http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm
now what pro anti gun law european's? now what?!?!
now what pro anti gun law european's? now what?!?!
Last edited by beerface702 (2008-04-13 04:57:30)
ya better hope no one gets killed with a cricket bat..........or a soccerball.................sorry.....................football
Pro-anti gun law European? lolbeerface702 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm
now what pro anti gun law european's? now what?!?!
I don't see a problem with the ban, they are weapons afterall.
So is an axe, shovel, bat, garden hoe, rope, wire, pipe etc............time to start banning based on your theory on the the matter. Geez, what if some holds another's head underwater until they drown? Banning water sure is gunna make life tough. but hey, we gotta do it, since it was used as a weaponTheAussieReaper wrote:
Pro-anti gun law European? lolbeerface702 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm
now what pro anti gun law european's? now what?!?!
I don't see a problem with the ban, they are weapons afterall.
I would say ROFLMAO agian.
An axe is used to chop wood. Shovel to dig. Bat for sport. Hoe for gardening. Rope for tying stuff. Wire for wiring stuff. Pipes for drinking. How the hell can you compare any of those, to a fucking samurai sword? What would anyone use a samuirai sword for, other than display? (in which case you can use a dull blade)lowing wrote:
So is an axe, shovel, bat, garden hoe, rope, wire, pipe etc............time to start banning based on your theory on the the matter.
For cutting your vegetables? Slicing pizza? Serious lowing, apples and oranges. You cut those with a knife, not a chainsaw.
You just proved my point, with your 2nd sentence. Water isn't a weapon, so you can't ban it.lowing wrote:
Geez, what if some holds another's head underwater until they drown? Banning water sure is gunna make life tough. but hey, we gotta do it, since it was used as a weapon
Anything else you'd like to ad?
Yeah, swords are used as collectors items, museum pieces, art. It can also be used as a weapon. Is there a difference between a machete and a sword? Is not a machete used as a tool? Has it not also been used to kill?TheAussieReaper wrote:
An axe is used to chop wood. Shovel to dig. Bat for sport. Hoe for gardening. Rope for tying stuff. Wire for wiring stuff. Pipes for drinking. How the hell can you compare any of those, to a fucking samurai sword? What would anyone use a samuirai sword for, other than display? (in which case you can use a dull blade)lowing wrote:
So is an axe, shovel, bat, garden hoe, rope, wire, pipe etc............time to start banning based on your theory on the the matter.
For cutting your vegetables? Slicing pizza? Serious lowing, apples and oranges. You cut those with a knife, not a chainsaw.You just proved my point, with your 2nd sentence. Water isn't a weapon, so you can't ban it.lowing wrote:
Geez, what if some holds another's head underwater until they drown? Banning water sure is gunna make life tough. but hey, we gotta do it, since it was used as a weapon
Anything else you'd like to ad?
a bat can be used in sport, or it can be used as a weapon.
a gun can be used in a sport, it can also be a weapon.
The point being, a sword is an object, it is only a weapon when it is used as such. Just like an ax, bat, gun, machete, chainsaw, water. etc........
You really need to look at these objects and understand what the intended use for them actually is. A gun is classed as a weapon before it is classed as sporting equipment. Anyone will tell you that. Likewise, a bat is classed as sporting equipment, before a potential weapon. When used as a weapon it is certainly used in a manner you would not expect. You don't see a bat on the ground and think "shit that could kill me" you think "it's just a baseball bat"lowing wrote:
The point being, a sword is an object, it is only a weapon when it is used as such. Just like an ax, bat, gun, machete, chainsaw, water. etc........
A sword is not just "an object" it is a weapon. Before it is used, it is still a weapon. It was and is created as a weapon. And a deadly weapon, at that.
A machette is a tool, and dangerous one. But then you can say the same thing for cars. Which can be even more dangerous. These however are not designed to kill. A sword is. Can you see the difference? And why banning weapons, makes sense?
So based on that logic.........a knife?TheAussieReaper wrote:
You really need to look at these objects and understand what the intended use for them actually is. A gun is classed as a weapon before it is classed as sporting equipment. Anyone will tell you that. Likewise, a bat is classed as sporting equipment, before a potential weapon. When used as a weapon it is certainly used in a manner you would not expect. You don't see a bat on the ground and think "shit that could kill me" you think "it's just a baseball bat"lowing wrote:
The point being, a sword is an object, it is only a weapon when it is used as such. Just like an ax, bat, gun, machete, chainsaw, water. etc........
A sword is not just "an object" it is a weapon. Before it is used, it is still a weapon. It was and is created as a weapon. And a deadly weapon, at that.
A machette is a tool, and dangerous one. But then you can say the same thing for cars. Which can be even more dangerous. These however are not designed to kill. A sword is. Can you see the difference? And why banning weapons, makes sense?
The thing is, PEOPLE turn things into weapon. Before they are used as such, they are mere objects.
You are correct, I would not expect to be killed by a cricket bat. I can honestly say the very same thing about a Samuri Sword
The logic is this:
If you reduce the amount of weaponry freely available in society then probabilistically speaking you WILL get less weaponry-related violence. It's quite simple. You can't eradicate weaponry-related violence but measures like this definitely reduce the level.
If you reduce the amount of weaponry freely available in society then probabilistically speaking you WILL get less weaponry-related violence. It's quite simple. You can't eradicate weaponry-related violence but measures like this definitely reduce the level.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-13 05:52:03)
Uhh..... knife is used for cutting food. Therefore it is a tool before a weapon . Gedditt?lowing wrote:
So based on that logic.........a knife?
Lowing, if I were to kill you with a teddy bear, do you think there would be calls from around the world for a ban on soft toys? There wouldn't. Because beleive it or not, bears have a use other than shoving down someones throat to kill them.lowing wrote:
So based on that logic.........a knife?
The thing is, PEOPLE turn things into weapon. Before they are used as such, they are mere objects.
Knives, also have many uses. Other than killing people. In fact, knives are made so that people like you, and I, can slice water melons and dice up heroine and go about our normal day.
I agree with you that people can turn things into weapons, in the above example I've turned this:
into the last thing you'll ever see in this world.
But people don't turn Samurai swords into weapons, because they already are weapons. People may use them as weapons, but that's just using them as they were designed, built, forged, created, made, however else you want to look at it.
There is an exemption for use in re-enactments and museum displays. It can therefore still retains it's recreation and art uses.lowing wrote:
Yeah, swords are used as collectors items, museum pieces, art. It can also be used as a weapon. Is there a difference between a machete and a sword? Is not a machete used as a tool? Has it not also been used to kill?
a bat can be used in sport, or it can be used as a weapon.
a gun can be used in a sport, it can also be a weapon.
The point being, a sword is an object, it is only a weapon when it is used as such. Just like an ax, bat, gun, machete, chainsaw, water. etc........
Nuclear weapons make great paperweights and collectors items, should everyone be allowed to own nukes?
No the cold stone fact is, if you take away what you consider weapons, people will automatically turn to other items and make them weapons. Prison is a pretty good example of this. When will you instead, punish the criminal instead of taking away ALL of peoples private property as a solution to criminal behavior?CameronPoe wrote:
The logic is this:
If you reduce the amount of weaponry freely available in society then probabilistically speaking you WILL get less weaponry-related violence. It's quite simple. You can't eradicate weaponry-related violence but measures like this definitely reduce the level.
Or did I miss the part where Samuri Sword murders are drastically on the rise in England?
Last edited by lowing (2008-04-13 06:52:25)
Oh well then we should restrict the size of knives used then, because you certainly do not need a Bowie knife to slice a tomato.Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Uhh..... knife is used for cutting food. Therefore it is a tool before a weapon . Gedditt?lowing wrote:
So based on that logic.........a knife?
The bottom line is, the govt. will do better to actually punish criminals than try and constantly take property away from law abiding citizens and playing mother hen
Last edited by lowing (2008-04-13 06:57:08)
Why not do both?lowing wrote:
The bottom line is, the govt. will do better to actually punish criminals than try and constantly take property away from law abiding citizens.
lol, no....unacceptable.TheAussieReaper wrote:
(in which case you can use a dull blade)
maybe for you guys that have cheap repros, but if you walk up to a true collector and tell them to TAKE THE EDGE OFF of their very old, very well made sword......well, they would probably just laugh at you.
i know i am
Because you are punishing the law abiding citizen along with the criminal??PureFodder wrote:
Why not do both?lowing wrote:
The bottom line is, the govt. will do better to actually punish criminals than try and constantly take property away from law abiding citizens.
Why not take private property from law abiding citizens???? Jesus Christ.. and I am called a fascist on this forum.
Last edited by lowing (2008-04-13 07:02:04)
Less weapons on the streets is a good thing, it's quite simple. Sure, people will still be able to get weapons from somewhere but it's better that there are less options available...especially for huge fucking swords designed specifically for killing and maiming.lowing wrote:
So is an axe, shovel, bat, garden hoe, rope, wire, pipe etc............time to start banning based on your theory on the the matter. Geez, what if some holds another's head underwater until they drown? Banning water sure is gunna make life tough. but hey, we gotta do it, since it was used as a weaponTheAussieReaper wrote:
Pro-anti gun law European? lolbeerface702 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm
now what pro anti gun law european's? now what?!?!
I don't see a problem with the ban, they are weapons afterall.
