Banning Swords in Scotland!!

[Louie]

Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell went on the offensive against Scotland’s growing knife culture.

Here are the highlights:

• A licensing scheme for the sale of non-domestic knives and similar objects. This would require all shops selling non-domestic knives to be registered and licensed. Any retailer caught breaking the law would have its licence revoked.

• Increasing the minimum purchasing age for knives from 16 to 18.

• Banning the sale of swords. While the sale of swords would be outlawed under the proposals, the Executive has no plans to ban swords being kept in private homes. There would, however, be a ban on the possession of a sword in a public place.

• Giving the police the ability to arrest anyone found carrying a knife. At the moment police can only arrest people if they prove they are carrying a knife, have grounds for believing a crime is going to be committed and a third reason such as breach of the peace. The Executive intends to sweep away all these conditions, allowing unconditional arrests to be made.

• Doubling the sentence for possessing a knife or offensive weapon from two years to four.

The BBC quoted Jack McConnell as stating "There can be no reason for people buying swords off the street for use or to have in their homes," The Scotsman quoted him as saying "It is my very strong view, and it is a view shared by the Cabinet, that far too many young men, particularly in Scotland, view the carrying or using of knives or offensive weapons as an acceptable practice. It is not acceptable.

Louie

[Mark_Campbell]

Every time Jack McConnell says "young men", he really means Neds (also known as chavs, scallies ,general scum of the universe)

a cheaper and more effective way of dealing with weapon crime is called the atomic bomb

Bomb Wishart !!!!

[redsandpalm]

He may just mean public as in: the supermarket, the cinema etc. Maybe you should/could lobby him about excluding MA training halls? Would the ban include buying swords somewhere else and importing them?

[adouglasmhor]

As there are no border checks between England and Scotland he is just being a _insert insult of choice here. He has no powers to stop you buying a sword from say Playwell and having it delivered. I do not know how his half witted ban will affect Iado practitioners and others as sports halls are public places, It is allready illegal to carry a sword in public he is just playing to the cheap seats.

[Lithanwif]

This again?
I posted similarly recently when I heard a five live interview demonising the knife culture and mentioning various MA weapons in particular.
Fair enough, theres a problem, but the majority of MA's arent going to go home get their big shiny sword down from the wall and thump someone with it.

I propose that we have ourselves licenced and store our weapons at home in a metal gun locker type cabinet..after all shotgun owners can do this in Scotland...I know a chap who lives in the centre of Glasgow who does this.

It won't stop the crime, and it won't stop the violence. Scumbags don't care about being licensed. I saw a guy recently with a Balisong in the street, now I know these are banned, I handed mine in during an amnesty even though I loved training with them. law abiding MA versus Ned dont care shiny knife mentallity. But the fact is if we do this, they cant blame us anymore can they?

My fathers a butcher fer crissakes, are you gonna take his knives from him? Fact is if you take all of our weapons away, we'll find a way to turn the papercut into an art form, meanwhile the scumbags are out on the streets with enough knives guns and swords to arm a small African State.

[Chojin]

My fathers a butcher fer crissakes, are you gonna take his knives from him? Fact is if you take all of our weapons away, we'll find a way to turn the papercut into an art form, meanwhile the scumbags are out on the streets with enough knives guns and swords to arm a small African State.

Excellent point made! All this would do is make the scumbags WANT to carry these sorts of weapons cos they know its illegal! Its the buzz they look for! TO BREAK THE LAW!

[TheMightyMcClaw]

No swords in Scotland?? But they're... the Scots!

That's like banning the sale of hagus or bagpipes!

[YODA]

Ok - here comes Captain Obvious to the rescue...

Tan tan taaaaaaaan...

More laws is not the answer.

Criminals do not obey laws.

That's why we call them criminals :rolleyes:

[TkdWarrior]

Tan tan taaaaaaaan...

More laws is not the answer.

Criminals do not obey laws.

That's why we call them criminals
but captian obvious... how do we tell our govt that...?

according to some law in india.. you can even have blade in ur pocket... forget knives n swords(I know, I know i've been whinning about this law forever)
-TkdWarrior-

[BackFistMonkey]

No swords in Scotland?? But they're... the Scots!

That's like banning the sale of hagus or bagpipes!

I second this

you cant take knives and swords away from the Scots ! :mad:

:cry:

[Lucius]

The amount of knife crime up here is appalling, and anything that helps reduce it has got to be a good thing.
Shame this isn't the answer, rather a quick fix to please the tabloids and the sheeple.

[Johnno]

It's knives and guns that are the biggest problem.

I know you do get the occasional nutter running amuk with a samurai sword. (I can think of two instances that made the headlines - one who attacked a primary school in Wolverhampton, and one who ran into a church somewhere.) These really are rare events though, and even if you ban swords their are still plenty of legal objects which can be pretty deadly. You can do horrible damage with a Stanley knife, but you can hardly ban those.

I know that swords are designed to be deadly weapons, but it would be a great shame if any change in the law prevented genuine Martial Arts clubs from teaching sword work though.

[YODA]

It's knives and guns that are the biggest problem.


No - it's people that are the biggest problem.

