YOU are preaching to the choir now, I am all for legalization of drugs, and let people be held responsible for their actions. THAT is consistency.PureFodder wrote:
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?
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.
That's exactly what this law is. It makes it illegal to obtain a sword, but doesn't make it illegal to own one as far as I can tell. So, like the nuke example, I can legally own one if I can legally obtain one, but I can't legally obtain one. Nobody is taking anyone's swords away, they're simply stopping you from obtaining one.lowing wrote:
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?
Common sense dictates to you that 1 person in England was killed with a sword and the only solution is to take them away from collectors?? You do realize you are preaching to me about heavy handiness all the while endorsing this ban?TheAussieReaper wrote:
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.
YOu are not taking away criminals access t oweapons, no more than keeping drugs illegal is keeping people from abusing them.
Personally, I think I stand a pretty good chance of surviving a sword attack with my 9mm
Good thinking, stop those damn collectors from collecting swords, that oughta fix this Samurai Sword murder epidemic that apparently is running rampant through the streets of Englands citiesPureFodder wrote:
That's exactly what this law is. It makes it illegal to obtain a sword, but doesn't make it illegal to own one as far as I can tell. So, like the nuke example, I can legally own one if I can legally obtain one, but I can't legally obtain one. Nobody is taking anyone's swords away, they're simply stopping you from obtaining one.lowing wrote:
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.
Nuclear weapons make great paperweights and collectors items, should everyone be allowed to own nukes?
It's quite simple...less weapons means less likelihood of weapons being used.lowing wrote:
Common sense dictates to you that 1 person in England was killed with a sword and the only solution is to take them away from collectors?? You do realize you are preaching to me about heavy handiness all the while endorsing this ban?TheAussieReaper wrote:
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.
YOu are not taking away criminals access t oweapons, no more than keeping drugs illegal is keeping people from abusing them.
Personally, I think I stand a pretty good chance of surviving a sword attack with my 9mm
lowing wrote:
Common sense dictates to you that 1 person in England was killed with a sword and the only solution is to take them away from collectors?? You do realize you are preaching to me about heavy handiness all the while endorsing this ban?
YOu are not taking away criminals access t oweapons, no more than keeping drugs illegal is keeping people from abusing them.
Personally, I think I stand a pretty good chance of surviving a sword attack with my 9mm
PureFodder wrote:
That's exactly what this law is. It makes it illegal to obtain a sword, but doesn't make it illegal to own one as far as I can tell. Nobody is taking anyone's swords away, they're simply stopping you from obtaining one.
There is an exemption for collectors.lowing wrote:
Good thinking, stop those damn collectors from collecting swords, that oughta fix this Samurai Sword murder epidemic that apparently is running rampant through the streets of Englands citiesPureFodder wrote:
That's exactly what this law is. It makes it illegal to obtain a sword, but doesn't make it illegal to own one as far as I can tell. So, like the nuke example, I can legally own one if I can legally obtain one, but I can't legally obtain one. Nobody is taking anyone's swords away, they're simply stopping you from obtaining one.lowing wrote:
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.
This law was passed in the UK. Not everyone and their mum's are packing over there.lowing wrote:
Personally, I think I stand a pretty good chance of surviving a sword attack with my 9mm
And the article states quite clearly that Exemptions will cover swords which are used for re-enactments or antique weapons kept on display by collectors.
Sword attacks are actually really common in Scotland lowing. It's not really an isolated incident.lowing wrote:
Good thinking, stop those damn collectors from collecting swords, that oughta fix this Samurai Sword murder epidemic that apparently is running rampant through the streets of Englands citiesPureFodder wrote:
That's exactly what this law is. It makes it illegal to obtain a sword, but doesn't make it illegal to own one as far as I can tell. So, like the nuke example, I can legally own one if I can legally obtain one, but I can't legally obtain one. Nobody is taking anyone's swords away, they're simply stopping you from obtaining one.lowing wrote:
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.
