BF2S Forums Ban on samurai swords becomes law

Braddock wrote:

doug1988 wrote:

Might as well ban: bats. golf clubs. meat hatchets.knives longer than 3".hunting guns.ugly women j/k. point I'm trying to make is that anyone can kill anyone with just about anything. 

Yeah, but it makes it a bit more difficult to kill each other if you're restricted to things like cricket bats and whatnot instead of samurai swords and M16 assault rifles.

Because every gun owner in Texas has M16's coming out of his ears.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

doug1988 wrote:

Might as well ban: bats. golf clubs. meat hatchets.knives longer than 3".hunting guns.ugly women j/k. point I'm trying to make is that anyone can kill anyone with just about anything. 

Yeah, but it makes it a bit more difficult to kill each other if you're restricted to things like cricket bats and whatnot instead of samurai swords and M16 assault rifles.

Because every gun owner in Texas has M16's coming out of his ears.

I'd rather be killed by an M16 than a baseball bat, honestly.

RAIMIUS wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

...guilty until proven innocent

No. The whole concept behind the ban is that samurai swords are dangerous weapons, thus should be restricted to sale for collectors and enthusiasts only.

What hole in this plan do you see?

I'll take one of my friends for example (as he is big into martial arts/swords).  He want's to buy a decent sized collection, but buying true katanas is very much beyond his budget.  I guess he is out of luck, eh?

Background checks, you have to pay to aquire a licence. Proof of mental stability. Probably have to have a collection of other antiques.

=guilty until proven innocent
Need I repeat myself?

B.Schuss wrote:

It is the state's responsibility to draw up legaislation that protects its citizens...And let's be honest here, most of that legislation is being put into effect, because we know that people have a certain tendency to behave badly, and do cruel things, and therefore need to be protected from each other.

B.Schuss wrote:

Humans simply cannot be trusted. We give in to impulses, we behave illogically, we let our emotions get the best of us. Usually, the end result is bad.

That's pretty much my point.  Europeans and many Americans have a fundamentally different philosophy about the purpose and aim of laws.  In Europe, it is to protect the population (often from themselves) because the government knows best.  In America, many believe that the government should ONLY act to prevent the elimination of liberties (usually the ones by Locke and those enumerated in the Constitution).  America takes a more Laissez-Faire approach to government.

well, Ray, considering how violent the US as a society is, and how many people die there each year as the result of the huge number of firearms in circulation, I'd say we got the better end of the deal.

And btw, your argument is somewhat flawed I think. There are tons of laws in the US that have nothing to do with the protection of liberties, but
look at society in just the same way as laws in europe do.
In some areas, the legislation in the US is even stricter than in Europe, for example with regard to alcohol, or dope.

And if firearms hadn't played such a big role in your history, and wouldn't be as embedded in your culture as they are, I bet my ass that restrictions on gun ownership in the US would resemble those in Europe today.

From my point of view, the main difference between the US and Europe in that regard is simply that the US have taken liberalism a step too far.
Humans can only be trusted up to certain point. Personal freedom, and self responsibility are great things, but at some point, the people need to be protected from the wrongdoings of their fellow citizens.

edit: it seems some parts of the US government aren't holding personal freedoms in such a high regard after all....

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=98939

S.Lythberg wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Yeah, but it makes it a bit more difficult to kill each other if you're restricted to things like cricket bats and whatnot instead of samurai swords and M16 assault rifles.

Because every gun owner in Texas has M16's coming out of his ears.

I'd rather be killed by an M16 than a baseball bat, honestly.

If you came at me with a baseball bat there's a very good chance I'd get that bat off you, i might get a few bruises and maybe even a broken bone if I'm unlucky but I'd be confident off getting it off you...if you came at me with an M16...well, it's game over really, isn't it?

TheAussieReaper wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Background checks, you have to pay to aquire a licence. Proof of mental stability. Probably have to have a collection of other antiques.

=guilty until proven innocent
Need I repeat myself?

