British government stance on swords

Well, Cord, it worked for the US.

Hey guys, It's typical... we got the same thing after the Virginia Tech killings here. What the socialists don't understand is...
if they ban guns, they'll use a sword
if they ban swords, they'll use a knife
if they ban knives, they'll use a rock or a stick
if they ban rocks and sticks, their paper government will fall.

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" is a clear picture of how socialism works, and it's being tried in spades here as well as there. The state nanny only wants you to have what they determine is okay, and only in the amounts they determine are sufficient.

The population is pretty much disarmed in Darfour... execept for those committing genocide, and we can see how well that's working out.

Ooops, more problems:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070611/tuk-martial-arts-expert-shot-dead-by-pol-45dbed5.html

I wonder if I beat a few people to death using a government minister as a weapon whether they'd make them illegal to. I'd use Tony Blair himself but he's a bit blunted these days and, unlike a sword, will be safer withdrawn.

Well, Punjab is just a short hop from Poland and over there the wearing of swords, like the keeping of mustaches, is a symbol of both martial and sexual virility, whereas in the UK, I believe, it only settles for the former

HOW IN HELL IS BANNING A NEW CATEGORY OF WEAPONS GOING TO HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON THOSE WHO USE ILLEGALLY BOUGHT, NON-REGISTERED WEAPONS IN THE FIRST PLACE???
Couldn't agree more.

The banning of swords is a step way too far. Swords are so rarely seen or used in crimes. However, I think the UK government has it spot on when it comes to gun control. We have very few deaths involving guns- and although their use in organised criminal activity has increased somewhat, the overall numbers of people dying from gunshot wounds has fallen year on year since the handgun ban.

We do have a problem with knives in the UK, however, I would far rather be threatened with a knife than a gun.

Punjab and Poland? Wow, which geography book are you looking at?

Actually, Punjab is more appropriate to UK because of the large Sikh population. Infact, there were protests by Sikhs when the government tried to outlaw the carrying of knives, which are one of the five sacred items a male Sikh must carry/wear.

In Macedonia and Albania a brace of pistols was once considered a part of the wedding costume of the groom (probably to fend off the bride's brothers)

We're debating this over on MAP, I seem to be a lone voice against the licensing of swords...
Jeez, when you say it out loud, doesn't it sound ridiculous!?!

MAPs Sword Bad Thread

I can accept licensing swords to some extent but then how far does it go? Are dancing swords or theatrical to be covered by this. What about historical reenactment societies. Also, where do we draw a line at swords/knives/daggers and tools (axes, machetes etc)?

Personally, I find the over-regulation of anything to be a government intrusion. I've never seen anything that government did well, other than screw up the world, and it isn't the regulation of weapons that will stop violence anyway.

If you pick any killing or maiming crime, it's just that... a crime. Changing the regulation on the weapon isn't going to make it any more or less of a crime. They had a melee fist fight at a soccer match on the news this morning... are they going to regulate fists next?

You have to understand that the regulation of weapons is always pointed so that "only the right people have weapons". Our 2nd Amendment to our constitution guarantees that the government can't disarm the population and become another oppressor. It's a constant fight in congress against the anti-gun legislators that are exactly what you have in your government... socialists and communists, who want to implement the nanny state here and disarm the population so they can enforce it with force of arms.

If someone wants to kill, they have the capability, if they choose to pick up a golf club and pound somebody to death... so weapons regulation, if logical, only works so far. Nothing will take the impetus of killing, which is in the human mind, out of the equation.

i think banning of nunchucks is just [censored] ridiculous.
Apparently because of their use in gangs.

Since their removal im sure deaths by baseball bats has gone up

I'm all for freedom of the citizen etc. but I cannot understand how owning a gun serves any purpose. Guns exist to kill people, nothing else. If you want to shoot recreationally, then it is still quite possible if you go to a gun club. I fail to understand how the ownership of a family gun can protect a citizen either- let's not forget that many deaths due to gun crime in the US, are committed using the victim's own weapon.

