Imitation Samurai swords too be banned!!

[badbob]

The thing is the "imitation" sword they're on about are the cheapo display swords you can get. A Battle-ready "Imitation" of say an ancient Katana which'll prolly cost in the area of £500-£1500 are not the sort of thing they're on about. The term imitation is not specific enough and people are gonna get confused.

In that price bracket you're going to get a quality forged replica, not a authetic japanese forged sword by a real japanese blacksmith. Paul Chen £200+, or Bugei £1500. Probably looking at around £6000+ for a proper sword, with documents and proof of authenticity.

 

[Dolph]

yeah, but it gets votes doesn't it.

Indeed, it's why we need a strict restriction on governments passing laws based on opinion rather than fact, and only passing the minimum restrictions to deal with an issue, rather than draconian ones.

 

[<F0rb>]

..

 

[badbob]

Ban these too, they're made to scoop out eyeballs.

 

[scorza]

Indeed, it's why we need a strict restriction on governments passing laws based on opinion rather than fact, and only passing the minimum restrictions to deal with an issue, rather than draconian ones.

Is it not a fact that the higher the rate of gun ownership in a country, the higher the rate of gun-related deaths? Therefore reducing gun ownership should be a good thing. I know that gun crime and shootings is on the increase here, but what we're seeing is a massive shift towards gang culture (including owning guns) - we have to tackle the causes of this as well. I won't accept that argument that if we hadn't have banned handguns after Dunblane then these kids in South London wouldn't be running around with guns today.

Interesting article from today's independant on Switzerland's gun problems: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece

in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

 

[Sinque]

Why are they banning the just samurai swords? The murderer could quite easily walk into Aldi and buy a massive kitchen knife sharper than the samurais no questions asked.

 

[Tefal]

In that price bracket you're going to get a quality forged replica, not a authetic japanese forged sword by a real japanese blacksmith. Paul Chen £200+, or Bugei £1500. Probably looking at around £6000+ for a proper sword, with documents and proof of authenticity.

By proper Japanese sword we talking folded steel, as opposed to just solid forged stuff?

 

[Tefal]

Is it not a fact that the higher the rate of gun ownership in a country, the higher the rate of gun-related deaths? Therefore reducing gun ownership should be a good thing. I know that gun crime and shootings is on the increase here, but what we're seeing is a massive shift towards gang culture (including owning guns) - we have to tackle the causes of this as well. I won't accept that argument that if we hadn't have banned handguns after Dunblane then these kids in South London wouldn't be running around with guns today.

Interesting article from today's independant on Switzerland's gun problems: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece

but guns are illegal, and gun crime is committed by people with illegal guns. so te ban has not affected anything.

 

[D18241]

Better ban kitchen knives aswell, along with cars, sticks, boots and rocks, it's the only way to be safe...

dogs also they kill people

 

[Tefal]

dogs also they kill people

but that's suicide.

 

[badbob]

By proper Japanese sword we talking folded steel, as opposed to just solid forged stuff?

I would say a "proper" sword is something with a bit of history behind it, made and polished by a world class japanese blacksmith, with hand made first class fittings. Documents included.

Rather than a forged/folded katana in a back street in Korea/Tailand....which can be quality of course. Bugei's swords are around £1000 afaik.

 

[Azagoth]

An old school mate of mine was murdered by some drunken cretin wielding a brick, so just to be fair, I say we ban bricks too!

 

[Dolph]

Is it not a fact that the higher the rate of gun ownership in a country, the higher the rate of gun-related deaths?

Of course, but think of what you are saying for a second. Gun related deaths are higher, but are deaths through other unnatural causes lower? Does banning a tool simply shift people to other methods? The majority of murders in the UK don't use guns, but if guns were available, would our murder rate increase, or would they simply use guns instead of a knife/hammer/strangling?

Therefore reducing gun ownership should be a good thing. I know that gun crime and shootings is on the increase here, but what we're seeing is a massive shift towards gang culture (including owning guns) - we have to tackle the causes of this as well. I won't accept that argument that if we hadn't have banned handguns after Dunblane then these kids in South London wouldn't be running around with guns today.