No, this does not equal guilty until proven inncocent. You have background checks for many things, for example if you wanted to become a teacher. There are very strict rules, including the check you haven't been in prison, incase the wanna be teacher is a child rapist. This is to protect you, not to limit your freedom to choose any job you feel like.

A background check is hardly an attack on your personal freedoms. But it is certainly a great way to stop those who are potentially or indeed are, dangerous.

Exactly...it's funny how a lot of people on this forum (I'm not necessarily saying RAIMIUS) post in one thread giving out about infringement on civil liberties and what they see as a guilty until proven innocent attitude in relation to weapons regulation and then post in another thread advocating stricter Governmental policing measures like ID cards, tracking chips and detention without trial citing that "if you're innocent you have nothing to complain or worry about"...a tad contradictory.

Background checks are just a common sense measure that can often help stop the wrong person acquiring the wrong job/sword/gun.

imortal wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

...The UK is no more likely to ban scissors as the US is to decide to allow civillians to purchase fissile material and ebola samples.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

UK docs say ban long kitchen knives
Medical journal report claims they serve no good purpose
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic … E_ID=44485

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

True, these are pointed knives, not scissors.  But lots of scissors are pointed too.  Once you start down a road or path, each successive step becomes easier, more reasonable, until you reach a place you never could have imagined yourself at before you began.

That's doctors who are calling for it not Government ministers...people have also been calling for people to stop using cars and hunting seals and invading Middle Eastern countries, hasn't made much difference though. I tell you what...when the Government propose a law to ban scissors I'll get my placard out and start complaining...deal?

Braddock wrote:

I tell you what...when the Government propose a law to ban scissors I'll get my placard out and start complaining...deal?

Ha, good luck trying to make a placard without scissors.

imortal wrote:

Braddock wrote:

imortal wrote:

Perhaps, perhaps not.

UK docs say ban long kitchen knives
Medical journal report claims they serve no good purpose
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic … E_ID=44485

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

True, these are pointed knives, not scissors.  But lots of scissors are pointed too.  Once you start down a road or path, each successive step becomes easier, more reasonable, until you reach a place you never could have imagined yourself at before you began.

That's doctors who are calling for it not Government ministers...people have also been calling for people to stop using cars and hunting seals and invading Middle Eastern countries, hasn't made much difference though. I tell you what...when the Government propose a law to ban scissors I'll get my placard out and start complaining...deal?

Yes, it was a call by doctors, not by the government.  But the sentiment and the idea is there.  There was even a study into changing the packaging of foodstuffs to allow for the removal of kitchen knives.   Ideas have to start somewhere.  My point was to show that the idea of banning everyday items just because they may be used in a violent manner is not as unthinkable in the UK as an earlier post was assuming.

Oh, and if you wait until they start banning scissors before you get out and argue the point, you may very well be too late.

I understand where you are going with the idea but I still personally think it's a bit too 'lowing-esque' in how you've extrapolated it to the point of everyday items being banned. I firmly believe common sense wouldn't allow such a situation to come to pass, the fact is samurai swords are weapons...they are not effective for slicing carrots or bread. A ban on such items is seen as a ban on weapons, a ban on a more everyday item such as scissors would be seen as a ban on an everyday item, an item that is useful in everyday scenarios and many people would not be happy with this.

Just because swords have been banned it does not mean us Europeans are on a path towards living in a society of soft padded walls and blunted corners...we have just made it more difficult to buy instruments of death, that is all. Thank you for your concern.

a sword possesses NO practical use, except attacking someone.

you can take that as a "professionals view".

or not...whatevers clever.

Does it really take 9 pages to come to the agreement that this ban is stupid?

imortal wrote:

Ok, seriously?  Not my concern- I do not live there.  My only concern is some of the people here I hold in somewhat less than esteemed position may take a look at Europe and think it may be a good idea here. 

I have been overextending myself trying to make too many points here, and some of them are being thrown back at me tangled up.

1. I question how effective the law will actually be in deterring or reducing viloent crime.  I was not aware of a rash in katana-related crimes.  If the goal is not to directly attempt to reduce crime, then I wonder at the motives for passing the law at all.

Crimes and attacks involving swords are actually very common in Scotland (possibly a hangover from the Celtic Highlander era! Who knows?) and they appear to be on the increase in other areas of Britain at the moment, there have even been a few notable attacks involving swords here in Ireland recently too. The thinking behind how the law will impact on the frequency of these types of attacks is quite simple...if it's more difficult to get your hands on these kind of weapons it will reduce the number of attacks taking place; no one is saying it will eradicate the problem completely, of course not, but it can only help decrease the number (such a law will not increase the number) and it's not like innocent members of the public were carrying around their own Samurai swords for self defence before now anyway.

imortal wrote:

2. I feel it is the attitudes and culture of the society, and not the availability of weapons, that determine the level of violence in a population.  It is not the presense of the weapons that make people attack and kill each other, although I will grant it makes the encounters more lethal.  I view it more important to look at and attempt to correct the underlying issues than to simply 'band-aid' over the issues by taking away the weapons.

Well a lot of people here in Europe would think that making it easy to legally acquire weapons would normalise attitudes towards the use of such weapons. Weapons are not a normal part of society here in Europe (I've never held a real gun in my hands before let alone fire one). If we are not displaying much responsibility as a society in the use of such weapons currently then all common sense would suggest the availability of even more weapons would only make matters worse, not better. A good all round solution would be to continue to restrict the sale of weapons AND increase education and respect in the handling of weapons.

imortal wrote:

3.  I wanted to demonstrate that there are ideas in the UK, that are there even if they have not made it into a law yet, that there SHOULD be a ban of more common, everyday items.  The concern I was trying to raise is that, for some people, the idea of what was a weapon or dangerous was a fluid one.

There will always be people arguing on one side or another of an argument, I'm sure there's probably even some prominent figures in the anti-gun lobby in the US. I wouldn't worry about such things to be honest, we apply a good deal of common sense and moderation to things here in Europe these days since Adolf and Joe have gone.

imortal wrote:

There are other points, but I am tired.  OH, and yes, they ban mustard gas and other items, such as privately owned nuclear warheads.  That is a silly point of comparison, about on the order of deciding you need a drivers permit for a skateboard, since it has four wheels.  You would have made more sense had you reigned in your attitude and limited it to Class III items.  They outlaw silencers and full auto weapons.  There are a LOT of regulations as to what you can own, but there have to be lines somewhere- even I aknowledge that.  My question is where they are drawing the line is an area I, personally, do not think is a good idea.

But it is Europe, so they can do what they want.

You make a good point about where lines are drawn on such matters, I think Europe and the US just have fundamental differences in their attitude to weapons and hence that is why it is mostly Americans in this thread who view this law as an infringement on personal liberties...the Europeans mostly seem in favour of it because it is line with our general attitude on the issue.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

all common sense would suggest the availability of even more weapons would only make matters worse, not better

This is true, IF the demographics of the users remain the same.  If criminals use something, and you give more criminals (and only more criminals) access to it, of course that logic would hold true.  However, when you make something more available to the general population, the demographics of the users change.  In the US, swords and knives are used in crimes, but there are vastly more people who do not commit crimes with them.  With that being the case, there are very few calls for restrictions on edged weapons and tools.  There is also a line of reasoning that if only criminals currently have a weapon/tool, giving the law-abiding citizens access to such a tool would provide a greater deterrence to criminals.  (This is part of the argument for concealed carry being legalized in "gun-free zones"...which is a hot topic among college students and education officials.)

I don't envisage a future full of businessmen going to work with samurai swords attached to their belts in case they get mugged anytime soon. I simply do not agree with the concept of giving the weapons to everyone to 'level the playing field' as it were, in countries like the US the homicide rates just don't sell that idea too well tbh. I know some countries like Switzerland go against this but I believe they have other societal factors at play.