Anti-Weapons Nuts in the U.K.

A few years ago, some misguided people in the U.K got together and effectively banned guns in attempt to stop violence. Of course any logical person could and did try to tell them that all they would accomplish with a gun ban would be to make the criminals shift to another weapon.

Apparently that's what has happened in Britain. And to deal with the repercussions of this, the U.K. Home Office is proposing a ban on Samurai swords, the new weapon of choice for criminals.

Banning Swords!

Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister, said today: "Samurai sword crime is low in volume but high in profile and I recognise it can have a devastating impact.

"Banning the sale, import and hire will take more dangerous weapons out of circulation, making our streets safer.

"We recognise it is the cheap, easily-available samurai swords which are being used in crime and not the genuine, more expensive samurai swords which are of interest to collectors and martial arts enthusiasts." (

the new "saturday night specials")

"It is already illegal to have a samurai sword in a public place but I want to restrict the number of dangerous weapons in circulation to enhance community safety."

It is obviously lost on these wannabe do-gooders that when they take away the swords, the criminals will just switch to what, clubs? Then the Home Office will have to ban large pieces of wood, and then the criminals will switch to ...

And still the people will not be safe in their homes, and no doubt eating with their bare hands because of the ban on dangerous knives, forks and spoons.

Outrageously dumb

[edit on 3/5/2007 by centurion1211]

Criminals in the UK have guns. The fact that you say they don't just shows me that you are talking about something you don't understand, just to have yet another pop at the UK.

Don't get me wrong though, carry on, posts like this make it easy for the bulk of us to tell who the ignorant posters are.

The reason we have problems with violent and weapon related crime is simply because our justice system is so useless at handing out appropriate sentences to violent offenders so everyone sees the psychos have been given carte blanche to act as they please so everyone goes out and gets tooled up.

I'm a forty year old man, I carry something now, most of the middle aged men I know now carry some form of protection, be it a hammer, scredriver or knife, sure it's wrong but the govt wont bother to make our streets safe, what are we supposed to do?

uber, I hear you and really feel for you. I couldn't live in a place like that unprotected either. Hopefully, you'll never have the need to use your protection, because I've also read that it will most likely be you that heads to prison and not the person you were defending yourself and/or your family from.

Madness ...

P.S. this is not a "pop at the U.K." people, but their ridiculous government stance on weapons.

P.P.S. After hearing that line used against the U.S. for so many years, you can't imagine how great it feels to dish it back for a change.

[edit on 3/5/2007 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
...any logical person could and did try to tell them that all they would accomplish with a gun ban would be to make the criminals shift to another weapon.

...the U.K. Home Office is proposing a ban on Samurai swords, the new weapon of choice for criminals.

The above statements, are completely false. A simple search could have shown you this. Allow me:

Youth, 16, shot dead at ice rink
Teenage boy shot dead in bedroom
Teenage boy shot dead in his home
Armed police tackle gun murders
One man dead after city shootings
Anti-gun demo attracts thousands
PM's warning over gangs and guns

Just a few recent stories.

I'm interested how you came to the conclusion that Samurai swords were "the new weapon of choice for criminals". Are you purposely misrepresenting the facts, or are you speaking from a position of ignorance?

Well, do keep in mind a couple of things here:

a) Your source, the Daily Telegraph, is a right wing newspaper. They're not too keen on the present government. Mind you, they're not too keen on many things... still, it's not the Daily Mail so you're all right on that one I suppose. This story looks as if it's been spun at least a little bit.

b) The Home Office is proposing the ban of imitation swords, which I'm sure the Japanese swordsmiths will welcome You'll still be able to own a genuine samurai sword, but only for display purposes (obviously - why else would you need a sword these days? Aside from attacking people...). You'll also notice that some groups have been exempted from the ban on weapons such as these (martial arts groups, in this case) demonstrating that reasonable people are allowed access to them.

I understand why Americans (and perhaps a lot of the rest of the world) look at the weapons laws of the UK and are pretty perplexed... I also understand why Britons look at the weapons laws of the United States and are similarly perplexed. This area is one of the key cultural and political differences between the UK and the US in that the UK (and most of its population) aren't all that keen on weapons whereas the US tends to like them a lot more. I'm not sure 'like' is the correct term to use... 'accept' may be more relevant, perhaps?

Originally posted by Implosion

I'm interested how you came to the conclusion that Samurai swords were "the new weapon of choice for criminals". Are you purposely misrepresenting the facts, or are you speaking from a position of ignorance?

Position of ignorance?

Uh, I simply got that line from reading the originally quoted article ...

(My underlining to help the previous poster)

According to Home Office estimates, there have been at least 80 serious crimes involving the swords in England and Wales over the last four years.

One MP recently warned that they were being used by criminal gangs as the preferred weapon of choice after guns.

BTW, your list of crimes involving firearms just goes towards proving the other result that was predicted from a gun ban - that only the criminals would end up with the guns, and the violence would not stop.

[edit on 3/5/2007 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Ste2652
I understand why Americans (and perhaps a lot of the rest of the world) look at the weapons laws of the UK and are pretty perplexed... I also understand why Britons look at the weapons laws of the United States and are similarly perplexed. This area is one of the key cultural and political differences between the UK and the US in that the UK (and most of its population) aren't all that keen on weapons whereas the US tends to like them a lot more. I'm not sure 'like' is the correct term to use... 'accept' may be more relevant, perhaps?

I can accept that. Hopefully, you can also accept that many of us feel that we need to use what has happened with your laws as an example to keep the same from happening here.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Position of ignorance?

Uh, I simply got that line from reading the originally quoted article ...

Oh, my bad, you were just repeating bad journalism parrot fashion.

Carry on.

I know we're all supposed to discount everything those nasty right wing papers like the Mail, Express and Telegraph say and believe everything in the holy books of Guardian and Independant but when I walk my streets and talk to my friends the things I see and am told jibe far more closely with the former than the idealistic picture of the latter.

Bad journalism it may be, innacurate it's not.

Originally posted by Ste2652
I understand why Americans (and perhaps a lot of the rest of the world) look at the weapons laws of the UK and are pretty perplexed... I also understand why Britons look at the weapons laws of the United States and are similarly perplexed. This area is one of the key cultural and political differences between the UK and the US in that the UK (and most of its population) aren't all that keen on weapons whereas the US tends to like them a lot more. I'm not sure 'like' is the correct term to use... 'accept' may be more relevant, perhaps?

Though I enjoy my AK, 9MM, .41, and .300 short mag, I'd trade them all for the ability to go to a corner pub and enjoy a pint without, A) Purchasing a club card, or B) Ordering an appetizer.

Man, a corner pub. Fancy that kind of freedom.

Originally posted by centurion1211
I can accept that. Hopefully, you can also accept that many of us feel that we need to use what has happened with your laws as an example to keep the same from happening here.

Indeed, and this again goes back to those differences I was mentioning. It's a long-established tradition and law in the US that there should be a right to bear arms and defend oneself. And similarly, there's a long-established tradition and law in the UK that there's no real need for mass private ownership of guns. It's a very interesting contrast and neither side seems to have the answer - on the one hand, the UK policy of banning weapons means that, in many cases, only the criminal and the police are armed. But then on the other hand, the US policy of giving everyone the right to bear arms causes its own problems too. So I would argue that, when it comes to weapons control, no nation can stand up and say 'we have the best/worst system for dealing with weapons'. It might be easier to define 'worst' than 'best', though. So what you might determine as a 'bad' law in the US might be considered a 'good' law in the UK, and vice versa.

Originally posted by ubermunche
I know we're all supposed to discount everything those nasty right wing papers like the Mail, Express and Telegraph say and believe everything in the holy books of Guardian and Independant but when I walk my streets and talk to my friends the things I see and am told jibe far more closely with the former than the idealistic picture of the latter.

You'll find the Guardian and the Independent are just as bad. They all have agendas to push, and if you just read them superficially then you end up getting sucked in to whatever the journalist who wrote the article you're reading wants you to think. I don't think the dominance of media barons (such as Rupert Murdoch) helps free speech and debate at all - in fact, Murdoch and his ilk are a big part of the problem with the media in the UK and indeed the globe. You've got to read between the lines, especially looking at what the author omits to mention since this can have a big impact on what you take away from reading a piece of journalism.