[Anth]

It's knives and guns that are the biggest problem.
No - it's people that are the biggest problem. I agree with you Yoda. Knives and guns cant kill without somebody to actually use them (unless you mean a Patriot Missile System ;))

[Gerry Casey]

No - it's people that are the biggest problem.

Yoda is right that it is the people that are the problem.

However, to change the attitude of people takes time. I think it was the chief constable of Strathclyde police who said it would take 15 years to change the "knife culture" in Glasgow when talking about the proposed laws.

Which leaves the problem of what to do in the interim. Any fix that doesn't address the underlying problems to change this culture/ social attitude will only be partially effective. IMO the laws proposed fall into the partially effective catergory.

[CobraMaximus]

Heh, OMG

[Jimmy Jitsu]

As a proud Scotsman who has recently moved to the US, I cannot believe the amount to rights Jack McConnel is wanting to take away. Banning knives, how dumb. The person who is likely to be carrying a knife in the streets for suspect use wouldnt edit: care it was banned or not. What sort of knives constitute an offensive weapons most neds prefer the stanely knife which is a tool not combat or martial art knive. So are Homebase and B & Q gonna stop selling stanley knives. Also who uses swords to attack people these days. OK a few isolated incidents of the odd nutter. If you look at the stats most violent crimes are carried out by males aged between 15-25 therefore surely it would make sense to lock up all males in this age group. I am only joking - but this is the type of logic Jack I using.

Start the revolution today Brothers!

[d33pthought]

Couldn't you solve this by giving all the knife/sword-obsessed people a cooler, more complicated weapon to lust after? How about a sword on a stick, or on a rope. Hell, they'd lop their own arms off before they managed to hurt anyone else!

Ooh! I've got it! Only allow swords and non-utility knives to be sold made out of wushu-type spring steel or 440 stainless! :p

[Johnno]

No - it's people that are the biggest problem.

Yes, that's true. But we are talking in terms of banning weapons. If there weren't problem-people then we wouldn't be having this debate about weapons in the first place!

[Lithanwif]

Couldn't you solve this by giving all the knife/sword-obsessed people a cooler, more complicated weapon to lust after? How about a sword on a stick, or on a rope. Hell, they'd lop their own arms off before they managed to hurt anyone else!

Kewl, we could use that Simpsons episode as a paradigm
'That aint a knife, this is a knife'
'Thats a spoon!'
'Ah, I see you've played knifey spooney before'

As I have also posted elsewhere. there was a craze near us for neds ( chavs ) to carry nunchaku and spin them merrily. This died out slowly, but one in incident I did see was a lad attacking a waste bin, shrieking like a banshee and then screaming like a little bitch when they bounced back into the back of his hand.
This of course was followed by me laughing uproariously, and a group of them coming over to 'square up'
'Wit ye laughing at big man'
'Walk away son, before you get hurt again'
funnily once you stand up to them they go all meek. They always walk past now and say hi to me....well 'Awright big man' which I think translates to
'Top of the morning to you, large gent who will kick us in the head given the excuse'

[Lithanwif]

large gent who will kick us in the head given the excuse'
This is my ned name apparently.
My korean name is ' he who blocks with his face'
My japanese name ' he who kiais well, but goes down like a sack of potatoes'
and of course my thai name ' he whos knee bends at the wrong angle after taking a mighty kick...ooh that looks painul. That'll need pins that. Years of Physio.....etc.etc.'

[Ghost Frog]

This is my ned name apparently.
My korean name is ' he who blocks with his face'
My japanese name ' he who kiais well, but goes down like a sack of potatoes'
and of course my thai name ' he whos knee bends at the wrong angle after taking a mighty kick...ooh that looks painul. That'll need pins that. Years of Physio.....etc.etc.':D :D :D My favourite block the face block. Closely followed by the rib block.

[Jason Simpson]

I also think this is a stupid law. Surely it wasn't legal to walk through the middle of town with a claymore strapped to your back? This guys just trying to make a name for himself. Off with his head!!!!

[Lithanwif]

:D :D :D My favourite block the face block. Closely followed by the rib block.

Nah my mates got that one covered...no broken ribs, no muscle damage. Collapsed lung and blood clot.
Jeez didn't hit him that hard. Must be my Dim Mak technique vibrating through his body towards the lung bypassing all else.

[Ghost Frog]

Must be my Dim Mak technique vibrating through his body towards the lung bypassing all else. It is enlightening to be in the presence of a true master.http://www.ddncafe.com/forum/smilies/notworthy.gif

[Lithanwif]

You must be enlightened young one.
think perhaps I should start to walk with a stick and grow my goattee long and white?
Then I'd get the respect I deserve dammit.

[Lucius]

think perhaps I should start to walk with a stick and grow my goattee long and white?
Only as long as sleekit wee Jack McConnell hasn't seen fit to ban sticks, of course!

[Lurch]

As far as banning swords and knioves goes, it'll just lead to more of them being n the hands of the wrong people. Same thing happened with handguns when they were banned. Many gun owners held, say, two registered weapons. But many held maybe one or two more they'd bought off the books from another member of their gun club or whatever and hadn't got araoud to registering.

