# Swords Banned In Australia



## KenpoTess (May 30, 2004)

Herald Sun
New law to ban swords
Peter Mickelburough, state politics reporter
9th March 2004

SWORDS will be outlawed from July under new laws to curb the growing use of the weapons in street brawls.

Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said the ban would help police overcome a culture of young people arming themselves with swords.

"For most people running around the street carrying swords there is absolutely no reason for them to be carrying those weapons," he said yesterday.

From July, anyone found possessing or selling a sword without a permit will face up to six months' jail and fines of up to $12,000.

Existing sword owners must surrender their weapons to police, sell them to a licensed dealer or apply to the Chief Commissioner for specific approval.

Collectors and people with legitimate cultural, religious or military reasons to own swords will be exempted from the ban, but must store them under lock and key and have a burglar alarm.

The sword ban follows a string of recent attacks and a regulatory impact statement undertaken by the State Government last year.

Last week, a 13-year-old boy was arrested and charged after allegedly charging police with a sword near Castlemaine, in central Victoria.

A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by a samurai sword in a confrontation between 40 men in the Fitzroy Gardens a fortnight ago -- the second brawl involving swords in 24 hours.

Huy Huynh, 19, was chased from the Salt nightclub and hacked to death nearby in July 2002 by a mob using samurai swords and machetes.

The new laws will make it illegal to sell swords to anyone who does not have a permit.

Sword sellers will have to keep a register of buyers' details and make it available for police to inspect.

Mr Haermeyer said groups such as highland dancers, historic re-enactment groups, bonafide collectors and people with family heirlooms could apply for an exemption from the licensing services branch of Victoria Police.

"Legitimate sword owners understand the importance of ensuring that their swords do not fall into the wrong hands," he said.

"The vast majority of the community would say, 'Look, there's no place for people just being able to go out there and buy these things and carry them around the street'."

Mr Haermeyer said the exact definition of a sword under the new regulations was still being considered.

He said machetes would remain a controlled weapon, requiring a person to have a legitimate reason for carrying them.

The Government is also looking at bans on some other weapons, such as crossbows, and greater restriction on the sale of prohibited and regulated weapons at weekend markets.

Mr Haermeyer warned that police would be actively hunting for knives and swords after being given new powers and 480 metal detectors late last year, allowing them to search people they reasonably suspected were carrying weapons.

Link Here


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2004)

I see the problem they're facing, but this seems like an overly broad attempt to control it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 30, 2004)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I see the problem they're facing, but this seems like an overly broad attempt to control it.




Yes it is a symptom that they are addressing not the roo cause or disease itself. What is causing the violence or he youth rebellion?


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 30, 2004)

Kind of rots for the Martial arts people. 
 Wounder if the study of a martial art is ligit enough reason to own a sword?


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2004)

Yes, I was looking to see if "martial arts student" would be a valid exception.


----------



## Cruentus (May 30, 2004)

Ah...who needs civil liberties anyways.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 30, 2004)

Hmmm...I don't think I'd be too happy having a license to own my swords and knives. They'd put me in prison for sure. LOL...Man, to think that they have a ban on swords or you need a license to own one. LOL. Sounds like our Gun conditions. Swords over there, Guns over here. Guess that's about right. We have street wars over here, they have street wars over there. Ouch! 

Can't imagine something like that being so bad that a ban is needed. A license is one thing, but a ban...Then again, we kind of need a thing on guns over here, considering all the stupid stuff with guns that goes on in our streets. Maybe somebody will get a hint someday...

:asian:


----------



## auzziegreg59 (May 30, 2004)

What it is guys, the state where all these sword wielding want to be shintaro,s are running around doesnt have a genuine registered IKKO Kenpo studio.They are still living in the 17th century down there and i dont know if they even have electricity or telephones yet.Mr C went down there last year an I was extremely concerned as to whether he would make it back alive and with all his hair.In the capital where we do have an IKKO studio we have no crime an the converted walk upon the sacred kenpo earth  an give thanks that MrC made it back alive. Living in SYDNEY is always plessant


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 30, 2004)

Can you imagin walking down the street and seeing 5-10 guys comeing down the other way waveing swords. 
 Now I have seen a group of 5-7 guys walking my way and known that they all had pistols conceled under their plaid shirts but they were not bannishing them and I knew  i was not their target. That scared the crap out of me . But liveing in So. Cal. at the time it was not uncommon.
 Swords cutting people and being used as a weapon in street fights and bar fights is just "out there" a little to much for me. Can you imagin walking into your local bar with a sword on your back?
 Still I hate to see that kind of law passed any where.


