Imitation Samurai swords too be banned!!

Helen said:
Your in cuckoo land mate!!
Click to expand...

not really guns aren't really expensive, £50 sounds a little low, but if you know the right people (basically any known gang) you'd have no trouble in the £100 quid range.

Apparently just a little while ago there where about 25 people in balaclavas wondering round near me with guns.


Ahh found the link : http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1027050_gunmen_march_through_streets


Also since the start of this term 2 fellow Manchester students have been shot, both with illegal guns, the ban didn't help them did it?
 
Last edited:
Oh well, here comes my holiday (Just send me an email to my hotmail addy first eh Don's?)

EVERY single time i see you post, all you ever seem to say boils down to "lets just ban nasty things"... hellooooooooooooooo

Just cos you ban it, aint going to make it go away. You think taking my 3 swords off me and other genuine collectors/enthusiasts is going to stop some nut going off on one with a sword if he really must use that particular implement?

Get over yourself, the law is not absolute, and WILL be broken. Another case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Grow a bloody skin, life aint fair, politically correct or cute and fluffy. GET USED TO IT. and have a rolleyes yourself:rolleyes:

Helen said:
lol :rolleyes:

Would find it pretty hard to kill someone with those hey!!
:rolleyes: Too all the people using the pathetically weak and ridiculous argument about beneficial everyday devices being used to kill people!!
Click to expand...
 
Once upon a time in the now distant past, playing marbles was all the rage with us kids at school. Then in the space of one term, one kid swallowed a marble and it got stuck in his throat (no, I don't know how the hell that happened), then another kid got a bruised forehead when some idiot threw one. From that point on marbles were banned in the school and all joy was sapped from our young lives.

True story. Sad, but true :(

Oh, and that ban didn't work either.
 
Helen said:
All the people saying ban this ban that blah blah are being utterly ridiculous :rolleyes:
Your making yourself look really foolish by comparing something that is completely unnecessary in modern society with devices that are integral to everyday life for millions of people!!

However if I were you I would not waste my breath as mark my words this ban WILL go through as it's what the majority of the U.K want!
Click to expand...
Do you have proof that the majority of the UK want this?

It's safe to say the average person is pretty sensible and level headed unlike the majority here who seem to be weapons obsessed due to playing way too many violent video games!!
Click to expand...
What a stupid argument. I bet you're one of those people who cheered when Manhunt was banned.

Helen said:
lol Pathetically weak tbh! You seriously think in a country with so few deaths caused by guns that goverment figures could get away with being incorrect??? Of course not :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Lets analyse this statement. Government figures will say whatever the hell the government want them to say. Thats how spin and politics work. Don't tell me you're so naive that you don't realise this.

Helen said:
LOL
Hardly, my stats I posted were definitive to HANDGUN deaths which I think is rather relevant when talking about the HANDGUN ban :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
But this thread is about banning imitation Katanas. The nonsensical statistics you've banded around prove nothing, least of all which is to show how banning imitation Katanas will reduce the number of murders/attacks.

Helen said:

IT WAS NOT TOO REDUCE GUN CRIME OR GENERAL HOMOCIDES, IT WAS DONE TO PREVENT ANOTHER DUNBLANE MASSACRE.

Get it???
It was a sensible law, guess why??? Because something stupid like 85+% of MASS SHOOTINGS are committed with LEGAL GUNS! (look at the STATS!) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sensible? Hardly. It was a knee-jerk emotional reaction that was a sure fire votes winner for the government.

Helen said:
A few years back in a church in London I beleive, a few people were fairly badly injured but the people in the church rushed him and managed to disarm him without anyone dieing!! THANK GOD he didn't have a gun as people WOULD HAVE DIED!!
Click to expand...
Aye, its good no one died. And that he didn't have a gun. Oh wait, we're discussing imitation Katanas here.
 
Nitefly said:
:/

You take a sword to a nightclub, I'll take a gun and some extra bullets and we'll see who gets more kills, yes? ;)
Click to expand...

Easy way to settle this, you keep a gun holstered with the saftey on and i'll come rushing at you with a Katana from 10ft away. Then you'll see who gets killed quicker.

And yes tests have been done. I think the assailant has to be something like 50ft away before you could reliably draw a gun and stop the knife/sword weilding attacker.
 
PaulStat said:
Easy way to settle this, you keep a gun holstered with the saftey on and i'll come rushing at you with a Katana from 10ft away. Then you'll see who gets killed quicker.

And yes tests have been done. I think the assailant has to be something like 50ft away before you could reliably draw a gun and stop the knife/sword weilding attacker.
Click to expand...
Who walks around with the safety on if they're going to go on a killing spree?
 
PaulStat said:
Easy way to settle this, you keep a gun holstered with the saftey on and i'll come rushing at you with a Katana from 10ft away. Then you'll see who gets killed quicker.

And yes tests have been done. I think the assailant has to be something like 50ft away before you could reliably draw a gun and stop the knife/sword weilding attacker.
Click to expand...

How about If the safty is off and the Knife sword wielding maniac is Doped up on a lot of PCP?
 
