Wouldn’t someone walking the streets with a samurai sword, looking for someone to murder be breaking the law anyhow?
I think he would, no? So why do we need a new, additional statute on this issue?
What precisely stops a lunatic about to run amok in a city centre, who cannot get his hand on a katana, from picking up a lengthy bread knife or a machete and going on the rampage?
Should this happen are we going to ban bread knives and machetes from sale and private possession?
This might sound harsh, but I don’t care if someone’s been campaigning on this.
This ban is ridiculous. How? Why? To what aim?
I don’t own a samurai sword and have no plans on acquiring any. But why should I wish to see someone persecuted for having one, either a real, pricey collectors item or an imitation?
Doesn’t this just once again boil down to their making their own choices regarding what they wish to hang on the walls of their own home, - their private sphere no less?
So waht if it's a potentially dangerous item? I'm sure a cuckoo clock is dangeorus if dropped on somone from sufficient height...
Citing one or two cases in which people have been killed with samurai swords as justification of this law is pointless. Had there not been that particular weapon to hand, those people would have been killed with another blade. Simple.
We cannot cover this nation in bubble wrap.
And can we please stop churning out evermore reasons for which to punish people?
There's a lib dem down gloucester way who'll be the first to wave his hands in the air with glee - assuming they managed to stitch them back on that is.
well the way things are going, labour will ban us leaving our homes just in case we scratch someone with a nail on a tube or accidentally cough in their direction and potentially give them the killer manflu
Brown is being a dip AGAIN!Didnt anyone learn froim the handgun ban,that bans SIMPLY DONT WORK!they are a way of burieing your head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away.Another case of being seen to be doing something,no matter how inefectual,futile or pathetic.Three words that just about sum up our present dictatorship!
Another silly kneejerk ban, that will probably make the situation worse. Just as the ban on handguns has driven the trade underground and we have seen an increase in crimes using handguns, not a decrease.
As has been said, what about other weapons? What about butchers knives or cleavers?
I have nothing against licensing all weapons, as such, but let's not fool ourselves, if a criminal a wants bladed weapon he doesn't need a Samurai sword, he can find plenty of alternatives. These creeping bans of more and more things are daft, where the hell does it end? Instead of increasing police powers, in the vain hope that we can outlaw all possible opportunities and incitements to crime, we should be increasing police numbers and applying a zero tolerance policy to illegal behaviour.
I'm just surprised they aren't planning on banning Kill Bill on the back of this.
also i didn't think we had a problem with samurai swords.
If the government really wanted to sort this problem they would work with the communities and provide facilties for young people to keep them off the streets. Yet who needs this when we can just ban everything
Well, I’ve assured Smokey several times by now that I’m dead against the handgun ban.
I think Dunblane may have required some sort of reaction. Perhaps a stiffening of regulation of how licenses were granted and guns were stored. But not much else.
I never thought it called for the out and out ban.
I think that was ludicrous. It should be changed.
(Erm. Has anyone seen David Cameron?)
It's so ludicrous that they now have to create a legal exemption to be able to stage the Olympics.
(Hey, who'll protect us from the Olympic athletes?)
Yet at least with guns we’re talking about something that is a remote deadly weapon. You can kill several from afar.
A katana is really no different from another curved sword such as a scimitar or cavalry sword. That’s without even touching on any straight bladed sword.
And as said, such weapons are used by loons. And when loons go ‘pop’ they’ll take whatever comes to hand. So, let’s ban forks, shall we? Screwdrivers? How about chair legs?
As for the LibDem you mention. I honestly don’t care.
Harsh I know. But one or two cases do not represent a need for prohibition.
Tweaking existing regulations a little I could understand. But out and out prohibition? Why?
By how much would it really lessen our ‘risk’ of being attacked by a sword wielding nutter? What is the chance of being attacked by someone foaming at the mouth, flailing a katana overhead at the moment?
I am sick and tired of this ban everything nonsense.
How about ‘un-banning’ a few things for once?
I don’t care how they choose to kill foxes in the countryside. It their lives and their lifestyle. By all means let them do as they wish and tell the protesters to take a running jump.
I couldn’t give a toss about prohibition of the sport of shooting. Let ‘em shoot. Banning gun clubs doesn't make me feel a jot safer.
And if some guy wants to hang a katana on his wall, that’s his choice. It’s not my role to decide what I think of it. It’s his house, his space, his life!
What however makes me despair is seeing everyone standing on their individual little minority iceberg, sneering at the other minorities for being weird, dangerous or pathetic.
Let’s face it we’re all weird, nerdy, pathetic and dangerous. Fact is, we have a right to be.
If people want to learn Klingon, collect razor blades or have sex in wet papier machee, it’s up to them. They do not require the ‘approval’ of the government, nor anyone else’s.
I think we know for sure, that Brown doesn't agree with that view.
But as it stands, I don't think El Cameronese agrees wtih it either. I think he too is a meddler by nature.
Just look at his speeches on music lyricsm, game and film content.