Then the ban comes into effect, and your man has a couple of grands worth of firearm he is now required to hand in - add to that the awkward questions he'd face regarding those unregistered guns. Bloke down the pub offers £500 for the two off the record guns, and on they go into the hands of people who really shouldn't have them.

Ban knives and swords, and something similar will happen. Would you hand in a decent samurai that had cost you the best part of £1000 if you'll not be reimbursed? There's many that won't.

[Wynnston]

Can't you guy's see it? This is the start of a big change and Jack is a real visionary.

After knives and smoking I think he should concentrate on the biggest killers in Scotland. Heart attacks and car accidents. Banning hearts would be a significant step toward making Scotland a safer place and removing people's hearts would be a pre-emptive strike at this killer disease. Outlawing cars would also be another massive leap toward increasing the lifespan of Scots and anyone seen in a car should be arrested immediately by mounted police armed with biodegradeable truncheons made from compressed cow dung and nettle flax.

What a guy.

W

[JamesyBHOY]

The problem is something has go to give, All you read in the papers almost on a daily basis is Males aged 16 & a little bit older either being murdered or doing the murdering.

This summs up soceity today when my little cousin who is only 14 told her mother a couple of weeks back that she can't wait till she grows up as she is going to marry a gangster(Her father thinks he's a bit of a hardnut, So when he takes her for the weekends, It's obviously starting to rub off on her).

Knives are the primary weapons that are used in murders in Scotland(I also expect it will be the same in the rest of the UK), I'm all for a public ban on the sale of weapons but simply don't care for one reason & that's they will never be able to enforce it, Without stopping every ned in the country & frisking them at every corner, + they would need to start a new big brother prog to monitor all their calls + internet activities which is impossible, So what really should be done is get all those police who sit on their fat arses all day on the streets, My local police station is around a mile from my house,2 corners & a long straight road and that's it, it only takes a minute in a car, Last weekend about 8/10 little punks started fighting outside my moums house, SO she lives alone & they come in the gate, Go round the back & take the washing poles, So it's around 12.30am and I'm up the city centre at work, I get a call from my girlfriend whom my mum phoned panicking, as the local police station was engaged & she got held in a queue, I actually got there before the police & it took me around 15 minutes, then 5 mins after that a man & a woman come in and get the details, Jump in the car drive around the corner, then up & down the street & that's it away they go again.

When you go into the police station there's always one guy sitting at the desk & the rest of the chumps are in the back playing snooker.

So the public can't rely on the law for help, So the only logical way to drastically cut back on the amound of murders using weapons is to deal tougher sentences to the users, Such as you get someone any age/Male or female who commits a cold blooded murder, presently gets a life sentence which is around 10 years + all the fringe benefits like appeals, culpable homicide,diminished responsability,good behaviour etc etc & youy can pretty much guarantee a few years chalked off that. I know pretty much everyone who replies after this will say it's wrong for so many reasons, but I would bring back the death penalty & hang them in the streets like the old days if it could be proven without absolute doubt that they were guilty & I would do away with all those young offenders institutes which have playstation 2,sky,swimming pools,Holidays,presents & bring back old fashioned borstals.I wasn't around in those days but my uncles tell me how bad it was & it put them on the straight & narrow.

Anything less such as better education in schools etc, is simply just a waste of taxpayers money.

[Jimmy Jitsu]

I am against banning knives as it will be impossible to enforce. However, I strongly believe there should be stronger sentences I am one that where 1st degree murder has been commited life should mean life. With regards to teenage assault crimes I think the lash would be a good deterrent.

[aikiMac]

Fair enough, theres a problem, but the majority of MA's arent going to go home get their big shiny sword down from the wall and thump someone with it.
...
It won't stop the crime, and it won't stop the violence. Scumbags don't care about being licensed.
As to the first, yes we are. Everyone with a weapon is irresponsible. Every last one of us. And every weapon leads to the death of innocent people, particularly children. The only possible way on God's green earth to protect children and other innocent people from death by people who have weapons, is to take away weapons from you and me. It doesn't matter that you and I have never committed a crime with our weapons. Our innocence is irrelevant. I know this is so because people told me so in another thread.

As to the second, it will stop crime and violence. If you and I turn in our weapons, then the scumbags won't have weapons either, and then nobody will use a weapon, and children won't accidentally get weapons. I know this is true because people told me so in another thread.

[change of brain]
Okay, being irrational was fun. Now back to being rational.

Yoda is right that it is the people that are the problem.

However, to change the attitude of people takes time. I think it was the chief constable of Strathclyde police who said it would take 15 years to change the "knife culture" in Glasgow when talking about the proposed laws.

Which leaves the problem of what to do in the interim. Any fix that doesn't address the underlying problems to change this culture/ social attitude will only be partially effective.
Correct. So now, we have some people saying, "I know what the solution to the problem is, but I don't want to actually implement it. I'd rather put on a public show of covering up one symptom than actually do what has to be done to solve the cause of this symptom. And yes, I know that this solution is not a solution to the symptom, but I'm going to do it anyway, for show."

That's a bad attitude.

And then we have some people saying, "The problem is we didn't raise up the next generation with responsibility and discernment of right versus wrong. As a consequence they're doing a lot of bad things and hurting a lot of people. Let's fix that problem at the source by teaching responsibility and right versus wrong."

That's a good attitude, and it's the only solution. Anything less does not solve the problem and always works to punish innocent people.

[Johnno]

And then we have some people saying, "The problem is we didn't raise up the next generation with responsibility and discernment of right versus wrong. As a consequence they're doing a lot of bad things and hurting a lot of people. Let's fix that problem at the source by teaching responsibility and right versus wrong."

That's a good attitude, and it's the only solution. Anything less does not solve the problem and always works to punish innocent people.

I agree with your point, but could you tell us how you think things should be changed to do this? I mean, do you see it simply in terms of parents' responsibility to teach their kids decent values? Or are you talking about the government taking steps to educate kids rather than just passing more laws to tackle a problem which has already taken root?

[Stephen Hand]

Hi,

I'm one of the moderators of the legal issues forum over on swordforum and I heard that people were discussing the proposed sword ban here. I'm also Chairman of the Australian Historical Swordplay Federation and I've been battling plans to introduce this sort of legislation in Australia (which has a very similar system of government to Scotland). I have learned a lot about how to deal with politicians and the media. Here's what I wrote on SFI. I hope it helps.

OK, after nearly two years of playing these games with politicians and bureaucrats in Australia I have the following advice.

1. This is a public relations and media exercise. If you for one moment think it has anything to do with logic or justice, you're doomed.

2. Be scrupulously polite. The best way to get a politician to do exactly the opposite of what you want is to abuse him or seem overly aggressive.

3. At all costs avoid talking about swords as if they were weapons. For the purposes of this exercise swords are not weapons, they are an item of Scottish cultural heritage used by hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens for purposes nothing to do with their use as weapons.

4. Mention where possible groups so innocuous that they couldn't possibly be associated with violent crime. The ones I've found work best are Highland dancers (particularly appropriate here) and people performing the plays of Shakespeare. Avoid if possible talking about martial arts groups as mention of them will reinforce the idea that a sword is a weapon, and hence something that the public should be scared of.

5. Mention where possible financial benefit (both direct and indirect - tourism dollars spring to mind in the latter category) that comes from sword related activities.

6. Politicians live and die by media soundbites. They can only seriously be combatted with the same. Media soundbites must go for the emotional jugular. Lines like "Does the Minister seriously believe that banning Highland Dancing and the plays of Shakespeare will make Scotland a safer place" or "The Minister's proposed ban on swords is an attack at the very heart of Scottish heritage and would outlaw highland dancing, the plays of Shakespeare and re-enactments of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce" are good. Lines like "hardly any people are killed with swords" or "there are many weapons more dangerous than swords" are an unmitigated disaster.

7. Find out where formal submissions on the legislation should be sent and circulate that to as many people as possible with this same advice. Formal submissions can contain more logical arguments, but overemphasise the arts (plays and dance) and underemphasise martial use. I particularly think it's important to contact the highland dancers and get them to kick up a fuss. This was the single best avenue of attack we found in Australia, and there must be more highland dancers in Scotland. Try to show the politicians that there's overwhelming public opposition to this law.

8. Try to find a reputable political party (Tories spring to mind) who will help you oppose this law. They will know what works politically, know how to handle the media etc, but be careful, politicians will drop you in an instant if they think you're a liability or there's a better cause.

If anyone in Scotland needs any help with submissions etc. please contact me. I've learned a lot about how to deal with politicians in the last two years (much more than I wanted to know) and we have an opportunity to use the Australian experience to help our Scottish brothers. I've already forwarded copies of relevant documents I sent to politicians and bureaucrats over here, to Ian McIntyre and Paul McDonald.

I hope this helps.

[Rob Lovett]

Hi all,

The BFHS are also involved in looking at this issue. There is a lot of rumour abounding concerning this issue, so I would advise anyone looking to get involved to make sure of their facts and look into the sources of this threat first.

Regards
Rob

[aikiMac]

I agree with your point, but could you tell us how you think things should be changed to do this? I mean, do you see it simply in terms of parents' responsibility to teach their kids decent values? Or are you talking about the government taking steps to educate kids rather than just passing more laws to tackle a problem which has already taken root?
Parents first and always and continuously.
At the same time, parents should be influencing the actions and programs of government. The government is not a separate "thing." It is a group of people. Let's treat it as such. There is no possible way that that group of people called the government knows more about my life than my family, my neighbors, my friends, and I know about my life. Consequently, the government should not be taking control.

[Lithanwif]

Can't you guy's see it? This is the start of a big change and Jack is a real visionary.

After knives and smoking I think he should concentrate on the biggest killers in Scotland. Heart attacks and car accidents. Banning hearts would be a significant step toward making Scotland a safer place and removing people's hearts would be a pre-emptive strike at this killer disease. Outlawing cars would also be another massive leap toward increasing the lifespan of Scots and anyone seen in a car should be arrested immediately by mounted police armed with biodegradeable truncheons made from compressed cow dung and nettle flax.

What a guy.

