The "burglar" attacked him in spite of him having a sword in his hand, and retreated and then came back multiple times. Being a Briton of the current generation, our hero was doing his best not to hurt the criminal:
I was using the sword to block the blows, while also feigning attack. I was terrified, but I was also very aware that I probably shouldn’t really hit him with the sword; that I should act proportionately. The problem was, I didn’t know how far he was going to go – I don’t think he knew, either.... I started thinking that any moment he would realise I was not trying to hurt him. Then what was I going to do? I was exhausted.It worked, which satisfies the dictum that 'if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.' The non-sharpness of the sword and the excessive defensiveness of the combat kept him out of trouble with the law, too, which is a real concern in Britain today.
Then, to my relief, he just took off. I was walking slowly back into the house when I heard him behind me. I turned to see him running at full tilt with his arm raised, ready to strike. This was the only time I used the sword as a weapon, swinging at his chest while raising my other arm to block his blow. I got a cut arm and he was injured in the chest – not seriously, because the sword was blunt. Then he was gone again.
The 'aggravated burglary' charge got the crazed assailant a whole three years, which under British law only half of which can be served behind bars and the rest on some version of parole.
Strike with the edge, parry with the flat. And if his head got in the way of the parry, well, he was only blocking an offensive blow.
ReplyDeleteThis an illustration of what I meant in a previous comment, when I said civilization was bought with the gibbet. A civilized society can only exist when criminals are not allowed free rein- they have to be fearful of the law. Now, in western societies, the law abiding peaceable citizens seem to be the only ones fearful of legal consequence. A complete historical inversion- as far as I know, without precedent. There may be instances of places where the criminal class was recruited for overtly political ends, but as far as common street crime, even tyrannical regimes seem to be on the side of the subjects and not the criminals.
Oh yes,
ReplyDeleteI love that bit about how the police had to determine whether it was a "Samurai" sword before they could return it to him. Evidently "samurai" have gotten a bad rap. And their swords. Is this racism? Or maybe imitation- the Brits are just 300 odd years too late for Hideoshi's great sword hunt!
Is it just swords of the formerly great british that are exempt? Or British affiliated groups like the Gurkha's? Would a kukri be OK? How about a Sheffield carving knife, or a Sykes -Fairbairn stiletto? British all the way, baby!
Or how about they forget all of this nonsense and go Full Maxim Gun, and apply rule 303?
"I used to collect old British swords"
Non PC corrected translation-
"collectors are generally exempt from the regulations, I actually had this in my closet for the very use to which it was put."
Quite likely.
ReplyDeleteThe British government keeps doubling down on the same failed idea. Now they're after knives that might be pointy. They're much like the Post writer who wants Trump to go away because he is empowered by his politically incorrect speech, so couldn't the media just stop reporting on him?
In both cases, the idea is the same: just a little more suppression of liberty will surely work.
It would have been a little bit quicker and more favorable outcome in Texas. We haven't had a British flag, either.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
I can only imagine myself urging him to wait a moment while I pick just which sword I'd most enjoy using.
ReplyDeleteThese people need to stop popularizing their swords, it is hard to keep it underground like this.
ReplyDeleteThere's no laws against it now... but there will be, once they take care of the gun users.
As for Britain, well just look up Rot England to see what they are doing over there. They will need more than a Sword, to fix that evil.
In support of Raven's comments, I often believed that criminals should be in jail, as much to protect them from people like X, as to protect them from each other. But it wasn't supposed to be about protecting society from criminals by putting them in jail. This outsources a problem society needs to deal with. And many societies, tribal and otherwise, dealt with it personally.
One of the reasons why people parried with the flat geometry of a sword is because I've heard that tempered steel edges will bite into other things, even other steel edges. Thus you won't be able to "parry" any attack if it bites into each other. And it also destroys your edge, but that's not nearly as problematic as losing a hand because someone got into, what was it the Euros called a sword hilt to sword hilt confrontation. Something x by x.
ReplyDeletePhysically, more power can be exerted by directing force into the handle with the edge facing out. Perhaps that is why a good parry was difficult to do, if people had to weaken their wrist alignment because the blade edge would prevent a successful parry.
It might also explain why Miyamoto Musashi chose to use a wooden sword he pared off using his steel sword, from a boat oar for a duel. The wood would capture any steel edge in itself, and hook it. And an attempt to parry a weight like that by turning the wrist, may not generate sufficient power. Especially if the wooden surface can only be parried in a different technique than another steel sword. I recall that he won that duel by successfully hitting the opponent in the shoulder, perhaps breaking the collarbone or otherwise damaging the joint there or damaging the nerves in the side of the neck. Such injuries were common to the Romans before they reinforced their shoulder guards, since the barbarians used extremely strong heavy blunt swords that smashed through the Roman's shields, via an overhead strike.