Yes, the logic behind this particular law is slightly lacking. There are already laws against carrying weapons which range from keys (yes, it is an offense to carry keys if you intend to use them as a weapon) to guns and include swords. What a waste of tax payers' money. I can understand a grieving mother wanting to take action but in this case the law didn't fail.
There will always be people who choose to break the law, just as there always have been. Violent crimes are on the increase. I certainly feel that society is less safe than it used to be. The law hasn't changed so what is responsible?
No I have not done anything illegal, I never have and endeavour never to do so. One of the responsibilities that goes with having an FAC.
No, last night the yobs were about. Riding a heap of a moped about the estate they were driving by cars and smashing windows with a swing of a lump of iron bar. Thirty five reported to have been done many more not reported.
The moped was not road legal, should we ban all mopeds? The iron bar could be labeled an offencive weapon in a public place, should we ban iron bars? The yobs were teenagers, should we have a curfew for all teenagers?
The copper said they know who did it, but I know they wont prosecute. Because of their age, they come from a broken home, they were not apprehended actually doing it they will get off scot free.
If a good citizen had stopped them and given them "a stiff talking too" then that person would get dragged down the cop shop, fingerprinted DNAed and grilled probably charged with assault, lose their job if it involves working with people, no longer be able to pay their mortgage perhaps the wife walk out on them. Good people suffer but lawbreakers just laugh at them. Something ain't right here is it.
It's not the object that breaks the law it's the person who uses it.
phantom actually i agree with you all the way. Other posts in this thread indicate we already have perfectly workable laws to deal with this it's the willpower that is lacking.
and smokelesscoal's point about for gawds sake don't anyone stop the little buggers on mini-motos they'll arrest you for doing so it too true to be a joke. Go pop over to the beeb website and do a search you'll find several examples.
I live in a ten year old house on an extension to a mixed completely "private" / former "council" but now largely bought up estate.
A swift perusal of our neighbourhood police website identifies four things as 'of concern' in the neighbourhood. When I read this i nearly died of laughter, all four issues are caused by the louts across the road.
And one other thing. I hope they remember to exempt my mate and his pals otherwise there's a load of pike and sword wielding civil war / wars of the roses re-enactors with sharp swords and pikes who will be seriously pissed off
Already curtailed are the activities of a local ww2 reenactment group. Can buy replicas and soon wont be able to buy deactivated. Theres also a civil war group that can buy percussion caps for their displays as they now need a firearm certificate even though their pieces are not for firing.
Can you, fkjegede?
Well, perhaps that is, because it’s obvious to the likes of us.
But politicians in their ivory towers simply can’t perceive a problem with what they’re doing.
They feel compelled ‘to act’. Nothing makes them more powerless than doing nothing.
I recall a episode in ‘Yes, Minister’ where Hacker says to Sir Humphrey ‘You know me: ‘Action Now!’’
Meanwhile Sir Humphrey just rolls his eyes and murmurs ‘Action Now’ sarcastically.
Fact is, one can ban samurai swords. So one does it. It provides an immediate result.
Politicians of all colours love immediate results.
Of course, laws of such ilk are mostly garbage. They are the legislative nonsense produced by governments interested only in superficial impression.
Brown is following Blair here with little discernable difference between the two.
But can one discern any difference to be coming from Cameron?
In what respect would we get an impression that he’ll be more ‘hands off’?
Having told us what to think on music, film and games,
It appears we need to be protected, reeducated, corrected and overseen by Cameron and his friends.
If Brown wants to ban swords, Cameron wants to ban songs which would make us pick up swords…
I’m failing to spot the difference.
Of course Cameron is too lily-livered actually to come and take a stand here, as he knows we’d shoot him down in an instant.
I’m sorry if I’m sounding hostile here, folks. But we all know that Cameron has been dodging issues on here and has been extremely selective regarding what he will address.
Let’s make it clear: banning Samurai swords is a complete nonsense. Yet will Cameron ‘go easy on crime’ and oppose such an insult to our intelligence? Or we he compete in the ‘toughest-sheriff-in-town’ the posturing with Gordon?
And if not with this law, with which other complete load of cobblers is he going to agree to create the right impression?
Is Cameron really going to stand up and tell Brown to take a hike with all this ‘law and order’ nonsense? Or will he be a politician and back anything that provides immediate ‘results’?
After all, as Hacker said: ‘Action Now!’
As for the best way of preventing louts causing trouble; Assuring they get caught!
We needn’t punish them until their noses bleed. If every other time they screw up they’re caught, hauled down to the police station and ‘processed for 10 to 12 hours without any access to fun, television, mates or computer games, let’s see how quickly they fall in line, if only to avoid the bloody hassle.
The simple fact is most of the time they never even see a policeman. The coppers arrive half a day later, to inspect the debris.
I’m always hearing there’s more police on the street than ever. I look around and I’m not sure I believe those figures.
Perhaps they’re all busy checking what porn we’re looking at, assuring all chewing gum accords to EU standards or rounding up harmless grannies who put pot in their cakes. I don’t know. But I don’t think they’re out there arresting hooligans.
