AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6443|what

Lotta_Drool wrote:

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?
I thought that was the point of the gun ban.
Your absolutely right. It was and is the point. Gun control works. So too will the sword ban.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6996

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

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.
Then how do you justify the ban on carrying knives?
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?
Like you all keep saying, knives are tools.  I find it ridiculous that a 3 cm pocket knife is illegal to carry around.  It is meant to be a tool.  Until it is used as a weapon it is nothing more than a tool.
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6996
Not that I really care all that much;  It's not my country.  I'd just like to know why you think that this makes sense.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6443|what

It just comes down to the fact that if carrying knives is legal it is feasible to assume that you won't see punchups, you'll see knife fights.  That the typical citizen then has to fear knife attacks and in response carry one themselves. All that does is confirm the original fear that someone has a knife, and may use it.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7005|US
This all comes down to the theory that a government creates the rights for its citizens.  If they feel you MIGHT pose a danger, they have legitimate authority to restrict you.  Under such a philosophy, if there was an outbreak of people yelling "fire" in theaters, the government could gag all theater goers (or cut out their tongues if you want to take the analogy all the way).

I do not buy this philosophy.  Governments are instituted to protect their people  People have "certain inalienable rights" (to use the famous sound byte).  The whole concept behind the ban is that people are potential murderers, thus should be restricted until they prove otherwise--guilty until proven innocent.
mikkel
Member
+383|6891
So essentially what we have here is a bunch of Americans telling a bunch of Europeans how to run their countries. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical, considering that these same Americans always remind these same Europeans that theirs is a different society, and that things work differently there?

Sifting through the thread, there's also a lot of typical anti gun control rhetoric, mainly from Americans telling Europeans that gun control doesn't work. Listen, guys. The US has four times the number of murders per capita than the average European country does. What you're doing is somewhat like running a marathon, coming in last, and calling the other participants slow. Clearly something is working a lot better in Europe than it is in the US, so perhaps you should reevaluate your sentiments, and consider how they apply to reality, 'cause they don't really seem relatively effective in this case.

RAIMIUS wrote:

The whole concept behind the ban is that people are potential murderers, thus should be restricted until they prove otherwise--guilty until proven innocent.
So what you're saying is that we should all be able to walk around with bombs strapped to our chests, and that banning this would be making people "guilty until proven innocent"?

It has nothing to do with being guilty or innocent. It has to do with the government seeing an immediate threat to society, and legislating against it. That's done everywhere. That's what a government does.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 22:26:53)

AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6443|what

RAIMIUS wrote:

The whole concept behind the ban is that people are potential murderers, thus should be restricted until they prove otherwise--guilty until proven innocent.
No. The whole concept behind the ban is that samurai swords are dangerous weapons, thus should be restricted to sale for collectors and enthusiasts only.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,057|7062|PNW

Like England's never seen a frickin' ban on swords before...

/lol

TheAussieReaper wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

The whole concept behind the ban is that people are potential murderers, thus should be restricted until they prove otherwise--guilty until proven innocent.
No. The whole concept behind the ban is that samurai swords are dangerous weapons, thus should be restricted to sale for collectors and enthusiasts only.
How about:

"Fine. I wanna be a collector and/or enthusiast. What now, government?"

/hole

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-13 22:44:04)

AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6443|what

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Like England's never seen a frickin' ban on swords before...

/lol

TheAussieReaper wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

The whole concept behind the ban is that people are potential murderers, thus should be restricted until they prove otherwise--guilty until proven innocent.
No. The whole concept behind the ban is that samurai swords are dangerous weapons, thus should be restricted to sale for collectors and enthusiasts only.
How about:

"Fine. I wanna be a collector and/or enthusiast. What now, government?"

/hole
= Background checks, you have to pay to aquire a licence. Proof of mental stability. Probably have to have a collection of other antiques.

Article wrote:

A Home Office spokeswoman said the government had consulted collectors and martial arts groups as well as laws enforcement agencies.

Article wrote:

Exemptions will cover swords which are used for re-enactments or antique weapons kept on display by collectors.

Article wrote:

Swords aged over 100 years will be exempt from the law, and defences will be in place for crown functions, museums and drama productions.
What hole in this plan do you see?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,057|7062|PNW

TheAussieReaper wrote:

^
I distinctly recall arguments from weapons control advocates stating that even the most sane-seeming individuals are potential killers as a reason to revoke institutions like CCW permits.

http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/sa … in-uk.html

There's over 60 million people in the UK. While 'more than 80 serious crimes' is tragic, this seems to me like a fancy bit of over-governing with no intent but to please certain groups of people. In comparison, I bet it would matter about as much if a ban on ray guns was initiated stateside.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-13 23:02:29)

Reciprocity
Member
+721|6871|the dank(super) side of Oregon
If you Europeans made guns more readily available you would have less katana crime.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,057|7062|PNW

https://cinemelo.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/zatoichi.jpg
Zatoichi, Spokesman for the National Katana Association.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-13 23:40:28)

Reciprocity
Member
+721|6871|the dank(super) side of Oregon
It's kinda weird that this conversation is happening now because I'm right in the middle of negotiating the purchase of a pre-WWII Japanese Comissioned Officer's shin-gunto(army sword).

Katanas aren't a very common news item.
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6996

TheAussieReaper wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Like England's never seen a frickin' ban on swords before...

/lol

TheAussieReaper wrote:


No. The whole concept behind the ban is that samurai swords are dangerous weapons, thus should be restricted to sale for collectors and enthusiasts only.
How about:

"Fine. I wanna be a collector and/or enthusiast. What now, government?"

/hole
= Background checks, you have to pay to aquire a licence. Proof of mental stability. Probably have to have a collection of other antiques.

Article wrote:

A Home Office spokeswoman said the government had consulted collectors and martial arts groups as well as laws enforcement agencies.

Article wrote:

Exemptions will cover swords which are used for re-enactments or antique weapons kept on display by collectors.

Article wrote:

Swords aged over 100 years will be exempt from the law, and defences will be in place for crown functions, museums and drama productions.
What hole in this plan do you see?
In 100 years, the problem will show up again, lol.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6846

The_Mac wrote:

And here's a little addition:
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb28 … rksre9.gif
Yep the experts agree - freely available guns work...

https://www.woodstone-corp.com/images/icons/map_africa_small.gif

https://www.unholywars.org/images/somalia-violence11_26.jpg

https://www.natallnews.com/images/teaser/african%20gunmen.jpg

https://archives.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/06/13/child.soldiers/story.karen.child.soldier.a.jpg

Gun homicides per 100,000:

South Africa - 125.97
USA - 7.52
Ireland - 1.33
PureFodder
Member
+225|6576

The_Mac wrote:

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.
That is a fallacy-filled argument; no one is advocating giving out bazookas, and trying to factor in nukes as a hyperbole is retarded, which I suppose, on further reflection, is a good description of your argument.


Quite simply, people will always find ways to kill each other, but what this law does is just prohibit people who want to protect themselves. Samurai swords are pretty noticable, so it's not like people are going to be gang-banged surprised if a nut starts busting out his samurai sword and attacking people.


What's more, if people were allowed to have guns to...you know (well maybe you don't because there's not much you do) protect themselves with in case there is such lonney. That sort of thing. But I suppose this is all lost on Mr. "I will defend myself with teh Kixboxing!!1!11" and Mr. IRA Representative.
Erm, want to go count the number of people talking about things like banning spoons and teddy bears etc. because they could be used to kill people. That's stupid hyperbole, I'm simply taking the argument the other way. If I owned a nuke and walked around all day holding a detonator nobody would dare attack me, I'd kill them, their friends and their family if they tried. Lets face it, if a criminal want's to get a nuke they are going to do it regardless of the laws of the country, so your only punishing law abiding citizens if you stop us from owning nukes. What's the difference between guns and nukes? If people are going to find a way to kill each other anyway then why not allow everyone to own bazookas and nukes? Where's the fallacy in the argument, I'm literally using the exact same arguments as are typically used to defend civillian gun ownership.

As far as swords being noticable goes, you are aware that people can put stuff inside other stuff to hide it right?
PureFodder
Member
+225|6576

The_Mac wrote:

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.
Ok, scenario 2. The robber knows full well that the occupant is most likely unarmed to the robber doesn't bother to arm himself, guns are expensive here as there are few people to steal guns off. He robs the house and in the morning the occupants ring up the insurance company and get their crap replaced.

Scenario 1, the robber guesses that the occupants will be armed so he gets a gun from the black market, which is easy to do because there are so many legally owned guns that millions have been stolen and are available to criminals at low prices due to the huge supply. He enters the house, but unfortunately someone wakes up and goes stumbling to the toilet. the criminal assumes that the home owner will be armed and therefore does the sensible thing and tries to protect his own life by shooting first. The next morning the traumatised orphants are sent to their first of many counseling sessions.

I know which result I prefer....
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,057|7062|PNW

Like the picture you countered, in neither system are guns always available to the people who could actually use them. Neither, for that matter (speaking of Africa), is food that's actually meant for the people.

But we should be heeding well the lessons of Africa:



Experts agree: machete control works.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-14 02:13:41)

B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7131|Cologne, Germany

doesn't bother me much. To me, there are only two feasible reasons for owning a katana anyway:

1. for collection purposes
2. in case you plan to inflict serious damage to another human, possibly kill him

I plan to do neither, so I am fine.

As far as the overall gun debate is concerned, I think the fundamental differences in the way europeans and americans look at guns is obvious.
That's ok though.
I don't feel any less safe for living in a country that discourages the private ownership of deadly firearms ( or deadly weapons in general ), and looking at the numbers, I think this strategy has served europe well.
The US have had a different approach. And if it serves them well, too, more power to them.