----------



## auzziegreg59 (May 30, 2004)

Agreed, you must also be made aware of the big picture,Firstly it is an election year and the press are going nuts down here over Irac.Any acts of violence are blown out of proportion severely, The katanas used were ornamental in make,440 stainless steel ,not a true blade the incidents were domestic in nature that escalated into a hollywood movie set.The gouvernment wants to regulate the amount of illegal weapons being made available for sale to the public, ie licencing.To my way of thinking if you need to be accessed as to your reasoning why you would want or need aweapon of that type and you can substanciate a valid reason it will be granted if not it wont Hence less weapons for crimei


----------



## MA-Caver (May 30, 2004)

I found the article to be surrealistic to be sure. Living in the 17th century indeed. Australia is indeed a modern country with it's large cities as Sydney and Perth and so forth. It would seem that swords were an alternate weapon of choice since they have a gun ban down there that is similar to ours. 
But I agree totally with Rich Parsons is that they (government) need to look at the cause of why these attacks are occuring not with WHAT. It could've easily been with knives and nunchuckus or any other type of weapon. 
Address the cause of the violence not the method.


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2004)

Thanks for the inside story *auzziegreg59*.


----------



## Cobra (Jun 1, 2004)

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> Herald Sun
> New law to ban swords
> Peter Mickelburough, state politics reporter
> 9th March 2004
> ...


I can understand why they would come to that law, but I think it is a basic human right to be able to carry arms. I'm glad in America has an amendmant assuring the right to have weapons.

I wasn't aware that street fights in Australia had swords in them. Dangerous, but it is nice to hear swords are being used for something or another.


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 1, 2004)

They seem to be missing the obvious point that if you ban something you drive it underground.
The criminals have never bothered about the law and can always get what they want.
As here in the UK and the gun ban all that they did was to remove the weapons that they knew where they were and drive the rest underground. Clever.
As usual the majority suffer for the actions of a few and also as usual the authorities excuse is safety.
The press love a story about xyz and their samurai swords especially on dead days and will hype the story up. The average person who probably has no thought on the subject normally will be bombarded by the press and instead of thinking for themselves, which is hard, will blindly follow (baa baa baa).
Responsible owners will have to get and pay for a license or give their swords up, and there is no mention of compensation.

David


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 1, 2004)

:ticked: That's it!  _<She-Sulsa seizes her collection of katanas, wakazashis, tantos and other blades and runs for the hills - sets up bivoac near cave, kills nearest cougar and puts it on the spit to roast for dinner... re-reads speeches written and given by Pres. John F. Kennedy on the importance of preserving civil liberties in the face of terrorism and fear of nuclear warfare...sighs...and says, "those were the days...">_I'm a woman on the edge....:jedi1: :mp5: 
:ninja::EG::armed:


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 10, 2005)

I'm sorry, but I'm totally in favour of the law. Anyone who thinks it's "human rights" to carry weapons is stark raving bonkers. It's for the protection of the many who DON'T own weapons, if you're serious about owning/practicing/collecting samurai swords/swords in general, then applying for a licence should not be an issue in the slightest. 

In the US in 1994, there were over 11,500 gun related deaths, compared to the UK where we had 64. There's a massive difference in gun availability here thank Christ! I love samurai culuture, history, weapons, arts, but like a car, which requires a licence, certain elements of it can be dangerous, also like a car. It's nothing at all to do with "human rights issues", or the encroachment of a "nanny state", if you lived in the UK you'd realise that, but a common sense approach. Gun related deaths/crimes, (like compensation culture) is on the rise in the UK, and can in the main, be attributed to the spread of American culture over here.  

Trying to "address why they were violent in the first place", is a bit of a tall order. They're human, therefore they can and will be violent. Weapon ownership is a privelige, not a bloody right, and as such, should be tightly regulated to those that are sincere about using them in a responsible manner. This isn't the sodding dark ages after all!!!!


----------



## dubljay (Apr 10, 2005)

Angelusmortis said:
			
		

> In the US in 1994, there were over 11,500 gun related deaths, compared to the UK where we had 64.


 Not to get off topic but what is the population difference between the countries.  Per capita would be a much better statistic to use.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 10, 2005)

I'd imagine that martial artists would be able to get the historic "re-enactment groups" excemption.

 "right to carry arms" - At the time it was written I'd agree that it was neccessary for the US, but now?

 Laws are there to protect people.  Speed Limits, for example, in isolation a person has the "natural right" to go as fast as they want.  But doing so endangers everyone else.  Allowing people to carry weapons puts a lot of other people in considerably more danger then they where in before...

 "The bad guys will find a way" - True, in some sense, but back to the speeding example.  People still speed, people still get hurt because of speeders, but get rid of the law and the problem will be a lot worse.

 It also makes things more difficult, as weapons then have to be concealed and if you get caught with them you're in a bit of trouble.

 Owning and training with weapons as historical reinactment or sport is one thing, carrying them around downtown is another...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2005)

Sword attacks are definitely up...or at least, news reports about them are. It seems almost commonplace to read such a story.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Apr 10, 2005)

This is dissapointing,I always thought if people walked around carrying swords,people would be more polite.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2005)

It would certainly be fun! When I taught at West Point, some of the students were authorized to wear swords. I thought that that was cool.


----------



## Bammx2 (Apr 10, 2005)

I must admit,being from the states,and now living here in the UK,I totally disagree with the way things are being handled as far as weapons "control" in both australia and the UK.

 It seems to me,they definatley have the WRONG idea! They want to make a mandatory 5 year sentence for being in possesion of a knife here.
If you are in possesion of a LOCKING folder,regardless of size...you ARE a criminal here.Go staraight to jail,do not pass go,do not collect £200.
 The are 3 problems I see here;
1-they want to punish the OBJECT,not the ACT.
2-they punish the ENTIRE country for the screw ups of a few.
3-they lack(or ignore)the power of EDUCATION.

I saw a police officer on tv 2 weeks ago who admitted that because of knife and gun crimes,we are on the threshold of total anarchy.
 Mainly because people are getting fed up and are starting to FIGHT BACK.
But as previously stated...you are a criminal if you do.
 One other thing I see wrong...maybe cause I'm a country boy from tarheel country...When they ban these things,they ONLY go after the ones they know about....and they gave them up without a fight.
 Both countrues have(or had) an olympic shooting team....and they have to leave thier home soil just to practice to represent THIER HOME SOIL.

:shrug:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

Yes..inanimate objects are the cause of all human suffering dont you know?

:shrug:


----------



## Bammx2 (Apr 10, 2005)

Angelusmortis said:
			
		

> In the US in 1994, there were over 11,500 gun related deaths, compared to the UK where we had 64. There's a massive difference in gun availability here thank Christ!


That was '94.
in 2003 ....
11,000 shootings in the US.
Population,approx 270 million.

The UK:
28 shootings a day.10,220 for the year.
Population,approx 60 million.

Now someone is gonna throw up "but they are not all homicides"
fine....but this IS a country where ALL guns are banned except shotguns and low cal rifles.MOST of those "incidents" were handguns and FULL-AUTO.

per capita...who wins?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

And a LARGE chunk of US "gun deaths" are suicides. If those guns weren't available they would have found other means......


----------



## Bammx2 (Apr 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And a LARGE chunk of US "gun deaths" are suicides. If those guns weren't available they would have found other means......


funny that.
the MEDIA in any country NEVER specify just exactly what the actual occurance was.
 They just throw in WHAT happened..not WHY.
and I know the some ole,lame ole...."if it bleeds, it leads"

and yer right...they would find another way,but would we know about it?
HHhhmmm.......
things that make ya go......hhhmmm....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And a LARGE chunk of US "gun deaths" are suicides. If those guns weren't available they would have found other means......



How big a chunk?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

> In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides. (SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)


Probably part of the "a gun in your house is X% more likely to be used against the homeowner" stat......


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2005)

Knife Epidemic in the U.K.:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11928


----------



## Satt (Apr 10, 2005)

Every time I hear a story like this my stomach sinks. It scares me to think about the government slowly but surely restricting what I can and can't do. That is why I am getting out of the military. I really don't like the government trying to control every aspect of my life. It really makes me angry about it happening in the civilian world though. And it makes me even angrier that I feel I can't do anything to prevent it.

:jedi1:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2005)

In fairness, you have to expect it in the service.

Are they restricting you with a sword ban, or protecting you? Half empty, or half full?


----------



## Satt (Apr 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> In fairness, you have to expect it in the service.


Yeah, you are right about the service. I am just getting out because of it and I want to be with my family more. I am a firm believer that people kill people though, not the sword I mean. I truly believe that even if ALL weapons were banned that there would still be tons of shootings, stabbings, etc...(because the "bad people" would still have them), But noone would have the tools to defend themselves except for their bare hands.

:mp5: :idunno: :jedi1: 

I guess I should really start studying hard core on my Taijutsu. LOL.


----------



## Kane (Apr 10, 2005)

Maybe for Australia, such a law might be legal. Here in the US the sword is probably the least weapon used in crimes. You will here cases of of a pistol, shotgun, or even a mace or battle axe but never a sword. Such a law in the US would be almost useless and a waste of time.

However you see that is what happens when you ban guns. Once you ban guns, people will find something else to use. That is probably why swords are used so commonly in Australia at the time. With ban on gun, people found more use for a sword. With the ban of swords people will look to kitchen knives until finally they ban that:lol:. Then people will use sticks, and then sticks will be banned:lol:. Then people will result to their hands, feet, and mouth. Are they going to ban that too:idunno: ?

So the question is will banning weapons prevent deaths when people will keep looking for other weapons:idunno: ? I dunno, but one thing is for certain; it is easier to pull a trigger than to slash a sword, and it is easier to slash a sword than to punch someone to death. Not sure about the weapons issue.

My conclusion is that weapons control should maybe controlled (gun license at least) but in the end I think people should look to improving the society to prevent murder more than looking how to ban weapons.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Apr 10, 2005)

The Australian government is a freely elected state. The people have spoken, and they have chosen a "progressive", read authoritarian, form of governemnt. I've said it before, freedoms are never taken away, they are given freely, piece by piece.


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 10, 2005)

First off, having lived, born and bred in the UK for 28 years, and an ex copper of a few years, (and served in the Royal Navy, during the second Gulf) I totally and utterly reject the "28 shootings a day", every day. The 1994 quote was one we had a few years ago, and that wasn't just "shootings" that was gun related murders, not bloody suicides! The UK has approx 60 million people, 5 times less or so than the US, 5x64 ain't 11,500. You guys have a national obsession with guns, that verges on the irresponsible from what I hear. We had combined ops with the Canadians on one occassion, and from what I hear, they don't have anywhere near your problems. Our gun crime is on the increase, numbering in the low hundreds now, but still far, far less than the US. The rest of the world doesn't have this nonsensical "right to bear arms" bs. Either somewhere is a warzone, in which case people kill each other, or they're as civilised as they can be.


We have a growing gun culture in the UK, and you're right, it will occur underground, the badness in human society always does, but to not have a provision of law for certain issues would definately make the situation even worse. We have(had) the rule of law in the UK, and arming the public so that they can "defend" themselves against the "bad guys" is a total nonsense which some of the Americans on the board seem to have difficulty grasping. You wouldn't sit there and say "it's ok to sexually molest children, and we won't pass a law against it cos it'll drive it underground". Would you? No. Case in point. These weapons, while beautiful and elegant, are lethal, and whether they're inanimate objects or not is besides the point. I'm fairly certain that some common sense would be applied, relevant police background checks etc... into people applying for dispensation from the law. I'll say it again, this is the 21st Century, Western world, NOT, the Wild West, or feudal Japan, nor modern day America with it's gun loving culture. Any responsible martial artist, who trains in any of the sword arts shouldn't have a problem with getting dispensation. Those who study because they think it makes them sound/look hard, standing in front of the mirror wafting it around, perhaps they're the ones who shouldn't have 'em in the first place.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2005)

Uh-oh, somebody reasonable....


