NationStates Jolt Archive

The usual cross the Ocean gun debate usually goes like, "If you ban guns, then why not just ban knifes, they kill just as easily. Well, leave it to the English to try just that. I predict the next set of laws will only allow you to use plastic dinnerwear! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/swords_dc;_ylt=AoZkK6A_FcUiPFQx3pzgzxcE1vAI

* Buys a sharpened reproduction Crusader sword *

The usual cross the Ocean gun debate usually goes like, "If you ban guns, then why not just ban knifes, they kill just as easily. Well, leave it to the English to try just that. I predict the next set of laws will only allow you to use plastic dinnerwear! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/swords_dc;_ylt=AoZkK6A_FcUiPFQx3pzgzxcE1vAI

I have a Samuri sword. In the wrong hands it could be dangerous. Well no shit. So let's ban them? Baseball bats are dangerous in the wrong hands. Are they next?

Gosh, I will only be able to resort on heavy weaponry like machineguns...

And thus the British have entered the foam tubing age.

And yet, when I was stationed there, I could buy a sword-cane in a shop with no problems until I tried to enter the US with it. Times change.

What happened to the bad ass days of Britain? You know your country is going down hill when the streets are clear of entrails and bullet casings. :p

What happened to the bad ass days of Britain? You know your country is going down hill when the streets are clear of entrails and bullet casings. :p

And Jobs.

What happened to the bad ass days of Britain? You know your country is going down hill when the streets are clear of entrails and bullet casings. :p

Ah, the sweet sight of East LA.....

You're overreacting a tad:

However collectors of genuine Japanese swords and those used by martial arts enthusiasts would be exempt from the ban.

"In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons," Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said.

The law bans samurai knockoffs that have no use other than for criminal purposes (much like butterfly knife). People who have a genuine interest in the samurai- such as collectors and martial arts enthusiasts- can still obtain one.

Now, I still doubt such a law is going to be effective...considering the illicit use of these weapons, I doubt a criminal is going to concern themselves with this kind of action- it'll just be a "hurdle", that's all.

I have a Samuri sword. In the wrong hands it could be dangerous. Well no shit. So let's ban them? Baseball bats are dangerous in the wrong hands. Are they next?
I'm just waiting for the day when I am stopped in the street on my way back from the golf course and get cautioned because my 9-iron is an offensive weapon.

Meh, the only problem I see here is all the extra paperwork the legislation will create. But I don't see it being all that effective either.

The only good thing to come out of this is that when in the UK it makes the 'who would win' question regarding knights and samurai much easier to answer.

Why are people overreacting to this extremely minor amendment to the law? Samurai swords are being classed as an offensive weapon - sounds pretty reasonable to me. To own one you'll need a martial arts licence (available to anyone who belongs to a BMAC registered club). Hardly a case of the nanny state running rampant.

I doubt baseball bats and 9 irons will be banned because, get this, they aren't offensive weapons.

For the record, I am someone that was going around in the aftermath of the Dunblane shooting, patiently explaining to people that gun control laws weren't the answer. And even I can't see a problem with this.

DANGEROUS IN THE WRONG HANDS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e77oXjFkIs

Seriously, though, this sort of thing is widespread enough to warrant a ban?

Why are people overreacting to this extremely minor amendment to the law? Samurai swords are being classed as an offensive weapon - sounds pretty reasonable to me. To own one you'll need a martial arts licence (available to anyone who belongs to a BMAC registered club). Hardly a case of the nanny state running rampant.

I doubt baseball bats and 9 irons will be banned because, get this, they aren't offensive weapons.

For the record, I am someone that was going around in the aftermath of the Dunblane shooting, patiently explaining to people that gun control laws weren't the answer. And even I can't see a problem with this.

What makes something an offensive weapon? What's the criteria?

I doubt baseball bats and 9 irons will be banned because, get this, they aren't offensive weapons.
I know that, and you know that and I suspect that on some rational level the police also know that, but I'm also pretty sure that I'd be in all sorts of trouble if I wandered down the High Street with a baseball bat or a golf club.

The problem is that almost anything can be categorised as an offensive weapon if it's being carried in a public place by someone who the police just don't like the look of. Where, then, do you draw the line?

Six or seven years ago a friend of mine was arrested and charged (but not prosecuted on the charge) with possession of an offensive weapon - a snooker cue. The fact that he was on his way back from playing snooker and had the cue in its case was not taken into account at the time (although I'm sure that it contributed to him not being prosecuted) - his 'crime' was to have been in the town centre on a Friday night carrying something that could have been used as a weapon. In another example, I recall having to negotiate with our local police office for the release of a chef who was arrested for having his new kitchen knives with him (in a kit bag) as he travelled to work.