Capn' $qu!ff said:
How about If the safty is off and the Knife sword wielding maniac is Doped up on a lot of PCP?
Click to expand...

Not sure if there'd be much difference to be honest because

a) Doped on PCP probably means it's going to take more shots, or shots with greater accuracy to take them down
b) You try aiming properly when a guy is running at you full pelt with a sword, I don't think head shots are going to be an option :p
 
scorza said:
I'm not sure about that. Most murders are committed by people known to the victim, which implies anyone with a gun could get very close anyway, thus rendering any issues about range irrelevant. I'm not an expert by any means, but if you stab someone, I imagine you'd have to use a helluva lot of force to pierce bone (e.g. the ribcage which protects a lot of vital organs), and isn't there an issue with pressure, meaning that if you're not careful the blade will get stuck in the persons body on the first stab.
Click to expand...

I've a pretty good martial arts background, a good background with guns of various types and so on. If you put me in a situation where I'm unarmed and have someone trying to kill me, I'd rather they have a gun than a sword or a knife. It's easier to avoid the lethal end of a gun, especially upclose, than it is a knife or sword. You also have more of the weapon that's safe to grab if you're trying to disarm.

Incidentally, I should probably have my legs and arms banned, seeing as I've learnt plenty of lethal strikes over the years.

According to this (admittedly I don't know much about the source - and it's a blog :rolleyes: ), gunshot wounds have a 17.4% mortality rate, while stab wounds have a 5.3% mortality rate: http://timlambert.org/1993/10/knives-00000/
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the wounds themselves, I'm talking about the chances of getting wounded or being able to stop someone.

I wouldn't say so - it's why you can still own shotguns and other hunting guns in this country - they have a legitimate use, unlike handguns and assault rifles.
Click to expand...

As this government doesn't work on the liberal principle of demonstrating why they should be removed, this doesn't matter to my argument. It is not for the people to demonstrate why they should be allowed something, it's for the state to demonstrate, factually, why they shouldn't, and why a ban gets results that other restrictions will not.
 
Scuzi said:
I wonder who. Mr. Leftfield perhaps?


No ;)
Click to expand...

Strangely, I was about to RTM this very thing ;)

There's no point replying to Helen's rants, as you can't change the mind of a fundamentalist, and nearly everyone here has seen how coherant her argument is, so I don't even feel the need to correct the frequent baseless statements or misrepresented sources...
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Strangely, I was about to RTM this very thing ;)

There's no point replying to Helen's rants, as you can't change the mind of a fundamentalist, and nearly everyone here has seen how coherant her argument is, so I don't even feel the need to correct the frequent baseless statements or misrepresented sources...
Click to expand...

Whole heartedly agree... this type of handwringing simpleton who cannot be reasoned with, despite being presented with overwhelming proof.

And this type of Handwringing Simpleton is also a very large part of why just about everything is illegal, despite having laws in place already to deal with idiots (Shoot someone? It's illegal, spend the rest of your life in nick).

Hence the non-edit of my post above. The Majority of Handgun owners never shot anyone. The majority of Imitation sword owners have never ran down a street with my Katana screaming "Banzaaaai" and slashing at people.

Why are these illegal again? Oh yeah... votes winners to a largely non-existant problem. Remember who you vote for people...
 
The funny thing for me is that these things were already banned in public anyway, not just samurai but any knife with a blade over 4" (I think), so what different is banning samurai swords altogether going to make? it can't make any difference.

Nation being slowly cocconed in cotton wool :mad:
 
Dolph said:
I'm not talking about the wounds themselves, I'm talking about the chances of getting wounded or being able to stop someone.
Click to expand...

lol
Moving the goal-posts again :rolleyes:
I said the obvious and logical comment that guns are more 'deadly' than swords, now your changing things once someone has posted concrete stats to categorically prove the claim that guns ARE more deadly than swords!!
A man of integrity I see :rolleyes:
 
Helen said:
lol
Moving the goal-posts again :rolleyes:
I said the obvious and logical comment that guns are more 'deadly' than swords, now your changing things once someone has posted concrete stats to categorically prove the claim that guns ARE more deadly than swords!!
A man of integrity I see :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You have quite an agressive posting style don't you. I'm not sure if I've seen a post where you haven't used :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Helen said:
lol
Moving the goal-posts again :rolleyes:
I said the obvious and logical comment that guns are more 'deadly' than swords, now your changing things once someone has posted concrete stats to categorically prove the claim that guns ARE more deadly than swords!!
A man of integrity I see :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of the great many people that post on this forum, I don't think you'll find many with more integrity then Dolph. You may not agree with what he says (you clearly don't), but he always presents his side of the argument eloquently (well, usually :p) with logical facts, not baseless and emotional rhetoric.

That aside; firstly it is neither obvious nor logical to say that 'guns are more deadly then swords'. This is because it isn't true, to decide which is more deadly is subjective reasoning, something which has no place in a logical argument. The bottom line is both kill, and in different situations one is more deadly then the other.

Incidentally, the 'rolleyes' factory called. They're all out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom