Imitation Samurai swords too be banned!!

Nitefly · 13 Dec 2007 at 10:58

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.

I mean honestly, how is that even remotely comparible to my scenario?

Lets go weapons jousting y'all!

Messiah Khan · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:00

Someone can have a cookie if they can find statistics for knife crime deaths versus gun crime deaths in USA.

Dolph · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:05

Helen said:
lol
Moving the goal-posts again
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

Not at all. The stats posted were what happened when you've already been hit with a weapon. The chances of getting hit with that weapon have to be taken into account when considering which is the most 'dangerous' weapon.

But I'll leave you to argument via ad hom and rolleyes now, rather than by anything actually useful

V-Spec · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:05

platypus said:
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.

When I first read that statement, I immediatley disagreed, but after thinking about it, I totally agree..
Its incorrect to say that guns are more deadly than swords because more people have died from gun crime, its simply because someone is more likley to shoot someone else than stab them with a sword because its more convenient and doesn't require any real skill from up close I guess..

Gilly · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:06

Helen said:

Once again, go away. WE. DON'T. WANT. YOU.

Dolph · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:11

Messiah Khan said:
Someone can have a cookie if they can find statistics for knife crime deaths versus gun crime deaths in USA.

Are they truely relevant though? We've already seen that banning guns doesn't make the murder rate go down, which is surely the point. If you're dead, you're dead, it doesn't matter the cause.

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

Contains the stats you want.

In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

It's also worth noting that violent crime has been dropping dramatically, despite more relaxed gun control in many states (including the end of the federal assault weapons ban) in recent years.

But as I've said, just because the weapon specific rates differ, it doesn't mean bans work if the overall rate does not change.

Dolph · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:12

Gilly said:
Once again, go away. WE. DON'T. WANT. YOU.

I love the smell of fallout in the morning, brings back such memories

Messiah Khan · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:13

Gilly said:
Once again, go away. WE. DON'T. WANT. YOU.

And so the Gilly fairy waved his magic wand, and in a puff of smoke the evil witch Helen was gone for ever.

JohnnyG · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:13

Gilly said:
Once again, go away. WE. DON'T. WANT. YOU.

What was that for :confused:

Messiah Khan · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:14

Dolph said:
Are they truely relevant though? We've already seen that banning guns doesn't make the murder rate go down, which is surely the point. If you're dead, you're dead, it doesn't matter the cause.

Cheers. No its not particulary relevant tbh. I was just curious as to what the figures were after the topic had been mentioned.

a1ex2001 · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:33

Guns and swords don't kill people, people kill people! We've been killing maiming and generally bashing people since time began banning weapons won't effect this.

Gilly · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:36

a1ex2001 said:
Guns and swords don't kill people, people kill people! We've been killing maiming and generally bashing people since time began banning weapons won't effect this.

It'd be a lot more difficult to kill someone without a gun or a sword

Tefal · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:38

Gilly said:
It'd be a lot more difficult to kill someone without a gun or a sword

You can always hit them with 2 tons of steal at 40mph

Tefal · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:45

Dolph said:
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

The graph in your stats with a certain release date marked on it.

Gilly · 13 Dec 2007 at 11:53

Tefal said:
You can always hit them with 2 tons of steal at 40mph

Yeah, stolen vehicles often result in such situations

scorza · 13 Dec 2007 at 12:02

Dolph said:
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.

I'm not disputing that knives and swords aren't dangerous. Swords, guns and knives are all dangerous weapons, it's right that both should be controlled. In the case of knives, they are also a useful tool, so it's only right to ban carrying them on the street, same for hunting type guns - hence they aren't banned, just controlled. A sword is not a tool though, and therefore an outright ban in the sensible course of action.

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

Seriously, comments like that are why the rolleyes was invented, and why people like me laugh at martial artists.

Dolph said:
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.

I think it's been demonstrated time and time again that if you give the general public free access to dangerous weapons then they will use them. If that isn't cause enough for a ban then what is?

Gilly · 13 Dec 2007 at 12:11

scorza said:
Seriously, comments like that are why the rolleyes was invented, and why people like me laugh at martial artists.

Seriously, you appear to have wildly missed the point.

Helium_Junkie · 13 Dec 2007 at 12:19

So will this affect ornamental (blunt) swords? Movie replicas and the like

Emlyn_Dewar · 13 Dec 2007 at 12:26

OT: To whoever who banned "Helen", I just want to say, great job!

I think the rolleyes has been scorched into my eyes after reading all those ridiculous posts.

badbob · 13 Dec 2007 at 12:29

Seriously, comments like that are why the rolleyes was invented, and why people like me laugh at martial artists.

Do you REALLY believe martial artists go out and beat up people? May I ask what religion, hobbies and skin colour you are/have? Then I'll just stereotype or make stupid accusations according to that.