[edit on 5/3/07 by Ste2652]

But the thing is Ste, the only ones who seem willing to speak out about these issues are papers like the Mail and Express, yes they probably do manipulate to a certain extent but like I said it tends to resonate with my own experiences.
Papers like the Guardian seem more interested in white knight gestures for percieved underdogs and telling us all that we deserve what we get for being middle class/white/straight etc etc, as a gay man I can tell you that this is usually a load of BS and all parties must be considered and respected to come to anything like a democratic solution, to me the Guardian is more style over substance, fashionable rather than inciteful, they deal with oppression by creating another type of oppression to counter act it. Many people now feel isolated and disinfranchised by these so called PC ideals this is not the answer.

Blair is disarming the population so that when he declares Martial Law, he can piss in everyone';s face with utter safety.

haha good one,

theres no way blair could pass martial law in the uk, if he did it would be down to the home office and they would find a way to screw it right up. Besides, the staff needed to police a martial law would probably be on strike or unable to get to work due to the wrong kind of snow.

The closest thing we will ever get to martial law is a martial congestion charge, and that won't be till well after the olympics.

Besides, then wouldn't you only have the armed criminals left to defend you against a tyrannical government? That would be a bizarre turn of events!

Originally posted by centurion1211
Position of ignorance?

Uh, I simply got that line from reading the originally quoted article ...

....

BTW, your list of crimes involving firearms just goes towards proving the other result that was predicted from a gun ban - that only the criminals would end up with the guns, and the violence would not stop.

It's a bit problematic for US citizens to start talking about the culture of Britain because it's really very different over there. They are generally not a firearm owning culture ... nor do they need or want to be. Most of Europe is not a firearm owning culture, either.

Their violence there is very different than ours. They have riots, and incidents at football (soccer) matches are social problems that we don't see here. We have social problems that they don't have (the US has a MUCH higher rate of homicide and crime), but solutions that work for them don't work here.

It's a different culture.

I hope some of our UK citizens here can link to things that would give you a good sense of the culture and how very different it is from the US. The newspaper you cited has about as much credibility with them as a rant from Ann Coulter has for US citizens.

Problematic? It never has seemed to get in the way of their criticism of what goes on in this country - political or otherwise. I claim the right to a level playing field. The right to question and comment on the decisions made in their country and by their government.

So let's start with:
It might help for all to remember how the U.S. came to be as a country. We were armed citizens fighting for our freedom from a government we viewed as tyrannical. I guess the "memory" of that still lives in many of us. We still harbor a certain mistrust of even our own central government (can you blame us?).

Also, I've read about the violent crimes that still happen in the U.K., murders, burglaries, assaults, the usual. The main difference I see is that their government has stripped the common citizen of the right and means to defend themselves. Going as far as prosecuting the defenders for defending themselves. Forgetting in the process the key fact that police investigate crimes after they happen, they don't do much to prevent them in the first place. Way too late for the victim(s) at that point.

So, it falls upon certain U.S. citizens to defend our right to defend ourselves, before it can be stolen by the government as unfortunately has happened in the U.K. and a few other places such as Australia.


[edit on 3/5/2007 by centurion1211]

Making guns illegal only stops honest people from protecting themselves against the criminals who dont abide by any laws because they are lawless. That is how I feel about it here in the states.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Making guns illegal only stops honest people from protecting themselves against the criminals who dont abide by any laws because they are lawless. That is how I feel about it here in the states.

I feel the same way and it is obvious that a gun ban does nothing to stop criminal activity. The problem in the logic that a gun ban reduces crime is that it assumes that criminals purchase firearms legally, they do not. The people who do purchase firearms legally have them registered in some instances and abide by the laws.

The reason gun control would be so difficult to pass in the US is that it is an explictly guaranteed right under the constitution. This is aside from the sheer number of guns in the US. Disarmament in the US is impossible because it is unconstitional and limits on certain types of weapons only drive prices up.

I agree with byrd, what works for the UK works for the UK. It wouldnt work in the US because it is the antithesis of american culture.

However, I still feel taking away legally owned firearms is kind of like attacking Iraq for 9/11. they are two different things and one does nothing to effect the other.