----------



## arnisador (Apr 11, 2005)

*Satt*, good luck with your transition!


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

http://www.haciendapub.com/article15.html


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

Angelusmortis said:
			
		

> First off, having lived, born and bred in the UK for 28 years, and an ex copper of a few years, (and served in the Royal Navy, during the second Gulf) I totally and utterly reject the "28 shootings a day", every day. The 1994 quote was one we had a few years ago, and that wasn't just "shootings" that was gun related murders, not bloody suicides!


http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/9788515.htm


> Majority of gun deaths are suicides. By Janice Billingsley


www.jointogether.org/sa/Files/pdf/Connections.pdf 


> Contrary to popular belief, most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides ... people killed by firearms, 16,599 were suicides. ( Centers for Disease Control ...





> FACT: Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 56% of total 2002 gun deaths nationwide. In 2002, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 17,108, a 1% increase from 2001 numbers. Total gun suicides in Illinois for 2002 were 466, a decrease of 8% from the 2001 numbers. Most suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms.
> 
> -Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.


While the firearms issue is open for debate. This one is pretty black and white. Most of the gun deaths in the US are by suicide. And hey its their body right? As long as they aren't hurting anybody else...:shrug:


----------



## RRouuselot (Apr 11, 2005)

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Existing sword owners must surrender their weapons to police, sell them to a licensed dealer or apply to the Chief Commissioner for specific approval.
> 
> ...



   This is actually very similar to Japanese sword laws. Maybe I am used to it but it doesnt seem like that big of a deal if you are a legit sword owner and not some punk thug. 

   This might even benefit legit sword owners by making their swords more valuable..who knows.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 11, 2005)

Angelusmortis,

Although your opinions are well thought out, I think that you might be neglecting a few major parts of the picture.

#1. It's not the american obsession with guns that is the problem; it is our obsaession with violence. And this stems from some very deep rooted societal problems that we imbedded in our structure. Start a new thread, and I'd be glad to discuss it in more detail. But essentially I believe the theory pioneered by Col. David Grossman; and that theory is that we have been breeding aggressive sociopaths in the U.S. for quite sometime. We have done this through many factors, some of them listed as follows: Desensatization to and glorification of violence through media and entertainment outlets, Desparity among the poor to upper middle class created through wage slavery and a profit and property centered society, and fear-based minority (as in wealthy minority) control over the majority. Essentially our capitalistic structure works off of fear based incentives and desparity and wage entrapment. Add this to a continued desensitization to violence through media and entertainment, war-mongering and fear mongering by our power structure, etc., and you have a recipe for a very violent society. 

I need to do a little more research on this part of it, but it would seem that on the surface, this recipe is concocted again and again by prosperious societies that have great imballances in wealth where a few people control the masses. Example: the Roman empire and the middle ages were pretty violent times too.

The point is, the problem isn't owning or carrying weapons or not. The problem is the culture of violence that we have created. If we want to be a less violent society, we need to undo this by making structural changes. Whether packing heat is legal or not has little to do with this.

2. Part of the problem that we have is too much control of the masses by a wealthy minority. Taking away every citizens right to protect themselves only propigates this problem, rather then contributing to the solution.

3. Although we are social beings and need each other to survive and prosper, we are also thinking, individual beings. A balance exists, and must exist, between the two. That said, we can strive for a peaceful society as a means for self-defense. However, the first line of defense starts with the individual. No government or society can fully protect the individual, nor is it societies responsability to provide that first line of defense. So, wherever you live, it is YOUR responsability to defend yourself and your family first and foremost, not your neighbors, or the police, or society as a whole. To adequetly defend oneself, one needs to be able to safely equalize and deter a threat. And, at the moment, the only thing that can safely equalize and deter a gun wielding assailent is another gun. So, by taking away the individuals right to carry ANY tool for self-defense that acts to equalize a threat, you are essentially infringing on the individuals rights and responsibilities of self-defense.

4. In our violent culture, taking away the individuals ability of self-defense will only propigate more violence by societies preditors. This has been proven time and time again; there is a great amount of historical precidence for this.

5. It is also important to our structure that we have the ability to overthrow the people in power. This is something that no one wants to talk about, because the people in power essentially don't want to be overthrown. Conservative think tanks and PR machines in this country have done a wonderful job convincing us americans to be apathetic and unthinking, and not to try to rock the boat or make changes in our country, especially if they would effect the profits and power structures. We as people need the ability to overthrow the powers that be; hopefully we can do this through our wonderful system laid out for us. Electing new people to office is an example of a peaceful overthrowing of the power structure. However, there is always that lingering possibility that our powers that be STOP allowing themselves to be led by the people, and start trying to impose a violent rule on the people. We need the rights to have firearms if this were to occur. 

6. Inherent in our structure is the rights for people to own, or not to own, property. Society should not revolve around property ownership and assets american society seems to today, but having the right is necessary for a free society. If our rights to owning property are infringed, then we no longer live in a free society. Banning weapons infringes on these property rights.

7. Last thing that no one thinks about: Firearms are a part of American culture in the same way that traditional Japanese swords are a part of Japanese culture. Most people would agree that it would be stupid and oppressive if the Japanese government took away all swords, or if the Philippine Government took away all balisongs, or if a government outlawed the study of a martial art. In the same sense, Americans, for better or for worse, invented the pistol and the many types of guns, and it is a part of our history and cultural identity. To outright "ban" them or take them away would be oppressive.

Conclusion: SO...whether it is Australia and swords, or firearms in the U.S., weapons restrictions and bans are simply not the answer. They infringe on peoples rights, and they propigate current problems and create new ones instead of solving them. If the deeper societal problems of violence are fixed, people won't feel the need to own and carry weapons, violence will occur less, and the problem that a weapons ban aims to fix will be solved.

Paul


----------



## Bammx2 (Apr 11, 2005)

ok....
lets forget carring a knife for defense.
 How about....
carrying a knife because I want too?
 I don't owe you, or anybody else, an explaination as to why.
I'm not a criminal,never have been,therefore I will not be treated as such.
No matter how psychic the police think they are.
 I have carried a pocket knife for almost 30 years and I have NEVER used one in violoence.
 Hell....I have actually had my life SAVED and SAVED anothers with a pocket knife.
 But because of these moronic laws..if the same thing happened here in the UK....someone would die.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

What do you think of this Paul? Its a very interesting article about violence in America..

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html



> Without the deceptive comfort of myths, we are forced to confront reality. Liberals must face the fact that despite billions spent on social programs, changes to make the justice system more "fair," and new gun-control laws, the homicide rate _doubled _since the 1960s. Conservatives must face the fact that despite continuing family breakup, fatherless boys, decaying schools, and loss of respect for human life, the homicide rate _fell by one-third _in the 1990s. Advocates of drug legalization must face the fact that this fall in homicide occurred as the "war" on drugs continued. Opponents of violent films and video games must face the fact that as these increased, homicide as well as school violence fell, despite highly publicized shootings. Conversely, liberals must admit that the recent fall in homicide was associated with three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty, while conservatives must admit that the fall in homicide was associated with low unemployment and a strong economy.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What do you think of this Paul? Its a very interesting article about violence in America..
> 
> http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html



I have read similar articles and studies; this one sums up a lot of data pretty well. I think that there are a number of factors here:

#1. It would appear that there is a correlation between violence and economic factors; specifically wealth imbalance and unemployment rates.

#2. It would appear that there is no positive correlation at all between restrictive weapon and gun laws, and violence. And if one digs deeped, one will find that worldwide it would appear that when restrictive weapons laws are passed, violent crime rates rise.

