UK Home Office Consultation on Banning Offensive Weapons

  • 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.

-Switch-

Settler
Jan 16, 2006
845
4
43
Still stuck in Nothingtown...
If their definition of a 'samurai sword' is ''a long, curved sword with a sharpened edge'' and they don't state a minimum length, then all us kuhkri owners and collectors had better start worrying. :(

And if they do state a minimum length then what's to stop people making/ importing/ selling/ hiring/ lending 'samurai swords' that are 10mm shorter then the legal limit?


I really don't think they've thought this one through...
 

decorum

Full Member
May 2, 2007
5,064
12
Warwickshire
You're right Spiky, it is no joke.

I'm involved in the Scout Movement and I'm an NSRA qualified instructor (I've let my GNAS - archery- certification laspe due to health reasons). I know a bit about twangy sticks, I know a bit about poppy sticks and I even know a bit about sharp sticks. The look on a childs face (or an adults for that matter) when they find that you'll trust them with something potentiall harmful is only bettered by the look on their faces when they find that they're better at using it than they thought. The only type of censorship I'm totally against is abuse (of any kind) but some knives sold as 'camping, hunting, fishing knife' knives are fantasy knives. That's the thing about kit; The right stuff in the right place at the right time.
 

Snufkin

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Oct 13, 2004
2,097
138
53
Norfolk
The only thing that the UK ban on handguns achieved, was to deprive law abiding citizens with properly registered firearms, the pleasure of pistol shooting. Those who disregard the law, continue to use firearms to injure and kill their victims. The ban achieved little or nothing.

Best regards,
Paul.

To be fair, the banning of handguns and semi automatic rifles were knee jerk reactions to psycho numpty d'#kheads going postal, and had nothing to do with "gun crime".
And the bans have stopped psycho numptys from gunning down innocent townsfolk and school kids, so they have, in fact, achieved something. Could they have come up with a method of regulation that enabled responsible shooters to enjoy their passtimes? Probably. But polititions don't exist to be fair and thoughtful. They exist only to justify their own existence and get themselves re-elected.
 

Snufkin

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Oct 13, 2004
2,097
138
53
Norfolk
How can you be sure?
Ryan was the first, then 10 years later we had Hamilton. 10 years since Hamilton and nothing. Yet. Doesn't mean there won't be.

True.
Human beings will always find new and interesting ways of killing each other:sigh: .
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,729
1,977
Mercia
To be fair, the banning of handguns and semi automatic rifles were knee jerk reactions to psycho numpty d'#kheads going postal, and had nothing to do with "gun crime".
And the bans have stopped psycho numptys from gunning down innocent townsfolk and school kids, so they have, in fact, achieved something. Could they have come up with a method of regulation that enabled responsible shooters to enjoy their passtimes? Probably. But polititions don't exist to be fair and thoughtful. They exist only to justify their own existence and get themselves re-elected.
I think, with respect, that you are flat out wrong mate. What stopped a repeat of those offences was the requirement to disclose medical history and need a GP reference and a number of other elements on the new form designed to detect those with a history of mental illness and violent tendencies. Both Ryan and Hamilton had these in spades. The Washington sniper proved you don't need a fancy gun or a lot of shots.

I believe the right answer s to be incredibly rigorous on who may own a firearm of any type. Once they have shown themselves a proper person, the type is immaterial

Red
 

Snufkin

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Oct 13, 2004
2,097
138
53
Norfolk
I think, with respect, that you are flat out wrong mate. What stopped a repeat of those offences was the requirement to disclose medical history and need a GP reference and a number of other elements on the new form designed to detect those with a history of mental illness and violent tendencies. Both Ryan and Hamilton had these in spades. The Washington sniper proved you don't need a fancy gun or a lot of shots.

I believe the right answer s to be incredibly rigorous on who may own a firearm of any type. Once they have shown themselves a proper person, the type is immaterial

Red
You might have missed this bit of my post
Could they have come up with a method of regulation that enabled responsible shooters to enjoy their passtimes? Probably
I'm not for banning much of anything really, but for some things regulation is required.
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,729
1,977
Mercia
Didn't miss it mate and I agree with you - my point was I didn't agree that
the bans have stopped psycho numptys from gunning down innocent townsfolk and school kids, so they have, in fact, achieved something
. I don't believe this is true - I think it was the other (unrelated) changes to FAC regs that have reduced the likelihood of a repetition, not the banning of certain types of firearm. I think Dunblaine proved that banning one type of firearm has no effect since a person bent on destruction will simply use someting else.

wasn't trying to pick an argument - just express that I personally feel that the handgun ban has prevented no crimes at all and should be repealed. By all means be cautious who is granted an FAC but after that I think that once you have given them a rifle, giving them a handgun is no more dangerous

Red
 

-Switch-

Settler
Jan 16, 2006
845
4
43
Still stuck in Nothingtown...
I think that once you have given them a rifle, giving them a handgun is no more dangerous

Of course some would argue that a handgun is easier to smuggle into a school/ office/ shopping mall, easier to point and shoot at close range, easier to reload, holds more rounds (generally), and it's easier to carry several pistols than rifles. This may lead them to the conclusion that allowing people to own handguns is considerably more dangerous than allowing them to own rifles.
 

Martyn

Bushcrafter through and through
Aug 7, 2003
5,252
33
58
staffordshire
www.britishblades.com
My letter in response to the request...

Dear Mr McNulty,
I would like to know how the statistics presented justify a ban of such
items?

There would seem to be no statistically significant increase in the use of
edged weapons over the time periods highlighted in the pdf document.
Additionally, there is no breakdown of how many crimes were committed using
samurai swords, either genuine, replicas or any other variety. It's clear
that the proposal for the ban is based on anecdotal argument rather than
real facts, which I find deeply concerning. It would seem to be driven by
political tokenism.

We seem to be in a "ban it" mindset of late, evangelising the banning of
this and that as if it will be the solution to all our ills. It concerns me
deeply as it totally fails to address the real issues underpinning the
problems in our society. By focussing the attention onto the samurai sword,
you are drawing away from the criminal. But not only does the proposed ban
miss the point, it devalues our democracy, as every ban must do by
definition.

It is the person who commits the crime, the human being behind the gun or
knife that we need to address. That wont happen by banning every conceivable
item that could give him a mechanical advantage, because you will still be
left with a violent human being. We need to understand why our society seems
to be making more violent human beings and find a way of reversing this
trend. We need to treat the disease, not the symptom.

The issue is not that children are carrying knives. As a child in the 60's,
every self respecting boy I knew carried a pocket knife, along with a piece
of string and a conker or two. What has changed, is not the carriage of
knives, but the willingness to use them as weapons. It is the latter that we
must address, not the former.

Even the cheap, tacky replicas should not be banned, because in doing so,
the government is passing a restriction onto me. I have no love of cheap,
Chinese samurai swords, but I do have a love of freedom of choice and
democracy. I have the choice to buy one or not and I value that choice. Do
not take it away from me without gravity and absolute justification,
supported by hard facts not anecdotes. It is the banning of "something"
without proper justification that is most objectionable, it doesn't matter
what. It may be cheap, ugly, useless and unnecessary - some would argue, so
is art. If you remove my right to buy or own one, then you remove something
much more important ...my right to choose.

What statistics do you have to show there is a real problem with these
swords? The evidence in the pdf file doesn't make any attempt to distinguish
between one type of pointed object to the next. I hope that you would not
consider removing a right from the people of this country based on nothing
more than tabloid pressure?

I am a Registered Nurse who works in a trauma unit that covers a large city,
every major trauma within the whole catchment (about a million people) comes
through our department. In the 8 years I have worked there, I have never
heard of a single instance of a samurai sword being used as a weapon. Not
one. I would challenge the minister to provide some statistical evidence to
support the claim that these swords are a real problem? In my experience,
garden tools and kitchen knives are logarithmically more significant, though
perhaps not nearly as emotive. In either case, it is the criminal that
commits the crime, not the tool he uses. Would you attempt to tackle
dangerous driving by banning cars?

By making a demon out of the tool he has used, you are giving the criminal a
tacit absolution - you are telling society that the crime was committed
because of the availability of these swords, not because the criminal had
the intent to do harm. The tool he chooses is, in reality, incidental.
Society is not served in any way at all by such an albeit well intentioned,
misdirection of effort. I implore you to exercise some common sense. This
country has seen ban after ban, seemingly politically motivated with little
real effect other than to erode our freedom, dilute our democracy and sell a
few column inches. Gun crime is now at it's highest ever, 10 years after
handguns were banned. Criminals, by definition, ignore the law. They are
unlikely to respect a ban of anything. The only thing such a ban will
achieve, is a misdirection of public emotion against the sword, a
significant loss of business to thousands of traders, restrictions on law
abiding collectors and a loss of freedom to us all. But above all it sends
out a message that the problems in our society lie with the availability of
these swords and that is fundamentally wrong.

As a nurse I know only too well that if you put a bandage on a weeping sore,
it will look clean on the outside, but the sore continues to weep. It's the
human element we need to tackle, the criminal themselves. Until we have the
courage to address that complex and demanding issue, the wound will continue
to fester.

Yours Sincerely etc...
 

traderran

Settler
May 6, 2007
571
0
73
TEXAS USA
Of course some would argue that a handgun is easier to smuggle into a school/ office/ shopping mall, easier to point and shoot at close range, easier to reload, holds more rounds (generally), and it's easier to carry several pistols than rifles. This may lead them to the conclusion that allowing people to own handguns is considerably more dangerous than allowing them to own rifles.

Deleted I'll stay out of this one. Y'all probably know my opinion already.:tongue-ti
 

jojo

Need to contact Admin...
Aug 16, 2006
2,630
4
England's most easterly point
I absolutely agree with Martym. I was a registered Psychiatric Nurse (RMN) for nearly 20 years. During these I was attacked, or have seen people being attacked with all sort of things, snooker balls, darts, chairs, broom, scalding cups of tea, teeth, including false ones! Everyday objets all of them. I never once saw someone attacked with even a knife, let alone a samurai sword.
Psychiatry over the years, has suffered at the hands of successive of "polical correctness" and of successive governements imposing edicts after edicts. closing psychiatric hospitals to the level we have today: quite pathetically low, giving little support to the mentally ill. Even now there is little money in the system for psychiatrry.

It's not the tools that need tackling: it's the human beings behind it.

The problem is that it is going to be financially expediant to ban those weapons. A lot cheaper than tackling the real problems that causes people to use them.
 

Snufkin

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Oct 13, 2004
2,097
138
53
Norfolk
Didn't miss it mate and I agree with you - my point was I didn't agree that . I don't believe this is true - I think it was the other (unrelated) changes to FAC regs that have reduced the likelihood of a repetition, not the banning of certain types of firearm. I think Dunblaine proved that banning one type of firearm has no effect since a person bent on destruction will simply use someting else.

wasn't trying to pick an argument - just express that I personally feel that the handgun ban has prevented no crimes at all and should be repealed. By all means be cautious who is granted an FAC but after that I think that once you have given them a rifle, giving them a handgun is no more dangerous

Red
Didn't think you were trying to pick a fight. And I can see your point. I'm not really up on my firearms laws. I thought the phycological history disclosure stuff came in along with the kneejerk laws following Hungerford and Dunblaine.
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE