sure "satisfaction" wasn't so easily called.


Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:42 -0000, "Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> > Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.
>>
>> And go straight to jail...
>
>Hmm, I'm not sure a simple flick to the wrist will resolve the disagreement,
>so jail would be likely result. I suppose we could snap off the tips of the
>epee's before the fight to make it look like a tragic accident. Just
>replace the losers sword with a new one and no-one will suspect. Bwa Ha Ha

Ever read the Nero Wolfe story "Over My Dead Body" by Rex Stout?

-Chris Zakes
Texas

I came up here for a party, and what happens? Nothing! Not even
ice cream. The gods looked down and laughed. This would be a
better world for children if the parents had to eat the spinach.

-Groucho Marx, "Animal Crackers"

[John Hasler]

William Marshal writes:
> But WHY, exactly, is it so considered? How did it manage to acquire
> exempt status, when it is so violent?

Because it is traditional, and because the law says so. If you are looking
for logic, give up.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin