Imitation Samurai swords too be banned!!

[Inquisitor]

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.

And also its citizens' liberties and freedom.

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.

Not really; someone with a machete is just as dangerous as someone with a katana.

I'm not sure why the deaths of school kids is so irrelevant to your rational mind?

See appeal to emotion or, more specifically, 'For The Children'.

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.

No, it's absolutely not. He uses his ownership and use of swords as decoration as an example of a use for them. You're exaggerating the significance of 5 deaths per year (which really isn't that many in the grand scheme of things), which is a fallacious argument (an appeal to emotion).

 

[badbob]

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 t

So you're saying people who fence and do Kendo shouldn't because there's no need?

Do you want self defence and martial arts schools to be banned? After all people shouldn't defend themselves as there's no need.

 

[Dolph]

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.

Was that the case the year directly after the handgun ban?

Here's the kicker, if you could prove to me that banning swords would save lives, in a way that no other restriction could do so, I would support you 100%, no matter if it meant I had to give up mine. I cannot see anything that justifies a total ban, licensing I could certainly see (and would happily support, again even if it meant extra expense or hassle for me), but that's not what's being proposed.

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.

So now you wish to ban recreational fighting arts too?

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.

The social justice system has always failed to resolve social deprivation, it's not a lack of money issue, it's a lack of understanding. Giving people more money doesn't fix social deprivation, the system just adjusts so that, relatively, the people are still as deprived as they were.

As for liberal policing and immigration practices, most of those are not the product of classic social liberalism, they are the product of socialism and social authoritarianism, which is, in many cases, the opposite of classical liberalism.

I will weep for this country the day dead children become mere "statistical anomalies"

And I'll weep for the day when a dead child killed by a sword or bullet is somehow more important than one killed by any other means, or when one dead child is used to bulldoze all the important statistics to get an emotionally satisfying response.

I want to see less people killed, banning weapons doesn't achieve that, and therefore I'm not in favour of it.

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.

But not by trained, legal gun or sword holders, at least not according to any of the recorded statistics.

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?

Technically, C4 isn't banned, it's licensed. I have far less of a problem with licensing than I do with banning. It means the item is only available for those trained to use it. That's a common sense restriction, and one I don't have a problem with. There are other items where ownership has high enough potential hazards to warrant very strong licensing or even (in very few cases) an outright ban. I can't see, for example, any licensing regieme that would negate the risks of a nuclear warhead in a similar or better fashion than a ban on civilian ownership.

However, when you're talking about handguns or swords, there certainly are licensing situations that will perform just as well. If this thread was about licensing the sale of swords, I'd be very much for it, rather than arguing against it, I'd think it was a common sense approach, provided it was on a 'shall issue' basis (ie, the onus is on the state to give grounds why you can't have one, rather than on the citizen to say why they should have one)

 

[NuclearWinter]

You're exaggerating the significance of 5 deaths per year

I only mention this for the sake of clarity because a ton of people in this thread have given that statistic, but it's not 5 deaths per year. The BBC article in the original post writes it as 5 deaths in "recent years", though other sources for the story give a more exact number of 5 deaths in 4 years.

 

[Inquisitor]

I only mention this for the sake of clarity because a ton of people in this thread have given that statistic, but it's not 5 deaths per year. The BBC article in the original post writes it as 5 deaths in "recent years", though other sources for the story give a more exact number of 5 deaths in 4 years.

Thanks; hadn't noticed that

 

[scorza]

Was that the case the year directly after the handgun ban?

Here's the kicker, if you could prove to me that banning swords would save lives, in a way that no other restriction could do so, I would support you 100%, no matter if it meant I had to give up mine. I cannot see anything that justifies a total ban, licensing I could certainly see (and would happily support, again even if it meant extra expense or hassle for me), but that's not what's being proposed.

Yes licensing is another form of control that might be necessary in certain circumstances. However it's worth remember that with licensing mistakes will often be made by the licensing authorities that can have tragic consequences. Often an outright ban is better as it keeps things a lot simpler and easier to manage.

So now you wish to ban recreational fighting arts too?

Not at all. I just don't understand why people would want to be trained in the use of a sword in this day and age. Obviously people do though and that's fine as it doesn't affect anyone else - as long as they don't start using dangerous weapons which make their way onto the streets.

The social justice system has always failed to resolve social deprivation, it's not a lack of money issue, it's a lack of understanding. Giving people more money doesn't fix social deprivation, the system just adjusts so that, relatively, the people are still as deprived as they were.

As for liberal policing and immigration practices, most of those are not the product of classic social liberalism, they are the product of socialism and social authoritarianism, which is, in many cases, the opposite of classical liberalism.

Yeah whatever, all I know is that in this country successive governments have not provided the investment required in kids. Only today a report said that bright, poor kids fall behind rich, think kids in terms of academic achievement by the time they're 3. Other countries put a lot of money into the early education of children so that it's possible to break the cycle of poverty and social deprivation that our children find themselves in.

And I'll weep for the day when a dead child killed by a sword or bullet is somehow more important than one killed by any other means, or when one dead child is used to bulldoze all the important statistics to get an emotionally satisfying response.

I want to see less people killed, banning weapons doesn't achieve that, and therefore I'm not in favour of it.

I'll ask the question again - if guns were out of reach of the perpetrators of the Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine and VTech massacres, do you think that as many people would have been killed? I really don't know how you can say that banning weapons doesn't save people's lives.

 

[Mephisto]

I'll ask the question again - if guns were out of reach of the perpetrators of the Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine and VTech massacres, do you think that as many people would have been killed? I really don't know how you can say that banning weapons doesn't save people's lives.

It's impossible to say. How do you know what they would have done if they didn't have legal firearms? They could have turned to illegal sources, as did the Columbine perpetrators. They could have constructed bombs. You just can't say.

The perpatrators of the Columbine massacre planted propane bombs in the cafeteria before their shooting spree. They didn't go off for some reason, but if they had according The Columbine report at least 300 people would have been killed. They wouldn't have even needed firearms.

They were teenagers that got plans on how to construct bombs off the internet. If they can do it, anyone can.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'll ask the question again - if guns were out of reach of the perpetrators of the Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine and VTech massacres, do you think that as many people would have been killed? I really don't know how you can say that banning weapons doesn't save people's lives.

Banning guns does not prevent people from obtaining them.

 

[Alex_6n2]

To be honest there's a lot of new laws coming in recently banning various types of imitation weapons. Doesn't really surprise me that they've now gone after swords.

But why only Samurai ones? The government can ban them, but it won't stop people having them.

 

[LordSplodge]

Not at all. I just don't understand why people would want to be trained in the use of a sword in this day and age. .

I am trained in the art of sword play. Needed it for my battle re-enactment days.

 

[Pandion]

Someon in this thread talked about democracy and that the majority of people where in favour of the ban, this is the results of the public consultation.

Should curved, single edged swords (sometimes known as “samurai swords”) be added to
the Offensive Weapons Order?

Yes 15%
No 85%
*just goes to show they listen to people*

Are there any weapons which have been used in violent crime that should be banned?

Yes 44%
No 56%

*out of the 4 police respondents to the questions they were evenly split on this one*

for the full list of questions, and answer http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-ban-offensive-weapons/

 

[Dolph]

Yes licensing is another form of control that might be necessary in certain circumstances. However it's worth remember that with licensing mistakes will often be made by the licensing authorities that can have tragic consequences. Often an outright ban is better as it keeps things a lot simpler and easier to manage.

So simple is more important to you than fair, civilised and justified? If you insist.

Not at all. I just don't understand why people would want to be trained in the use of a sword in this day and age. Obviously people do though and that's fine as it doesn't affect anyone else - as long as they don't start using dangerous weapons which make their way onto the streets.

Anything can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a determined individual. The weapons are not the problem, the poeople are.

Yeah whatever, all I know is that in this country successive governments have not provided the investment required in kids. Only today a report said that bright, poor kids fall behind rich, think kids in terms of academic achievement by the time they're 3. Other countries put a lot of money into the early education of children so that it's possible to break the cycle of poverty and social deprivation that our children find themselves in.

Unfortunately, we tend to think that just giving money to the parents is appropriate...

I'll ask the question again - if guns were out of reach of the perpetrators of the Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine and VTech massacres, do you think that as many people would have been killed? I really don't know how you can say that banning weapons doesn't save people's lives.

This question is a fallacy, as the way it's constructed, you're not asking an honest question. It's the equivilent of saying "if X hadn't got into the car, he wouldn't have hit that person." Which while technically true, is not very helpful. And that's without pointing out that one of those examples used illegally obtained guns (columbine), one used legally held guns that shoudl have been removed under the existing law (Dunblane) and one has a lot of debate about the campus policy of not letting certified CCW holders carry guns on campus and whether this would have reduced the death toll (VTech).

The real question is, if you banned weapons, would less people die overall? The answer to that question is no. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the people.

 

[PaulStat]

A sword gives the attacked a much bigger advantage than having a simple cooking knife or machete.

How exactly? I'd say a kitchen knife is a far easier implement to use to attack someone than a Katana. Especially if you're not trained to use one.

It's far easier to get out of the way of something with a long blade (long sweeping/thrusting movements) than it is to get out of the way of a short blade (quick, close range stabbing movements)

 

[volospian]

How exactly? I'd say a kitchen knife is a far easier implement to use to attack someone than a Katana. Especially if you're not trained to use one.

It's far easier to get out of the way of something with a long blade (long sweeping/thrusting movements) than it is to get out of the way of a short blade (quick, close range stabbing movements)

Eh? How did you work that one out?

The knife will give you a suprise advantage, but it's harder to skip out of reach of a 3 foot blade than it is to jump back from a 6" knife blade

 

[scorza]

So simple is more important to you than fair, civilised and justified? If you insist.

When making laws one has to consider how it will work in practice. It's no good implementing a law that won't work, and by your own admission, when we had gun licensing people like Thomas Hamilton were able to slip through the net. Thats why an outright ban on handguns would have been better from the start, and it would have been a civilised, just and fair as possible.