We're straying pretty far from the point of the OP, I know, but I just wanted to provide a couple of illustrative examples of things - tools - being lumped into this 'offensive weapon' category. For what it's worth, I don't think that owning a reproduction sword should be criminalised.

Six or seven years ago a friend of mine was arrested and charged (but not prosecuted on the charge) with possession of an offensive weapon - a snooker cue.
I can kind of vouch for their weapony-ness - I've had one of those put round the back of my head before. It fucking hurts.

Anyways, I'm not really surprised that the government's done this, considering that they've already put a bad on the purchasing of Airsoft guns under the Violent Crime Reduction Act on the grounds that some people are using them to rob petrol stations and off-licences. Which irritated me, as I was planning on going into Airsoft in a big way, but now it's much more difficult.

I think the main problem with katanas and the like is that they are so readily available. Two of my house-mates now own at least one of the damned things, and they could easily be used for robbing something, even though they are just hammered out of a chunk of metal - not that either of my housemates would ever do such a thing. It's a shame, yes, and it makes it difficult for people with genuine reasons for having one - collectors, people who want a wall-hanger, martial artists - whilst essentially just forcing those who want to use one for criminal intents onto another weapon, such as bats or crowbars.

And the chances are that the sodding government goes and does those, too.

There was a case recently of a man being warned by the police because he was carrying a cricket ball somewhere, even though he had a valid reason for doing so, because of the risk that somebody might get hurt if he threw it at them...

A little off-topic, but it is bizarre to see so many people alternating between use of "British" and "English" as though they meant the same thing.

Perhaps because people don't know the difference between English and British? Sean Connery, Patrick Kielty, Tom Jones and Graham Norton are Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh and (southern) Irish respectively, whereas all of them except Graham Norton are British (as in, from the United Kingdom).

(Graham Norton may well have a British as well as an Irish passport by now, but that's neither here nor there.)

By the way, to all those who own Samurai swords, the law says nothing about taking away swords that are already in Britain. It only prevents the importation, selling and hiring of the weapons.

So just take care of those swords, and you should be just fine.

Pathetic. Nothing less than New Labour once more depriving those who didn't, for the most part, vote for it, of their rights to defend themselves, while also creating merry hell in the criminal justice system and allowing ever more young delinquents to go free after an empty "sorry" has been grunted or a cursory "community service" completed.

Evidence if ever more were required that we now live in a weak, spineless age in which reliance upon the state is not only fostered but also legislated for.

I can understand why they're doing this, take this example: The Police get a report of a male with a knife, showing it off to his friends in a pub. They attend, search him, find the knife and he is arrest for possession of an offensive weapon. This is fair and legal, a knife is not permitted to be carried without lawful reason and "to show my mates at the pub" is not a lawful reason.

If this was a sword, the result would be the same, there are already laws in place to prevent this, obviously.

Now, the Police decide to search this persons house to see if he has any other pointy things that he might want to 'show' his friends at some point and probably end up using on some poor sap when he's drunk. The Police find one of these swords, its a cheap knock off, and it's been crudely sharpened. A search like this happens every day. There is only one reason a person like this would have one of these, and it's to show off and harbour fantasies about using it. As it stands, the Police have no powers to seize this weapon, they can just look at it and wait for him to use it on someone. This is stupid, the point is to prevent, not to wait for the enevitable to happen then react. With this new law, this sword can be seized and destroyed.

-snip-
I was under the impression that one would have to do something more than show a knife to one's mates in a pub to warrant a proper search at one's place of residence. Just because someone was idiot enough to flash a knife in public doesn't necessarily mean that the coppers can come round to their house and instigate a search for other weapons.

And just because someone has a sword, doesn't mean that they harbour fantasies of running down the street and cutting up people. To state so is a bit of a fallacy. Hell, I want to get me hands on a late Medieval one-and-a-half hander because they're awesome swords. I don't sit there at night and imagine killing people.

You're probably not the sort of twisted individual that decides he needs to go out and shoot or knife civilians (or even children) because his life is dreadful and he must make a point before he commits suicide.

We have much fewer atrocities such as those simply because we have tight gun controls and people in the UK haven't grown up with the inalienable right to carry weapons regardless.

It is because we fail to understand the logic of "if more people carried weapons then we would be safer". There has been an increase in the number of incidents where people have been killed or injured by people wielding imitation samurai swords over the last few years. However I think this is probably a badly designed law as it has been rushed in as a distraction to draw attention away from other governmental failures. It should be enough that people cannot wander around the streets carrying swords, which I think should be covered by existing laws anyway.

Pathetic. Nothing less than New Labour once more depriving those who didn't, for the most part, vote for it, of their rights to defend themselves, while also creating merry hell in the criminal justice system and allowing ever more young delinquents to go free after an empty "sorry" has been grunted or a cursory "community service" completed.

Evidence if ever more were required that we now live in a weak, spineless age in which reliance upon the state is not only fostered but also legislated for.

You'd go out and buy a samurai sword in order to 'Defend yourself'?

What makes something an offensive weapon? What's the criteria?

the definition is a weapon thats used offensively, so if you stab someone with a ballpoint pen, thats assault with an offensive weapon.

"any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use."

I was under the impression that one would have to do something more than show a knife to one's mates in a pub to warrant a proper search at one's place of residence. Just because someone was idiot enough to flash a knife in public doesn't necessarily mean that the coppers can come round to their house and instigate a search for other weapons.

And just because someone has a sword, doesn't mean that they harbour fantasies of running down the street and cutting up people. To state so is a bit of a fallacy. Hell, I want to get me hands on a late Medieval one-and-a-half hander because they're awesome swords. I don't sit there at night and imagine killing people.

Nope, sorry to shit on your cornflakes there:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Section 18
Section 18 permits a constable to enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an arrestable offence if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting there is on the premises, other than items subject to legal privilege, that relates to that offence or some other arrestable offence connected with or similar to that offence.

A constable may conduct such a search before taking the person to a police station and without the written authority of an other inspector rank or above if the presence of that person at a place other than a police station is necessary for the effective investigation of that offence.

PC reasons thusly "You've just been nicked for waving a knife around in public. you're the type of asshole that gets off on doing that, I'll bet my lunch that you've got loads of knives and possibly worse in your bedroom, I'm going to have a look and with my new laws, take them off you you nutjob"

This is something I can't really get riled up about, strangely enough.

That's why I qualified it with "I was under the impression" :p

I didn't know that, now I can squirrel that information away for later uses.

According to the Economist this new law will not make ninja swords illegal, a truly incompetent bit of legislation.

God help you if you have to change a tire in the UK.

God help you if you have to change a tire in the UK.

You use a samurai sword to change a tyre? I bet you are a few fingers short.

THIS JUST IN: a nationwide ban on the posession of tools repeatedly used to commit the crime has been proposed after a series of rapes. :(

Good Lord, and people say the laws in the US are oppressive? Really.

I have a good idea: since people sometimes buy said swords simply for display, why not leave them display them in peace, and ONLY classify this as an offensive weapon when used in a crime? Eh?

As for using a samurai sword to change a tyre, no, I think Khadgar's point was that anything could be used as a weapon, and a tire-iron has LONG been used as an impromptu club. Therefore, since it has been widely used as a weapon in the past, there is the possibility that tire irons could be classified as offensive weapons.

I know that, and you know that and I suspect that on some rational level the police also know that, but I'm also pretty sure that I'd be in all sorts of trouble if I wandered down the High Street with a baseball bat or a golf club.

Yes, you would - unless you had a lawful reason to be doing so. As, in fact, your snooker cue example illustrates very well.


The problem is that almost anything can be categorised as an offensive weapon if it's being carried in a public place by someone who the police just don't like the look of.

I agree with you. But then, walking down the street with a samurai sword is illegal now, and won't become any more illegal if this change to the law is brought it. So why are people making such a fuss?


For what it's worth, I don't think that owning a reproduction sword should be criminalised.

Good news - owning a reproduction sword is not being criminalised.

Pathetic. Nothing less than New Labour once more depriving those who didn't, for the most part, vote for it, of their rights to defend themselves, while also creating merry hell in the criminal justice system and allowing ever more young delinquents to go free after an empty "sorry" has been grunted or a cursory "community service" completed.

Owning a samurai sword (or anything else) for the purposes of defending yourself is already illegal.

My penis is dangerous in the wrong hands, and should be confiscated by hot British police women with hot British accents.

We have much fewer atrocities such as those simply because we have tight gun controls and people in the UK haven't grown up with the inalienable right to carry weapons regardless.

The bubblewrap! Dont forget to say how happy you are about the bubblewrap!

What's wrong with bubblewrap?, i can picture that, millions of people bouncing off pavements and back up again in bubblewrap, i bet road incidents would be judged by the sound of pops of bubblewrap, and it would keep you nice and warm, i'm not sure how you'd get a suntan from it though, maybe get medical research to check that one.
I suppose if it snowed it might be an issue too, and some people might get stuck in their cars also i guess if it was too windy you might blow away,lol.

Why is everyone rushing off on this. It's classifying samurai swords as an offensive weapon (which they undoubtedly are, it's what they were designed to be) and saying you have to (horror of horrors) have a licence for them with a reason for owning it.

Why is everyone rushing off on this. It's classifying samurai swords as an offensive weapon (which they undoubtedly are, it's what they were designed to be) and saying you have to (horror of horrors) have a licence for them with a reason for owning it.

Baseball bats are nothing but clubs, which are offensive weapons. Same with Cricket bats. Hell a yo-yo is an offensive weapon if you know how to sling it.

Baseball bats are nothing but clubs, which are offensive weapons. Same with Cricket bats. Hell a yo-yo is an offensive weapon if you know how to sling it.

They weren't specifically designed to be such. But even so, as long as you have a reason for them then fine. Playing cricket/baseball/yo-yoing would count for me.

You're overreacting a tad:



The law bans samurai knockoffs that have no use other than for criminal purposes (much like butterfly knife). People who have a genuine interest in the samurai- such as collectors and martial arts enthusiasts- can still obtain one.

Now, I still doubt such a law is going to be effective...considering the illicit use of these weapons, I doubt a criminal is going to concern themselves with this kind of action- it'll just be a "hurdle", that's all.

I wonder if they realize that the Genuine articles are edged and the cheap knockoffs are bascially metal clubs...

They weren't specifically designed to be such. But even so, as long as you have a reason for them then fine. Playing cricket/baseball/yo-yoing would count for me.

actually, about the Yo-yo (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa120297.htm)...

In the Philippines, the yo-yo was a weapon for over 400 hundred years. Their version was large with sharp edges and studs and attached to thick twenty-foot ropes for flinging at enemies or prey.

actually, about the Yo-yo (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa120297.htm)...

OMG how do the British tolerate such a weapons existence on the streets? And THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Quick require another 2 feet of bubblewrap to all the citizens, we just discovered TOYS can be weapons too! British Motto: We will keep adding required bubblewrap till all of our citizens are safe. Wether they like it or not!

What happened to the bad ass days of Britain? You know your country is going down hill when the streets are clear of entrails and bullet casings. :p

The problem is that the streets are not clear of entrails and bullet casings :(

They weren't specifically designed to be such.

So? You said the thing was just "classified as an offensive weapon." Not, "classified as having been designed as an offensive weapon." Do note the difference.

The problem is that the streets are not clear of entrails and bullet casings :(

yeah you're right, there's bubblewrap people everywhere, dying of bullet wounds it turns out bubblewrap isn't bullet proof, i can only sympathise with our military as they go out in the bubblewrap tanks.(yes i am aware i've gone totaly insane).

actually, about the Yo-yo (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa120297.htm)...
I should have known.

So? You said the thing was just "classified as an offensive weapon." Not, "classified as having been designed as an offensive weapon." Do note the difference.

I do, I also think that the latter is something to take into account when deciding the former.

yeah you're right, there's bubblewrap people everywhere, dying of bullet wounds it turns out bubblewrap isn't bullet proof, i can only sympathise with our military as they go out in the bubblewrap tanks.(yes i am aware i've gone totaly insane).

Thats because the government cant really make you safe. Its just an illusion of safety. They can only try to make you wear bubblewrap.

OMG how do the British tolerate such a weapons existence on the streets? And THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Quick require another 2 feet of bubblewrap to all the citizens, we just discovered TOYS can be weapons too! British Motto: We will keep adding required bubblewrap till all of our citizens are safe. Wether they like it or not!

:p considering how it's theorized how the Yo-Yo hunting weapon was used... it would only be banned from use anywhere above ground level. :D (the theory is that they hid in trees and smaked their targets beneath them.)

I'm just waiting for the day when I am stopped in the street on my way back from the golf course and get cautioned because my 9-iron is an offensive weapon.

Offensive as in I saw your bunker shot and I was offended that you call yourself a golfer? (light humor, just kidding I'm sure your a wonderful golfer)

Today its pointy knives tomorrow what, sharp pencils? Welcome to the nanny world ( oh please, wipe my bum ) keeping people from defending themselves from government, keeping them afraid and ignorant is oppression!

You think banning guns will lead to knife deaths? Excellent! I will tote my sword in the future.

"Take care, you dunghill-cocks!"

That is just retarded. Swords, even cheap crappy ones are fun to collect. Seriously, how many crimes are committed with swords? Practically none!

Just wait till the British No Running with Scissors Initiative comes into effect.

Why can't we do an exchange program? Send all the people who want guns and knives and swords to the USA* and bring all the people who don't want to be shot or stabbed to Britain? ( I assume the new law covers the whole of Britain rather than just England?). And bubble wrap is awesome, can't wait to pop loads of Christmas day, is the best part!

*except those that have a valid reason for having them

I should have known.



I do, I also think that the latter is something to take into account when deciding the former.

I picked the yo-yo example for a reason :p .