W

Hey, I already quit smoking...my swords and my collection of classic gas guzzlers are the only things stopping me lighting back up.
That and the fact if I was to restart my wife and my two kids would take turns hitting me with aforementioned swords, and if she could manage it the car.
Personally I think they should ban burberry, as every time I see someone wearing it in cap form I have to fight the desire to choke the life from them.

[Lithanwif]

8. Try to find a reputable political party (Tories spring to mind) who will help you oppose this law. They will know what works politically, know how to handle the media etc, but be careful, politicians will drop you in an instant if they think you're a liability or there's a better cause.


Eh?
Shows you arent in this country mate, we arent allowed to mention tory party above the border. damn now they'll be queued up outside my house with the burning torches and the pitchforks because I mentioned them.

Pitchforks...now they're a lot more dangerous than swords.

Of course the worry is that if we stand up, holding a sword and say 'From my cold dead figners' we become identified with those nutters over the pond.

Or maybe we are. After all, do we really need live weapons? we could train without them really couldnt we? It wouldnt be the same though. And no matter how long Ive asked for one, no one has made me a rubber version of a balisong.

[Slindsay]

At first I agreed witht he people saying what a ridiculous law this is but then I realised that if in twenty years time it saves just one life it will be worth it. We can still practice with imitation weapons and to be honest we should probably all get "walking sticks" and put in some practice with them rather than swords, far more realistic a self defence weapon.

Nunchucks though are a different matter, they are not dangerous! How can anyone say nunchucks are dangerous, I own a pair of nunchucks and fun though they are can anyone explian how they are more dangerous than an 8 inch razor sharp kitchen knife in a bar brawl?

[Lithanwif]

I think the point they have there is that the knife is a tool and has another, original purpose.
Nunchuks are nunchuks and are designed for wopping peeps. No matter how many 'acrobats' there are

[aikiMac]

At first I agreed witht he people saying what a ridiculous law this is but then I realised that if in twenty years time it saves just one life it will be worth it.
Does this rule apply also to foods that cause heart disease? :confused:

[Stephen Hand]

At first I agreed witht he people saying what a ridiculous law this is but then I realised that if in twenty years time it saves just one life it will be worth it.

What utter rot! This law is based on a completely fallacious argument, that it is possible to make the streets safe by banning weapons. It is impossible to ban non-ballistic weapons. I can drive a handful of six inch nails through the end of a baseball bat and in ten minutes make a weapon far more dangerous than any sword. But I'm sure the victim's last words as they're being bludgeoned to death with a a nail studded bat will be "well at least it wasn't a sword". If people want to kill or injure they will. Banning weapons causes method substitution. For example as Australian weapon laws get tighter, more people are killed using common household implements like kitchen knives, chisels and hammers. Politicians will not face the real issues and look at why people violently attack others.

So, on the basis of an obviously flawed argument you are prepared to give up a fundamental right. You are prepared to allow martial artists to lose their swords, fencers to lose theirs, re-enactors, highland dancers, theatres etc. etc. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK who use swords every week, and none of them hurt people. But the rights of this multitude to go about their businesses and hobbies means nothing compared with the rights of a victim to be killed with a hatchet or a baseball bat because the villain couldn't buy a sword. As Benjamin Franklin said in the 18th century, those who give up their freedoms in order to be safe deserve to be slaves.

If it was likely to save even one life, you might be able to make a case for banning swords, however flawed and however fundamentally unfair. But the irony is that there are people who want to take away my liveliehood and the liveliehoods and hobbies of hundreds of thousands of people, waste millions of dollars of taxpayer's money and thousands of hours of police time that could be spent fighting crime, and for what? so that the next villain who decides to murder someone has to go down to the hardware shop and buy a hatchet rather than a sword. This is a sad joke, and the fact that martial artists could be fooled into thinking there's any legitimacy in this awful law is even sadder.

[adouglasmhor]

as well as what Steven said above, there are no border controls within the UK so when some wee ned goes to Blackpool for a rave with his mates, guess what they will buy to bring back, so bad guys will still get swords.

[Johnno]

Parents first and always and continuously.
At the same time, parents should be influencing the actions and programs of government. The government is not a separate "thing." It is a group of people. Let's treat it as such. There is no possible way that that group of people called the government knows more about my life than my family, my neighbors, my friends, and I know about my life. Consequently, the government should not be taking control.

The government is the executive formed from society's elected representatives. In simple societies group concensus set the rules, but in complex societies we need some form of government. The alternative is anarchy.

So it is the government who sets the rules. On everything.

I agree with you that it is parents who should be teaching their children responsibility. But if they don't do that effectively, then since the government has set the rules about what is acceptable behaviour and what sanctions society will impose on those who break its rules, then the courts will enforce those sanctions and the offender will be punished according to the law.

No-one in the government needs to know the first thing about your life. The rules are set down for every member of society. We may disagree with some of those rules, but if we break them then can expect to be punished (assuming we are caught!) If we don't like the rules then the only way to get them changed is through our elected representatives.

