Banning samurai swords

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno about anyone else - but I can't imagine why I would want to own a samurai sword. I'm not a samurai, moreover I'm not of Japanese or more specifically - of Samurai descent. Average Joe owning one seems a little crass IMO. I can't see why anyone would want one - but then again I don't collect that kind of stuff, and the BudK catalogs we get give me the impression that these things are the domain of Trailer-dwelling Southerners with prehistoric mullets.

Besides - why is everyone getting so crazed about this? The UK effectively banned guns after Dunblane, and the public carrying of knives after a headmaster was stabbed by one of his own students. Its hardly a prededent, even if it is silly.

I like how the Home Office bod says "In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons", In anyone's hands a samurai sword is a dangerous weapon. That's why the Samurai used them... and how they were better at killing than peasant farmers with clubs and pitchforks...

Yes - its a silly law - on top of other silly laws. That said they get away with it because it affects very few people; and oddly enough the few people I came into contact with in the UK who were "knife people" and collected swords and knives etc stuff were the sort of bad tempered friday night pub-fight guys who should probably stay away from pointy objects anyway.

I would think that most who collect swords/knives do it solely for decorative purposes and arent about to go charging after ppl with them in order to do some harm. And those that would use their collection in that manner would just use something else instead.. banning the ownership of decorative samurai swords likely wont stop too many injuries/deaths. Besides most decorative swords (be they samurai or other) arent that sharp (we have a bit of a collection ourselves... and no, we dont get into fights on friday nights and we dont have mullets... )

I agree - I don't think there is much of a point to this specific law. At the least it doesn't make sense to outlaw one specific type of sword and not the others... Still the UK Govt has a tendency to legislate on these following a precedent (like Dunblane) but they do get carried away (as here). That said - knives and swords are already illegal in other countries... why is this so terrible?

As for the people with mullets - they're in the catalog

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Yes, we should ask "Why make any thing (as in object) illegal?" I'm saying the crime is in the action not the object. Making a sword illegal does nothing to stop someone that wants to kill from killing.

Of course they will - but I'm not sure what purpose is served by throwing up a bunch of relativisms. If we go down that road we might as well as "why make anything illegal" - with the argument ranging all the way from assault rifles to illegal drugs. Everyone draws a line somewhere on what is acceptable and what isn't. I don't much see the point in this specific law - but again the precedent for this was set years ago, following the Dunblane Massacre. I don't recall too much public opposition to that at the time or since...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, we should ask "Why make any thing (as in object) illegal?" I'm saying the crime is in the action not the object. Making a sword illegal does nothing to stop someone that wants to kill from killing.

The point is everyone has a limit and draws a line on one thing or other. As far as banning samurai swords - its a very small, very insignificant issue IMO. If the govt turned around tomorrow and said that "for your own good we're outlawing metal cutlery, and from now on you'll all have to eat with plastic sporks", you can bet there would be a reaction... On samurai swords... not so much...

Edited December 18, 2007 by Number 6

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Does this specific issue affect me? No. Could this specific issue affect me? No. Do I really care about this specific issue? No. Where my problem comes is it's the very small insignificant issues that can grow up like a cancer. The line keeps getting moved closer. I don't own a gun but do not want to see them illegal. I respect someones right to own and/or collect them. Same with swords or anything of this nature.

Yes, we should ask "Why make any thing (as in object) illegal?" I'm saying the crime is in the action not the object. Making a sword illegal does nothing to stop someone that wants to kill from killing.

The point is everyone has a limit and draws a line on one thing or other. As far as banning samurai swords - its a very small, very insignificant issue IMO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does this specific issue affect me? No. Could this specific issue affect me? No. Do I really care about this specific issue? No. Where my problem comes is it's the very small insignificant issues that can grow up like a cancer. The line keeps getting moved closer. I don't own a gun but do not want to see them illegal. I respect someones right to own and/or collect them. Same with swords or anything of this nature.

Still as pointed out the UK has made it illegal to own firearms following Dunblane, knives have been illegal for a while too. The UK is far from alone in this... I agree with them on guns and partially on knives. This really seems somewhat supefluous.

To go back to that earlier point that if someone has the desire to kill, they will find a way. That's true - the difference here is that most of these weapons make the killers much more efficient at it. Hence Prince Phillip's "Why don't we bring cricket bats" comment after Dunblane. Because a baldy, soggy around the mid-section middleage man chasing those children around the primary school could have racked up the same body count as the same guy armed with several pistols...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

When we outlaw samurai swords only outlaws will have samurai swords.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When we outlaw samurai swords only outlaws will have samurai swords.

I'm sure the Samurai thought that - back when being in illegal possession of one in feudal Japan could get ones head chopped off on the spot.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

I will agree with you here. Of course an automatic assault weapon that fires umpteen rounds per second will rack up the bodies quicker than a cricket bat. We just feel differently about ownership rights and whether a public threat truly exists with regard to swords used primary for display purposes.

To go back to that earlier point that if someone has the desire to kill, they will find a way. That's true - the difference here is that most of these weapons make the killers much more efficient at it. Hence Prince Phillip's "Why don't we bring cricket bats" comment after Dunblane. Because a baldy, soggy around the mid-section middleage man chasing those children around the primary school could have racked up the same body count as the same guy armed with several pistols...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From today's news

Knife crime plans 'may not work'

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The hand weilds the sword. Hands have been known to strangle. Punish the person not the object.

[GaryC 7]

As much as we would like to try, we cannot legislate public safety. We will always have good people and bad people in the world. Laws like this and the gun laws only effect the law abiding. The criminal element will ignore the laws just as they alway have. The final effect is the law abiding are punished and the criminals go on about their business as if nothing changed.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The hand weilds the sword. Hands have been known to strangle. Punish the person not the object.

yup

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

That's what I've been saying... But I do like the way your words flow!

The hand weilds the sword. Hands have been known to strangle. Punish the person not the object.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So do I take this to mean that you guys will support me in my right to buy and own ivory chess sets, Tiger skin rugs, gorilla hand ashtrays and human lampshades?

Edited December 19, 2007 by Number 6

[Scott & Lai 12]

So do I take this to mean that you guys will support me in my right to buy and own ivory chess sets, Tiger skin rugs, gorilla hand ashtrays and human lampshades?

So, owning a samurai sword or a gun requires the death of a member of an endangered species? Can you say, non sequitur?