But hey, Brown has given them arrest figure targets so everything must be fine. (!)
That’s how they ‘run things’ in government these days. By setting a target.
The other 99% of their time is taken up with inventing new crimes.
I hope they remember to exempt my mate and his pals otherwise there's a load of pike and sword wielding civil war / wars of the roses re-enactors with sharp swords and pikes who will be seriously pissed off
Err, unless the rules of such events have changed drastically since I did English Civil War re-enactment, none of those weapons would actually be "sharp" because they wouldn't be allowed on the field with them!
But as to the main point of this thread, I also know Martial Artists who have, through dint of much training and practice, earned qualifications that mean they are considered deserving to own genuine Samurai blades.
These aren't just cheap knock-offs, they are works of *craft* made by Masters.
Should these swords now be destroyed or blunted (just as bad) simply because a couple of idiots acted irresponsibly?
Will David Cameron give an undertaking that if (when!) he takes power, he will start a comprehensive programme to reverse all of Labour's Nanny State laws that don't trust the vast majority of people to act sensibly because of the behaviour of one or two morons?
The idiots who use these things entirely inappropriately will just make do with a Klingon throwing knife or one of the myriad entirely offensive "pretend" weapons which can be purchased from those shops that peddle this junk, along with drugs paraphenalia and stolen goods. They'll still threaten us and each other with them, stab each other with them in a drunken or drug induced stupor or just make do with whatever legally held knives they find in the kitchen area!
I think this ban isn't even worthy of being called a gimmick. It'll just create collateral bureaucracy and failed cases in Court when the Police are struggling to "define what a Samurai sword is officer.....surely the chinese monogram on the blade shows this is a genuine Chinese ninja style sword and my client was holding it legally..?"
It just adds to the ball-ache and isn't going to help realistically.
Here the results of the Home Office consultation paper on Samurai swords.
Consultation paper results
I'm not wise enough to cut and past from it but look at the results from the questions. A majority were answered no to a ban but it seems to have been ignored and a ban issued anyway.
So the people say no but the party want it so they chose a ban.
Ah, democracy at work.
As a result of the road pricing petition Labour say no they will have a rethink. Then they start trials which become more and more.
A referendum is promised, they sign up anyway.
There's so many more similar, I'm sure you have some in mind now. They are just f'in scheming conniving liars. I did not vote for them.
Smokeless,
The usual verbiage is that they go ‘not with the numerical majority, but with the greater weight of argument’.
This allows government to simply sidestep any unwanted negative consultation results.
Remember, my pet project, the ‘dangerous picture act’, was overwhelmingly opposed in consultation. As we all know, it’s going through parliament now.
Frankly, something needs doing about consultations.
If Cameron ever would like to do something boring but useful, it would be a good idea to prepare the ground for an overhaul of the consultation procedures, to make these things more meaningful.
Labour have completely undermined them in recent years, turning recent consultations into a complete farce. In fact, people may remember they even had to be taken to court by ‘friends of the earth’ in order to force a proper consultation process on nuclear policy.
There are in fact Whitehall guidelines in place as to how consultations ought to be conducted. These rules aren’t even paid lip service anymore, but are completely ignored.
Unless the opposing interest groups are a financially powerful lobby such as greenpeace of friends of the earth, they simply cannot ensure that proper procedure is followed.
Meanwhile opposition party politicians don’t deem the subject ‘sexy’ enough to make a song and dance about it. Inevitably, government gets away with it time and again.
How to interpret a consultation result is always going to be an exercise in political expediency, no matter who’s in government . After all, we’re dealing with sewer rats here (i.e. politicians).
But the consultation process at least ought to be upheld properly. Currently it is not.
So how about it, David? Set some of your people to work on a properly prepared amendment of the consultation process in advance of coming to power. Who knows, you might even want to consult (!) on the issue.
As for the ‘greater weight of argument’ on the samurai sword ban; if anyone thinks it can be deemed even to make even the slightest inkling of sense to ban one specific type of sword among many without any chance of demonstrably lessening any supposed risk to the public in any appreciable way, then let us know….
Where exactly the ‘greater weight of argument’ is to be residing in this legislative idiocy is beyond me. But then hey, I can’t see it in the dangerous picture act either. But then I’m in good company there. A certain Mr Garnier seems to think the same these days…
Err, unless the rules of such events have changed drastically since I did English Civil War re-enactment, none of those weapons would actually be "sharp" because they wouldn't be allowed on the field with them!
And you are right, of course. Even the arrows have something stuck on the ends so the odds of a spectator being pierced by one if they got too close to the bloke carrying them in his quiver are reduced.
Nice reply Phantom
There was of course a consultation about firearms prior the the VCR bill going to parliament
consultation paper
August 2004 and we have still not had a reply today. A lot of individuals and organisations spent a lot of time answering that one but what was the outcome. Labour ignored us to the point of breaking the rules on consultation papers. They are supposed to be answered in a set time.
Rules what rules they seem to make them up as they go along.
Site Updates | First Visit? | Newsletter | Tools & Features | 
RSS Feeds