Anything can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a determined individual. The weapons are not the problem, the poeople are.

Weapons are part of the problem. This is actually a complex issue, it's not as black and white as you're making out. Until humanity evolves to such a state where violence no longer happens then free access to weapons should be prevented.

Unfortunately, we tend to think that just giving money to the parents is appropriate...

It is appropriate, but again it's only part of the solution. Look at how much help and support parents in Scandinavian countries get compared to ours - it's no wonder our kids grow up uneducated and neglected.

This question is a fallacy, as the way it's constructed, you're not asking an honest question. It's the equivilent of saying "if X hadn't got into the car, he wouldn't have hit that person." Which while technically true, is not very helpful. And that's without pointing out that one of those examples used illegally obtained guns (columbine), one used legally held guns that shoudl have been removed under the existing law (Dunblane) and one has a lot of debate about the campus policy of not letting certified CCW holders carry guns on campus and whether this would have reduced the death toll (VTech).

The real question is, if you banned weapons, would less people die overall? The answer to that question is no. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the people.

The answer is no, not as many people would have died in those massacres

The guns used in the Columbine massacre might have been technically illegal because they were passed onto the perpetrators via a straw purchase, but the fact remains that the guns used were freely available and bought legally by someone who illegally passed them onto Dylan and Eric.

The suggestion that licensed concealed weapons should have been allowed on campus is laughable tbh. Is it not obvious that allowing guns in schools and colleges is not the smartest thing in the world? Do they really want to take America back to the days of the Wild West?

 

[BlairH]

No-one should need to own a sword in Britain in this day and age, I'm glad they're banning them, shame they aren't banning the real thing as well tbh.

(Bangs head against wall) The notion of liberty does not (and should not!) answer to the subordinate notion of "need". If only the PC police in this country realised this.

There's plenty of reasons for owning a sword. This country was shaped by the sword, and owning swords for historic reasons would be more than justifiable.

Weapons are part of the problem. This is actually a complex issue, it's not as black and white as you're making out. Until humanity evolves to such a state where violence no longer happens then free access to weapons should be prevented.

Sir, I admire your utopian ideals, however they are -at best- unrealistic and -at best- act as a barrier to liberty. The right to self defence is the first law of nature, and the right to arms is a natural extension of this. Outlawing arms only serves to destroy the natural order of things, and ensures that law-abiding citizens become victims, not of criminals, but of an overbearing State that doesn't trust us with arms.

 

[BlairH]

So now you wish to ban recreational fighting arts too?

Sir, there are some people in this country who would ban anything if it would make them feel better!

 

[PaulStat]

Eh? How did you work that one out?

The knife will give you a suprise advantage, but it's harder to skip out of reach of a 3 foot blade than it is to jump back from a 6" knife blade

like I said big circular type motion with the sword, the attacker has to either swing or thrust.

It's easier trust me. Not that I'd want to be in either situation

 

[V-Spec]

I think that in many cases where people are referring to various past cases of mass murder, Thomas Hamilton/columbine/etc there has been a vast hatred which has led to a massacre being planned, its impossible to say that if guns had been banned before that moment, Hamilton would have just stayed at home.... wheres theres a will theres a way, etc..

The argument seems to be that immitation samurai swords can be banned because they serve no other purpose than for, but how do you define "purpose?" surely if its decorative in someones house then thats a valid purpose? Are we forbidden from owning anything which serves no immediate working use, which incidentally can be dangerous when used in the wrong way?
I could understand if there were 100 murders a day involving samurai swords, but theres 5 in the last 4 years? which probably would have happened anyway banned or not, or with a standard kitchen knife.

 

[Banzai_Joe]

Jesus h christ, another knee-jerk reaction from a powder puff society that i like to call the UK.
80 attacks in 'recent' years, not ONE year, resulting in 5 deaths.
The cheapo 'samurai' swords are more dangerous to the user if they swing em around like nutcases. Wallhangers will break easily if whcaked against something. Sadly idiots can buy them from a lot of main street shops. They may not be sharp but the kissaki (pointy bit at the end) is deadly and swinging a curved thin peice of metal in an arc towards flesh can easily do plenty of damage.
Yes, lets make it harder for head-the-balls to buy them.
I used to be an admin on a very popular sword forum that was linked to a very popular uk based sword selling site. Sadly the owner did and does sell all too easily to complete retards (this was evident in the forums). Its this that needs to be clamped down on.
Martials arts has played a 22 year part of my so far 38 year life and i've studied the japanese sword for over 12 years now in martial arts. I'll have no problem being on some kind of register identifying me as a bona-fide responsible collector/enthusiast.
But ffs, lets not go overboard again about this sort of this....again.
As has been mentioned, a kitchen knife is easily as deadly, certainly sharper and infinitely more concealable than a 3ft sword.
The government are even branding them as 'samurai' swords. Is this because they don't know any better or because they think the public will understand what they're trying to say?! They are 'japanese' swords used by japanese folk back in the day, samurai AND ninja included.
Maybe some uk ninja could flip out and skewer someone with a ninja-to just to prove a point that its not just curved blades that kill!

My god some people.....