Ban on samurai swords becomes law

I wasn't comparing state to state in the U.S. In a country where presumably every state ,no matter how strict liscensing is, a sane person can own a semi automatic weapon ( i believe in most if not all but say presumeably becasue obvisouly i'm not an expert on U.S. law) compared to the UK. Where there is less gun crime per capita. Of any sort legal holder or not.
Secondly unless you have border control at every state line then obvisouly it wouldn't matter much state to state anyway. As you said borders are porous to ciminals.
As for informing "the predators that the prey has no teeth." That's just not true.

From the wikipedia article "gun poitics in the uk"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

"In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[18] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[19] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[20] However, the definition of homicide varies between countries. In the US the FBI asks for all homicides to be listed as murder, while the police force in the UK follows the cases and changes the data as need. This has resulted in the appearance of a lower homicide rate in the UK.[21]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.[22] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[23]"


Anyway that wasn't what my main point was. It's more the right to "bare arms" and such from an american pro-weapon stand pont given my previous argument.On any weapon. Samurai swords or guns.Langenschwert,SteyrAUG and any body else with an opinion i'd like to hear it.

Thanks,
Jamie

P.S mods: Think this is sitll on topic since the thread is all about legality of ownership tec of weapons.......or at least i hope it is

 

Because when you have a difference of opinion with a particular government regarding what your rights actually are, being armed means you can do something about it. When you surrender your weapons, you surrender your options.

Had European Jews not been stripped of a means to defend themselves, they'd have been a lot harder to herd onto trains and into ghettos.

And fundamentally, as a basic human being, I think everyone is entitled to the ability to arm yourself for your own protection. There are simply certain things you don't ask for permission from a government to do. These are think your own thoughts and provide for the well being of your family.

 

If all the law abiding gun owners shot somebody, there wouldn't be anyone left.

Guns are used for crime just as money is used for crime. Guns are used for good just as money is used for good. The guns and the money have very little to do with good and bad.

Guns are used to both take and protect lives. The difference is the individual in question. One needs no better example than 9-11 to prove that violent and dangerous people cannot be disarmed. More than 3,000 people were killed by men armed with little more than box cutters. Had the passengers had a means to defend themselves and a willingness to do so...how many might have survived that day.

It is naive to believe a dangerous individual can be made safe by any manner of disarmament. It is foolish to believe that a criminal who will rob, rape and kill will be effected by gun laws in any way, shape or form. The only ones who will be disarmed are the "law abiding."

 

Young men will always not appreciate certain risks. They drive fast thinking accidents happen to others. The drink thinking "they" will always be in control. This is just a matter of being young enough to actually believe nothing bad can happen to you because it hasn't happened yet. But as you can't lock them in a rubber room until they are old enough to be wise you simply have to rely upon parents to do a good job. And as there is no way to guarantee that you know the mess we are usually in.

And weapons are neither romantic or dehumanizing. They are objects with no inherent good or evil. I know in the few instances I have had need of them I felt nothing along the lines of "feeling cool" or "feeling bad." I was only glad to have them at my disposal so a bad situation didn't become worse. Being armed in those instances meant I didn't have to trust my well being to those who were of dubious character. Which of course is why man has armed himself since before recorded history.

 

Criminal misuse is not sufficient justification to disarm free citizens any more than racial or communist rhetoric is sufficient justification to restrict free speech.

Only the "law abiding" will be disarmed by gun laws. Criminals will continue to get all the guns they need. Gun free schools zones tell a criminal nobody in that building is armed or has the means to resist.

Our country has drug laws, any criminal can get you all the drugs you want. Our country heavily regulates machine guns. Criminals have easier access to them than law abiding citizens. It is already illegal for a convicted felon to own ANY firearm. As they still get them without much difficulty, additional gun laws aren't going to change that.