Here's a weird little story relevant to this thread for any Red Dwarf fans out there...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo … -20320771/
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-13 10:31:01)
The cold stone fact is this lowing: the number of swords and guns on the streets WILL be reduced as a consequence of restrictions and the level of weaponry-related crime of a lethal nature WILL be reduced. It's simple probability. It's not really that hard to understand if you take the time to work it out in your head you know.... Making these kinds of weapons less readily available can ONLY be a reducer of crimes related to such items. FACT. I'll take a knock on the head with a cricket bat over a bullet or a tangle with a kitchen knife over a samurai sword ANYDAY.lowing wrote:
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?
Or did I miss the part where Samuri Sword murders are drastically on the rise in England?
Restrictions on what people can own is a price of living in a less dangerous society. On a macro level, just as new nations should be prevented from developing nuclear arsenals, individuals should not be allowed to amass their own private arsenals. That is the European ethos and that is why our weaponry related crime levels are lower than those in the US. It's called being practical.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-13 07:42:10)
Hrmm...I guess you're not the brightest are you?TheAussieReaper 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.
Bother to read any of the other posts in this thread? Or do you feel like contributing anything insightful? I'm sure you've got a plethora of knowledge your just dying to express over the internet.The_Mac wrote:
Hrmm...I guess you're not the brightest are you?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Pro-anti gun law European? lol
I don't see a problem with the ban, they are weapons afterall.
And my first sentence was laughing at the pro-anti group. Because in my opinion your either pro-gun or, or anti-gun law. Saying your pro-anti gun law, or anti-pro gun law seems a bit redundant.
How old are you? Please try to show some maturity in this section of bf2s.Steel wrote:
Why are you debating?
Its done.
You can not have a Samurai sword.
You should be outraged another personal attack has been won by your real enemy, The State, and they used guess what as a weapon?
A fucking pen.
So as you debate teddy bears and knifes your enemy is likely drafting another attack on your personal liberty, with what weapon again....
oh yeah, a pen.
So really if a sword is a weapon, and you do not have the right to a weapon,and a criminal attacks you, with no weapons of your own, then you have been raped, twice, once from your master, and once from a common criminal.
And what angers me is you think the US has to many liberty's. let me ask this, do your vagina's hurt when you bitch?
And to answer your first question, we are debating how far these laws encroach upon the freedoms of those effected by the ban, because it is something which, as citizens concerns us.
And to label The State (I assume you mean elected officials) as the enemy, I really do wonder how evil you think the Government actually is.
Thirdly, I'd like to stress that the word you were looking for is, knives. Not knifes.
Nobody here has said the US has too many liberties. In fact I'd probably argue the opposite, and say that personal freedoms in the US are actually in decline. Especially when you consider the post Sept. 11 laws passed.
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-04-13 08:13:14)
Cam, the object is to reduce crime not the manner of which it is committed. To reduce the gun related murder on the street only to increase the number of knife related murders, isn't accomplishing a whole hell of a lot now is it? People WILL commit their crimes with whatever is available.CameronPoe wrote:
The cold stone fact is this lowing: the number of swords and guns on the streets WILL be reduced as a consequence of restrictions and the level of weaponry-related crime of a lethal nature WILL be reduced. It's simple probability. It's not really that hard to understand if you take the time to work it out in your head you know.... Making these kinds of weapons less readily available can ONLY be a reducer of crimes related to such items. FACT. I'll take a knock on the head with a cricket bat over a bullet or a tangle with a kitchen knife over a samurai sword ANYDAY.lowing wrote:
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?
Or did I miss the part where Samuri Sword murders are drastically on the rise in England?
Restrictions on what people can own is a price of living in a less dangerous society. On a macro level, just as new nations should be prevented from developing nuclear arsenals, individuals should not be allowed to amass their own private arsenals. That is the European ethos and that is why our weaponry related crime levels are lower than those in the US. It's called being practical.
Yeah your European ethos, sure as hell helped Hitler take over your continent didn't it? Good thinking
Last edited by lowing (2008-04-13 08:19:59)
Yeah, if you take away one item, it will just be replaced by another, and not have an effect on overall crime rates. If someone is going to mug you or kill you, that decision alone shows that they are irrational and will most likely use any means possible to do it including fists.lowing wrote:
Cam, the object is to reduce crime not the manner of which it is committed. To reduce the gun related murder on the street only to increase the number of knife related murders, isn't accomplishing a whole hell of a lot now is it? People WILL commit their crimes with whatever is available.CameronPoe wrote:
The cold stone fact is this lowing: the number of swords and guns on the streets WILL be reduced as a consequence of restrictions and the level of weaponry-related crime of a lethal nature WILL be reduced. It's simple probability. It's not really that hard to understand if you take the time to work it out in your head you know.... Making these kinds of weapons less readily available can ONLY be a reducer of crimes related to such items. FACT. I'll take a knock on the head with a cricket bat over a bullet or a tangle with a kitchen knife over a samurai sword ANYDAY.lowing wrote:
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?
Or did I miss the part where Samuri Sword murders are drastically on the rise in England?
Restrictions on what people can own is a price of living in a less dangerous society. On a macro level, just as new nations should be prevented from developing nuclear arsenals, individuals should not be allowed to amass their own private arsenals. That is the European ethos and that is why our weaponry related crime levels are lower than those in the US. It's called being practical.
Yeah your European ethos, sure as hell helped Hitler take over your continent didn't it? Good thinking
Passing a law making it harder for criminals to gain access to weapons does reduce crime. Any hinderence on a criminal is a good thing.lowing wrote:
Cam, the object is to reduce crime not the manner of which it is committed.
Reducing the manner in which crime is committed also reduces the number of crimes committed. And if the manner of which that crime is committed is of less lethality, of course the severity of the crimes will drop.
There's no way you can say that knife related crime will rise because gun crime has lowered. There is no sense in beleiving a crime will occur, and the weapon chosen plays no involvment.lowing wrote:
To reduce the gun related murder on the street only to increase the number of knife related murders, isn't accomplishing a whole hell of a lot now is it?
Yeah, people will still do bad things. But they aren't going to do something really bad, if all they can find is a sharp object. The Police are still armed, and will be able to stop these people much more easily.lowing wrote:
People WILL commit their crimes with whatever is available.
Lowing, are you just trolling now? I could reply with something equally as confusing as that statement such as "The US ethos, sure as helped Japan bomb Pearl Harbour" but I wouldn't want to lower myself to that standard.lowing wrote:
Yeah your European ethos, sure as helped Hitler take over your continent didn't it? Good thinking.
I didn't take your skirt comment serious at all, nor did I hit the moderator panic button in response. But as you said in your lets all play nice and throw rainbows at each other poll,Steel wrote:
So you took the Vagina thing personal? would you like a big girl pill?
the mature request was already shot down in my friendly BF2s poll so I am conforming.
although when you ask me to be mature in this section what I hear is you crying to a moderator to punish me cause I hurt your feelings,
not that that is what you are doing but it sounds that way.
Steel wrote:
There have been forum rules that try to curb malicious attitudes but ehh that needs to come from individuals not from admin or mods.
that's a nice discriminatory law you've got there.
If you're rich you can buy all the real collector swords you want, which are a far more dangerous weapon that some cheap $50 knock-off.
If you're poor, you're shit-outa-luck.
If you're gunna ban swords, ban all of them.
If you're rich you can buy all the real collector swords you want, which are a far more dangerous weapon that some cheap $50 knock-off.
If you're poor, you're shit-outa-luck.
If you're gunna ban swords, ban all of them.
Erm, if I remember correctly when the second world war broke out no country outside of Germeny had a ban on civillian ownership of guns.lowing wrote:
Cam, the object is to reduce crime not the manner of which it is committed. To reduce the gun related murder on the street only to increase the number of knife related murders, isn't accomplishing a whole hell of a lot now is it? People WILL commit their crimes with whatever is available.CameronPoe wrote:
The cold stone fact is this lowing: the number of swords and guns on the streets WILL be reduced as a consequence of restrictions and the level of weaponry-related crime of a lethal nature WILL be reduced. It's simple probability. It's not really that hard to understand if you take the time to work it out in your head you know.... Making these kinds of weapons less readily available can ONLY be a reducer of crimes related to such items. FACT. I'll take a knock on the head with a cricket bat over a bullet or a tangle with a kitchen knife over a samurai sword ANYDAY.lowing wrote:
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?
