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.
My Xmas present from the OCUK Dons! Thanking you muchly!
Imitation Samurai swords too be banned!!
- Thread starter Helen
- Start date
My Xmas present from the OCUK Dons! Thanking you muchly!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,459
- Location
- Cornwall
Mine too. You would've thought he would change his posting style to escape being detected but he doesn't seem to learn
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 9,682
- Location
- On the pale blue dot
Who was 'Helen' if I can ask? I thought she just sounded like one of those mad mothers who thinks everything should be banned to protect her darlings.
On topic though, ban: pointless. Try legislating against real problems before scraping the barrel with this one.
On topic though, ban: pointless. Try legislating against real problems before scraping the barrel with this one.
Wrong, an outright ban is rarely a sensible course of action, ceratinly not in the case of something that is in the public domain already and does not actually cause any meaningful problems that would be eliminated solely by a ban.
As Gilly said, you missed the point.
The issue is not what people are killing with, the issue is that people are killing. Banning guns, swords or knives doesn't deal with the issue, it simply makes people feel better.
Do you wish to reduce deaths, or score political points?
Except it hasn't. Legally held guns are very rarely used in crimes, and were rarely used when handguns were legal. Legally held swords are very rarely used in crimes (five deaths over several years is nothing).
The general public has proved very responsible with access to weapons, with a few exceptions, where the problem has not been the weapon, it has been the person.
Last edited:
The 80 attacks and 5 deaths aren't a "meaningful problem"? Its clear that a ban would reduce the number of swords in circulation and therefore reduce the number of attacks with swords.
No I got the point perfectly thank you very much. You made the same ridiculous point that umpteen others have made - oh if we ban X we have to ban Y too, ignoring the fact that it's impossible to ban Y or that Y has plenty of other legitimate uses. I expected better of you tbh.
Compare the deaths and injuries at Dunblane with this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/9/newsid_2543000/2543755.stm If this was America then I'll wager that guy would have been able to get hold of a firearm no problem.
People are scum - there'll always be murders for the foreseeable future. The point is that you want to make it as difficult as possible for them to commit murders.
It would reduce the number of attacks with swords but not the number of attacks in total, making **** all difference.
Not compared to the number of swords out there, and not when you factor in the point that the swords did not cause these issues, the people did, and if it wasn't a sword, it would have been something else.
Actually, that wasn't really the point. The real issue is that if I wanted to kill someone, I could do so, I could do it without a gun, without a knife or a sword. Even without training, I could go to a kitchenware or DIY store, and find all manner of implements I could use as a weapon. I could go down to iceland and buy a frozen leg of lamb and beat someone with it...
Banning weapons does not solve the problem.
It's not really a fair comparison though, as Hamilton was an experienced shooter and this is about a nutter with a knife (not a sword incidentally). If it was someone trained with knife in the same way Hamilton was trained with firearms, the results would have been worse.
But this doesn't make it difficult to commit murders, it simply criminalises law abiding citizens based on the behaviour of a tiny minority of people.
Come off it - it might be possible to kill someone with a frozen leg of lamb, but it's certainly not as easy, I think that's a very weak argument tbh.
And for the umpteenth time, no-one is proposing banning anything that has a legitimate other use. Guns (hunting types withstanding) and swords have no other legitimate use and therefore can be banned with no great difficulty.
Are the kids who do these school shootings in America trained to the same standards of Hamilton? or just kids who know their way around a firearm and have done some shooting out in their back yard?
Tbh I found shooting extremely boring. It's fun for the first 30 minutes when you're actually taking your first shots - after that I'd say I would have been competent enough to do a school shooting
. I'm told that all the skill in shooting is in judging range, wind, drop-off etc anyway.Sorry, I don't see that anyone who for example owns a handgun now could be described as a law abiding citizen, even if they bought the handgun before they were illegal.
My father was in the RAF - fought for his country (granted not in a war but at a posting) and policeforce, never commited a crime. Owns guns. So you're idiotic reply is both offensive and it makes you look stupid.
His friends at the gun/rifle range were armed services, policemen/women, lawyers and doctors. Care to say they're unstable, and law breaking citizens?
IDIOT.
Last edited:
Well, as I think you make a very weak argument for banning, I suppose we are equal in that regard. But in a civilised, liberal society, the burden of proof should always be on those wanting restrictions.
Some of my swords hang on the wall mounted on decorative mountings, they serve a legitimate purpose. Some of my swords (not live bladed) are for drill purposes, they serve a legitimate use.
Why is decoration not legitimate? Incidentally the idea of banning samurai swords is dumb, We've only got one of those in the collection, the others are other types of blades.
Are the kids who do these school shootings in America trained to the same standards of Hamilton? or just kids who know their way around a firearm and have done some shooting out in their back yard?
Tbh I found shooting extremely boring. It's fun for the first 30 minutes when you're actually taking your first shots - after that I'd say I would have been competent enough to do a school shooting
But how many people have those skills and don't? Far more than commit such crimes...
I was talking pre-ban when mentioning handguns.
Stupid, frankly. When you can still buy machettes and axes for less. And, hang on, immitation Samurai Swords? So I can still pick up an immitation Claymore, right?
*sigh* www.writetothem.com here we come.
*sigh* www.writetothem.com here we come.
For me the debate about burden of proof is already over. 80 sword attacks last year and 5 deaths, it's clear to me (and I suspect most other reasonable people) that these things are too dangerous for the general public to have free access to.