Reducing gun ownership doesn't serve any useful purpose, given that legal guns are not the problem in most cases anyway. Especially if you're honest and exclude suicides from the gun related deaths (something the anti-gun lobby refuse to do).

How do you reconcile your belief that reducing guns is beneficial with the examples from the USA that clearly show a correlation between strong gun control and increased violence/crime?

Interesting article from today's independant on Switzerland's gun problems: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece

What's switzerland's standard murder rate? Are they trying to imply that without guns those people would still be alive? That's a tenuous suggestion at best...

 

[D33]

I own a small collection of samurai swords. Nothing spectacular
A single, sharp samurai sword and a blunt set of three that look good on my desk.

I can see where the original poster and the people who think like her are coming from. I can also see where people who collect them or own them are coming from.

Personally I love mine. I don't really do anything with them except look at them and they stay in my bedroom. I decided to buy some of my own because whenever I was at a friends house who had a samurai sword I found myself looking at it / playing with it all the time. It's fascinating.

My sharp standalone sword is only half-tang but I'm sure I could kill someone with it. The real question is though, despite owning a weapon that can kill, would I use it to kill?

The obvious answer for me, is no I would not. I wouldn't use it to kill simply because I am not a killer.

All of the arguing in this thread is pointless and after a while it merely goes round in circles.

No one is in the wrong, merely one side is mis-guided. That side being the original poster and her followers in belief. They do not understand why people would want these swords and thus fear people with them. It's sad but understandable.

As tired and 'weak' as the argument is, as has been pointed out before and I'm sure, will be pointed out again. People can kill with anything. It's the visual threat of a samurai sword that insills fear. Otherwise they'd use a kitchen knife or a pointy stick. Hell, they all get the job done.

If you want statistics, here's a nice easy one.

According to the OP, five people have died by the hand of killers using immitation samurai swords. Now, ask yourself, how many hundreds of thousands ( probably more ) own immitation samurai swords?

Is the ownership of samurai swords a problem?

The answer is no.

I did a quick google for "knife" and "killed" and got back in the region of one million, thirty thousand results yet knives are still around. Why is this?

Because they can be used for non leathal purposes?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=killed+knife&meta=
First page of google, 9th link down.

"Lawyer killed wife with kitchen knife, court hears."

I'm sorry to say it people but your mob mentallity is plainly showing. Take a while to sit back and understand that the weapon has never been the problem but humans. Unfortunately this will keep happening no matter what is banned.

Learn to understand this.

 

[volospian]

I was waiting for a pedant to come rushing out with that.

Can I add:

"Ninjas don't live in this country"

Humour for the lose.

actually it's not pedantic as it's technically incorrect. Ninjas would happily use samurai swords if they could get their hands on one. Ninjas were generally from poorer backgrounds and simply couldn't afford weapons as good as the katana. Instead they adapted shorter weapons for their use.

I'd imagine a katana would potentially be too long for a ninja, but a wakizashi would probably be useful.

Can I add:

"ninjas do live in this country"

 

[alexakasloth]

Good job they are only banning imitation Samurai swords. Banning the real thing would be stupid.

^^ what he said. They're cheap and tacky, exactly what a chav would purchase.

 

[scorza]

Of course, but think of what you are saying for a second. Gun related deaths are higher, but are deaths through other unnatural causes lower? Does banning a tool simply shift people to other methods? The majority of murders in the UK don't use guns, but if guns were available, would our murder rate increase, or would they simply use guns instead of a knife/hammer/strangling?

Well all other things being equal, you'd expect the rates to be similar between the UK and Switzerland. So lets assume that is the case, Switzerland has a lower murder with non-firearms rate, but a higher murder with firearms rate - I think it's a pretty big leap of faith to suggest all those murders would have happened if the perp hadn't access to firearms.

