Talk:Deadly weapon

Contrary to popular belief, holding a black belt (or comparable rank) in a martial art does not require one to register parts of one's body as deadly or dangerous weapons. Is this really a popular belief? --Big gun 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"However, holding a black belt will influence court decisions concerning self defense". Influence decisions in what way? Being a black belt does not preclude one from being attacked or otherwise accosted and attempting to defend one's self. It just means that the person holding a black belt may be more successful in fending off an attacker. The article says it WILL influence court decisions concerning self defense. Please provide a link to verify this please? It seems more like opinion than fact. -SalemKay

It will influence that a black belt holder is knowledgeable in violence usage, the effects of it, and the amount of violence inflicted. In those states that requires you to use a resonable amount of violence to fend off a attacker, by holding a black belt, you have less of a leeway than if you are a completely civilian person who knows nothing about violence and just hit the attacker badly and he becomes seriously injured or dies. Basically, if a civilian uses what would be resonable force in self defense (for example 1-2 hits), and it randomly just happen to hit in a bad place so the attacker dies, it will be written off as a self-defense accident. But if a black belt holder does the same thing, he is SUPPOSED to know where to hit to inflict resonable amount of damage. If the black belt holder then hits in places where the risk of serious injury or death is likely to occur, its no longer random, but intentional, thus it affects the court decision since the black belt knew which force he was inflicting, and intentionally overstep the limits of whats permitted.

Note that in such self-defense situations where deadly force is permitted, having a black belt would of course not affect the decision, because deadly force would be permitted anyways. Sebastiannielsen (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Automobiles
IIRC, deliberately ramming or running over a person with an automobile also qualifies as "assault with a deadly weapon". &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of this wiki-article
Someone appears to be vandalizing this page. I had marked it for speedy deletion before realizing that there were older, more proper editions. I hope I reverted to the best but I didn't take the time to compare too many --80.218.75.207 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Are firearms really classified as deadly weapons? In which countries? Citation needed.
Just saying. There's absolutely no citation in this article. How am I supposed to debate this subject with my smartass coworker without sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.238.72 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Replicas? Fake weapons?
What does "animate or inanimate" in the text means? Does this means that replicas/fake weapons (weapons that are designed to look like the real counterpart, but is completely inert and incapable of causing bodily harm) does still count as a "deadly weapon" or "dangerous weapon" just because you can use it as a threat to deadly force? Examples of such weapons would be replica pistols, theathre knifes (these are knifes where the dull blade will by spring force disappear into the handle of the knife when you "stab" someone with the knife, so it looks like the knife goes into the body of the person, but in reality the blade goes into the handle) Sebastiannielsen (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)