[Slindsay]

Does this rule apply also to foods that cause heart disease? :confused:

Not sure I follow your reasoning, swords are used to commit illegal actions on people against there will, fatty foods are an individuals own chopice and to be honest I would rather eat fatty foods than get hit with a sword.

So, on the basis of an obviously flawed argument you are prepared to give up a fundamental right. You are prepared to allow martial artists to lose their swords, fencers to lose theirs, re-enactors, highland dancers, theatres etc. etc. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK who use swords every week, and none of them hurt people. But the rights of this multitude to go about their businesses and hobbies means nothing compared with the rights of a victim to be killed with a hatchet or a baseball bat because the villain couldn't buy a sword. As Benjamin Franklin said in the 18th century, those who give up their freedoms in order to be safe deserve to be slaves.

My point is what does it matter if we have sharp swords or not? We can use replica swords made out or materials that cant hold a sharp edge, I am sure it is no challenge at all to do this and what does it matter? I dont ever plan on using a sword to cut anything so I dont really care if my sword would be a real blade or just a replica.

Anyway I did say that "if" it saved one life in twenty years it would be worthwhile, it may not do that, I dont know, all I know is that the value to me of owning a genuine sharp sword rather than a blunt replica isnt that great plus the only point in having a sharp sword is to hurt people.

[Stolenbjorn]

Hmm, this is about to be turned into another "should guns be outlawed"-thread...

From a cynical point of wiew, you could hail the law welcome and then break it by keeping/getting a swords for yourself. Since you know that you'll not use it against anyone, you can have it with a clean concience, while knowing that the criminals won't have them. Stupid, you say? Well if the police in Scotland is like the police in Norway, they're constantly harassing and monitoring criminal miljeus, and as long as you're not part of a street gang or a drug-lega the odds are pretty high that you'll be having your illegal and banned swords left in peace.

A norwegian weapons collector enthusiast had 1year ago his illegal IIWW 47mm soviet AT-gun confiscated. The police never knew that he had one (and even fired self made ammo with it!), until he was so stupid as to sell a pistol to a criminal MC-gang. That brought the police's attention and then it was game over.

[Cudgel]

My point is what does it matter if we have sharp swords or not? We can use replica swords made out or materials that cant hold a sharp edge, I am sure it is no challenge at all to do this and what does it matter? I dont ever plan on using a sword to cut anything so I dont really care if my sword would be a real blade or just a replica.



A purpose built blunt cna still cause tremendous tissuse damge
A a reenactment schalger can still stab trhough someone even though they are made to give on the thrust as can a practice rapier or even an epee
an aliminium blunt can still cause a lot of damge
a waster could still brake bones and casue death
even a shinai used by several reencatment and WMA groups as well as Kendo can break bones and kill and its made to give when striking.
A padded swords made to where it couldnt possibly cause injury would be un realistic in its characteristics as to be worthless as a training tool.

just because a sword i not sharp does not mean it wont cut or crush or maim or thrust. It is a weapon.

[Stephen Hand]

My point is what does it matter if we have sharp swords or not? We can use replica swords made out or materials that cant hold a sharp edge, I am sure it is no challenge at all to do this and what does it matter? I dont ever plan on using a sword to cut anything so I dont really care if my sword would be a real blade or just a replica.

Anyway I did say that "if" it saved one life in twenty years it would be worthwhile, it may not do that, I dont know, all I know is that the value to me of owning a genuine sharp sword rather than a blunt replica isnt that great plus the only point in having a sharp sword is to hurt people.

It doesn't affect you, so to hell with everyone else. Well gee thanks pal.

You cannot make a replica sword that functions remotely like an original sword out of any material that can't hold an edge. I can put an edge on any of my replicas in ten minutes. But hey, I can put an edge on a billet of spring steel in the same time. In fact I can make a functional (albeit dreadful) sharp sword with a length of spring steel and an angle grinder in about twenty minutes. You cannot ban swords the way you ban guns, because any vaguely competent home handyman can make a sword. Any clown with a hammer and nails can make something more dangerous than a sword by driving nails through the head of a baseball bat. You cannot stop people from getting hold of lethal non-ballistic weapons. Lethal non-ballistic weapons are stone age technology!

This is bad law, put up by people who refuse to address the real issue, which is that a significant number of people in some jurisdictions feel the need to hurt other people. So rather than address the problem at its roots the politicians propose a law that will adversely affect hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens, not save one life and not inconvenience criminals one bit. This is Yes Minister in action.

[aikiMac]

I agree with you that it is parents who should be teaching their children responsibility. But if they don't do that effectively, then since the government has set the rules about what is acceptable behaviour and what sanctions society will impose on those who break its rules, ...
This argument works if the government workers are of a different species, or even a different breed, from the rest of us. If they have different blood than the parents in my state/country/wherever, then sure, I could believe that they would be thinking different thoughts than the parents. But, alternatively, if the government workers are no different than the parents, then how can it be said that they think better thoughts?


Not sure I follow your reasoning, swords are used to commit illegal actions on people against there will, fatty foods are an individuals own chopice and to be honest I would rather eat fatty foods than get hit with a sword.
It's very simple when you think it through. Put your thinking cap on and play with me here. Ready?