Reducing gun ownership doesn't serve any useful purpose, given that legal guns are not the problem in most cases anyway. Especially if you're honest and exclude suicides from the gun related deaths (something the anti-gun lobby refuse to do).

I dunno, both Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton both used legal firearms to carry out their massacres. I doubt either of them would have had access to the sort of illegal firearms we see in widespread use in modern Britain's inner cities, and since the types of firearm used in those massacres have been banned we haven't had any similar incidents since (touch wood).

In recent years we've seen plenty of massacres in the USA, one in Canada and one in Switzerland. I think the purpose of the firearm legislation in this country was to prevent such massacres, not to reduce gun related deaths in total.

IMO a suicide is an undesirable event, so while it's unhelpful to group suicide deaths with murder deaths, it's certainly worth asking if the availability of guns makes it more likely for someone to commit suicide.

How do you reconcile your belief that reducing guns is beneficial with the examples from the USA that clearly show a correlation between strong gun control and increased violence/crime?

I'm not aware of such studies so it's hard to comment. In general I find comparisons with the USA unhelpful as their figures on this subject are just so different to everyone else's (at least in Europe - that I've seen). Remember too that when they talk about gun control in the USA they're usually talking about waiting a period of time before being able to complete a purchase of a gun - not banning it.

 

[Dolph]

Well all other things being equal, you'd expect the rates to be similar between the UK and Switzerland. So lets assume that is the case, Switzerland has a lower murder with non-firearms rate, but a higher murder with firearms rate - I think it's a pretty big leap of faith to suggest all those murders would have happened if the perp hadn't access to firearms.

Nearly as big as the one that suggests those murders wouldn't have happened if firearms were restricted

I dunno, both Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton both used legal firearms to carry out their massacres. I doubt either of them would have had access to the sort of illegal firearms we see in widespread use in modern Britain's inner cities, and since the types of firearm used in those massacres have been banned we haven't had any similar incidents since (touch wood).

But we didn't have them before those two examples either in a form that shows that the ban has actually worked and it's not simply regression to the mean. And that's without pointing out that Thomas Hamilton had his guns through police failure, not law failure. The police had the means to remove his weapons and didn't do so.

In recent years we've seen plenty of massacres in the USA, one in Canada and one in Switzerland. I think the purpose of the firearm legislation in this country was to prevent such massacres, not to reduce gun related deaths in total.

And I think banning cars would reduce road deaths to virtually zero, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate way of doing it.

IMO a suicide is an undesirable event, so while it's unhelpful to group suicide deaths with murder deaths, it's certainly worth asking if the availability of guns makes it more likely for someone to commit suicide.

Perhaps, but looking at 'Gun Deaths' doesn't actually achieve that, just like it doesn't demonstrate whether guns affect the overall murder rate, or only the rate of those murdered with guns.

I'm not aware of such studies so it's hard to comment. In general I find comparisons with the USA unhelpful as their figures on this subject are just so different to everyone else's (at least in Europe - that I've seen). Remember too that when they talk about gun control in the USA they're usually talking about waiting a period of time before being able to complete a purchase of a gun - not banning it.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/9140

Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.

Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. (See Table 4) The exception is rape: non-RTC states averaged 21.1% lower rates, reversing a 9-year trend where 10 states with RTC laws enacted during 1995-1996 saw their rates of rape drop faster than non-RTC states.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167
http://www.progressiveu.org/191354-fable-iv-gun-control-laws-prevent-crime-www-nra-org

I can provide more, the correlations are well documented.

The problem is that, while gun control may reduce gun related deaths, it doesn't reduce death or violent crime overall, it's more likely to do the opposite. That's why people focus on the "gun deaths" and "bullet injuries" figures and claim they have been successful. Surely the point is to reduce overall rates, not simply shift them around?

 

[Tefal]

I myself am an imitation samurai , so this is very disappointing news.

I read it as that

 

[Glaucus]

Absolutely stupid. 5 whole deaths whoppy do dah. I mean it's not as if they could just replace it with a kitchen knife.

Yet again Big brother government come to save us again. From a problem that doesn't exist.