digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Samurai Swords to Be Banned in Britain

telegraph.co.uk — The sale of imitation samurai swords could be banned by the end of the year, the Home Office announced today. Importing or hiring the weapons could also be made illegal following a string of samurai sword attacks in recent years. Breaching the ban would result in up to six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheProtested, on 10/12/2007, -14/+164British people are racist against ninjas :p
    • ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -10/+49And then what will I atact my porn watching neighbors with?
    • anonymoustroll, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19> And then what will I atact my porn watching neighbors with?

      Sword fight!
    • navitatl, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49Racist against samurais, you mean?
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+119If you outlaw Samurai swords only outlaws will be Samurai.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57Hattori Hanzo is going to be pissed.

    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6I do wonder however, what kills more people in britan, Knives or Swords... and edged weapons or guns?
    • sjl127, on 10/12/2007, -16/+12Your penises will be banned shortly.
    • echo2501, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2[samuraihistorygeek]

      "Sword Hunt II" - Hideyoshi's back, and he's British!

      [/samuraihistorygeek]
    • konradk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+62Lightsaber sales are about to rocket..
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Not only are they racist against ninjas, but Klingons as well. These Brits don't know how to choose their enemies very well.....
      http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006240126,00.html
    • Triffid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Swords don't kill people... I DO
    • Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13Another reason why America is THE BEST COUNTRY TO LIVE IN, IN THE WORLD. I mean our government suck ass some time, and our people arent exactly the greatest people in the world. But i wouldn't trade it for anything.
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28The sale of __imitation__ samurai swords could be banned

      Real ones are just fine!
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"But i wouldn't trade it for anything."

      I would trade it for what our Founding Fathers originally set up, that is the laws that were in effect before roughly 1913.

    • Pifko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead."
    • ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Thank god it's only samurai swords. My broadsword and battle-axe should be just fine
    • locodude, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Swords don't kill people...

      Chuck Norris kills people!
    • fluxion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30a fear the age of the mighty British samurai has at last come to an end
    • an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12What the heck is a "real" Samurai sword? The real last samurai was, what, Meiji period?
      Do swords carried by WWII Japanese soldiers apply?
      Is it a measure of curvature? If so, what about scimitars?
      Forged vs stamped?
      Country of origin, age, manufacturing technique?

      Anyway I predict a rise of saber related violence.
    • LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Are guns illigal there? If not this is entirely hypocritical.
    • LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Also, if you can afford an authentic samurai sword, you would NEVER use it as a weapon except in a life-or-death situation. That blade you bought at the house of knives and like to show off may be sharp, but it's not authentic.
    • Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Guns are illegal in England i believe. And no matter how we look at it, the Katana is consider by many the deadliest combat sword ever created.
    • antistupid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@emanji

      I'm pretty sure the long bow ranks above the samurai sword.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31"Importing or hiring the weapons could also be made illegal following a string of samurai sword attacks in recent years."

      Quick, everybody go out and start attacking people with brooms. Maybe Britain will ban brooms after a recent string of attacks with them, too.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@logicbomb & emanji - Yes, they are and this is what happens when you ban firearms. If the government can get away with that, they can get away with anything.

      @antistupid - You need to get rid of the "anti". He said sword.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Lol... I love how our British brothers come here and rip on us Americans, while their government heads at an even faster pace than ours, towards the big brother state.

      It won't be long before all forms of weapons are banned.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Oh, I forgot...

      What will happen to the real-life samurai superhero??
      http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Real_life_samurai_superhero_saves_police
    • Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11i would bet my house that more people died by drunk driving than people that got kill by Katanas. Yet there are no ban on alcohol or cars.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hey, I just wanted to add, that I love my British bros. We all come here and talk some smack, all in good fun, but we are brothers and we are in the same ***** situation with our ***** governments. Where you guys might have more Big Brother going on, we have more war and fear mongering. It all adds up to some angry regular people like us.
    • diulei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Cue classic video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvPBQLXXgHw
    • Cleanlyness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Only in britain.

      diGG this needs to be brought attention!
    • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This tilts the delicate pirate:ninja balance irreversibly far towards the swashbuckling side.
    • tentwentyfour, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Guess they got tired of little asian guys trying to steal their swords and saying it was part of their mission to save the world.
    • pwill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Britain: We can invade Asian countries and sell goods that they ban (see: Opium Wars)
      But when Asians try to sell us their stuff? GTFO.

      Ahh, hypocrisy.
  • karmic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+113Most Americans don't realize that the citizens of the UK don't have a Constitution with a guarantee of rights.

    Think what you want about the Second Amendment, but at least we have such an amendment that we can argue over.
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -69/+36yeah that gun law is working out great for you guys. I'm so jealous.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -24/+105"yeah that gun law is working out great for you guys. I'm so jealous."

      I'm so jealous of the sharpened plastic spoon you have to legally defend yourself.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -15/+109I'm so jealous of the UK homeowner who goes to jail for shooting a robber.

      I mean, I wish I could be punished for defending myself.
    • AreUAnEeeedjit, on 10/12/2007, -61/+24I HATE living in the boring UK.

      I much preferred living in the USA, with its "will I get shot today" excitement.
    • durzagott, on 10/12/2007, -7/+71I'm so jealous of the American robber who gets to sue the homeowner, who tries to defend his home, because he tripped and fell while he was running out the door.
    • over90, on 10/12/2007, -36/+5You know there is something wrong with guns when majority of the civilized world have decided to outlaw them. When was the last a shooter was shot down by a passer by with a gun before the shooter could gun down dozen of people. As far as I remember, I've never heard of that happen.

      Also the Brits have the Magna Carta
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
      "Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum ("Great Charter of Freedoms"), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced many common law documents, such as the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and is considered one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy."

      Karmic, are you a Brit? I would have thought Brits knew more about this.
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29Funny you say that AreUAnEeeedjit, I've lived here 30 years and except for a few suicides I've never known anyone that got shot. Of course, i don't live or hang out in slums so... maybe that's it. Hmm, I wonder... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902 ... couldn't be that, you brits have a higher crime rate in reality could it... nahh... that's silly.
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@Over90, actually that has happened more than a few times (or rather, violent crimes prevented by people with guns) in Texas, in most of the rest of the country it's legal to own guns and carry them in certain ways, but largely not concealed or on your person when going into most establishments. In Texas I can go into the mini-mart with a gun on my person if I have permits in order. In Ohio, I can't go into more or a less anywhere with a gun on my person regardless of how my permits are in order.
    • teknotant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@AreUAnEeeedjit

      Wow, that was an ignorant statement. I don't live in the best neighborhood but the last thing on my mind is getting shot. Although, if someone broke into my home they would have that exciting feeling you speak of.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Hmm... I've lived in the United States my entire life, and I have to say, nope never known anyone who was shot and killed with a gun. Hell, I've even hung around Philadelphia in the wee hours of the morning and still felt safe. In fact, in Trenton, the average homicide rate is only about 22 people per year. Considering the *****-heap that is this failed city, that isn't too bad.

      Ahh yes, I do in fact love it here. Oh, and not to mention the fact that I'm sitting on 12 acres of land right now with plenty of room to spare. Last time I checked, Britain has been getting a lil' crowded.
    • over90, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8@shadus
      Looking at homicide rate, however...
      5.5 per 100 000 inhabitants in the US.
      0.1 per 100 000 inhabitants in the UK.

      So the UK is a more violent place, but the US have roughly 50x as many homicides.

      Conclusion: Obviously the US doesn't have as many guns as the UK, as UK citizens are obviously able to defend themselves much better against violence than in the US.

      In fact, the UK citizenry is so well armed that the absolute number of homicides is so low, that a single murder more than last year equates a 2% rise in homicide rate, and a press panic attack. The total number of homicides in the UK per year is about one quarter of that in just Washington DC, again showing the dire need to arm the US citizens at least as well as the UK citizens.

      Just some good comments I quote from below.


      I don't know about you, but I'd rather be punched the face outside a pub by a chav, high on booze and heroin, just because he doesn't like the way I look, than being shot twice in the stomach by a crack addict mugging me to feed his habit.

      Also, it's good that violent crime is being prevented, but there are other ways to prevent violent crime. For each violent crime being prevented, there is going to be dozens of high school shootings.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Laughing at the mentions of Magna Carta. Blairs cronies have fully finished that off. We now even have trials without jury in many cases in this country.

      All we have left is the EHR act which is more like a series of privileges that cannot always be maintained and most the country wants shot of so we can deport illegals.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27@chris9902

      > yeah that gun law is working out great for you guys. I'm so jealous.

      I can understand the jealousy. An exploding crime rate will do that to you. Especially coming as a direct result of the measures that are supposed reduce crime. That's gotta hurt.

      What do you think will be outlawed next? Reporting about the crime rate? Oh, sorry, that's already, if unofficially, in place.

      What about simply not arresting criminals or prosecuting them? Darn. Another policy Britain has in place to reduce public perception of the increasing crime rate. Have to maintain public ignorance if the public's to be protected.

      @AreUAnEeeedjit

      > I much preferred living in the USA, with its "will I get shot today" excitement.

      Well then you'll be glad to know that home invasion robbery is an exciting growth industry in England. Now that's got to be about all the excitement most people can stand.

      Sadly, home invasion robbery is a dying, you should pardon the expression, art in the U.S. Between a police force that arrests criminals, prosecutors that get criminals convicted and the occasional face full of buckshot the home invasion business just isn't what it used to be. You Brits might want to look into all three seeing as how your cops don't arrest criminals, nor prosecutors prosecute them and, of course, no English thug has to worry about a face full of buckshot.

      I'm assuming there isn't some inobvious up-side to criminals robbing, raping, assualting and murdering citizens. But then I'm an American and I'm probably not sophisticated, cosmopolitan and evolved enough to why locking up the law-abiding and letting the criminals run rampant is a good thing. Perhaps you could explain?
    • Alucardbsm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Looking at the stats at nationmaster.com

      Rates of murder with guns is
      #8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
      #32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

      I wouldn't assume that because the USA has a higher capita that you're more likely to be shot. Most of those murders were probably gang or drug related. Also, don't assume that because you're in the UK that you won't be shot. People are shot everywhere if you're doing shady things.

      Not to mention, those are pretty low numbers compared to South Africa.
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29I think the relevent statistic here is how many people are killed by samurai swords each year.
    • jarogers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well I do live in the US and I have been shot (someone broke in my house). Although getting shot again is not something I ever worry about.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19When katanas are outlawed, only outlaws will have katanas.

      The British firearms ban has been so completely successful, this is sure to work just as well. I mean, there hasn't been a firearms used in a crime in Britain for ... minutes!


    • warriorscot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Actually Britian does have a constitution its just many hundreds of pages long and we can actually change it to suit our current needs, from the article "Collectors and martial arts enthusiasts owning or using genuine samurai swords would be exepmt from the ban" anyone who actually wants one for a good reason can have them, the law is to prevent yobs who go to spain and get knock off swords then actually try to use them on people.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14You can get into a billion reasons why there are more murders in the US (mostly social and economic), but the fact is taking away guns won't really lower muder rates, just the same as taking Samuri Swords away will make little difference. It might stop people from using that particular tool to kill, but people will still kill.

      Even if guns increased the murder rate, I still think an armed populace is better than an unarmed one. The main motivating factor behind citizens being armed and the second amendment was to protect against government tyranny. Self-Defense was just an added benefit.

      America's founding fathers were very distrustful of governments taking away citizens rights. Having an armed populace is the ultimate in 'power to the people'.
    • jeffeb3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"Actually Britian does have a constitution its just many hundreds of pages long and we can actually change it to suit our current needs"

      The American Constitution is specifically only the very core of our government structure, and it can only be changed by the people, not the people's representatives. It includes our bill of rights, and is essentially a stationary document (except for some large social changes such as banishing slavery and women's suffrage). The right to bear arms was important so the military couldn't threaten the people more than the people could threaten the government. BUT, that's a little out the window since I can't have a nuclear weapon now isn't it?

      @digitalomnivore: you can't say that the increased murders in the US are mostly social and economic. What facts do you have to back up that conclusion?
    • halavais, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@AreUAnEeeedjit: I much preferred living in the USA, with its "will I get shot today" excitement.

      Chances my death will be by gunshot wound: roughly 0.2%, or 1 in 500
      Chances my death will be from flu or pneumonia: roughly 2.7% or 1 in 35.
      Chances my death will be from heart disease (heart attack): roughly 28.5% or 1 in 3.

      If you were worried about "getting shot today," perhaps you should look into getting checked for an anxiety disorder. Either that, or quit hanging out in crack houses.

      The upshot is that the majority of Americans remain willing to trade a bit of safety for the freedom to own a weapon. If that's a choice the UK doesn't want to make--be it firearms or edged weapons--that is their choice. Will they complain when the police begin rounding up cricket bats?
    • unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@warriorscot

      Isn't attacking someone with a sword already illegal?

      I'm curious why there is the percieved need to ban specific weapons, unless crime enforcement is really the big problem there. With a police force that catches criminals, no weapon is a "safe" weapon to use.
    • SilasTommorrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@jeffeb3

      "...that's a little out the window since I can't have a nuclear weapon now isn't it?"

      Not really. An armed populace is always a deterrent to a corrupt government. Nukes or not, they know that 1) using nukes on their own will turn the populace against them, and more importantly 2) low-tech, lightly armed insurgencies historically are VERY effective against a large army.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@halavais - Actually, they didn't have a choice in the matter.
    • Electric_Sheep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@karmic

      "Most Americans don't realize that the citizens of the UK don't have a Constitution with a guarantee of rights."

      The UK is in the EU. Therefor UK Citizens are also citizens of the European Union. And the European Union has laws safe-guarding the rights of all member states' citizens, which overrules the laws of every country.

      So, although the UK doesn't have a constitutions set out by the UK parliament, the EU parliament has.

      We do have safe-guards much like the bill or rights.
    • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, this really puts it in perspective. Lots of people say "LOL AMERIKA IS FASCIST!!!!!!!!"

      But in America, this simply couldn't happen.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ jeffeb3

      You said:

      "The right to bear arms was important so the military couldn't threaten the people more than the people could threaten the government. BUT, that's a little out the window since I can't have a nuclear weapon now isn't it? "

      The government couldn't really threaten the populace on a large scale with nuclear weapons if there was a civil war. For a few reasons:

      1. They live here too, and would be stuck cleaning up the mess.
      2. The 'non government side' would likely blend it with the general population and fight a gorrilla war, like we are seeing now in Iraq.
      3. It's hard to find people who will actually 'push the button' against their fellow citizens.

      In addition, the sheer number of gunowners (100 million people own 250 million guns) in the US would put the government side at a disadvantage. They aren't doing all that well in Iraq against a much smaller number.

      Also you said:

      "you can't say that the increased murders in the US are mostly social and economic. What facts do you have to back up that conclusion?"

      Take the crime rates from a poor city, or inner city and compare them to a successful one.

      http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Westfield&s1=NJ&c2=Newark&s2=NJ

      Take these two towns, about 20 minutes away from each other in New Jersey. One is a poor inner city, the other is a middle to upper middle class neigborhood. Look at the statistics. Do you think economics doesn't have anything to do with the differences? How about the social status and expectations of citizens who live in those towns? This doesn't mean these are the ONLY factors that come into play with murder statistics, but people from poor neighborhoods do seem more likely to commit murder even if poverty isn't the main reason murders are commited.

      Fun related reading:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows

      But remember kids:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_%28logical_fallacy%29


    • cielo23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, and we can't even carry concealed weapons, so much for that :p
    • mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If the hated British had more firearms, Shaun of the Dead wouldn't have been nearly as funny.

  • AZinferno, on 10/12/2007, -8/+73First guns, then knives, now swords. I think the Home Office's logic is that if they ban every object that could possibly be used as a weapon, it will be impossible to commit crime. Statistics have shown that the opposite is indeed true. Since law abiding citizens are incapable of defending themselves, and criminals still have weapons, property crime and violent crime has skyrocketed in the UK. Thank God for the second amendment.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -16/+31Violent crime in britain is 1130 victims per 100 000 inhabitants.
      The same figure for the US is 506 / 100 000

      Suggesting that Britain is a more than twice as violent as the US - as indeed anyone who's seen a city center in Britain late a weekend night can attest.

      Looking at homicide rate, however...
      5.5 per 100 000 inhabitants in the US.
      0.1 per 100 000 inhabitants in the UK.

      So the UK is a more violent place, but the US have roughly 50x as many homicides.

      Conclusion: Obviously the US doesn't have as many guns as the UK, as UK citizens are obviously able to defend themselves much better against violence than in the US.

      In fact, the UK citizenry is so well armed that the absolute number of homicides is so low, that a single murder more than last year equates a 2% rise in homicide rate, and a press panic attack. The total number of homicides in the UK per year is about one quarter of that in just Washington DC, again showing the dire need to arm the US citizens at least as well as the UK citizens.
    • anonymoustroll, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36> So the UK is a more violent place, but the US have roughly 50x as many homicides

      See... this is what happens when you ban guns and have nationalized health care: it's OK to beat someone up, just as long as you don't kill them or permanently disable them. At least folks in the US are relatively civilized up to a point and then once it's on, it's on for real (life or death, baby!).

      ...what more can you expect for a sea-going nation that paid pirates to harass the french and Spanish?
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38I don't know about you, but I'd rather be punched the face outside a pub by a chav, high on booze and heroin, just because he doesn't like the way I look, than being shot twice in the stomach by a crack addict mugging me to feed his habit.

      The reason British city centers are violent on weekend nights are the masses of violent, unemployed, uneducated, embittered, underclass, drug users. The reason the US has a higher homicide rate is that while there's fewer violent, unemployed, uneducated, underclass, drug users, they're better armed.

      IMO.
    • AZinferno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Junkyarddawg, the US does indeed have a higher homicide rate than the UK. However,most studies show that difference in homicide rates between the US and UK has more to do with the make up of our populations than with the availability of guns.


      " Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

      When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge."

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17@azinferno: the thing is that the UK homicide rate is so low that random variation between years shows up as massive percentag gains (or losses - although those don't tend to grab headlines). The madman who killed 7 prostitutes this year, ALONE makes up a rise in homicides of 14%! If the homicide rate continues to increase by 14% per year in the future the UK will equal the US in homicides in just 30 years!!!!1

      Of course, that's rubbish. The increase is simply random fluctuation around a very low absolute value, resulting in large changes in percentage, but small changes in absolute numbers. People who claim that the UK will converge in homicide rate with the US have ulterior motives for doing so, and intentionally abuse statistics to support their claim.

      The drop in US homicides, however, is real, but the US still has a looooong way to go to join the rest of the industrialized world wrt homicide rates.

      As for social factors... If chavs had guns, chavs would use guns. Make no mistake.
    • Eddy3oy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16As always the Home Office comes up with a totaly useless solution. The vast majority of stabbings in the UK are done with blades less than 6 inches long. Stanley blades and other small, easily conceled knives tend to be the weapon of choice for most people intent of mugging/ violent crime. The only people this will effect are the people that decide to hang up those immitaion swords on their mantle piece and serious martials artists. Martials artists that could probably do enough damage to someone without a sword in any case.

      This is similar to the gun ban we had years ago. The only people that got screwed were the people that belonged to clubs and had proper licenses. A criminal is gonna carry a gun no matter what, same way a criminal is going to carry something nasty to stab you with no matter what.

    • thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"Junkyarddawg, the US does indeed have a higher homicide rate than the UK. However,most studies show that difference in homicide rates between the US and UK has more to do with the make up of our populations than with the availability of guns. "


      Ahhh yes, what's the line again? "Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do!"
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Guns don't kill people - several nations allow guns and have fewer murders than the US or UK.

      No, guns don't kill people - Americans with guns kill people. There's something in the culture that leads to high rates of murder with guns. UK culture is fairly close to the US, and for that reason I'm glad we don't allow guns.
    • nodong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9fyi: the high homicide rate in the US primarily reflects criminals killed while breaking into homes and businesses, or attacking people on the street. The next largest group of deaths are intra-gang related. A relatively small number of gun related deaths are victims of crime.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Let's keep in mind that the reported homicide rate in Britain bears little relationship the true homicide rate. It isn't a homicide until there's a conviction which leaves unanswered the question of how the death *is* officially reported.

      Then there's the refusal of police to arrest and prosecutors to prosecute criminals. That should have some effect on the reported murder rate don't you think?
    • over90, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@arpad: by the same reasoning you could say the US has even higher homicide rate!
    • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The reason the UK's homicide rate is as 'low' as it is, is simply because chavs are a protected species.
      Little ***** get away with anything, and the only thing you can do is complain to the nanny state which will give them a naughty slip (ABSO).
    • Hecks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@junkarddawg

      You suggest that Britain is more than twice as violent as the US based on published violent crime figures.

      The British definition of 'Violent Crimes' is much broader than that used in the US. For example, in the UK, possesion of a weapon is a violent crime, as is going to sea in an unseaworthy vessel and endangering railway passengers

      Comparing published violent crime rates in the two countries is futile - you are comparing apples to oranges.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@over90: by the same reasoning you could say the US has even higher homicide rate!

      Yes! You could! But you'd be wrong! Because in the U.S., federal and state governments don't have policies of under-reporting murders and refusing to arrest criminals!

      I can understand why the U.K. government would want to mislead the public. When you're selling the idea that criminalizing the ownership of firearms by people who won't use them for criminal purposes will have any effect other then encouraging the criminal use of firearms by people already so inclined you multiply the difficulty of the task of maintaining public confidence by reporting its failure.

      You know, it just may be that "successful gun ban" will take it's place alongside such other oxymorons as "communist election", "United Nation's effectiveness" and "socialist prosperity".
    • tdurden1999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Right, guns are never used for self defense.

      http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
  • ymirscorpse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Perhaps each of us should be locked in to our own separate padded foam room.
    • jc807, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24That may be a little too far, but there are other alternatives. Studies overwhelmingly prove that at one point in your life you will offend someone while speaking publicly. These unfortunate and completely unnecessary incidents could be easily avoided by removing the ability to speak through simple throat surgery. We have the technology, it's about time we take real action to protect the world's citizens from the inevitable hurt feelings and resultant effect on the psyche, from which some may never recover. If we fail to overcome our human faults and frailties they will continue to be our undoing.
  • LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Hiro Nakamura isn't going to like this. And what if I have to break into someones apartment after hearing screaming and moaning?
  • dawnfire999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31Good thing I switched to the five-point-palm-exploding-heart technique a week back!!!
    • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, saw that on tv last night - they were trying it out on crash test dummies to see if it would really kill... and it would.
    • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7how do you kill a crash test dummy?
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5hold his nose when he starts humming?

      Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm.....
  • B3Nji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11dam it! I own 3 swords and 2 daggers.. does that mean I have to give them up and stop taking them down Nottingham for a night out now? :-S
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Samurai swords are banned... You can still carry around your claymore.
    • thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7>You can still carry around your claymore.

      Yeah, but do they allowed for concealed carry?
    • echo2501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What about the Kurgan build-a-sword playkit?
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@thefirelane

      Where the ***** would you conceal a Claymore.
    • BLBK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@GMorgan

      In my pants.
    • over90, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey, I'm in Nottingham as well. What a coincidence. I hope I don't come across you though.

      Oh, for those who don't know. Nottingham = Crime capital of UK.
    • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@BLBK - you must have lots of space down there.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Nottingham = Crime capital of UK"

      Damn Robin Hood! Damn him!
  • SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I for one can't wait for this new law to be brought in! After the success of our 1997 ban on handguns, no one has been shot by a handgun, so this will mean no one getting slashed by swords. Now if only the would ban smaller knifes, blunt objects and swinging hands and feet we can all live in perfect harmony!
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The murder rate is now comfortably well above the rate on even the year Dunblane occured on a regular basis. Yeah we are still safe compared to the US on this count but it has gotten worse rather than better since handguns were banned.
  • Paul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9What's a Scottish Samurai Highlander to do!?
    • acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Do what the Scottish Highlanders did before?
    • echo2501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wait for the McLeod samurai sword import season to kick in.

      Frikkin' antique dealers...
    • hifiDesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They'll use bigger swords...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore
    • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@hifi - thanks for that... I thought the thread a bit above this one was talking about anti-personnel mines rather than bigass swords. Not that I'd really want either too close my danglies, as suggested by one of the posters.
  • yalskey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Oh good... if they make it illegal the criminals won't be allowed to have them. Therefore, they can't be used for violence against good law abiding citizens.

    Anyone see the flaw in that?
  • caddar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Does this mean my +3 Vorpal Katana with keen is now banned? Damn...
  • moddakuduv, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1nice story...liked it
  • debarros, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What about ninja stars and nunchakus ? Are they still allowed ?
    • vx69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Shurikens have been banned in the UK for years
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Shurikens have been banned in the UK for years"

      Same with many US states.
  • moddakuduv, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1nice story..liked it
  • MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Does anyone else find the term "Samurai swords" horribly ignorant?
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6These are the same people who think banning something will make them all vanish, and the emotions behind the acts simply cease to exist. Like guns, drugs, gambling, etc.

      What you saw was just one more small sample of ignorance, out of a large sea of ignorance.

      They hear of a "gun" crime, they react by banning guns. They hear of a "sword" crime, they react by banning swords. Or even more irrationally, banning only specific guns and swords, while leaving other guns and swords perfectly legal.

      I really, really worry what is going to happen when, having banned all tools, they hear of a rape occurring. Gee, what's left to ban?

      (this being, of course, the thinking behind the "chemical castration" in movies such as _THX1138_ and _Equilibrium_. I'm sure other examples will come to mind)


  • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3When samurai swords are outlawed, only psychotic ninja outlaws will have samurai swords.
  • rick2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4They are only being banned because they are a weapon of choice with these "gangs" and what other use do they have other than to be an offensive weapon?

    I could all ways shred my paper i spose..
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Hahahaha! Exactly what the argument was for banning handguns.

      Penises are the weapons of choice for rapists all around the world. Let's ban them! After all, more than 50% of the population don't have them, and get along just fine. No one _needs_ a penis.
    • Psych77, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I agree with Rick2K.

      No, banning them might not stop criminals having them. What it does do is give the police the right to arrest criminals for having them, before they use them.
      If you're happy with every nutter being legally allowed to carry an item, that's sole designed purpose is to injure, and keep that weapon until the point he actually hurts someone, then yes, this is bad.

      Unfortunately most people on Digg are too f*cking stupid to look at anything reasonably and must always stick with "authority is bad, m'kay", and "they're tryin' to tek err freedoms". God forbid that any authority could pass a law to ban the possession of weapons to try to keep the general population safe. No, it must be a conspiracy!
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"God forbid that any authority could pass a law to ban the possession of weapons to try to keep the general population safe."

      God forbid you should realize that no such authority could ever be trusted, or realize that the general population will be as safe as possible if it holds onto the right and the means to defend itself.
    • acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2weapon of choice? the article said they have 20 crimes a year involving them. I'd hardly call that a weapon of choice.
  • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Forgive me for not buying into the 'we're free to do what we want!!!!1' stuff, but I don't see why anyone would need a cheap knockoff sword. The article states that genuine collectors will be licensed and allowed to keep them, but that general ownership won't be allowed. Where's the problem with that? Why does the average joe need a SWORD??
    • 93ex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Tell that to everyone who plays WoW.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21It is not a matter of need, does anyone really need a car capable of going faster than the speed limit? Do you really need access to the Internet? People got along fine with out it.

      It is a matter of you have a Right to own something and the Government stepping in and taking away those Rights because someone else has abused those same Rights. If next year there is a larger number of murders committed with screwdrivers would you be OK with banning screwdrivers?
    • mozartsgokart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13licensed? just another way to tax the people.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Last time I checked, a screwdriver has a purpose miles above and beyond stabbing people. What purpose does a sword have? It can look pretty, or it can be used to attack people. If you have an interest in the first, this law won't stop you from doing it.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Tizz you just answered your own question

      "It looks pretty"

      Swords are also a collectors item, most people don't play samurai with their friends. They hang 'em on the wall.
    • DarkDakota, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Because I want one,

      why do you need a car?

      why do you need a hair cut?

      start blaming the criminal again and stop blaming everything else.
    • bealer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Poor examples.

      "Because I want one"
      You have no idea.

      Why do I need a car?
      To drive around in. Whether it can go faster than the speed limit is irrelevant. It still performs a function.

      Why do I need a sword?
      Well you don't really. At least not in practical terms. Don't get me wrong I'd love to have a rare sword or katana, but as mentioned, proper collectors can license such items.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"What purpose does a sword have?"

      Really, really good physical exercise. Carrying one is also a _very_ good way to intimidate thugs into not mugging you.

      That's why "open carry" works for police. It has nothing to do with them being police, it has to do with the fact that you _know_ they are armed.

      So long as I do not punch you, I am assumed innocent and able to carry my hands openly or concealed. Why, just because my belt can be used to kill someone, must my belt be banned? My hands can kill just as well, yet they are not banned.

      Substitute anything into the above paragraph, it's all the same.

      The reason that the same argument _always_ applies is because a sharp MIND is the only weapon. Other things are merely tools. If you want to talk about banning weapons, you must logically mean to ban THINKING.

    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Why does the average joe need a SWORD??"

      Why must the average joe justify to you their ownership of anything? Who made you God?
    • fsnuffer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Weren't gun owners licensed in the UK first? Then what happened? Licensing is not licensing in this case. It is taking inventory so that later on down the road they will have a list to go door-to-door with when then want to confiscate them? If that is what the majority of the people in a democracy want, so be it but don't tell me it is just a license. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know what I mean.


      EDIT: Who is a "Proper" collector? A lilly white gentleman? Sounds racist to me
    • UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Just because it's not useful to you doesn't mean you can ***** make it disappear. What the hell would I use to open my damn watermelons. It doesn't matter what use it has, what use is your dick if it doesn't benefit me...***** ban it!
  • Destroytoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5YOU MEAN THERE CAN'T BE ONE!?!?!
    ONLY ONE?...
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Blame the tool not the user thinking at its best, next they will be banning steak knives.
    • bloodr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I think the brits tried that already.
    • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"Blame the tool not the user"

      But the users ARE tools!!!
  • somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3While this law is basically pointless and yet another example of Labour's retarded "make as many ***** laws as you can" policy it does however give the police an excuse to arrest ***** chavs who need to be in jail anyway.

    Wait, what the ***** am I saying?! How many ***** chavs have I ever seen carrying Samurai swords down the high-street?

    Ok now what im about to suggest might sound controversial but stick with me for a second, what we need are proper illegal weapons laws. If you want to own a gun, maybe your a farmer, maybe your a shooting club member or maybe you just have property to protect, that's fine, as long as you go through proper licensing and checking, as long as you are not some ***** mafia or gang member and as long as you keep your gun locked up safely and observe basic gun safety you should be allowed to own a gun, fine. However, if you illegally acquired a gun, if you sell guns illegally, if you get kids to run guns for you, if you do ANY of that you should have the whole ***** book and a half thrown at you.

    Gun dealers are worse than drug dealers in my view, the thought of a drug dealer standing outside a school pushing crack on 12 year old girls pisses me off less than when I see a documentary and a kid says "yeah i can get a gun in 20 mins, wait here". The police need far far more power in this regard, if someone calls the police and says they've seen a gun I expect, nay, demand that a full armed response unit turns up within 3 minutes. Taking one illegal gun off the street and out of the hands of a gang is worth more than seizing a ton of cocaine in my book.
    • somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -16/+0Why the ***** was I modded down? ***** *****.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Why the ***** was I modded down? ***** *****."

      Flattery will get you nowhere, somewitches
    • somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1***** YOU! AND ***** ANYONE ELSE WHO MODDED THIS DOWN

      Bunch of ***** *****.
    • fsnuffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Steady somewitches. I don't know why you were modded down either. I agree with your points. I legally own guns in the US and if mine or someone else's kid does something illegal with them because I didn't secure them, then under the law it should as if I pulled the trigger. The kid also, but the responsibility is mine and mine alone to secure them. I gave you a digg.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5just for the record, somewitches,

      I never modded down your first comment, I don't agree with the part about gun dealers being worse then drug dealers, but that's just a matter of opinion, no biggie.

      However, I did mod down your stupid spam reply, because it was arrogant and immature. As are you.

      btw, i also modded down your second reply.
      and the original comment now as well.
      because you're an arse
  • HomerS1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Good thing I already have purchased my Klingon bat'leth. You know that they will be next to be banned.

    Today is a good day to die!
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006240126,00.html too late.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ DivisibleByZero,

      Astounding. "Could easily take someone's head off"? Did any of the police do more than just piss their pants in fear? There is a very good reason it's a _fantasy_ weapon.

      "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." --- (Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, 1952)

      Col. Cooper might have been initially trying satire with his coining of the phrase "Hoplophobia"...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

      ...but I have come to the conclusion that he was far more correct than he initially thought.

      These people really are freaked out by anything that might be a "weapon".

      Such psychotic fear is a sad, sad thing to base legislation upon.

  • jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Why don't they just ban Murder!!
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Then the murderers won't murder me. Why don't they think of these things?
    • MasterSmatty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12LOL absoloutely. Guns aren't the problem! Murder is! If we outlaw that we'll be one step ahead of the criminals! How progressive!
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My apartment complex has a "no illegal dumping" sign on the dumpster. If you know it's illegal, is a sign going to be the thing that stops you?
  • GloomyYardGnome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I can't wait until the British have nothing left to ban but rocks. Maybe after that, they will license the use of hands, seeing as you can use those to kill someone, too.
    • fsnuffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The nuns would support a hand ban. This way the government could also regulate the sameself sex industry. Kill two birds with one stone
  • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Once again proving that pirates are better than ninjas.
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Last time I checked, cannons were illegal..
  • dagnome1984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In other news the U.K banned the fork today forcing everyone to eat with chop sticks.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Chop-sticks? Do you not realise how easy it is to have someone's eye out with one of those....?
  • daveyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26This is a good thing. i am sick to death of Samurai's coming over here, stealing our jobs and our women. Send 'em all home I say. I have a Samurai family next door, they just moved in and I swear to god theres like 25 of them. They must be 5 to a room. All day and all night, all they do is fight with swords. I worry for the children.
  • N1XUK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hmmm shame always wanted to save up and bring one back from east when i finally get to go. Looks like im going to have to go for a wooden sword collection...
  • Stopher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Swords don't kill people, samurai do.
  • SarahC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The sale of imitation samurai swords........"

    So I could buy a real one? ^-^
  • mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I hope attacks with tire iron's don't go up, otherwise there is going to be a lot of stranded motorists!
  • WanderLink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Well, that's what Brit's get for being delusional.
  • MasterSmatty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Random British citizen: I was planning on murdering my wife with a 9mm. But they said if I obtained a gun I would be a criminal and that was out of the question. So I went and ordered a sword and now this comes up?

    If a person is planning to commit a crime outlawing one form of weaponry will not change his mind - only his means(and sometimes not even those). If you take away swords they will get kitchen knives. Take away those? Axes, power tools etc. Not to mention I am bigger than you are. If I want to rape rob or steal from you then all I need is for you to be unarmed. If I am going to kill or injure someone then I am already breaking a law carrying a stiffer penalty than obtaining an illegal weapon. What the hell do I care? I just can't let you tell anyone you saw me with it.*BANG*
  • mookiemookie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Too bad it comes too late to Cousin Avi's poor bodyguard
  • dblespresso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2NExt it will be the plastic knifes, then sticks, then rocks.... then we will all be safe
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7London (AP) After a spate of fisticuff related rows, Parliament enacted a law today requiring British subjects to keep their hands in their pockets at all times or face a mandatory 50 lashes of the cat. Most people appear unconcerned, since only hooligans use their fists. Concerns that productivity would decline were met with a thorough thrashing by the constabulary.
    • fsnuffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Better not let PETA catch you lashing someone with a cat. I demand a law banning all forms of feline weponisation.
  • Sorvan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I wonder how they'll discriminate between a "samurai sword" and some other sword? If you stick a different handle on the blade, will it still be a "samurai" sword?
  • csshyamsundar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1You know what: English are a bunch of morons with absolutely no BRAiNS !!!

    One of my friends ( an Indian ) was rejected for London Business School because he had only 3 toes., but on other news I read that a Blind man manned an aircraft. [ Its pathetic to read that a blind man was allowed such a risky operation ]

    Bunch of Racists and I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for those dumb ***** !!!
    • over90, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3lol wut
    • REBELinBLUE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What the hell have you been smoking, and where can I get some?
    • daveyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah but we do understand what the "shift" key does. You're a strange person.
    • aragami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i have no idea what the hell you are smoking but i'd quit soon if i were you,


      and if by blind man pilotting an aircraft you mean the guy in the news this week for attempting to fly a microlite around the world then yes your right, its hardly a plane though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/6418705.stm
  • insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thats what happebns when you ban guns. People still murder eachother only with other weapons. Then you ban the other weapons and they use their bare hands and still murder eachother. Then you ban bare hands and people have no hands.
  • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10wrong place.

    bury me
  • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what do I do if I got one?

    Have I got to walk down the street with it and take it into the local cop shop - wouldn't this be a bit stupid, it's not like its a gun or nothing so I can't easily hide it from view.
  • Scrib, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I wish they'd stop ***** banning *****, the only people in England who have weapons now are the criminals, putting us even more at risk than if we can have self defense measures ourselves.

    I'm not saying I would carry a sword as self defense, just all bannings in general are getting stupid.
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, I would totally carry a Katana around I was within the law to do so.

      Fact is, here in the us, it's [more] legal to carry a concealed handgun (as long as you have a permit) than it is to have a Katana on your person..
    • lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2England isn't Britain - you tit.
  • echo2501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"What are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?"
  • mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10There must have been a rise in tooth brush related crime 70 years ago...
    • over90, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7and you guys are losing your fight against obesity, ignorance and arrogance.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Americans don't mind everyone owning swords, because everyone is too fat to get off the sofa and use them anyway.
    • Spankov, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5The worst teeth I have ever seen were on Americans...
    • mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@over90
      I'm playing off a stereo-type, don't get all uppity.

      I am aware American's are fat and stupid. However, I was unaware Brits are so very thin and smart. Thanks for enlightening me.

      @Spankov
      Move out of your trailer park?
    • over90, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1mr.hostility: I was playing on a stereotype as well. Except my case, your original comments reinforce the typical American stereotype.
  • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4People oft say 'now only the criminals will have them!'. Yes, but a person is only a criminal once a crime has been committed, and a large number of murders are 'heat of the moment' situations. Let's say someone buys a cheap imitation sword on their holiday because they think it's cool. At some point down the line, there may be a heated argument, they snap, and use the sword to harm someone. They weren't a criminal, but after the act they are. Now, if this law was in place, they wouldn't be able to get the sword in the first place, and there's a possibility that would have cooled the situation somewhat. Yes they could use another tool as a weapon, but as I've said several times, other tools have useful purposes.

    This argument applies to guns too - if everyone has a gun in the house then in a heated situation, there's a chance it will be used, even if that person wouldn't dream of it at any other time. If there's no gun, suddenly the situation is slightly diffused - or at least not deadly. Obviously doesn't apply in every situation, but if it saves one person, fine by me.

    If a collector wants to buy a sword to add to a collection, they can do, this law won't stop them. What it will stop is the average person buying a sword because they think its 'arwsome!!!'.
    • MasterSmatty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"If there's no gun, suddenly the situation is slightly diffused - or at least not deadly"

      Your argument implies that aside from guns(and swords) murders don't happen. Have you never heard the phrase "beaten to death"? It isn't referring to eggs. People murder - tools only shape the fashion in which they do it. If you think outlawing guns will result in a lower homicide rate look at Mexico which has gun control laws as strict as the UK and has a homicide rate of 17.58 per 100,000 of population. Gun control laws stem from fear of guns and misinformation.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@tizz66

      "...if this law was in place, they wouldn't be able to get the sword in the first place, and there's a possibility that would have cooled the situation somewhat..."

      Yeah, I can see it now...

      'Right, mo-fo, I'm gonna slice you with my samurai sw.. dang, where is it? Oh, yeah, it's been banned. Oh well, never mind. Pint?'

      If you're pissed enough to reach for a samurai sword on the wall, you're pissed enough to each for a breadknife in the drawer, or a pool-cue in the basement, or a lamp in the bedroom, or a mirror in the bathroom, or a plant-pot in the garden, or a.. (you get my drift). Banning these things will make no discernible difference to the number of murders. It will lower the number of murders with samurai swords, but you can bet the overall will not change. Gun crime is down (slightly) in the UK since the gun ban, but overall murders are not.
    • McLumpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Tizz, there's a problem with your argument. If a person really wants to murder someone else, even if it's just in the heat of the moment, he's going to use any available weapon to do so - even if it's just their bare hands. It's not like: "You bastard! I'm going to ***** ki--oh, wait. I don't have a samurai sword. I guess I won't." Banning potential weapons isn't going to "cool the situation;" murderers will just use something else.

      Edit: dammit, cartoonal beat me to it.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"but a person is only a criminal once a crime has been committed..."

      It must really suck to be you. Unable to walk down the street for dread fear of everyone around you. Hey! That umbrella has a metal tip! He could stab me!

      That woman's high heels are deadly! She could punch through my skull with no effort at all.

      Hey! He's big! He's going to kill me with his bare hands! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

      Oh NO! That car is traveling more than 20mph! One little swerve and I'm dead!

    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Curt: You've interpreted what I've said completely the opposite to what I think, in fact. I feel much safer walking down the average street in the UK, knowing that people around me don't have guns, than I do walking around the US, where I know there's a good chance they do.

      A gun takes very little conscious effort to use. You pull the trigger and your job is done. That makes it a deadly spur-of-the-moment weapon. Small knives (and swords too, to an extent, though I realise that contradicts my first post slightly) require a larger conscious effort - you actually have to violently stab that person. The difference is the latter takes a far larger desire to cause harm, even though the result is the same.

      All I'm saying is, people talk about 'criminals' and 'us' like they're two different breeds. They aren't. It's isn't black and white. Everyone has the potential to become a criminal, and I believe that having weapons around makes it all the more likely, given a bad situation.

      In all of these posts, I'm excluding organised criminals (gangs, mainly) because they will have weapons whether laws exist or not. My points relate to the 'unorganised' crimes.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ tizz66,

      "I feel much safer walking down the average street in the UK, knowing that people around me don't have guns, than I do walking around the US, where I know there's a good chance they do."

      That's irrational. You are much more likely to be mugged in the UK, and the cities/states in the US that ban guns, than anywhere in the US that doesn't make it illegal for private people to carry guns.

      Which means your paranoia has nothing to do with being attacked. This is important for you to realize in order to heal. You're not actually afraid of being attacked.

      What you fear is "guns". It is an irrational fear, because guns are inanimate objects. You might as well fear grapes.

      Did you know that grapes were used in many more deaths than guns? Grapes are used to make alcohol. Banning grapes and barley would, if successful, save far more lives. But alcohol prohibition has been tried, just like firearms prohibition, and ended up just as much an abysmal failure.

      Facing the irrationality of your fear is the first step. Good for you for taking that step.

    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"A gun takes very little conscious effort to use."

      And your experience comes from what? No, really, how many people have you killed? How many guns have you shot? Pistols, rifles, machineguns? ...No? I guessed not.

      Or is your experience limited to Hollywood movies? Video games?

      Ignorance of the scale you present can only mean.... WE HAVE TO BAN HOLLYWOOD MOVIES AND VIDEOGAMES!

      Anyone who thinks killing another human being is easy has never been faced with that choice.

    • akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no, i kind of get what he's saying here.

      for instance, i had an ex that, in a heated argument, decided to throw a tv remote at me. had he had a gun or a katana within easy reach, i may have left that relationship with a lot more damage than a bruised up shoulder and a broken remote control.

      although i also see the other points, and i don't really think that banning swords is the answer, since brandishing a sword in public is ALREADY illegal, and obviously hasn't helped a whole lot.

    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"had he had a gun or a katana within easy reach, i may have left that relationship with a lot more damage than a bruised up shoulder and a broken remote control."

      While that makes emotional sense, it isn't borne out by experience. Those places where firearms are _less_ illegal have lower violent crime rates, and that includes the kinds of things you're talking about.

      I can suggest _More Guns, Less Crime_ by the University of Chicago Press.

  • ManHammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wonder how they'll react in 10 years when its banning cricket bats and claw hammers that's on the table
  • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Collectors and martial arts enthusiasts owning or using genuine samurai swords would be exempt from the ban"

    So, I'm actually allowed to 'use' a genuine one!

    This is great, criminals wont be owning the ***** aluminum replicas - just razor sharp real ones!!
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hahaha!

      When standard capacity firearms magazines were banned in the US, limited to only 10 rounds by Federal law (because, I kid you not, they "effected inter-state commerce"), people had an answer for that.

      The 9mm had been adopted because it was easier to shoot, relatively cheap, and could carry more rounds than a .45. Oh, but not any longer!

      Until then, the .45, a much more powerful round than the European 9mm, had come with magazines of 7 rounds. They were re-engineered to carry 10, the new limit, because if you're limited in number it's better to have each one REALLY count.

      The magazine ban made handguns _more_ lethal.

    • xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just like the ban on "cop killer" bullets made criminals realize that cops wore bullet proof vests and resulted in more cops being shot in the head. The ban actually killed more cops!
  • s14sh3r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1There can be only one.
  • shaen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Did anyone else read that title and think they meant this?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai_Swords
  • gambatte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So ‘samurai sword’ - whats that? Tanto? Wakizashi? Katana? Daisho? Ninjato?
    Can’t be a ninjato, they weren’t used by samurais, infact theres debate as to if they were anything more than a film invention.

    Take it we’ll still be able to rampage with sabres, claymores, rapiers.

    But no, they’re already illegal in a public place and would be classed as offensive weapons. Get caught with a fixed blade over a few inches long, in public, and you’re in trouble.

    Good thing too.

    What we don’t need is knee jerk reactions like this, what we do need is a strong enforcement of the current laws.
  • HappyMax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Good. Every grown man I've known who owns fake samurai swords is a psychopath.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.