The bottom line is not everybody is a good person. As a result good men should prepare for such occasion as when they might encounter such individuals and plan accordingly. This is why many practice martial arts and others are armed. We don't practice to fight in order to beat people up and we don't arm ourselves in order to shoot somebody. And just because somebody has fire insurance doesn't mean they plan on having a fire. But often things happen without your consent and it is good to have a plan.

 

God damn it! I knew this would happen, Im not getting involved in this one, just remember people guns dont kill people...americans do...no only kidding...its rappers...american rappers...no Im sorry...Ill be serious...no its bullets people...seriously...usually fired by american rappers...

RAVEN WING if you spot this post, PM me a new mail address I cannot reply to your email and you seem to have disabled PM's.

 

Thanks for the reply. Just a couple of things tho. As you can see form the stats in my previous posts the number of deaths from firearms (the people using which automaticly become criminals) is much lower in the U.K. precisely because of the stricter firearms laws.Of course criminals are always going ot be able to get guns but the ease with which they can get arms IS reduced depending on the laws of the counrty as shown by the comparrison of the U.S and U.K.

As for ciminal misuse firearms are completely different to expression/religous faith. If you ahve a situation (that you seem to your state) of people being allowed to carry arms either in their cars or on their person then outcome of an altercation is left to only one or both of the individuals. This is letterarly taking the law into your own hands. As for expression/faith granted you could argue this could cause civil unrest/suicide bombing etc but not without a chance for the state to intervene (in which cases the U.S. acts more like a socialist state with the "patriot act") It's the imedicay of gun crime that's the problem. for example:

(from thegreenamn.net)

in the US The Americans value their constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)

If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA."
backed up by this http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm

So if the U.S went to war with afghanistan because of the 11th of september and the number of poeple killed (that was the main factor) the by the same logic they should be going to war with themselves or atlesat their laws.

This number of deaths does not occour form any other "freedom" in "free" countries. That's another thing that makes baring arms different.

I'd rather walk around in a country where less gun crime happens.Less homicides from gun crime or not, instead of one where everyone COULD have a gun forcing me to carry one which in my book is living in fear.

The whole Jew/Nazi argument. It woldn't have mattered because the jews wouldn't have carried guns even if they coud have. (the majority of them anyway). Also that was a very exterme situation.

Thanks,
Jamie

 

I live in Glasgow the "knife capital of the UK".
However I tend to imagine a "nut case" walking into a high school with a knife and attempting to kill 16 students..not very likely but give him a gun.........Plus in a previous profession I had to stand before junkies and pushers and "convince" them to move on..Knifes were involved and I have the scars to prove it.If they had guns I would be dead. If I had a gun one or two of them and I would most likely be dead.

regards koyo

 

I have nothing against gun ownership as long as the owner falls into this category:-
- Professionally qualified in firearms.
- Holder of a permit and gone through a series of interviews to check they are not a nut ball.
- Registers all firearms and ballistic patterns with authority.
- Sign a declaration that if they misuse their firearm they are liable for the maximum penalty under the law.
- As a registered firearms licence holder in times of national emergency you could called for service.

This would mean that people who want to own firearms for personal defense are serious and qualified and not some hick with a boom fetish.

It would also provide a militia resource in times of national emergency.

The Bear.

 

Well again, criminal misuse is not sufficient justification to deny me what I consider a basic human right, especially when it is specifically addressed in a Constitution. The USSR controlled dissent much more effectively than the US by denying specific freedoms but I doubt you consider them justified. And the fact that you seem to consider freedoms of speech more valid than the freedom to arm yourself has little bearing on the fact that both are basic human rights, it is simply a matter of opinion. I don't own a newspaper so I personally don't value "freedoms of the press" to a high degree, but I would be a fool to say such rights aren't as valuable as all of my other rights. And the reason of course is these are "my rights" regardless of if I use them or not. And it isn't up to anyone else to decide which ones I get or don't get, they are the rights of every citizen.

The other problem of course is that in the end, crime is caused by criminals. It isn't caused by guns, swords or drugs. If you came home and found your children stabbed to death, you won't feel any better given the fact they weren't shot. And if you regulate criminals in the manner you seem to want to regulate guns, then there won't be a need to regulate guns.

This is not true. From personal experience I can tell you that I once had a confrontation where I was carrying a weapon. Got into a scuffle with a guy who was apparently off his meds with a SIG 226 on my hip under my jacket. I got control of him and arm barred him to the ground without ever thinking to use my firearm. This is because the situation was not one that dictated lethal force. Once on the ground I made him realize he should not bother me and be on his way, he never knew I had a gun.

Now lets' assume he had a knife and I shot him. This is NOT "taking the law into my own hands" this is protecting myself. Would you suggest I take a stabbing so the matter can go to trial? If my house is on fire and "I" put it out, is that me taking "firefighter matters" into my own hands? If a storekeeper catches a shoplifter is he taking the law into his own hands? Such notions that one must wait for the police when you are in danger is how you end up with a Nanny state that decides their children can't have swords.

It would be taking the law into my own hands if I went out looking for criminals trying to break into warehouses at night like Batman. But if I simply happen to be walking past those warehouses and stumble upon those criminals they present a threat to me, it is most certainly NOT taking the law into my own hands to defend myself. It is what every person should be allowed to do and prepared to do as best they can.

Seen those statistics before. What you don't know is those children are up to 21 years old and the vast majority are gang members. And more children than that are killed by drowning in swimming pools.

The "died at home" statistic is a blatant lie. More people died in 1945 than in any other year in human history. The fact that anyone is willing to believe it is simply sad.

Cars and doctors kill more people every year than guns.

California, NY, Illinois (Chicago) and DC have the highest muder rates, they also have the strictest gun control. if the law abiding citizens of those places had the ability to defend themselves, perhaps some of them would still be alive. Certainly gun control and police efforts aren't stopping it.

I suspect if you asked them once they were in the ghettos if they wanted to be armed, they would have. Certainly the "jews" of Israel have decided they shall be armed and will fight. Can you imagine why they think like that?

And of course it was an extreme situation. But extreme situation don't occur without the reasonable restrictions that always precede them. Hitler created an "extreme situation" in Germany but it all began with a little "reasonable restriction" after the Reichstag fire.

You give a little and they take a lot.

 

I'm curious... with that being your response... can you actually back that up with a credible citation?

 

And he could kill more if he chained the doors and burned down the building. But the problem remains the nutjob who would do such a thing and not chains and gasoline. In fact the worse school killing was NOT Columbine, and it happened long before gun control laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7-12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, who was upset by a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm. These events apparently provoked Kehoe to plan his attack.

 

Actually it seems I was wrong, some of those "children" were as old as 25.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4024.html

HB354: More Gun Control Addressing Non-Existent Problems

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson is attempting to bring big-city, liberal gun control to a town near you. HB354, written by Mayor Jackson’s law department, was introduced October 16, 2007 by Rep. Williams and Rep. Boyd. Proponents of this Bill scream the typical “It is for the children!” mantra while hoping no one reads it.

A reading of the Bill shows Mayor Jackson is up to his old gun-banning tricks. This Bill has nothing to do with addressing the non-existent problem of juveniles walking around with guns and everything to do with banning guns and holding gun owners liable for the criminal acts of third parties.

Let’s start by examining what this Bill allegedly does. When first announced, Mayor Jackson lamented “We need action now and we are asking for swift enactment of this legislation so that we can begin to take guns out of the hands of our children and make our community safer.”

Needless to say, we were shocked to find out that Cleveland apparently has a problem with “children” walking around with guns and the city is powerless to do anything about it. Confused, we immediately submitted the following Public Records Request:

1. Copies of the research conducted by Mayor Jackson’s staff, as referred to in the press release.

2. For 1/1/04-present, records of cases where persons under age 21 were caught “brandishing” firearms and were released without any criminal charges.

3. For 1/1/04-present, records of cases where persons under age 21 were caught with firearms incident to arrest or other investigation and did not face any firearm charges.