As for organised crime. IT is of course lamentable that criminal use of firearms has increases, bu this is neither a response to banning handguns, nor would it make those gangs any less of a threat if guns were permitted to be carried by an ordinary citizen. Organised crime is just that- organised. The only way to tackle the import of illegal handguns is to clamp down on the ways criminals manage to import them. We may never eradicate all gun crime in the UK, but we stand a much better chance if fewer guns are in circulation.

You know, the first time I ever came into contact with a gun in the UK was after July 7th, when policemen carried them around train stations and public buildings. I think that speaks volumes for the success of banning guns.

Supremor, I disagree. The state of Florida now has the lowest crime rate in the US, as it is easy for a law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm, and there is no obligation to retreat if your life is threatened. Owning a firearm does deter crime. Refer to Tashigae's remark about the Swiss military system. And don't be fooled by shows like Walker: Texas Ranger. People do not pop off shots at other people for no real reason. Also, what you said about the number of crimes committed using the victim's own firearm, that simply is not true. Unless said victim is an idiot and left his weapon lying around. Any person with an ounce of common sense knows that if you own a weapon, especially in a home with children, the weapon should always be kept in a safe place, presumably in the master bedroom. Here in the US, states with easy access to legally purchased firearms and minimal legal/civil liability for firing in self defense have the lowest crime rates.

In my personal opinion, a sword is even better for in home defense, as you don't have to worry about the round injuring someone else if you miss. Banning swords is just ridiculous, as it takes one of the safest weapons you can find out of the public's hands, basically for no other reason than the government wanting to be that much more in control of the populace.

Of course, I will admit that UK rural is alot different than US rural. Where I grew up, there were areas where it would take almost an hour for EMS to arrive on scene. Getting shot in an area like that is life and death to the max. When my grandfather died (in his sleep) it took EMS 30 mins to arrive at my home. That is a critical time period. Yes, I had two knives and several swords available to me, at all times, when I slept, and even managed to chase someone off the property once.

No, the only real success anyone can measure from a weapons ban is the success of the government in taking more control over your life.

Basically,

Why do the government ban weapons, when the only ones that will abide are civilians?

What is the point in banning weapon, when illegally acquired weapons will still be acquired by criminals anyway? Note the keyword; Illegally.

What is the point in stripping civilians their weapons to make them an easier prey for criminals?

Seems the government want us to die faster.

I like the Swiss idea. Give everyone a fire-arm. You pull it out, expect to get popped to death by everyone else. So no one with a sane mind would use it. Deterrance.

-Taison out

I'm always pro-gun because I've never seen one jump off the shelf and shoot anybody. Somebody has to load it, pick it up, aim it, and pull the trigger. What they need to do is ban stupid people with attitudes and bad motives.

Take a look at what the pinheads in the Middle East are doing... homicide bombers walking into crowded streets and blowing up innocent people, snipers killing innocent people, rival sects of the same religion killing each other... none of that's done legally, so what good would be accomplished by "banning guns" in that atmosphere? All that does is provide more innocent victims that can't defend themselves.

I watched the sniper team competition on television tonight, and those guys could take out targets up to 2000 yards away... which is the only way to deal with homicide bombers, etc., but I'm betting that if more of the innocents were armed, these indiscriminate killers would have less success, because somebody in the markets where they bomb would put a round through them and stop them before they can do their dirty deeds.

Guns do kill people, but only when a person uses it... and the evidence is that armed civilians are much safer than unarmed civilians in most any situation. Yes, there are killings... yes, there are accidents... and there are hundreds of incidents where someone being armed stopped criminal activity... murders, robberies, and assaults. The game changes when criminals face armed victims, and all the logic and rhetoric in the world won't change that fact.

If the law could disarm CRIMINALS, it would be worth doing, but gun bans only take away firearms from citizens who acquire and use them legally... so all they do is make the criminals safer... and then charge you taxes to do it...