Or did I miss the part where Samuri Sword murders are drastically on the rise in England?
Restrictions on what people can own is a price of living in a less dangerous society. On a macro level, just as new nations should be prevented from developing nuclear arsenals, individuals should not be allowed to amass their own private arsenals. That is the European ethos and that is why our weaponry related crime levels are lower than those in the US. It's called being practical.
Yeah your European ethos, sure as hell helped Hitler take over your continent didn't it? Good thinking
Did the civillians rise up and imediately crush the Germen attacks or were the civillian weapon owners just as helpless as the rest of the unarmed populace?
This is just how things are done in Europe. We have less violent crime over here, too. What a coincidence.
I find it odd that there is even enough sword crime over there to warrant a ban. I just get pictures in my headof foggy moonlit medieval towns where people in cloaks are walking down the streets with swords. It seems to me that the government is acting like a parent to its citizens though. It's an example of "you can't be trusted with ____, so i'm taking it away." I understand there may be little constitutional basis for a private citizen in my country to own a firearm, but I'd still like to be a country that has responsible ownership rather than a ban (not quite "gun rights" or "anti-gun" view).
The UK is going down the toilet tied up in red tape and flushed by the politically correct brigade.
Legislation has to consider society as a whole. Responsible ownership is great for responsible people, but every society has alarming portions of irresponsible people.DesertFox- wrote:
I find it odd that there is even enough sword crime over there to warrant a ban. I just get pictures in my headof foggy moonlit medieval towns where people in cloaks are walking down the streets with swords. It seems to me that the government is acting like a parent to its citizens though. It's an example of "you can't be trusted with ____, so i'm taking it away." I understand there may be little constitutional basis for a private citizen in my country to own a firearm, but I'd still like to be a country that has responsible ownership rather than a ban (not quite "gun rights" or "anti-gun" view).
1. It doesn't make it harder for criminals to get weapon, only law abiding citizensTheAussieReaper wrote:
Passing a law making it harder for criminals to gain access to weapons does reduce crime. Any hinderence on a criminal is a good thing.lowing wrote:
Cam, the object is to reduce crime not the manner of which it is committed.
Reducing the manner in which crime is committed also reduces the number of crimes committed. And if the manner of which that crime is committed is of less lethality, of course the severity of the crimes will drop.There's no way you can say that knife related crime will rise because gun crime has lowered. There is no sense in beleiving a crime will occur, and the weapon chosen plays no involvment.lowing wrote:
To reduce the gun related murder on the street only to increase the number of knife related murders, isn't accomplishing a whole hell of a lot now is it?Yeah, people will still do bad things. But they aren't going to do something really bad, if all they can find is a sharp object. The Police are still armed, and will be able to stop these people much more easily.lowing wrote:
People WILL commit their crimes with whatever is available.Lowing, are you just trolling now? I could reply with something equally as confusing as that statement such as "The US ethos, sure as helped Japan bomb Pearl Harbour" but I wouldn't want to lower myself to that standard.lowing wrote:
Yeah your European ethos, sure as helped Hitler take over your continent didn't it? Good thinking.
2. By your logic, taking away peoples forksand spoons and knives will prevent them from eating I suppose.
3. see the last 2 comments
4. Nothing confusing about my statement. The fact is, Hitler took away your guns before he took your continent.
Last edited by lowing (2008-04-13 09:15:15)
That's right lowing, when somebody brings in something inconvenient to your arguments, divert attention by bringing up a totally unrelated subject. Nice debating. lollowing wrote:
Cam, the object is to reduce crime not the manner of which it is committed. To reduce the gun related murder on the street only to increase the number of knife related murders, isn't accomplishing a whole hell of a lot now is it? People WILL commit their crimes with whatever is available.
Yeah your European ethos, sure as hell helped Hitler take over your continent didn't it? Good thinking
Blatantly incorrect. It makes it harder for everybody. Duh. Your statement taken at face value is just plain incorrect. Pure and simple.lowing wrote:
1. It doesn't make it harder for criminals to get weapon, only law abiding citizens.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-13 09:51:35)