4. For 1/1/04-present, records of cases where persons under age 21 were caught with firearms incident to arrest or other investigation and did not face any criminal charges at all.

5. For 1/1/04-present, records of all cases where someone was caught with a firearm incident to arrest or other investigation and were released without any criminal charges.

To our surprise and dismay, seven weeks later Cleveland still has not produced a single instance of a need to take a gun out of the hands of a “child” where they were powerless to do so.

Examining the Press Release’s claims further, we note:

1. The Mayor’s “research” includes “children” up to the age of 25.

2. The Mayor’s “research” makes absolutely no distinction or categorization between guns lawfully acquired and guns unlawfully acquired.

Additionally...

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/09/01/more_gun_stats_debunked/

Tim Lambert takes on the myth that a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Actually, he takes on the sloppy coverage of that myth, which is a 1986 study by Dr. Kellerman. Not to defend the sloppy work of others, but I have heard this myth repeatedly from anti-gun groups worded the exact same way. Tim seems to have comments disabled on that post and the post doesn’t look complete, so I will post my $0.02 here.

The problem with Kellerman’s study is he compares self-protection gun deaths to other gun deaths, which discounts the self-protection that does not result in the death of someone. Depending on which research you believe, the number of defensive gun uses ranges from 83,000 per year to 3.6 million. The 83,000 comes from the US DOJ and is flawed because it only counts reported instances of defensive uses. Other numbers are dubious as well, but I’ll let Tim tell you all about the problems with Lott.

The Kellerman study is a useless piece of info that is devoid of comparative context. Tim, who is a bright guy, tends to go after studies that are pro-gun while claiming not to be anti-gun. Yet, he seems to give anti-gun studies a pass.



But what you are being asked to believe is this...

That ordinary gun owning Americans routinely leave loaded guns out on the breakfast table for their young children to find, play with and shoot themselves with. Do you really believe that?

The reality is places like crackhouses, which are full of guns, drugs and criminals also contain children, usually quite a few. And in such places children do on occasion access those guns and shoot themselves or others and are sometimes shot as a result of the gunfire that is often associated with such places.

Now this is NOT to say it NEVER happens. It certainly does, just not as often as anti gun statistics would have you believe. But to say it never happens would also be a lie. There will always be cases where someone is careless enough to leave a loaded gun on the top shelf of a closet thinking it is "safe and secure" and kids go exploring and the result is tragedy.

But those same kids will also drown in swimming pools, die from ingesting various substances under the sink, choke on small items, fall out of windows, chasing balls into traffic or all manner of accidents. But all of these things in the average household are thankfully very rare.

 

Well assuming the 'darwin' story of the american hunter who fixed the blown fuse on the headlights on his truck with a live bullet which subsequently cooked off and shot him in the nuts is true ... yes, I would place all of the above in the plausible 'I didnt think' category. Familiarity breeds complacency.

 

UK murder rate 2006 840
US murder rate 2006 17034

US population 300 million
UK population 60 million

300/60 = 5.
5 x 840 = 4200.1

17040/4200 = 4.0.

That's right this gun toting utopia has 4 times the murder rate of the UK. Sorry mate your arguments simply don't add up. Guns make it easier to kill people. More people with Guns more murders.

The Bear.

 

Well first you are assuming all those murders were done with guns.

How many were done with drugs, knives, cars or....swords?

Second, I won't even begin to suggest criminals don't kill people and often DO use guns. The part I don't understand is how taking MY guns away is going to lower the murder rate.

Maybe you can explain that one.

 

You got me there. If only they would ban trucks that idiot would still be alive.

As far as "familiarity breeds complacency" I tend to agree and for that reason think all cops should be disarmed immediately.

 

As I said earlier, I don't agree with a gun ban. I simply want those with firearms to be properly trained and have certain responsibilities placed on them.
I would take away your firearms because your attitude to firearms is unhealthy and your comments here lack a sense of empathy for fellow human beings.

The Bear.