So many Tamil gangs around these parts that use Samurai swords/Axe's etc.. fucking insane. The ban isn't going to stop them from cutting up a rival.
It might make it a bit more difficult for them to buy them and the police will have more power to prosecute them just for possessing one. Having swords freely available for anyone to buy sure aint going to help the situation.Mek-Izzle wrote:
So many Tamil gangs around these parts that use Samurai swords/Axe's etc.. fucking insane. The ban isn't going to stop them from cutting up a rival.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-13 16:16:14)
Nice mouth, we slip even lower, what picture did I ever post ? I believe you are hopelessly lost at best.Braddock wrote:
Learn to fucking read. Use the quote facility to point out where me, or indeed even Cam, claim a ban on swords will impact on drugs and terrorism.The_Mac wrote:
That is the message I have heard from you and your sidekick BrattockCameronPoe wrote:
Do you want to apologise for incorrectly insinuating I thought a ban on Samurai swords would lead to a decline in terrorism/drugs? Perhaps if you hadn't interpreted the post incorrectly your post might have been of substance, eh?
Or are you only capable of posting stupid pictures that say stuff like "epic fail"?
Nope, I disagree with freedom of expression that contradicts that freedom to the core.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Says the man who throws a hissyfit over freedom of expression. Self-contradictions to the maximum!lowing wrote:
We care about our freedoms, Europeans obviously do not.
Is your name The_Mac?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Nice mouth, we slip even lower, what picture did I ever post ? I believe you are hopelessly lost at best.Braddock wrote:
Learn to fucking read. Use the quote facility to point out where me, or indeed even Cam, claim a ban on swords will impact on drugs and terrorism.The_Mac wrote:
That is the message I have heard from you and your sidekick Brattock
Or are you only capable of posting stupid pictures that say stuff like "epic fail"?
That sentence is in itself quite self contradictory.lowing wrote:
Nope, I disagree with freedom of expression that contradicts that freedom to the core.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Says the man who throws a hissyfit over freedom of expression. Self-contradictions to the maximum!lowing wrote:
We care about our freedoms, Europeans obviously do not.
LMAO!!!!!, only as long as your govt. says so Cam, and THAT is the point.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd just like to paint a picture for lowing:
Gun - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Katana Sword - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Scissors - item specifically designed for cutting hair, paper, etc.
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.
Do I really need to explain it to you or are you simply just trying to be a pain in the ass on purpose??Braddock wrote:
That sentence is in itself quite self contradictory.lowing wrote:
Nope, I disagree with freedom of expression that contradicts that freedom to the core.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Says the man who throws a hissyfit over freedom of expression. Self-contradictions to the maximum!
The fact that you are so delusional as to seriously insinuate such farcical extensions confirm to me that you are in fact losing it. There is no middle ground for you. It's either all the way one way or all the way the other. It's getting ridiculous.lowing wrote:
LMAO!!!!!, only as long as your govt. says so Cam, and THAT is the point.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd just like to paint a picture for lowing:
Gun - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Katana Sword - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Scissors - item specifically designed for cutting hair, paper, etc.
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.
Whoa thar horsey, let's not get upset here.Braddock wrote:
Learn to fucking read. Use the quote facility to point out where me, or indeed even Cam, claim a ban on swords will impact on drugs and terrorism.
Or are you only capable of posting stupid pictures that say stuff like "epic fail"?
Straight from the horse's mouth.Braddock wrote:
Restrictions on the acquisition of weapons can ONLY lead to a decrease in weapons related crimes. IT CAN ONLY DECREASE THE NUMBER OF SUCH ACTS. It WILL NOT increase the number of such acts.
In terms of word twisting, which you are apt to do at times, weren't you insinuating that? Terrorism is a weapons related crime.
There's foreign terrorism and then there's domestic terrorism, technically speaking, which is what this forum does best, I might add, weapons related crimes are a minor subset of domestic terrorism.
Explain now in very clear and unambiguous terms HOW that tasteless act CONTRADICTS or UNDERMINES freedom of expression.lowing wrote:
Nope, I disagree with freedom of expression that contradicts that freedom to the core.
Explain how it damages you, your family, your country or the freedoms for which your country stand.
Explain how it differs from painting a picture of Jesus banging Moses in the ass.
Go on, amuse me.
I have to say I've noticed that in lowing too. It seems only extremes will do...if swords are being banned then all sharp objects will be banned, if Muslims are to be allowed to pray on college premises then society will end up completely bending to all the demands of Islam, you can either have all out cut-throat capitalism or Soviet style Communism...we have a thing here in Europe known as 'moderation'.CameronPoe wrote:
The fact that you are so delusional as to seriously insinuate such farcical extensions confirm to me that you are in fact losing it. There is no middle ground for you. It's either all the way one way or all the way the other. It's getting ridiculous.lowing wrote:
LMAO!!!!!, only as long as your govt. says so Cam, and THAT is the point.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd just like to paint a picture for lowing:
Gun - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Katana Sword - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Scissors - item specifically designed for cutting hair, paper, etc.
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.
Letting mr. lunatic walk into a gun store and buy everything he can without anyone thinking wether it's a morally good and responsible idea to throw weapons into the hands of a lunatic is a:lowing wrote:
LMAO!!!!!, only as long as your govt. says so Cam, and THAT is the point.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd just like to paint a picture for lowing:
Gun - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Katana Sword - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Scissors - item specifically designed for cutting hair, paper, etc.
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.
good / bad idea?
You see, guns for everyone has it's opposites. Do you have any idea why there are so many more killings with weapons in particular in America than Europe?
inane little opines
I decided I would throw my weight into an argument where tempers are flaring too high already; after all, I have my nomex underroos on.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd just like to paint a picture for lowing:
Gun - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Katana Sword - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Scissors - item specifically designed for cutting hair, paper, etc.
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.
What decides what purpose something is for? Is it the person who makes the object, or the person who controls it?
I can sit a loaded gun on a counter, safety off, all day long, and I promise it will not jump and and attack anyone unless someone picks it up. Who is to blame? The person who made the gun? The person holding the gun? The person (me) who left the gun there? The gun itself?
There is a bumper sticker I saw a few times here in Texas that I love: "If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"
It is an open anthropological question whether knives and blades first came about as a tool or a weapon. But a weapon is nothing but a tool in and of itself. The yo-yo was designed as a weapon. In my opinion, the function of an object MUST be derived from the person using it. A kitchen knife used in a fight is a weapon, not an item for cutting bread and cheese. Piano wire used to strangle someone is a weapon.
How many katanas (do not say 'katana sword,' as that is a bit redundant) are purchesed in a year in the UK? How many have been used in fights in the same year? How many are simply display items?
How many fights are there that involve kitchen knives? If I recall, weren't some UK bobbies buying anti-knife vests because a lot of hoodlums were carrying kitchen knives, and bullet-resistant vests do not protect agaisnt blades?
A weapon is any device used to attack. A stick becomes a club. a rock or brick becomes a missile.
But is a tool that is [i]designed[/] to kill or maim automatically a weapon? Is a pistol or rifle used in competitive sports still a weapon? And there are a lot of competitive shooting sports in the US. I have a pistol by the side of my bed that sits there, loaded, night after night, hardly moving save for my target practice sessions or my keeping my drawing and reloading skills polished. Is that pistol a weapon or a paperweight? Right now, it is a paperweight. If I ever actually shoot someone with it, then it becomes a weapon.
Many, many more people in the US are injured or killed by automobiles than by guns. What is the more dangerous object? More people in the US die due to medical malpractice than from accidental or self-inflicted gunshots.
Katanas are highly visible, and I will admit that people with violent tendancies will be more drawn toward them; obviously, the people who can not stnd violence will avoid anything that may resemble a tool of violence like the very plauge. But the UK banned guns, and still there is violence. Does anyone really think banning a sword will reduce violence? Will even the banning of kitchen knives (which I believe they were considering at some point) reduce the violence? I think that there should be a careful look, both in the UK and in the US, of the causes and reasons behind the violence, rather than placing the blame and banning the tools used to carry the violence out.
In prision, they ban and confiscate all weapons, and everything they think is dangerous and can be used as a weapon. And yet, violence and murder still takes place in prisons. Obviously, at least there, banning does not seem to work.
I think it's just a fundamental difference of opinion. I can kind of understand it to a certain extent because Americans have the right to bear arms in their constitution and anything that goes against that would seem like a violation of your rights and entitlements. But we don't have that mentality here, it's not part of our mindset in that way. Most Europeans are happy that guns and weapons are controlled and regulated quite tightly.dayarath wrote:
Letting mr. lunatic walk into a gun store and buy everything he can without anyone thinking wether it's a morally good and responsible idea to throw weapons into the hands of a lunatic is a:lowing wrote:
LMAO!!!!!, only as long as your govt. says so Cam, and THAT is the point.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd just like to paint a picture for lowing:
Gun - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Katana Sword - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Scissors - item specifically designed for cutting hair, paper, etc.
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.
good / bad idea?
You see, guns for everyone has it's opposites. Do you have any idea why there are so many more killings with weapons in particular in America than Europe?
Would you advocate a prison system where everyone is allowed to have a weapons instead? I don't think many would, obviously violent weapon related incidents still take place in prison but you do what you can to control the circulation of weapons. You don't just give up and say "everyone grab a weapon and try and survive, good luck".imortal wrote:
In prision, they ban and confiscate all weapons, and everything they think is dangerous and can be used as a weapon. And yet, violence and murder still takes place in prisons. Obviously, at least there, banning does not seem to work.
It's kind of funny that it's nearly all Americans who are trying to 'defend' our European rights in this thread. Most Europeans seem quite happy with the laws.
I know that,Braddock wrote:
I think it's just a fundamental difference of opinion. I can kind of understand it to a certain extent because Americans have the right to bear arms in their constitution and anything that goes against that would seem like a violation of your rights and entitlements. But we don't have that mentality here, it's not part of our mindset in that way. Most Europeans are happy that guns and weapons are controlled and regulated quite tightly.dayarath wrote:
Letting mr. lunatic walk into a gun store and buy everything he can without anyone thinking wether it's a morally good and responsible idea to throw weapons into the hands of a lunatic is a:lowing wrote:
LMAO!!!!!, only as long as your govt. says so Cam, and THAT is the point.
good / bad idea?
You see, guns for everyone has it's opposites. Do you have any idea why there are so many more killings with weapons in particular in America than Europe?
what I'm trying is the simple act of making people aware of the fact that legalizing weapons encourages crime more than it prevents.
inane little opines
Well you just admitted yourself that guns are able to obtain, but yet you deny that it’s not “LA yet.” I would like to remind you that cities like LA have strict Gun Control laws imposed on them. As for your argument about gun control restricting criminal activity: What about the Irish Republican Army?Braddock wrote:
This is not America, there isn't a little arsenal inside every home in Europe. Controlling the sale of weapons will make it more difficult to a certain degree for criminals to get a hold of weapons than if they were freely available for all and sundry to buy...that is a simple fact. If they were freely available for all and sundry to buy then not only would some criminals have weapons here but every criminal would most likely be armed to the teeth and on top of that the police wouldn't be able to do anything about it until these weapons were used to carry out a crime of some sort. I can tell you that it is not as easy as you think to get a gun over here (here in Ireland at least), I'm not saying criminals can't get a hold of guns but it's not fucking South central LA quite yet.
That’s a simple snarky answer, but there are a number of other reasons, including the fact that Ireland is about the size of a walnut compared to the rest of Europe, so imagine that gun control could be more effective, but that isn’t saying much.
Acknowledging this side of the argument which you abruptly leap frogged over to, although I doubt merely a coincidence, law abiding citizens with ornamental weapons are the only real market for these weapons because of their impracticality in trying to stage a surprise attack.Law abiding citizens who collect ornamental swords can utilise the loop holes in the laws to continue with their collections. Everyone else can stop pretending they're a fucking Samurai ninja warrior.
I fail to see how the everyday man would want to assume such a role in life as a Samurai, except the insane, which means that banning weapons like this would suggest your government finds you all insane and wants to protect you from each other. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? You might as well live in an insane asylum, although judging from your posts, you probably already do, tin foil hat and all.
I fail to see how America’s solution is relevant to Britain’s solution, in which case it is to ban guns.They are increasing...do you know why? Because there are more guns in circulation...and what's the American solution? More guns, more guns, more guns, more guns, guns for everyone.
As for the much trumpeted automatic weapons debate, 175,000 automatic rifles have been licensed out by the BATF and none have been used to commit crimes of any type.
America does have a level of its own gun control, such as outlawing machine guns, unless you have a special license, and most MGs I am aware of are of Vintage quality. I have not yet heard of people going on rampages with SMGs, although perhaps even our media doesn’t distort things as much as yours.
No one is denying criminals will try to get around rules and regulations which is why you don’t take away the right to bear arms from citizens who want to protect themselves and their families from these same criminals seeking to make you a statistic.Criminals will always try and get around rules, regulations and restrictions so you put as many obstacles in their path...you don't remove all obstacles completely.