That is just retarded. Swords, even cheap crappy ones are fun to collect.

Feh. They're for lightweights. What you want is a couple of these.

They sure do freak out my houseguests.

Apologies for the poor quality of the photo - the lighting in my living room is crap, and so is my camera phone.

My penis is dangerous in the wrong hands, and should be confiscated by hot British police women with hot British accents.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:sThqJpYiIw9vMM:http://www.theolivecentre.com.au/assets/images/Chainsaw1.jpg

Feh. They're for lightweights. What you want is a couple of these.

They sure do freak out my houseguests.

Apologies for the poor quality of the photo - the lighting in my living room is crap, and so is my camera phone.

Is that some sort of...bomb?......ahhhhhhhh.
I also know that of course theres bound to be crimes when people with swords have gone on a rampage, i'm not against swords they're very fun to chop with. Mind you they are also very pointless, i can picture someone putting on their CV when appyling for a lawyer position. "yes i have many years of experience with swords, i can decapititate my enemies by clicking my fingers and shouting "NI".

Is that some sort of...bomb?......ahhhhhhhh.

You've heard of people getting things that have 'fallen off the back of a lorry'?
These fell off a Harrier jumpjet.

You've heard of people getting things that have 'fallen off the back of a lorry'?
These fell off a Harrier jumpjet.

.....what?.....there was some considerate harrier jump-jet fly by and leave a few bombs around...the pilot thought...i know what i'll do today..yes i'll leave a few bombs around, what a jolly good idea!
Unless you know someone who works in the air force, that would help.
Um dare i ask why you have a bomb?

.....what?.....there was some considerate harrier jump-jet fly by and leave a few bombs around...the pilot thought...i know what i'll do today..yes i'll leave a few bombs around, what a jolly good idea!
Unless you know someone who works in the air force, that would help.
Um dare i ask why you have a bomb?

Actually, I got these from a scrapyard, along with a couple of other weird and wonderful house decorations.

Why do I have them? Oh, don't worry, I'm just hanging on to them until the time comes to make my bid for world domination.

Actually, I got these from a scrapyard, along with a couple of other weird and wonderful house decorations.

Why do I have them? Oh, don't worry, I'm just hanging on to them until the time comes to make my bid for world domination.


Oh that's nice, nothing illegal then? *runs away screaming "the end is neigh"*

Owning a samurai sword (or anything else) for the purposes of defending yourself is already illegal.

And it shouldn't be. No amount of spineless legislation will prevent the generic juvenile delinquent from possessing a knife, or a gun, if he so wishes. The legislation only prevents law abiding members of public from possessing the means to defend themselves, and their families and property, since it is clearly far better to phone the police and wait for them to arrive, and promptly do fuck all to recover the dignity and pride stolen by the degenerate little chavs.

I say we ban rocks. In the wrong hands, they can be dangerous.

Pathetic. Nothing less than New Labour once more depriving those who didn't, for the most part, vote for it, of their rights to defend themselves, while also creating merry hell in the criminal justice system and allowing ever more young delinquents to go free after an empty "sorry" has been grunted or a cursory "community service" completed.

Evidence if ever more were required that we now live in a weak, spineless age in which reliance upon the state is not only fostered but also legislated for.

Another slice of magic from the blessed chris. You're going to defend yourself with a samurai sword?

I say we ban rocks. In the wrong hands, they can be dangerous.

ban Education. Knowledge and Information in the wrong hands can cause unimagined horror and suffering.

ban Education. Knowledge and Information in the wrong hands can cause unimagined horror and suffering.Yes, but so can the opposite. What are we going to do?! I suggest we kill everyone to stop them killing anyone else either through malice or mistake.

If you ban guns, then why not just ban knifes, they kill just as easily. Well, leave it to the English to try just that. I predict the next set of laws will only allow you to use plastic dinnerwear!


And how exactly does “Samurai Sword” become “knife”? I think there is a little difference here.


Pathetic. Nothing less than New Labour once more depriving those who didn't, for the most part, vote for it, of their rights to defend themselves, while also creating merry hell in the criminal justice system and allowing ever more young delinquents to go free after an empty "sorry" has been grunted or a cursory "community service" completed.


How would this law lead to an increase in delinquents? I personally am in favour of strict laws, and fail to see how this law undermines those principles. I think allowing weapons class blades to be available to any chav or headcase is begging for unrest and crime. I do not think they should be banned, but only people we are satisfied are responsible and wish to possess the weapons for legal ends should be allowed to possess them. Or are we OK with delinquents committing crimes, provided they have decent weapons with which to commit them?


