Use of Weapons

[Judderman]

Who believes that to use a weapon in a self defence situation is a perfectly moral thing to do?

Would you advocate carrying a weapon for such situations? Or do you teach what may be used if necassary?

Budo.

[ICT]

Who believes that to use a weapon in a self defence situation is a perfectly moral thing to do?

Would you advocate carrying a weapon for such situations? Or do you teach what may be used if necassary?

Budo.

Judderman,

You better believe it!!!! David didn't slay Goliath with a spinning back kick but with a sling shot and a rock to the head!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,
Teacher: Eddie Ivester

[Hannibal]

LOL! Eddie remember over here we are not quite as "relaxed" to weapons as our Trans-Atlantic brethren!

I personally do not recommend carrying a weapon AT ALL because it instantly makes you arrestable. An offensive weapon is anything made, adpated OR INTENDED for use as a weapon.

However, if you learn how to use everyday objects as weapons, now that is different. Pens can act as yawara's, lighters as...well lighters really (a burnt face is not good and the butt can be used to hit). Even a tin of beans in a bag can be like a set of nunchukas! An improvised weapon has an instant get out of jail clause in that it has another use besides combative. They can act as great equalisers for size/strength, but the user must have the awareness and reactions to employ it. Even a gun is useless if it is at the bottom of your bag.

Personally I don't like carrying weapons - ironic really when you consider I have a PR-24 and incapacitant spray by my side on a day to day basis. I much prefer to be "hands on" because it is always with me and cannot be taken away.

[RAB]

I believe that it’s a judgment call and that a person who has received and practiced proper training can have faith in his or herself that they have responded appropriately. People have the ability to make several decisions within fractions of a second, therefore, have many options available to them at all times. Therefore, a weapon in self-defense is perfectly moral if that was the appropriate course of action.

I don’t advocate carrying weapons because I don’t carry a weapon personally. And I don’t want a student to quickly excuse his option of deadly force because I don’t have faith in the US legal system. What I have suggested to students in the past is if they would like something to carry then pick up a rock. Rocks can be used as a projectile or blunt weapon. Rock doesn’t necessary need to be deadly weapon and can be use to distraction while finding a exiting point. Moreover, a rock can be thrown away after its use or non-use. I believe that all women should should carry some kind of equallizer.

[ICT]

LOL! Eddie remember over here we are not quite as "relaxed" to weapons as our Trans-Atlantic brethren!

I personally do not recommend carrying a weapon AT ALL because it instantly makes you arrestable. An offensive weapon is anything made, adpated OR INTENDED for use as a weapon.

However, if you learn how to use everyday objects as weapons, now that is different. Pens can act as yawara's, lighters as...well lighters really (a burnt face is not good and the butt can be used to hit). Even a tin of beans in a bag can be like a set of nunchukas! An improvised weapon has an instant get out of jail clause in that it has another use besides combative. They can act as great equalisers for size/strength, but the user must have the awareness and reactions to employ it. Even a gun is useless if it is at the bottom of your bag.

Personally I don't like carrying weapons - ironic really when you consider I have a PR-24 and incapacitant spray by my side on a day to day basis. I much prefer to be "hands on" because it is always with me and cannot be taken away.


Hey,

Ya'll still use the PR24, Yuck!!! Get the ASP it can be used like a Kali stick.

Anyway back to the post, I don't care what kind of weapon/equilizer someone uses as long as they have something to help them.

I don't believe in the I'm a proficient Martial Artist therefore I don't need a weapon and will rely on my self-defense skills. No way, I want to have the upper hand and that is after all the exact reason why we study Martial Arts!!! So we can be the one going to the house instead of the one going to the morgue!!!

Sincerely,
Teacher: Eddie Ivester

[Hannibal]

Actually we used the ASP in my last force - Kent - and I have to say it is vastly superior. My "two ASP" form was the terror of my colleagues!

In GMP we use the pR-24, which is less than impressive. Even worse we have the polycarbon insert rather than the alluminium. This means you may as well be hitting them with a pillow for all the good in does. Allegedly it was chosen because of the sound it makes when it racks!!??!!?

Happily in riots and public order we use the Arnold baton which is excellent!