The idea that we should just make every variety of weapon legal and easily available because people will be able to get them anyway is dense in my opinion. To all those that believe this I ask do you feel the same about heroin and cocaine because people can go out and get them too if they really want.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-13 07:02:54)
Taking weapons away from law abiding citizens all the while acknowledging that criminals will still get them and use them seems dense to me.Braddock wrote:
Less weapons on the streets is a good thing, it's quite simple. Sure, people will still able to get weapons from somewhere but it's better that there are less options available...especially for huge fucking swords designed specifically for killing and maiming.lowing wrote:
So is an axe, shovel, bat, garden hoe, rope, wire, pipe etc............time to start banning based on your theory on the the matter. Geez, what if some holds another's head underwater until they drown? Banning water sure is gunna make life tough. but hey, we gotta do it, since it was used as a weaponTheAussieReaper wrote:
Pro-anti gun law European? lol
I don't see a problem with the ban, they are weapons afterall.
The idea that we should just make every variety of weapon legal and easily available because people will be able to get them anyway is dense in my opinion. To all those that believe this I ask do you feel the same about heroin and cocaine because people can go out and get them too if they really want.
1 person was killed with a sword and you endorse banning swords? yet I will bet more people have been killed with knives bat you refuse to take action. Inconsistency is a consistent liberal characteristic.
sure, if you can get one legally, by all means, set it on your dest, it would make a great conversation piece. You might have to find a new place for your paperclip dispenser though.PureFodder wrote:
There is an exemption for use in re-enactments and museum displays. It can therefore still retains it's recreation and art uses.lowing wrote:
Yeah, swords are used as collectors items, museum pieces, art. It can also be used as a weapon. Is there a difference between a machete and a sword? Is not a machete used as a tool? Has it not also been used to kill?
a bat can be used in sport, or it can be used as a weapon.
a gun can be used in a sport, it can also be a weapon.
The point being, a sword is an object, it is only a weapon when it is used as such. Just like an ax, bat, gun, machete, chainsaw, water. etc........
Nuclear weapons make great paperweights and collectors items, should everyone be allowed to own nukes?
In that case I want my nuke, I've got a nice clean record and promise to use it only for paperweight use.lowing wrote:
Because you are punishing the law abiding citizen along with the criminal??PureFodder wrote:
Why not do both?lowing wrote:
The bottom line is, the govt. will do better to actually punish criminals than try and constantly take property away from law abiding citizens.
Why not take private property from law abiding citizens???? Jesus Christ.. and I am called a fascist on this forum.
There's a fairly obvious parallel to drug law. Why should I be able to own a sword and not own crack? Both can be useful or dangerous. Why can't I collect drugs? Why can't a mound of opium be art? I could consume them, inject them into other people or give them to my kids, but why should I be punished just because other people might do criminal things with them.
In fact I demand to be able to own nuclear weapons covered in cocaine, I want to collect them.
Last edited by PureFodder (2008-04-13 07:15:14)
It's not inconsistency, it's common sense. If you take away the criminals options in aquiring weapons, you are making it more difficult for them to commit (in this case, serious) crime.lowing wrote:
Taking weapons away from law abiding citizens all the while acknowledging that criminals will still get them and use them seems dense to me.
1 person was killed with a sword and you endorse banning swords? yet I will bet more people have been killed with knives bat you refuse to take action. Inconsistency is a consistent liberal characteristic.
And not banning knives, although criminals can still use them shouldn't be seen as taking a soft handed approach. Conservatives always prefer the heavy handed criminalise everything approach, and they're stuck with the same outcome. Criminals will still find a way to arm themselves.
But, banning samurai swords, makes it less likely that the weapon the criminal does end up using, is deadly, the victim will have a better chance of surviving and\or fighting off the would be attacker.
It's easier to commit crimes with guns, than it is knives. I'm sure you'll agree.
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-04-13 07:17:49)
What does a law abiding citizen want with a weapon of death? I understand that the US is flooded with weapons and you pretty much have to have one to make it a level playing field but over here it is not like that.lowing wrote:
Taking weapons away from law abiding citizens all the while acknowledging that criminals will still get them and use them seems dense to me.Braddock wrote:
Less weapons on the streets is a good thing, it's quite simple. Sure, people will still able to get weapons from somewhere but it's better that there are less options available...especially for huge fucking swords designed specifically for killing and maiming.lowing wrote:
So is an axe, shovel, bat, garden hoe, rope, wire, pipe etc............time to start banning based on your theory on the the matter. Geez, what if some holds another's head underwater until they drown? Banning water sure is gunna make life tough. but hey, we gotta do it, since it was used as a weapon
The idea that we should just make every variety of weapon legal and easily available because people will be able to get them anyway is dense in my opinion. To all those that believe this I ask do you feel the same about heroin and cocaine because people can go out and get them too if they really want.
1 person was killed with a sword and you endorse banning swords? yet I will bet more people have been killed with knives bat you refuse to take action. Inconsistency is a consistent liberal characteristic.
It is still not that easy to get weapons here and if they can make it that items like samurai swords are harder to get too then I'm all for it. By the way, on the issue of knives in Ireland...being caught with any kind of knife on your person in a concealed fashion is against the law here.