I wonder then, why you consistently bad mouth other members and then whine when your own snide remarks gets a good kick in the rear end.And there was me thinking personal insults weren't welcome on this forum.
And here's a little addition:
hrmm. Try moar plz.dayarath wrote:
what I'm trying is the simple act of making people aware of the fact that legalizing weapons encourages crime more than it prevents.
Scenario: A robber approaches a house in a gun control area. He knows that the house is probably inhabited by law abiding citizens. This means a very slim chance of possessing guns.
Scenario 2: A robber approaches a house in a gun control- free area, he knows that the inhabitants are law abiding, but here, guns are legal. This means the chance of encountering armed resistance is pretty high.
Which scenario would the robber like more? And I didn't have to draw it out, like Brattock said he would, but probably couldn't.
Last edited by The_Mac (2008-04-13 17:17:25)
Let's not be rediculous. I never said that I wanted prisons to be allowed weapons. I was demonstrating that the core of violence stems not from access to weapons, but in the attitudes and cultures of the societies in question. By banning the weapons you do reduce the incidents of violence, but that attitude remains, like a sore or a cancer, eating at that society. I am not trying to just pick on Europe, here. We have the problem here in the US, too; just look at a lot of our major population centers. But notice how all of that violent attitudes center into high-population areas, regardless of what nation you look at.Braddock wrote:
Would you advocate a prison system where everyone is allowed to have a weapons instead? I don't think many would, obviously violent weapon related incidents still take place in prison but you do what you can to control the circulation of weapons. You don't just give up and say "everyone grab a weapon and try and survive, good luck".imortal wrote:
In prision, they ban and confiscate all weapons, and everything they think is dangerous and can be used as a weapon. And yet, violence and murder still takes place in prisons. Obviously, at least there, banning does not seem to work.
It's kind of funny that it's nearly all Americans who are trying to 'defend' our European rights in this thread. Most Europeans seem quite happy with the laws.
And I never said that the law went against any of your 'rights.' I simply argued as to its effectiveness in reducing violence. Personally, I think that Europeans willingly gave up any right they may have had for self protection long ago.
Now that swords are banned I am sure criminals will never figure out how to kill people.
Nobody here who supports the ban on Samurai swords beleives that this is going to stop crime. What we do beleive is that criminals will find it harder to commit serious crime, and the public will benefit from such laws.
The ban does not limit private collectors in any way. They have not had their freedoms encroached upon.
We know that a criminal can just as easily obtain a pair of scissors and use them against us. But we've a far greater chance of defending against it. As do the police.
Does anyone here who does not support the ban, think that this will not limit a criminals chance of obtaining a lethal weapon, in this case, a Samurai sword?
The ban does not limit private collectors in any way. They have not had their freedoms encroached upon.
We know that a criminal can just as easily obtain a pair of scissors and use them against us. But we've a far greater chance of defending against it. As do the police.
Does anyone here who does not support the ban, think that this will not limit a criminals chance of obtaining a lethal weapon, in this case, a Samurai sword?
I thought that was the point of the gun ban.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Nobody here who supports the ban on Samurai swords beleives that this is going to stop crime. What we do beleive is that criminals will find it harder to commit serious crime, and the public will benefit from such laws.
The ban does not limit private collectors in any way. They have not had their freedoms encroached upon.
We know that a criminal can just as easily obtain a pair of scissors and use them against us. But we've a far greater chance of defending against it. As do the police.
Does anyone here who does not support the ban, think that this will not limit a criminals chance of obtaining a lethal weapon, in this case, a Samurai sword?
Then how do you justify the ban on carrying knives?CameronPoe wrote:
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.
Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2008-04-13 19:42:13)
Well, at the moment it's the same way in the US. Certain state's and city governments ban weapons, blatantly disregarding the second amendment.lowing wrote:
LMAO!!!!!, only as long as your govt. says so Cam, and THAT is the point.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd just like to paint a picture for lowing:
Gun - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Katana Sword - item specifically designed to maim or kill
Scissors - item specifically designed for cutting hair, paper, etc.
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.
The only difference is that Britain and most of Europe has gone far beyond the US government.
Because your taking the knife out of the kitchen... You don't honestly think that people should be free to take knives into schools and shopping centres do you?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Then how do you justify the ban on carrying knives?CameronPoe wrote:
Kitchen knife - item specifically designed for cutting bread, meat, cheese, etc.
Banning lethal weapons DOES NOT BY EXTENSION ENTAIL BANNING PRACTICAL EVERYDAY SHARP ITEMS. Get a reality check.