Slind's test: If it saves one life, it's worth it.
That's the test. Let's use it!

Some foods are bad for health. Over time they kill. "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Not eating those foods will save a life. Therefore, outlaw the food.
1+1 = 2. Very simple.

Cars kill. "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Banning cars will save lives. Do it. 1+1 = 2. It's simple.

Household cleansers are poisons. Children eat them and die. "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Make all household cleansers illegal. Woo ooo, this is fun!

Children drown in swimming pools. "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Ban all swimming pools. 1 + 1 = 2.

Hey, this is easy! I'm beginning to like it! I bet that I can think of more things that must, necessarily, absolutely, without question, must must MUST be banned under your test!

[Rob Lovett]

Ban giving birth - as people can die in childbirth. In fact ban sex as people die during sex as well. This way there will be no one to make any daft laws.

[Cudgel]

ban Dihydrogen Monoxide while we are at it
Every day countless people die to Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure as
Or Isopropylanhol its can cause blindness yet is sold over the counter
Or Oleanders, potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco the foliage of these plants is deadly, and yet three of them are grown in countless house holds with small children.

[Stolenbjorn]

I'm sorry for you lot living in Scotland :cry:

Your arguments are fun enough, but arguments like that will only be snuffed at by the ones you need to sway. What you need is to hire lobbyists and equip them with "reasonable" arguments so that the enevitable law won't hurt "law abiding citicens" when it comes.

You should ask the politicians:
Will theatres be allowed to have swords?
Will collectors be allowed to have swords?
Will re-enactment groups be allowed to have swords?
Will martial art-club-members be allowed to have swords?

If you manage a compromise where the sword is a privilidge that you can own after meeting some requirements, it's still better than loosing the entire battle?(-wich you will do by dismissing the ones with the power as morones.)

It's time to unite with the shakespeerers, the viking reenacters, the collectors and the Hai-FU-KO'ists
UNITE!!!! :Angel:

[Slindsay]

It doesn't affect you, so to hell with everyone else. Well gee thanks pal.

Im curious to know what exactly you where planning on slicing up with your sword?

You cannot make a replica sword that functions remotely like an original sword out of any material that can't hold an edge. I can put an edge on any of my replicas in ten minutes. But hey, I can put an edge on a billet of spring steel in the same time. In fact I can make a functional (albeit dreadful) sharp sword with a length of spring steel and an angle grinder in about twenty minutes. You cannot ban swords the way you ban guns, because any vaguely competent home handyman can make a sword. Any clown with a hammer and nails can make something more dangerous than a sword by driving nails through the head of a baseball bat. You cannot stop people from getting hold of lethal non-ballistic weapons. Lethal non-ballistic weapons are stone age technology!

Agreed, but the point is that if someone is found going around to another persons house with a large sharpo sword the police dont really have anything they can do about that at the moment however in the future if people where carrying such things the police could arrest them. Hell justr make people have a permit for owning swords the same a shotgun owners and make them note down the plavce they would store the sword and the place they would use the sword, i.e. kept at home, used at local sports centre for kendo trainning or whatever.

This is bad law, put up by people who refuse to address the real issue, which is that a significant number of people in some jurisdictions feel the need to hurt other people. So rather than address the problem at its roots the politicians propose a law that will adversely affect hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens, not save one life and not inconvenience criminals one bit. This is Yes Minister in action.

I agree that the law is being put into affect as a knee jerk reacyion, I think that the problems with it havent been well thought out and I wouldnt vote for it but I am saying that there are some positive aspects to it which you choose to completely ignore.

Slind's test: If it saves one life, it's worth it.
Not that we are taking this ever so slightly out of context here at all. My comment was that If banningsharp swords saves justn one life it is worth it, how many lives would it cost each year to not have them?

How many homeowners wouldnt be able to grab there sharp swords to defend their homes against viscious intruders, how many people would be unable to carrry on and commit suicide due to not being able to use sharp swords, errm, at a guese none.

Whereas the examples you give below have ever so slightly greater benefits associated with them.

Some foods are bad for health. Over time they kill. "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Not eating those foods will save a life. Therefore, outlaw the food.
1+1 = 2. Very simple.
I think the key word here is over time, like over twenty years, now I'm not an expert in the area of health (though some day i want to be) but as far as I am aware getting hit by a sgharp sword tends to cause death over a significantly shorter space of time.

Cars kill. "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Banning cars will save lives. Do it. 1+1 = 2. It's simple.
No Im actually just in favour of banning under 25's from driving, yes that does include me even though I know I am fit with a car. I dont care, toi would save a lot of lives. And before anyone asks at home I live in the middle of nowhere, I wouldnt be able to get to my nearest village without an hours walk without my car.

Household cleansers are poisons. Children eat them and die. "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Make all household cleansers illegal. Woo ooo, this is fun!

How hard is it to make safer household cleaners? Not that hard, there are plenty of safe types of cleaner out there.

Children drown in swimming pools. "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Ban all swimming pools. 1 + 1 = 2.

Never mind the number of lives it saves each year having childeren that know how to swim and ignore the number of people who keep themselves healthy and live longer through swimming.


just because a sword i not sharp does not mean it wont cut or crush or maim or thrust. It is a weapon.

To be honest I would still prefer to fight someone with a blunt weapon than a sharp one, thats probably just me though...

And for everyone else that also decided to take the comment "If it saves one life its worth it" out of context: Thankyou very much, your capacity to be sensible and add to the deabte leaves me awestruck. :bang:

[adouglasmhor]

Agreed, but the point is that if someone is found going around to another persons house with a large sharpo sword the police dont really have anything they can do about that at the moment however in the future if people where carrying such things the police could arrest them. Hell justr make people have a permit for owning swords the same a shotgun owners and make them note down the plavce they would store the sword and the place they would use the sword, i.e. kept at home, used at local sports centre for kendo trainning or whatever.
:
Local sports centres do not have facilities to store swords and the Police can already arrest someone who is carrying a knife or sword for no good reason in a PUBLIC PLACE (called the offensive weapons laws and they have been about for quite some time.), ie. going to practice for swords (they have to be wrapped/covered etc, fishing/camping in the case of knives etc. Stop making things up or making wild assumptions and stick to facts.

Offensive weapons Act Scotland 1996 (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996026.htm)

[Slindsay]

Taken from that report you mean the following are good reasons o be carrying a sword or am I just reading it wrong:
(a) for use at work,
(b) for educational purposes,
(c) for religious reasons, or
(d) as part of any national costume.

[aikiMac]

Ban giving birth - as people can die in childbirth. In fact ban sex as people die during sex as well. This way there will be no one to make any daft laws.
Now you're talking! Right on, my man! This is fun!

Slindsay, you're still missing the point. You should amend and then clearly restate your amended test. The way you have stated your test thusfar ("if it saves one life it's worth it") is utterly unworkable as demonstrated above. All you're doing now is contradicting your own test.

[adouglasmhor]

Taken from that report you mean the following are good reasons o be carrying a sword or am I just reading it wrong:
(a) for use at work,
(b) for educational purposes,
(c) for religious reasons, or
(d) as part of any national costume.
yes, educational includes training at a dojo, kwoon or elsewhere. So your assertation that the police could do nothing about someone carying a sword to someones house is false. And for religious reasons the new law will have no effect. The Scotish toytown parliament has no power to take away rights to religious freedoms. It is not a report it is the letter of the law.

[Stolenbjorn]

Start a swordcult, then!
In norway, all you need is 5000 members to start a new religious movement. Go for it! :Angel:

[Stephen Hand]

Im curious to know what exactly you where planning on slicing up with your sword?

Plastic bottles full of water, tatami mats, all the standard stuff you use for test cutting. How else do you check if you have correct cutting form?

the point is that if someone is found going around to another persons house with a large sharpo sword the police dont really have anything they can do about that at the moment

Wrong. In any sensible jurisdiction police have powers to arrest people using any implement as an offensive weapon. This is so in Scotland as others have posted. In the Australian state of Victoria which recently banned swords (while exempting hundreds of thousands of people - thus creating a bureaucratic nightmare for sword owners, public servants and police) they had a perfectly sensible law on the books where swords were classed as controlled weapons. That is, if a policeman saw you with one he could inquire why you had it and if not satisfied with your answer could run you in. The penalties for carrying a controlled weapon without reasonable excuse were quite steep. This law made the antisocial use of sword a criminal offence and affected legitimate sword users not one iota. So now we have a situation where it is no more illegal to use a sword for nefarious purposes than it was before, but legitimate law abiding citizens are forced to carry paperwork with them to avoid being arrested for going about their hobbies. The police admit that the law is an unworkable farce, as did Customs when I was stopped while going through Melbourne Airport a few weeks ago.

It is possible to draft good law that targets individual behaviour, or it is possible to draft bad law, that targets hundreds of thousands of innocent people in an attempt to prevent a handful of individuals from committing a crime. I had always assumed that one of the cornerstones of western law was the assumption of innocence. However laws are increasingly being framed on the assumption of guilt. Better to penalise everyone than to miss the guilty. That's fundamentally opposed to the entire western legal system.

Laws should be created on the assumption that adults are responsible for their lives and that they can be trusted to make their own choices. Increasingly laws assume that we are little children who need to be packed in cotton wool lest we take a risk and ...shock!! hurt ourselves!!!! And people like you SLindsay are helping them. If you're a poor petal who needs a nice man from the government to hold his hand then so be it, but don't force the rest of us ADULTS to give up our hard fought for rights to fuel you own insecurities. I am responsible for my life, not the government and moves to take away my rights are an attack on me and on the very basis of western democracy. It's taken thousands of years to build up the rights we enjoy in western society and now we seem hell bent on surrendering them because we're a bit afraid we might get hurt. That's just pathetic. It revolts me that people could be such gutless cowards as to give away their freedoms for a bit of (illusory) safety.

[adouglasmhor]

What Steven Hand just said encapsulated the points I wished to make better than I would have. I would also add that Jack McConnel is giving people in Scotland less rights than others in the UK with this legislation, surely the opposite of what was lauded about devolution (I was opposed to it anyway, one more layer of Government and Bureaucracy, another talking shop).