Now, the Police decide to search this persons house to see if he has any other pointy things that he might want to 'show' his friends at some point and probably end up using on some poor sap when he's drunk. The Police find one of these swords, its a cheap knock off, and it's been crudely sharpened. A search like this happens every day. <snip>
This is stupid, the point is to prevent, not to wait for the enevitable to happen then react. With this new law, this sword can be seized and destroyed.


Precisely


And it shouldn't be. No amount of spineless legislation will prevent the generic juvenile delinquent from possessing a knife, or a gun, if he so wishes. The legislation only prevents law abiding members of public from possessing the means to defend themselves, and their families and property, since it is clearly far better to phone the police and wait for them to arrive, and promptly do fuck all to recover the dignity and pride stolen by the degenerate little chavs.


So the solution to an overstretched police force is to put more weapons in the hands of a vigilante public, in the hope that this will restore order?

How would this law lead to an increase in delinquents? I personally am in favour of strict laws, and fail to see how this law undermines those principles. I think allowing weapons class blades to be available to any chav or headcase is begging for unrest and crime. I do not think they should be banned, but only people we are satisfied are responsible and wish to possess the weapons for legal ends should be allowed to possess them. Or are we OK with delinquents committing crimes, provided they have decent weapons with which to commit them?

So the solution to an overstretched police force is to put more weapons in the hands of a vigilante public, in the hope that this will restore order?

Has it occurred to you that the criminally inclined will acquire weapons irrespective of government legislation? I did state as much earlier, not that you seem able to appreciate as much. Allowing those who do abide by the law the right to shoot criminals, burglers and muggers, and carry weapons, would only even up the playing field as it were.

My solution to crime has always been very simple. Capital punsihment, corporal punishment and creating prisons of such a standard that they are a deterrent in themselves.

Has it occurred to you that the criminally inclined will acquire weapons irrespective of government legislation? I did state as much earlier, not that you seem able to appreciate as much. Allowing those who do abide by the law the right to shoot criminals, burglers and muggers, and carry weapons, would only even up the playing field as it were.


More dead bodies, without any judicial oversight. Sweet.

The criminals will get weapons. But then criminals will also kill people. Should we make that legal too, since it will happen anyway? Of course not.

Allowing the public to execute other members of the public without any judicial process doesn't seem a terribly good idea. Do you believe that such a lax view of "he threatened me so I shot him" wouldn't be abused? Vigilante "justice" gets abused, we see that all the time.

Lethal crime involving dedicated weapons in the UK (i.e. not weapons of opportunity such as planks, kitchen knives etc) is lower than in the US. It works. Not 100%, but it works. Some criminals will get them, but most criminality is petty and opportunist, and in the UK, these crimes are much less likely to involves sophisticated weapons than in the US, because of our laws.


My solution to crime has always been very simple. Capital punsihment, corporal punishment and creating prisons of such a standard that they are a deterrent in themselves.

Agreed. These penalties are imposed by decree, by order, by law. Not by nutcases on the street led by a guy from down the pub with a beer in one hand a crowbar in the other. That, my friend, is the big difference. I'm not against punishing criminals, I'm against it being bring-your-mates-along Friday night affair.

*bwahaha*
*looks at her big-ass Nazgul knife sitting on the shelf beside her and thinks about the four other knives in the box under it*
They wouldn't DARE take away our knives here...
Have you ever SEEN a boer without his biltong knife?!
We would make them SUFFER.

Besides, then it would be the same story as our guns: the cops wouldn't have 'em, but all the criminals would. Either that or it would be like speed limits - completely ignored unless you're on camera.

To be honest I'm thought "swords" would already be on any offensive weapons list.

Seems like rather a large oversight to me.

Seriously, how many crimes are committed with swords? Practically none!

You'd be surprised

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=ns&q=sword&edition=d&scope=all

Has it occurred to you that the criminally inclined will acquire weapons irrespective of government legislation? I did state as much earlier, not that you seem able to appreciate as much. Allowing those who do abide by the law the right to shoot criminals, burglers and muggers, and carry weapons, would only even up the playing field as it were.
And we can save money, because we won't need anything like judges, courts, prisons, police, and everything else that makes us a civilised society as opposed to vigilante 'justice'.

My solution to crime has always been very simple. Capital punsihment, corporal punishment and creating prisons of such a standard that they are a deterrent in themselves.
I dunno. I personally set standards for this country better than those of Saudi Arabia.

My solution to crime has always been very simple. Capital punsihment, corporal punishment and creating prisons of such a standard that they are a deterrent in themselves.

Because when we had capital punishment, corporal punishment and prisons that were hell holes we had no crime?

Because when we had capital punishment, corporal punishment and prisons that were hell holes we had no crime?

Yep. And beer was a penny a pint and the Thames was made of chocolate, not just that contagious brown ooze it generally carries.:rolleyes:

Of course not moron, I simply think it would be rather more effective than our current system whereby the fundamental principle appears to be to be as nice as possible to the criminals, because after all it's the middle class's fault anyway.

And we can save money, because we won't need anything like judges, courts, prisons, police, and everything else that makes us a civilised society as opposed to vigilante 'justice'.


I dunno. I personally set standards for this country better than those of Saudi Arabia.

Good for you. I, however, don't particularly care how brutal my criminal justice system is; frankly, criminals are degenerate scum, and deserve it.

Good for you. I, however, don't particularly care how brutal my criminal justice system is; frankly, criminals are degenerate scum, and deserve it.

And the man that stole some bread to feed his starving family? Is he scum?

If I were to design a legal system I would have prison only be for violent criminals, all other crimes would be assigned appropriate fines, and everyone would do some good old fashioned hard labour.

Good for you. I, however, don't particularly care how brutal my criminal justice system is; frankly, criminals are degenerate scum, and deserve it.
So you'd rather bang everyone up, or whip them, brand them and expell them from the town's limits or hang 'em?

It's better to go after the causes of crime rather than shoot every criminal that comes your way.

Good for you. I, however, don't particularly care how brutal my criminal justice system is; frankly, criminals are degenerate scum, and deserve it.
Your proposal of mob rule doesn't even come close to being a justice system.

Has it occurred to you that the criminally inclined will acquire weapons irrespective of government legislation? I did state as much earlier, not that you seem able to appreciate as much. Allowing those who do abide by the law the right to shoot criminals, burglers and muggers, and carry weapons, would only even up the playing field as it were.

My solution to crime has always been very simple. Capital punsihment, corporal punishment and creating prisons of such a standard that they are a deterrent in themselves.

As soon as this playing field is evened up I will come and shoot you and say you tried to mug me. Super suggestion.

And I'm sure criminals love going to prison at the moment. Can't get enough of it.

So you'd rather bang everyone up, or whip them, brand them and expell them from the town's limits or hang 'em?

It's better to go after the causes of crime rather than shoot every criminal that comes your way.

No, it' easier to deter criminals than to address the causes, since the causes are all but impossible to address.

Your proposal of mob rule doesn't even come close to being a justice system.

Yes it does. Would you classify the US as not having a criminal justice system, and being under "mob rule" because it permits gun ownership? If not, my proposal does not qualify as this either.

As soon as this playing field is evened up I will come and shoot you and say you tried to mug me. Super suggestion.

And I'm sure criminals love going to prison at the moment. Can't get enough of it.

It's hardly a perjorative, painful experiance at present. Which it should be.

And I'm hardly likely to meet somebody like you am I?:)

It's hardly a perjorative, painful experiance at present. Which it should be.

And I'm hardly likely to meet somebody like you am I?:)

You only get to use words like pejorative when you can both spell them and use them correctly. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary to compliment your thesaurus?

And yes, being in prison is pretty tough. If you knew anything about what you are talking about you would know that the most important part of deterrence is not the harshness of the punishment but the probability of punishment.

What makes something an offensive weapon? What's the criteria?
I would guess that would be if it's actually made as a weapon, a Samurai Sword is of course made as a weapon, though a collector's weapon it is nonetheless made as a weapon. A baseball bat and a 9 iron are undoubtedly primarily made for sports, and thus not made as weapons.

Pretty simple logic really. You need a sort of licence for things made as weapons, I'm game with that. What I don't understand is the constant fear of being over-regulated, we're not being overregulated and we probably wont be either, it's just weapons, even the word weapons should get your minds straight, weapons should be kept to responsible hands, those with a licence, and to make sure it's responsible it should also have extensive training as well as a high price to make it hard for the majority of the population to obtain, thereas it would be alot easier to capture murderers, and alot easier to keep control of crime.
:sniper::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper::gundge:

I would guess that would be if it's actually made as a weapon, a Samurai Sword is of course made as a weapon, though a collector's weapon it is nonetheless made as a weapon.
A lot, probably the vast majority, merely look like samurai swords. They're just bits of metal whacked into shape, a tang welded on and a handle put onto that. They could do damage, yes, but are also likely to shatter, because they are purely for aesthetic purposes only. They aren't forged in the same way a proper sword would be, primarily because its a fairly rare trade these days, and therefore it is bloody expensive to actually buy one of the damned things. One of eBay for £30 is certainly not a real sword.

These, if I read the news articles correctly, are also banned now.

Not because they're deadly because samurai sword's unbelievable awesomeness overloads there systems.

Not because they're deadly because samurai sword's unbelievable awesomeness overloads their systems.
Nah, the stuff from Europe of the same period was much more cool.

