Summary Of Responses On Adding Further Weapons To The Offensive Weapons Order
- Thread starter Seoras
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Our (my) willingness to hang out in the woods with a small fire and an axe for company, would in no way endanger the general population, nor would our camp be in any way used to attack another person. A sword will always present a real danger to others, whereas a desire to camp does not. You are comparing apples and stone.
Whilst the comparison of "sword to camp" might be unfair, I think the comparison of sword to axe is probably a fair one. Indeed whatever idiot currently buys a "reproduction sword" for the purposes of creating mayhem is IMHO, quite likely to buy a "reproduction battle axe" (like those sold by Gransfors Bruks) if he can't buy a sword.
This does NOT mean I think axes should be banned. It means that I believe a fool who is bent on violence will always find a tool with which to commit that violence - be it sword, axe, knife, gun or baseball bat. BAnning each in turn will merely inconvenience the law abiding and cause those bent on violence to simply select another weapon.
Red
This does NOT mean I think axes should be banned. It means that I believe a fool who is bent on violence will always find a tool with which to commit that violence - be it sword, axe, knife, gun or baseball bat. BAnning each in turn will merely inconvenience the law abiding and cause those bent on violence to simply select another weapon.
Red
this just keeps going in circles its not the sword its the banning,swords do nothing for me personally, but i have no problem with some one who wants one to put one on the wall, mantelpiece, window sill wherever, and as for your axe or tomahawk that you take to the woods, that can present a real danger to others,and could be used in the same way to endanger the general population, its not whats in your hand but whats in your mind
bernie
In the last 10 years I have been attacked with a tyre iron, a baseball bat, a clothes rack (full of stolen jackets) and a stale french loaf, people will use anything to hand, you can not prevent it, banning swords will not stop people "going off on one". However to me it is an indicator that some people obsess too much about collecting weapons, be it butterfly knifes, axes or swords.
Sadly, it is impossible to distinguish the wrong type of person, from the right type, until they go off on one
Scots_Charles_River
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
why?
Do you think it is an attempt to prevent the people from rising up and overthrowing the government?
Or just a ploy to preserve the lives of others. Or more realistically its a knee-jerk reaction to the popular press.
The best way to review these types of legislation with the facts. Banning handguns did not reduce handgun crime.Toughening up the knife carry laws did not reduce knife crime or injuries and deaths from knives.
So banning swords will reduce sword crime?
The definition of stupidity is "doing the same thing again and again and expecting the outcome to be different".
If people want to ban swords becuase they don't like them or don't think people should be allowed to own them, fine. However please, don't pretend thats will reduce crime - the facts say it will have no effect at best and actually increase crime at the worst. Unless someone can illustrate how this legislation is different from all the previous failed legislation that merely hurt the law abiding, then face the true facts.All this will do is inconvenience the law abiding majority.
Red
So banning swords will reduce sword crime?
The definition of stupidity is "doing the same thing again and again and expecting the outcome to be different".
If people want to ban swords becuase they don't like them or don't think people should be allowed to own them, fine. However please, don't pretend thats will reduce crime - the facts say it will have no effect at best and actually increase crime at the worst. Unless someone can illustrate how this legislation is different from all the previous failed legislation that merely hurt the law abiding, then face the true facts.All this will do is inconvenience the law abiding majority.
Red
This has nothing to do with swords. It has nothing to do with reducing crime. It has nothing to do with anything other than being a political bandwagon. We can argue in circles as much as we want, logic and the facts have nothing to do with this at all. In one of Vernons other masterpieces he is proposing to put people in jail for three years if they take a photograph of something that is in itself entirely legal.
And, Dougster, I know you did, but you repeated the point so I thought it was worth repeating your own comment.
And, Dougster, I know you did, but you repeated the point so I thought it was worth repeating your own comment.
we do not need axes in general circulation you do not need a wood burner
and if you do you can easilly get pre cut wood
this could be suppyed buy a licenced wood supplier who is allowed to have sharps etc
therefor negating general population needing the
the same can be said for food you can easily buy all you need either pre made meals or pre cut food even pre grated Cheese in the super market thus you have no need of chefs Sharps at home they will be made and preped in licenced food Factories
same goes for all tools like chisels etc you could have it illegal unless a licenced police checked profesional this would of course stop all DIY but hey its for the saftey of the public
all the above could happen and society would still function
the argumnet of its a tool can be removed fron the public YOU dont need to have any of them but society does so we can restrict all of them.
ATB
Duncan
and if you do you can easilly get pre cut wood
this could be suppyed buy a licenced wood supplier who is allowed to have sharps etc
therefor negating general population needing the
the same can be said for food you can easily buy all you need either pre made meals or pre cut food even pre grated Cheese in the super market thus you have no need of chefs Sharps at home they will be made and preped in licenced food Factories
same goes for all tools like chisels etc you could have it illegal unless a licenced police checked profesional this would of course stop all DIY but hey its for the saftey of the public
all the above could happen and society would still function
the argumnet of its a tool can be removed fron the public YOU dont need to have any of them but society does so we can restrict all of them.
ATB
Duncan
So you can be trusted to sit in the woods with an axe but I can't be trusted to sit here with my 2000 year old iron age sword, just because it is a sword and therefore a 'real' danger to the population...?
The consensus here that axes are mere tools and relatively harmless is an odd one- i think there was a teenager in Liverpool who thought otherwise earlier in the year..
Mad axe murderers get that name for a reason...And as a mortician of many years standing, I can concur that kitchen knives are by far the stabbing 'weapons' of choice.
Exactly the point. Logic has no place in this argument and never did. Outside of the logic that its a efficient way to enforce an unpopular piece of legislation. No other purpose whatever.
Cheers
Nick
So you can be trusted to sit in the woods with an axe but I can't be trusted to sit here with my 2000 year old iron age sword, just because it is a sword and therefore a 'real' danger to the population...?
The consensus here that axes are mere tools and relatively harmless is an odd one- i think there was a teenager in Liverpool who thought otherwise earlier in the year..
And as a mortician of many years standing, I can concur that kitchen knives are by far the stabbing 'weapons' of choice.
I'm sure most preople here would agree that the majority of violent crimes are commited with kitchen knives, pocket knives, stanley knives and bottles but the arguement is that they are everyday items with a usefull application.
You and I both understand the aesthetic pleasure of having a well engineered, carefully made sword hung on the wall for all to admire but the average politician or copper doesn't.
Tell them that an axe is a tool that is used for its intended purpose way more than it is abused and they will agree. But they will fail to understand the same arguement for swords.
Unfortunately we are deeply in the minority with this one and the majority in a democratic society will prevail. And people are kidding themselves if they think a public vote would return results in favour of overturning the ban.
My father is an average middle-class guy and he thinks that banning swords will save lives. So does his wife and probably all of their friends.
If I knew for certain that banning them would save even one life then I'd be right behind it, as I'm sure most members here would be. But unfortunately that just isn't the case.
My housemate saw me packing my Mora before heading off to the bushmoot last year and genuinely thought I was taking it for self defence.
From what I understand she is pretty much representative of the vast majority of the public.
Try convincing them a knife - nevermind a sword - has a genuine non-violent use and they'll look at you like you just stamped on a kitten.
You and I both know what the truth of the matter is but so long as the majority consists of people like her, we're always gonna lose. No matter how many petitions we sign or angry emails we send or rambling threads we post up on sites like this.
I think we've gone a long way away from the FACTS of the survey.....
Only 274 people were consulted, and 85% of them were AGAINST any ban....
Nuff said..
Only 274 people were consulted, and 85% of them were AGAINST any ban....
Nuff said..
If only Vernon saw it like that I'd agree with you, but it's a proven fact that only the opinions of certain organisations are taken into account - such as the police. The opinions of the general public tend to be ignored, largely because they aren't considered impartial. If all the police organisations were in the 15% then expect to see it move forward.
Like Canute?
Like the socilogist who think's if I jump off this building (or rather persuade every one else to) then the laws of gravity will change
And then we'll all be equal I mean, like that tory widdercomb was on telly while I was painting up a chair, she was down peckham on the estates with the hoody's. And basically its the same sad story, they persist ad nauseum to think the way to sort it is SPEND SPEND SPEND more tax funded stunt's as the way that things will change, and that if your from a poor place your automatically doomed to fail unless mr sociologist grants you cash money; some folk's still persist with that smash windows with guinea's mentality, when they gonna wake up and see it is a fallacy? And its the same with laws, judicial policy, social policy etc. The new establishment just point blank will NOT ADMIT that the experiment's started back in the 60's by Jenkin's/Castle/Crosland/Longford et al in the realm's of law, sociology, education etc have been a dismal failure. Isn't stupidity also flogging an imaginary horse, that never lived, and expecting it to walk
They utopianley imagined that people are intinsically good, and that if the state had more reach and influence that life would magically get better and egalitarian So they made drastic changes which reverberate still even today. They agressively promoted the idea that criminals were victims of economic misfortune, and not really responsible for there action's especially if they were "poor". This fundemental flaw is what underlies all the social policy we have had since the 60's. Personal rsponsibility has been usurped by ponsey PC state authority. What ever happened to knowing the difference betwen right and wrong instad of the moral relitivism we are told we have to live by now? Thieving/killing etc isnt wrong to some folk, rather a pastime or occupation with (increasingly) minimal risk's attached. So if something starts to go wrong (eg gun attacks or sword attack's) well for starter's it definately isnt our social policy thats at fault, so it must be because these people have these awful anti social weapon's, so we reserve the right to disarm them as we are far better qualified to act as moral adviser. We are from good homes, and we have a degree, and we are cultured and well informed, our researcher's have conducted studies (EG like the one that propmted this thread). If you challenge or question the relentless march of this "progressive" social revolution your a dissident, in fact you will be next in line for proscriptive (discriminatory) actions from the state. People are corrupt, human nature is a nasty thing ( at least without the intervention of being taught right from wrong, and firm discipline that is) Until someone in govt realises this, they'll keep repeating the stupidity cycle of "interfere and legislate" in a discriminatory fashion, keep moolly coddling criminal's (and demonizing law abiding folk) until something somewhere gives. Apologies to all if my post isnt beautifully written its what you say that counts, not wether its "properly" written. Any way who says what proper writing is or should be, in olden days they didnt have standardised writing, they spelt things different all the tyme
I did not say perfect sword, I said perfect cutting weapon, because of its design, which is obvously replecated into the cheap knock offs. You can get other swords, (cavalry sabres of certain types) that have the same design features, but are not sold for about £100 or less online. More importantly, every wannbe nutter, who has ever watched a Quentin Tarrentino movie does not want one.
It is going to be very interesting to see how this develops, for example is a WWII sword, geniune or knock off?
Similar threads