Finally, do I feel that my personal rights and freedoms are being infringed upon ? Hardly. It is the state's responsibility to draw up legaislation that protects its citizens. That's what elected representatives do. And let's be honest here, most of that legislation is being put into effect, because we know that people have a certain tendency to behave badly, and do cruel things, and therefore need to be protected from each other.

Humans simply cannot be trusted. We give in to impulses, we behave illogically, we let our emotions get the best of us. Usually, the end result is bad. Others get hurt, be it emotionally or physically. That's why we have laws in the first place, to try to prevent that.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for laws, because we'd all get along fine naturally. But we don't.

The question then is not if the state can regulate the private life of its citizens through laws, but rather to what extent he may do so.
And as far as firearms go, the US simply has a more "liberal" approach than most of europe.

We have had this debate before, and it turned out to be rather redundant and circular after a while.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6918|IRELAND

Luckily, its only Wales and England they have banned them. I had been thinking about beginning an obsession/fetish for knives and swords.

Can anyone give me some pointers? What do knife and sword collectors do with their collections? Mount them on the wall? Reenact Way of the Dragon naked? Stand in front of the mirror talking to yourself ala Taxi driver? chop up tramps? Any tips would be appreciated.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6443|what

JahManRed wrote:

I had been thinking about beginning an obsession/fetish for knives and swords.

Can anyone give me some pointers?
Was that intentional?

I suggest you watch Highlander.

And if you are serious about your sword collection, learn how to protect them, and also how to sharpen them. As even when not used the blades will still become dull over time.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6580|Éire

The_Mac wrote:

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"?
Whoa thar horsey, let's not get upset here.

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.
Straight from the horse's mouth.

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.
Although by definition any act that causes any form of terror could justifiably be considered 'terrorism' the term 'terrorism' itself, in its current use, has come to take on connotations that imply acts of crime carried out on a level not associated with common street crime and usually with a political or ideological motive. Using your use of the word why isn't George Bush chasing down everyone in America who has a gun or a sword? Isn't he supposed to be fighting a war on 'terror'? You're fighting a rather weak semantic battle with that argument.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6576

JahManRed wrote:

Luckily, its only Wales and England they have banned them. I had been thinking about beginning an obsession/fetish for knives and swords.

Can anyone give me some pointers? What do knife and sword collectors do with their collections? Mount them on the wall? Reenact Way of the Dragon naked? Stand in front of the mirror talking to yourself ala Taxi driver? chop up tramps? Any tips would be appreciated.
If you want to start a knife collection then I recommend the completely insane and utterly inacurately named 'Cutlery Corner'. Here you can buy knives in simply hilarious quantities. The show is brilliant and filled with offers like 'buy this 366 piece knife set now and get two battle axes FREE!"
http://www.cutlerycorner.net/default.as … eamarchive
I really am not kidding...
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6580|Éire

The_Mac wrote:

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?
The IRA decommissioned their weapons to John De Chastelain's Independent International Commission on Decommissioning as part of the peace process...interestingly enough the IRA were only able to effectively have a decommissioning because of their own gun control measures i.e. they had arms dumps where the weapons were kept when not in use. A better example for you would have been the UDA or UVF who haven't given up a bullet yet and are quite famous for using their weapons and paramilitary connections to carry out various illegal activities. A UVF spokesman was asked recently on UTV news why they haven't given up any weapons yet and he said it was because of the way they gave out their weapons to each man individually and now they can't trace a lot of them and many of them simply refuse to give them up...in other words lack of gun control.

The_Mac wrote:

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.
Your posts are badly written and make very little sense. Do you actually read any of the stuff you type? Put down the crack pipe mate.

The_Mac wrote:

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.
It won't be just innocent, law abiding citizens who are buying these weapons, don't you get it? Every scumbag and crook in the land will be going out to get one, including all the criminals who previously couldn't be bothered with the hassle of locating and purchasing a weapon. At the moment over here some criminals have weapons, if we were to allow the purchase of weapons to be legal and easy then every criminal would have one. I prefer the former situation thanks very much.

The_Mac wrote:

And here's a little addition:
[img]http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb28 … rksre9.gif[/img]
Well let's look at the other side of the coin...mmmmm, Africa's getting on really well with all those guns floating around, isn't it?

Using the statistics Cam quoted...

Gun homicides per 100,000:

South Africa - 125.97
USA - 7.52
Ireland - 1.33

...it would appear our weapons control measures seem to be working a bit better, ohnoes!
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6986|NJ
Ok so you've curbed gun murders, what about murder in a whole? Have they actually gone down or are people killing each other with other means?

I myself have a sword collection because I like looking at them. They are sharp but purely for decoriation, and also repo's.. I don't understand the bans on such weapons..

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard