Banning Swords in Scotland!!

Discussion in 'Western Martial Arts' started by Louie, Nov 24, 2004.

  1. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Does this rule apply also to foods that cause heart disease? :confused:
  2. Stephen Hand

    Stephen Hand New Member

    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.
  3. adouglasmhor

    adouglasmhor Not an Objectivist

    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.
  4. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    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.
  5. Slindsay

    Slindsay All violence is necessary

    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.

    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.
  6. Stolenbjorn

    Stolenbjorn Valued Member

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2004
  7. Cudgel

    Cudgel The name says it all

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2004
  8. Stephen Hand

    Stephen Hand New Member

    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.
  9. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    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?

    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!
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2004
  10. Rob Lovett

    Rob Lovett Valued Member

    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.
  11. Cudgel

    Cudgel The name says it all

    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.
  12. Stolenbjorn

    Stolenbjorn Valued Member

    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:
  13. Slindsay

    Slindsay All violence is necessary

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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:
  14. adouglasmhor

    adouglasmhor Not an Objectivist

    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
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2004
  15. Slindsay

    Slindsay All violence is necessary

    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.
  16. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    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.
  17. adouglasmhor

    adouglasmhor Not an Objectivist

    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.
  18. Stolenbjorn

    Stolenbjorn Valued Member

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

    Stephen Hand New Member

    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?

    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.
  20. adouglasmhor

    adouglasmhor Not an Objectivist

    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).

Share This Page