Decoration isn't really a use for something. Practically anything can be used as decoration - is that a good enough reason to permit contraband?
But when even just one person does, the results are catastrophic.
Slippery slope arguing. Almost anything can be banned on that basis. It is not the swords that caused the attacks, if they hadn't been with swords, they would have been with something else, ergo the ban is pointless and the burden of proof remains far from satisfied when you take into account the number of weapons out there vs the number of attacks. It's also worth noting that the figures are not in the last year, they are over the 'last few' years (exact number not specified)
It is the states job to demonstrate why I should be banned from having it, not mine to justify why I want it. Using other, unrelated people does not do that incidentally
So are many things, your argument is the equivilent of a "think of the children" appeal to emotion in the absence of rational analysis.
You don't know that the attacks would have happened with a different weapon had the swords not been available. A sword gives the attacked a much bigger advantage than having a simple cooking knife or machete. Are you suggesting that had guns not been available to the perpetrators then the massacres at Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine and many others would still have happened? I simply cannot see how that would be the case.
It is the states job to demonstrate why I should be banned from having it, not mine to justify why I want it. Using other, unrelated people does not do that incidentally
The state's job is to do what is in the best interests for the country, which includes protecting it's citizens from dangerous and offensive weapons.
Not really - I've never heard about a school massacre with a leg of lamb for instance. I'm not sure why the deaths of school kids is so irrelevant to your rational mind?
Imo your argument is more emotional than mine, based on your personal philosophy that nothing should ever be banned and emotional attachment to your swords. The facts are that in the last few years, 80 sword attacks have been carried out resulting in 5 deaths. That number will only go up as the number of swords in circulation increases unless we do something about it.
Are you suggesting the murder rate goes down when guns are banned? We've already covered that
As for a sword given a bigger advantage, it doesn't if you don't know how to use it properly... A knife is a lot easier to use effectively untrained than a sword.
Sorry, I forget your authoritarianism sometimes... Surely it should be protecting people from being murdered? Or is it less problematic if it's not with a 'weapon' that can be banned?
Because such things are statistical anomolies, and using them as examples for law making doesn't make sense.
But it's only relevant if the total number of attacks or deaths increases. If they don't, then the problem is not with the weapon, it's with the people and them using what is to hand.
As for my personal philosophy, it's not that nothing should ever be banned, it's nothing should ever be banned without a proven reduction in social harm that couldn't be achieved by less draconian methods, there's a big difference between those two stances. The issue of my sword ownership is irrelevant, as my stance is exactly the same on other issues such as smoking and drugs that I do not partake in.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's illegal to carry any blade over a certain length anyway (3 inches? 6?)
So having replica swords in public is an offence anyway.
Secondly, while I'm all for the "knives also kill people" argument, the idea of taking the pointy bit off the end, while a good theory (and obviously supported by doctors) fails to take into account that unless you're reasonably good at fencing, you're not stabbing people with a sword, you're slashing them.
You can get some stupidly long knives (I've got one in my kitchen knife block) that would slash almost as well as a short sword, even if there was no point for stabbing with.
Just my 2 pence. I don't have a collection of weapons, replica or otherwise, so this doesn't directly affect me. I'm just not convinced of the point.
Also, for those who mentioned it, as far as I can tell, they're not making possession illegal, only the sale of them. So you can keep your existing collections.
So having replica swords in public is an offence anyway.
Secondly, while I'm all for the "knives also kill people" argument, the idea of taking the pointy bit off the end, while a good theory (and obviously supported by doctors) fails to take into account that unless you're reasonably good at fencing, you're not stabbing people with a sword, you're slashing them.
You can get some stupidly long knives (I've got one in my kitchen knife block) that would slash almost as well as a short sword, even if there was no point for stabbing with.
Just my 2 pence. I don't have a collection of weapons, replica or otherwise, so this doesn't directly affect me. I'm just not convinced of the point.
Also, for those who mentioned it, as far as I can tell, they're not making possession illegal, only the sale of them. So you can keep your existing collections.
They were pscyotic. Removing that weapon WILL NOT change there urge to kill. It's as simple as that. THE HUMAN BEING is the killing machine.
What would your reaction be if someone plouged into a school with a fuel tanker?
a) Ban fuel tankers
b) Ban murdering people
c) Ban pscyotic people
Are you suggesting the murder rate goes down when guns are banned? We've already covered that
I'm suggesting that the murder rate is lower than it would be had handguns not been banned. Simple facts on their own like the murder rate are meaningless without analysis - over the last 10 years we've seen a massive explosion in gang culture in the inner cities that, partially at least, is responsible for an increase in the countries murder rate.
People shouldn't know how to use a sword properly - it's a weapon from a bygone age, that hopefully will never happen again. I think as well you're not thinking about the psychological effect on both the perpetrator and the victims of wielding a sword as opposed to a simple knife.
It does it's best
Unfortunately in recent years it's been misguided by people with the best of intentions forcing it to adopt liberal policing and immigration practices. Also, the state has been hampered by those calling for lower taxes - it has not been given the funds necessary to tackle the social deprivation that imo, is the biggest cause of violent crime.I will weep for this country the day dead children become mere "statistical anomalies"
Again, your assumption that all murders would still happen even if the weapon used wasn't to hand. Not all murders are pre-meditated to such an extent, often it's a "heat of the moment" thing.
Do you think that explosives should not be contraband? Has there ever been any studies into whether banning C4 has reduced social harm? What does your common sense tell you about the situation?