Yes it does. Would you classify the US as not having a criminal justice system, and being under "mob rule" because it permits gun ownership? If not, my proposal does not qualify as this either.
No, but that isn't what you proposed:

Allowing those who do abide by the law the right to shoot criminals, burglers and muggers, and carry weapons, would only even up the playing field as it were.

Why can't we do an exchange program? Send all the people who want guns and knives and swords to the USA* and bring all the people who don't want to be shot or stabbed to Britain? ( I assume the new law covers the whole of Britain rather than just England?). And bubble wrap is awesome, can't wait to pop loads of Christmas day, is the best part!

*except those that have a valid reason for having them

Only if we can send all the ones with bad teeth your way. :rolleyes:

Seriously -- you make fun of the US while acting like Chavs are not a problem there?

Well, of course chavs are a problem. At least, though, they can't obtain personal firearms through a process which I'll admit to having no knowledge of but appears to boil down to "I'm a citizen with no criminal record - gimme a gun!"

And the man that stole some bread to feed his starving family? Is he scum?

Who am I..... 24601!

Well, of course chavs are a problem. At least, though, they can't obtain personal firearms through a process which I'll admit to having no knowledge of but appears to boil down to "I'm a citizen with no criminal record - gimme a gun!"

:rolleyes: So rather than find out, you just apply a blanket judgment. Nice.

Psst, here's a hint....

there is a reason why Mayor Bloomberg of NY is not a popular fellow down in Virginia. Go look it up.

And I'm sure that chavs are worried about the niceties of obtaining LEGAL weapons? You know -- registered ones?

:rolleyes: So rather than find out, you just apply a blanket judgment. Nice.

Psst, here's a hint....

there is a reason why Mayor Bloomberg of NY is not a popular fellow down in Virginia. Go look it up.

And I'm sure that chavs are worried about the niceties of obtaining LEGAL weapons? You know -- registered ones?

Quite. To get a Firearms Certificate (FAC) you have to apply and undergo a number of checks including an interview with the police and a background check by Special Branch. You also have your house inspected for storage and safety by the police. That is for each weapon you own.

The FAC allows you to own guns including shotguns.

If you want a shotgun only you apply for a Shotgun Certificate where the requirements are lower.

However all this does not prevent gun crime. Shooters are available on the streets. However it does limit significantly the numbers of weapons in the country.

Completely missed the boat again as it seems. This can only be considered as a satiricial look at our 'health and safety'. I doubt it very much that the law only applies to England as you so suggest.

[On being told that possessing a samurai sword to defend yourself is already illegal.]

And it shouldn't be.

But it is, and has been for many years. Therefore a) you are wrong to suggest that this extremely minor change to an existing law makes it any harder to defend yourself without breaking the law, and b) you are worng to blame it on New Labour.

No amount of spineless legislation will prevent the generic juvenile delinquent from possessing a knife, or a gun, if he so wishes.

I totally agree with you, which is why I opposed the utterly pointless post-Dunblane changes to the firearms laws.


The legislation only prevents law abiding members of public from possessing the means to defend themselves, and their families and property

Actually, no. The real situation is not nearly that bad, regardless of what the screeching headlines in the Daily Mail might say. People can and do use physical violence, even armed physical violence, to protect themself or their property and are never prosecuted for it. Cases like that rarely make major news stories for precisely that reason - the intended victim is not prosecuted, therefore they never get taken to court.

:rolleyes: So rather than find out, you just apply a blanket judgment. Nice.

Well, that's never stopped anyone before on the Internet, you know :)

Anyway, my (admittedly slight) point was that every class of society is less of a threat in a society where there are strict gun controls. There will still be criminals of course, but people will be generally safer from emo people with guns, knives and so on.

Completely missed the boat again as it seems. This can only be considered as a satiricial look at our 'health and safety'. I doubt it very much that the law only applies to England as you so suggest.
Otherwise it'd be the relatively simple task of getting a sword or somesuch imported to Scotland, then sent south to England.

Who am I..... 24601!


:rolleyes:

You may think it cliché/unnecessary/whatever, but in this country it is a legitimate question, as more than half the population lives below the bread line.

Minimum wage is around R5,47 per hour, let me translate that to dollars for you: $0.80; and around 30% of the population is unemployed.
Can you support a family of 4+ on roughly $32 a week?

Yep. And beer was a penny a pint and the Thames was made of chocolate, not just that contagious brown ooze it generally carries.:rolleyes:

Of course not moron, I simply think it would be rather more effective than our current system whereby the fundamental principle appears to be to be as nice as possible to the criminals, because after all it's the middle class's fault anyway.

Got any evidence to back that up or is it just something you "reckon?"