-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK may ban (most) Samurai swords.
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
:lol
So retarded. At this rate I expect in a few years the headlines may read: U.K. to ban all physical matter.
With pundits saying "Physical matter kills, Jane. You can use it to do stuff to people causing them to die. People will die if we don't ban it. Even children will die. Think of the children!"
So you ban guns, and then you ban swords, and knives, and then what's next, sticks? Any pointy object?
So retarded. At this rate I expect in a few years the headlines may read: U.K. to ban all physical matter.
With pundits saying "Physical matter kills, Jane. You can use it to do stuff to people causing them to die. People will die if we don't ban it. Even children will die. Think of the children!"
So you ban guns, and then you ban swords, and knives, and then what's next, sticks? Any pointy object?
Sapiens said:
I hate elitists . Really I think they should rot in hell.
With that said. I see a problem with idiots carrying around samurai sword in their car and/or on their person in public places, those people are idiots.
However, if you are some guy who cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars a true real samurai sword would cost, why should the rich get to have one displayed in their home and no one else?
Personally I don't have one, I've thought about buying one (especially with the Heroes symbol on it) but I don't want to be an elitist pig about it to other people who are interested in collecting or displaying Samurai swords.
****, I don't logically see an inherent problem with someone walking around with a sword in public, placed in a sheath, worn on the side. For example, my wife's old Kendo teacher in San Antonio was a university professor and she wore her sword all the time (for self-defense) and no one had a problem with it. I'm sure some faculty and students made fun of her or thought she was weird, but she wasn't hurting anybody doing it.
I have a problem with someone attacking people in public with a sword, but then, that's really more of a problem with someone attacking someone.
I have a problem with someone attacking people in public with a sword, but then, that's really more of a problem with someone attacking someone.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
THEY CAN TAKE OUR SWORDS BUT THEY CAN'T TAKE OUR NECKBEARDS, WALL SCROLLS, AND POCKY RAWWWRRRR CHARGE!!!!!
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
This just in: The UK has banned people.
pjberri said:
Maybe because they just want one. It's their right, and it shouldn't matter if it is "practical" or not.
That said, I'd love to get my hands on the real deal. The closest I've ever found was some guy who makes swords, and supposedly makes semi-decent ones, and not the cheap crap you find at the mall. Can't remember his name offhand, though.
M3Freak
Banned
pjberri said:
Every human has the God given right to self defence. Some obviously will abuse this, but my point is a sword can be used for defence.
Weapons aren't just for offence and scaring people. They're also for protecting yourself and others that are unable to protect themselves.
How a weapon is used and why depends on the choices a person makes. Those choices can be good or bad.
Simply banning a weapon because it can be used for "evil" is stupid. You can't stop a human by removing the weapon. The human will fashion a weapon out of something else.
M3Freak said:
by this logic i should be able to carry a few hand grenades so if a group of haters roll up on me with samurai swords, i can blast them fools. Afterall its for self defence. A slippery slope can go both ways.
I think the question is the cost and benefit analogy? if a samurai sword creates more problems or danger when a person carries them, then it serves for protection then it needs to be outlawed. People seem to forget temporary rage or insanity, anger that makes people lash out with whatever they can find, giving people fewer lethal options to carry out their anger, rage, whatever in my mind is a plus.
Sure you have a right to self defence, but does that mean you have an unalienable right to have a sword for that purpose? how about hand grenades or land minds? Both can be argued for the use of self defence?
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
A sword is basically a knife. An imitation sword is basically a poorly constructed knife that is most likely made of metal not easily sharpened. As the article states, imitation samurai sword attacks occur infrequently. Do we really need the government involved in this?
Aren't there already laws in the UK prohibiting people from carrying weapons like knives, swords, guns, etc. around?
Aren't there already laws in the UK prohibiting people from carrying weapons like knives, swords, guns, etc. around?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5652530#post5652530pjberri said:
I suppose if you consider self-defense violent, yeah.
Mermandala
Member
The right action would be to mandate the wearing of cheap, imitation armour for all citizens, young or old in public and private spheres - and free pool noodles. in large bins, by the corner shop.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
****ING GAIJINS!
MetalAlien
Banned
Didn't California ban spanking your kids? I swear I think humainty died like 50 years ago and we are all in hell... maybe that meteor everyone is worried about destroying earth... did..
Hell I say.
Hell I say.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
I like how he both slashed and ran her over, but the car ain't being banned.
<sigh>
The Telegraph is an evil reactionary rag. As always, if you want the real story you have to go to The Register.
The Telegraph is an evil reactionary rag. As always, if you want the real story you have to go to The Register.
tehrik-e-insaaf
Member
crazy secular fundies...
what's next, banning butter knives?
what's next, banning butter knives?
Jonm1010 said:
Sure. Of course, any harm you do to people (well, the innocent people that aren't attacking you anyway) or any damage you do to other property, you're totally liable for in terms of both criminal and civil action, so a grenade suddenly doesn't seem like such a good idea.
JayDubya said:
fine replace the grenade with shotgun, or any other weopon, the cost benefut analogy still needs to be factored, if its doing more harm then good then their is no sense in having it legal to carry. All you end up doing allowing people to carry anything is a weaponized version of keeping up with the joneses. If they have swords i need one too, if they have guns i need one too, they have two guns ill bring an uzi. The rest of my post still stands.
Hitokage said:
Well, not if you use them in the middle of nowhere. :lol
Jonm1010 said:
Actually, I don't care about any governmental assessment of cost benefit ratio.
I'm saying that I generally don't care what weapon someone owns at all. I don't even care what weapon someone uses in the act of self-defense, but something that does massive splash damage, like say something involving explosives, well, that's of extremely limited use to that person in that role because of the reasons I outlined above.
I'm not even advocating a government ban, mind you, I'm just saying from the point of view of a buyer, it's not a very good self-defense weapon so it doesn't have a lot of value.
As for what you said about shotguns and whatnot - if a mugger attacks me, and I draw my concealed handgun, and I fire wantonly and hit some old lady, the mugger is not liable for the death of the old lady - I am. I was completely justified in owning the weapon and in using it to defend myself, but that does not matter very much in the specific case of the old lady.
Of course, ultimately I'm sorry, but I have zero respect for the standard Brit argument that criminals need to have guns or swords if private citizens have guns or swords, because that argument is overly concerned with the idiot dressed in black breaking into someone's home in the middle of the night. They don't need anything - they need to not do what they're doing, and if they don't, they need to get shot or stabbed. I argue with a poster on another forum who makes that sort of "escalation" argument daily.
* * *
I guess this situation effectively ruins my suggestion from the Tyneside Ninja thread, whereas the U.K. policeforce would start employing claymores and composite longbows. :lol I mean, shit, if all the criminals have is a knife, what is that, 1d4 + nothing on average? When the cop'd be doing 2d6+3 at least if he's training with that thing. No contest.
captainbiotch
Banned
Jon is also completely ignoring the fact that bad guys have weapons whether he likes to believe they do or not.
- Status