[dragon_bunny]

hmm.. i don't know.. i always got told not to carry a weapons because then if something goes wrong it gives your attacker something else to attack you with! having said that i did carry a kobotan (spelling?) as a key ring for a while but figured because it was alwyas at the bottom of my bag and that i didn't trust my skills with it as much as i did with other things i was best of leaving it at home..
now i just follow my mothers advice and if i feel uncomfortable in an area i just keep my keyring in my hand with the keys jutting through the spaces between my fingers. pretty sure i could punch some one like that and hey i'd rather have a few broken fingers that anything else :)

[tkdhkddave]

I would have to agree with Hannibal, but also on the other hand I would ask him this, what do you think of this quote, I think it was Geoff Thompsom or someone much like him "better be tried by 12 than carried by 6" least that's how I think the quote went.

[Matt_Bernius]

On the issue of having a weapon used against you, my suggestion is try taking a weapon away from someone. It's very difficult to do, unless you have total control of the situation. If you're at a point where your average attacker can disarm you, you have a lot more to worry about than if they'll use the weapon against you.

I think the better lesson to teach is weapon improvisation. Hannibal's point is a great one about things in the UK. Living in the Wild West (aka the US) I do carry a knife, but I tend to use it for more functional every day thing than for self defense (even though it has a Karambit style foot print... I just love Karambits). Honestly, I doubt my ability to find and deploy a tactical folder under a pressure scenario (in much the same way I question the average Joe's ability to draw a gun, aim, disenage the safety, and fire under the same conditions). However, I also carry a lot of Pens and Pencils. And I have no doubt about the effectiveness of using them as stabbing weapons (typically from an icepick grip). There is no blade to deploy and typically they're pretty accessible. And if they aren't there, I am confident that if need be I'll be able to find environmental weapons to use.

- Matt

[Hannibal]

I would have to agree with Hannibal, but also on the other hand I would ask him this, what do you think of this quote, I think it was Geoff Thompsom or someone much like him "better be tried by 12 than carried by 6" least that's how I think the quote went.

Yeah, Geoff "borrowed" it! He is good at summing up attitudes with a pithy quote and he is a top bannana and all round good egg! I too would rather be judged by 12, but I have seen some right pillocks on the 12. In most cases you are judged by 3 (magistrates)...professional courtesy prevents me from giving my opinions on them!

If you carry a weapon then you can be arrested without actually having used it (a bit like getting a hangover without enjoying the night before) so that is why I advocate "non" weapons (lighters, biros, torchs etc).

[Chase]

A pen makes a good weapon, a hair brush... who's gonna get arrested for using a pen on an attacker?

[Hannibal]

Rolf Harris? :)

As an interesting "footnote" I stopped three very young lads last night. One had a small stone, one a small piece of wood and one a dart. Picture the scene - three small boys, never been in trouble EVER before (I know as we ran them through the computer) all looking at being arrested for possessing an offensive weapon. They said they were walking home and there was a gang out for them so they thought they needed protection. This I believed as there was a fight involving about 20 youths about 15 minutes earlier. These guys were so weak and inept they didn't even know how to lie to a Policeman convincingly - they just told me the truth outright!

Anyway,I used my discretion and "accidentally" dropped the weapons down a nearby grid. THey would hav edone far more damage to themselves than to anyone else and I didn't think it was entirely in the "spirit" of the law to arrest and charge three otherwise OK lads for being stupid. The point is, if they had any pre-cons they would have been coming with me, if they had been "smart asses" they wold have come in too. But they thought that they were allowed to carry an implement for defence!

Given the same situation again who knows? But last night I thought I did the right thing.

[budogirl]

I carry a travel size hairspray cannister to spray up the nose and into the eyes. Hopefully, I'll never have to use it and explain why it was in my pocket. I don't even use hairspray normally...

[Jackie Li]

I don't recomend carrying around knives or anything that can kill, but self defense tools are ok in my opinion. Example: Pepper Spray.

[nekogami13]

I rely on the deadliest, most effective weapon ever devised-the human mind.

Since this is on women's self defense-keep in mind most police,prosecutors are not going to hold women to the same standard as men. Women using a weapon against a man are going to be seen as justified whereas a man might not.

Remember, if you carry a weapon:If you pull it, USE IT! Don't use it as a
security blanket, don't threaten with it(that's when they take it away from you)-use it.

[Reiki]

I think its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 and I'd be more than ready to use whatever I could get my hands on if I had to!

yes, I do carry an odd assortment in my handbag, from the useful lovely pliers to a kubotan, and some pens.

My car is full of weapons. :D

I have arnis sticks behind my drivers seat plus an assortment of other things/tools that could be useful, plus it can go almost anywhere, and I've been known to drive it up [and down] flights of stairs and across paddocks, and over traffic islands etc.

Most of all I'd be using my mind first to avoid a situation but if it all turned to custard, well... I'm prepared.

[Xerxes]

As to Judderman's original questions:

It is not necessarily immoral to use a weapon in an effort to defend yourself. It all depends on the circumstances.

People (who have reached the legal age of adulthood) should be able to carry weapons (including firearms) if they so choose. The law should not prohibit them from doing so.

Personally, I don't carry any weapons.

[Hannibal]

As to Judderman's original questions:

It is not necessarily immoral to use a weapon in an effort to defend yourself. It all depends on the circumstances.

People (who have reached the legal age of adulthood) should be able to carry weapons (including firearms) if they so choose. The law should not prohibit them from doing so.

Personally, I don't carry any weapons.

I see where you are coming from, but the problem is that if everyday people can carry weapons legally so can criminals. You are giving them "cart blanche" to be equipped without any legal ramification.

At the moment I can stop/search someone and arrest them for carrying a weapon (if I choose) thereby potentially stopping them comitting a crime. If I cannot do that I have to deal with the aftermath of the weapon being used - I can do nothing until it has.

[dragon_bunny]

Hannible would you arrest some one for carrying a kobutan? mines pretty simple just a wood stick with my keys on but i know it's a pretty grey area. I'm just wondering at what point woul d you decide it was dangerous ?

[Judderman]

If I may jump in... Any object carried for the purpose of being used as a weapon is illegal. The Kobutan is known to be a weapon so not easily passed off as a key fob. If you were to carry a small torch attatched to your keys, you might get away with that. That said this is my own opinion, not legal advice.

[tkdhkddave]

Don't kid yourself, it's not a grey area at all really-when it comes to Kubotans at least, If you have one on you then you can be arrested, it is classed as a weapon. The only place they can be used legally is in the home or traing hall, and if you used it you would have to make sure that you could justify your use of it in a court of law, potentially anyway. There is lots of info on them out there, also if you look there is lots of info for downloading, i.e criminal justice act, which was an interesting read and has wisened me up a little with regards to defending yourself and the law, anyone who isn't sure should just look up on the web.

An afterthought, maybe for another thread but has anyone thought about what comes straight after using a weapon or defending yourself with hands feet etc and coming out on top, what are you then going to do for your attcker lying on the floor? perhaps in agony, do we have a duty then to look after them attend his/her injuries? should we all know first aid ?

[Hannibal]

Personally I would look at the person carrying the kubotan, check them on the PNC and then decide on action. The chances of me arresting a "nice" person would be quite slim, although I may well confiscate the kubotan.

What the law says and what actually happens are not always black and white - for instance it is an offence to be drunk in public, but few of us ever bother with it because it would mean arresting the entire city centre on a Saturday night. The same goes with weapons - if you read my earlier anecdote I used what I felt was a good judgement call in the circumstances. Some would arrest you, some wouldn't. It is down to the individual officer.

Dave is right though - if you carry it WITH INTENT to use it as a weapon, even defensively, you commit an offence. The kubotan does double up as a very large keyring though so there is an actual "grey" aspect to it which may provide a defence - as long as your keys are on it of course!

[Xerxes]

Hannibal,

I can see how police officers would have a particular concern about people carrying weapons. A cop does not really know what to expect when they encounter someone.

You indicated that if Joe Average can carry a weapon then Joe Criminal can do likewise. Yes, that's true. But, what you are forgetting is that Joe Criminal is a...criminal. By definition, he is willing to break the law. If he is willing to knock over a liquer store then he is willing to illegally carry a pistol. If he is willing to rape a woman then he is willing to illegally carry a knife. Only the person who is dedicated to obeying the law is prevented from carrying a weapon by such a law. Criminals are not prevented from doing so.

You indicated you could search a person, confiscate a weapon, and thereby prevent a crime. However, you and your colleagues can not confiscate every single weapon from every single person who has criminal intent. It is not possible and to attempt it would be futile. In many(perhaps the majority) of cases all you can do is arrive AFTER the crime has happened and call the paramedics. If some woman is about to be raped and she is able to use a weapon to prevent successful completion of the crime then that is better than if the crime happens and police are there only to clean up the aftermath. If I had a wife I would want her to have the option of having a weapon. Wouldn't you want that for your wife? And, I have the same right to protect my life and well being. There may be some cases where a weapon is the only thing that could even the odds.

[Matt_Bernius]

So the general feeling (at least in the UK) is if you are carrying anything that could be construed as a weapon you could be in trouble (based on the judgement of the policeman/woman who stops you). I would have to think the same it true for the US.

I've recently been turned on to parachute cord as a self defense weapon. While, it's relatively easy to explain away, the interesting issue is how its carried/deployed. For easy access I keep mine tucked the inside of my pants on my hip. I would imagine, though, that if I was stopped and searched, while the cord itself is not illegal, the way I'm carrying it would raise a lot of questions.

So it would be fair to say that the method of carrying has as much to do with things as anything else. A kobudon that's attached to keys might be construed as "less" of a weapon than a length of paracute cord carried on someone's hip.

Thoughts?

- Matt

[Judderman]

Xerxes, the arguement on whether to carry and/or use a weapon is difficult. I believe that weapons should be used to even the odds. I see a big difference between using a weapon to defend yourself and carrying one just in case. IMO if you carry a weapon then you going out with the intent to kill someone.

To quote two similar cases I have come across. Both men were attacked, both feared for their lives (one was being struck with a bat, the other was about to be glassed), both used a knife on their attacker, both killed their attacker, both claimed self defence. One was found guilty of murder, the other manslaughter. The former used a knife that he carried as a matter of course, the latter used a knife that he came across.

The difficulty comes when we speak of morals and law.

I personally don't agree with flooding the streets with weaponry (even though weaponry is quite prevalent depending where you go). The arguement is that a weapon is usually used to gain your compliance, if a criminal believes you are armed it could be argued that they will use greater force to gain the compliance.

[Fire-Horse]

IMO if you carry a weapon then you going out with the intent to kill someone.
Juderman, I disagree. If this is your 'fail-safe' assumption that you use I think I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree. IMO motives for carrying a weapon (as per legal definition) will be split into:

a. intent to carry weapon for criminal activity.
b. intent to carry weapon for self-defence.

Both of these will then be split into:

1. aim to use weapon to inflict harm
2. aim to use weapon to achieve compliance (whether criminal or defence)

I appreciate that it is difficult to prove the different motives, but surely this should be down to a good judgement call & not generalised as intent to murder. E.g. say a police officer stops a young lady and discovers that she is carrying a weapon because she feels that she is getting stalked and she is frightened of getting raped.

It is a fact that if someone is determined to cause another person harm, then the police are often powerless to prevent it, they simply don't have the resourses or powers to do so. Surely people have the right to defend themselves, and this should include the right to carry a concealed weapon to deter an attack or even the odds. I.e. concealed so the other person doesn't know that they have and will therefore be unlikely to pre-empt such.

[Capt Ann]

I guess I'm amazed at the difference in the laws in the UK and the US (especially since I would think our laws would be pretty close to " Mum's " ;) )

In most places in the US, it is NOT against the law to carry something openly that could be used as a weapon. Most places have laws against carrying concealed weapons, including knives, guns, etc., and there are rules that define exactly what "concealed" is (tucked away in a box in your car usually is'nt concealing a knife; tucking it inside your belt buckle usually is). Most cities/towns/counties, and some states have laws against carrying firearms without a permit. In the US, a policeman could NOT stop someone on the street and search them for weapons, thereby preventing a possible crime (no search/seizure without probable cause), so they could only search if they had reasonable evidence that the suspect had already committed a crime.

Xerxes' past post is correct--we have a saying in the States that "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". I remember back in the 70's when there was a wave of terrorist attacks against elementary schools in northern Israel. The way the Israelis dealt with it was to provide firearms and training to every school teacher in the region. The attacks virtually stopped. I read recently about a small town out west in the US that tried a similar approach when their crime rate suddenly went up--they passed an ordinance REQUIRING all adults to carry firearms. That one's still in the courts, but in the meantime, as word's gotten around, the crime rate there has dropped significantly.

Criminals are looking for an easy mark. Weapons help make sure you're not one.

[Capt Ann]

The arguement is that a weapon is usually used to gain your compliance, if a criminal believes you are armed it could be argued that they will use greater force to gain the compliance.
Usually, they just look for some easier "mark" who isn't packing a weapon.

[Judderman]

Juderman, I disagree. If this is your 'fail-safe' assumption that you use I think I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree. IMO motives for carrying a weapon (as per legal definition) will be split into:

a. intent to carry weapon for criminal activity.
b. intent to carry weapon for self-defence.

Both of these will then be split into:

1. aim to use weapon to inflict harm
2. aim to use weapon to achieve compliance (whether criminal or defence)

I appreciate that it is difficult to prove the different motives, but surely this should be down to a good judgement call & not generalised as intent to murder. E.g. say a police officer stops a young lady and discovers that she is carrying a weapon because she feels that she is getting stalked and she is frightened of getting raped.

It is a fact that if someone is determined to cause another person harm, then the police are often powerless to prevent it, they simply don't have the resourses or powers to do so. Surely people have the right to defend themselves, and this should include the right to carry a concealed weapon to deter an attack or even the odds. I.e. concealed so the other person doesn't know that they have and will therefore be unlikely to pre-empt such.

To a degree I would agree and I'm sure that the Police do occassionally exercise "good judgement".

The reason I said "intent to kill" is because there are very few people who well enough trained with any weapon to ensure that they don't kill someone by mistake. I guess you could argue the same for learning MA, but at least the rigorous training is there.
Morally speaking I believe it would be wrong for someone to take every possible action other than force in order to avoid an attack. Humans by nature are lazy (or are better adapted to saving energy), this could be taken that a person will reduce their awareness because their first action will be to use a weapon, not try to escape. This could lead us to the next moral point. Laws are supposed to be for the good of society, in order to install a social harmony, which in turn develops and supports the individuals within it. It could be argued that if we choose to carry an item which has a very high probability of killing something, then are we really any different from those we are trying to defend ourselves against. If not then society fails. I guess my lack of trust in humans in general would also play a big part.

So let us assume that every individual becomes armed. It could be argued that the criminal will do something to tip the odds in their favour. Thus the cycle begins again.

Realistically this isn't going to happen. There will always be those who feel uncomfortable about using weapons or any sort of force. There will always be "easy marks". There will always be those who use force first and worry about the consequences later. There will always be criminals.

[Fire-Horse]

Good answer Judderman, though I'd like to further explore a few points -

This could lead us to the next moral point. Laws are supposed to be for the good of society, in order to install a social harmony, which in turn develops and supports the individuals within it. I noted the 'supposed to be', is this an acceptance that the Laws do not necessarily protect the 'good of society', in fact let me go further, do you agree that the laws in the UK protect the criminal more than they protect the people who try to abide by the law?


It could be argued that if we choose to carry an item which has a very high probability of killing something,... Yes, I agree, 'it could be argued' but it's not necessarily right - personally, if I were forced into a situation where I pulled a weapon (that just happened to be lying around...honest! :D ) to defend myself, then firstly the weapon would be used to deter the attack and secondly the weapon would ideally be one that would increase my ability to defend myself and give me a good degree of control. Let's say just for example that I ..errr... found an escrima stick, then it is unlikely that the attacker would receive anything worse than bruising to muscles on the arms & legs, and possibly a broken hand. Yes, the stick could be used to deliver a fatal blow, however I would argue that this would need to be a deliberate attempt to do so and it therefore doesn't have a high probability of killing something (other than the attackers enthusiasm).

..then are we really any different from those we are trying to defend ourselves against. Yes we are different, we haven't gone out with the intention of victimising an innocent person. Morally speaking, I don't see a difference between having weapons for self-defence or training in unarmed self-defence where your hands, feet, elbows, head etc become your weapons.

If not then society fails. Hasn't it already?

[K_Coffin]

Wow. Some excellent points, Fire-Horse and Judderman both. One of the reasons I started MAs was to ensure that I would be able to take care of myself if I had no other option. Personally, I have no problem using a weapon to disable (Even kill) someone who is presenting a fatal or serious threat to me or any of my loved ones. In my opinion, self-defence fully justifies actions taken, including killing someone. However, in Bujinkan, I know we talk about the preservation of all life, including the "opposition". I would hate to kill someone needlessly, but I'm going to take it as far as I can to stop that person from harming me or my loved ones.

As far as the law is concerned with weapons, here in Canada we're almost identical to the UK. No weapons are allowed to be carried (Except by peace officers) and if you use a weapon with forethought, it's punished very seriously. Hence the focus on improvised weapons. I would never go into a fight looking to kill someone, so I would never bring in a knife or sword (Actually, I would avoid using one if possible.) I know I would personally be careful as hell if I was fighting someone not to do something potentially lethal unless I had to. I don't want to have to live with killing someone, even if I had to.

[blue D]

The one weapon that my wife carries is a cane, but she is taught the usage of the cane in my school, infact in our women self defense class they are taught to use anything as a weapon.

[Judderman]

do you agree that the laws in the UK protect the criminal more than they protect the people who try to abide by the law?No I don't. I think that the way they are interpreted in court is to blame.

Morally speaking, I don't see a difference between having weapons for self-defence or training in unarmed self-defence where your hands, feet, elbows, head etc become your weapons. A very good point. Should an MA be treated in the same way as an armed attacker?

I like your cynical side Fire-Horse. :D

[Hannibal]

An MA would be expected to have a greater degree of control over an aggressor and the degree of "reasonable force" would then become defined within the context of the MA's ability.

[Judderman]

How is the MA's ability decided? Or does that open up a can of worms of comparing suitability of style/training methods against street encounters?

[Tribalweapon]

As far as the MA being treated as a weapon, I know that in Louisiana you have to be registered with the state district attorney when you become a blackbelt. After that, whenever you get into a fight, if you hit the other person you have to call the police. As for myself, I carry a weapon around with me everywhere I go. I wear it on my waist everyday. My belt. I have found that things like my belt, keys, and even my cell phone can make a decent weapon if the situation arises.

[Monty]

I'm all against carrying a weapon.

First off .... it's against the law here in Denmark.

Second ... once you carry a weapon, you should also be prepared to see that very same weapon used against yourself .... and you wouldn't like that to happen, if you carry any effective weapon !

The use of makeshift weapons (hairspray and such), may boost moral. But once you're in that situation, you probably won't have the time to search your purse or even your pocket for a weapon. This means that if you believe in using a weapon for self defense, you should keep it in you hands at all times.
To me that's borderline paranoia.

Sure ... IF the situation permits, a makeshift weapon could make all the difference, and by all means .... carry them, and learn how to use them ... just don't rely on them.

[Fire-Horse]

No I don't. I think that the way they are interpreted in court is to blame. I see what you are saying Judderman...but I think we're probably splitting hairs, but in effect both agree that the way the law is utilised it protects the criminals more than the law-abiding public.

Glad you like the cynicism, I try to keep it under wraps but on some subjects it just won't be kept down. :D

An MA would be expected to have a greater degree of control over an aggressor and the degree of "reasonable force" would then become defined within the context of the MA's ability. This may look like a perfectly sensible assumption in the eyes of the law, however in practice it's b., it's b.. (trying not to swear), it's b..alony.

In my view if a MA is faced by a competent street-fighter, if he/she tries to consciously figure out how much force is reasonable instead of reacting instantly, then there is a high risk that they'll get hurt. How do we know how good a fighter they are, how resiliant they will be to our techniques, whether they have a concealed weapon, etc? Also even if someone attempted to use the 'reasonable force', isn't it fair to say that there judgement is likely to be affected by the violence of the confrontation, adreneline, fear etc.

Having a go at the law here Hannibal, I know you're just giving us the facts :) .

[Hannibal]

I'll be honest I don't like it any more than you do!

[Nevada_MO_Guy]

Lot of good info and advice here.

All of the legalities can be overwhelming.

In the US, the constitution says that we have the right to bear arms.....then there is all of the extra fluff on exactly how that can be done.

For the US check out this link on concealed weapons: http://www.packing.org/

Vote on my pole if you have a chance also... http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12722

[Fire-Horse]

I'll be honest I don't like it any more than you do! I can certainly appreciate that. I couldn't do your job, it'd drive me insane!

[Hannibal]

LOL!

Where in the NW are you out if interest?

[Xerxes]

Tribalweapon,

I'm pretty sure that is just an "urban myth" if you know what I mean. It seems very unlikely. Go to a public library and do some research. Find out if that is really the law in your state. I would be interested in learning the result.

[Tribalweapon]

I recently had to assist in a black belt test(got my butt kicked) and the guy testing had to be registered. He had to get a picture ID saying that he was a black belt and something about should an altercation occur he must notify the police immediatly and show that card when they arive.

[Mark Davies]

Just my tuppenceworth here.
I'm heavily involved with cqb instruction & its implimentation in high stress environments. I have to say that most people whether they're practising martial artists or not wouldn't manage to deploy a weapon in an attack, regardless of the weapon. Most people train to use the weapon, but how many train to DEPLOY the weapon? More than that how many train to deploy the weapon in less than perfect situations under induced stress?
Also, things like perfume & hairspray sprayed into the face of an adrenalised, drunk or drugged attacker won't slow them down a jot.
When we're working on covert carry weapons skills for guys on undercover work we drill constantly on the ability to deploy the weapon under any circumstances. If you carry a defensive weapon or teach defensive weapons work in class make sure you drill on deployment. If you can't get it out you can't use it :D
Sorry, this isn't quite in line with the original post.