#3. One thing to take into consideration; although we saw a slight drop in crime in the 90's, the homicide rate having dropped as much as it did had more to do with more effecient medical responses then a decrease in violence. People are still trying to kill each other; it is just that EMS arrives and revives a lot better then it used too.

#4. It would appear that given our economic levels (being the richest country) our violent crime/murder/suicide rates should be much lower then they are. Sure, we are not the worst, but when one considers our economic status as a country, we are pretty violent as a nation.

#5. I don't buy from this article that the death penalty is working as a deterant; other studies have condridicted that claim. 

bleblebleep...that's all [for now] folks!

Paul


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 11, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> #1. It's not the american obsession with guns that is the problem; it is our obsaession with violence.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Essentially our capitalistic structure works off of fear based incentives and desparity and wage entrapment. Add this to a continued desensitization to violence through media and entertainment, war-mongering and fear mongering by our power structure, etc., and you have a recipe for a very violent society.


 Here here. When one examines our main sources of entertainment in the US, the media hooks and the meat of the advertising industry, it is not difficult to discern a distinct pattern.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> The point is, the problem isn't owning or carrying weapons or not. The problem is the culture of violence that we have created. If we want to be a less violent society, we need to undo this by making structural changes. Whether packing heat is legal or not has little to do with this.
> 
> 2. Part of the problem that we have is too much control of the masses by a wealthy minority. Taking away every citizens right to protect themselves only propigates this problem, rather then contributing to the solution.


 Imbalance of power is a recurring problem in our world and it's interesting that it is always temporary and often leads to disaster. However, as long as money, sex, power and violence are glorified and rewarded, they will always be sought after, one way or the other.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> 3. No government or society can fully protect the individual, nor is it societies responsability to provide that first line of defense.


 Yes, and I'm sure it's not what they want you to believe, yet it is the undeniable truth. If you're involved as a victim in crime, no cop (God bless them) can EVER be there before YOU are.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> It is also important to our structure that we have the ability to overthrow the people in power. This is something that no one wants to talk about, because the people in power essentially don't want to be overthrown.


 Nor do they care to actually take the initiative TO overthrow the government. The American mentality is that this is something that must be done in OTHER countries - never ours.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Conservative think tanks and PR machines in this country have done a wonderful job convincing us americans to be apathetic and unthinking, and not to try to rock the boat or make changes in our country, especially if they would effect the profits and power structures.


 Yes! Just look at all we have to distract us today - cable television, cellular phones, PDAs, videogames in the home and even portable ones, the internet (snicker), movies. Gadzooks! When do we ever find time to think for ourselves?!?



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Electing new people to office is an example of a peaceful overthrowing of the power structure. However, there is always that lingering possibility that our powers that be STOP allowing themselves to be led by the people, and start trying to impose a violent rule on the people. We need the rights to have firearms if this were to occur.


 I think this is already happening. I don't think our voting system works anymore and that corruption has infiltrated the voting process, hence our need to obtain and maintain private firearms ownership are strongest right now.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Conclusion: SO...whether it is Australia and swords, or firearms in the U.S., weapons restrictions and bans are simply not the answer. They infringe on peoples rights, and they propigate current problems and create new ones instead of solving them. If the deeper societal problems of violence are fixed, people won't feel the need to own and carry weapons, violence will occur less, and the problem that a weapons ban aims to fix will be solved.


 While I agree with you, we all must remember that there is no panacea to end violence but a greater personal investment into the culture by each member of it is the key to the greatest transition a society can make.

 I don't think the end to violence comes from the end of a gun nor edge of a knife ... yet, their presence on both sides of the line is essential, IMVVHO.


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 11, 2005)

Whoever made the point about education hit the nail on the head. Cultural issues have always been at the fore front of criminal behaviour with relation to wealth imbalance, un-employment, lack of opportunity, poor education, but these are also issues that are ongoing in human society, and wouldn't change in the next 100 years if you threw all the money available at them. I would rather have weapon availability regulated in countries where they do have a culture of violence, or a blossuming one.

Bammx2 I couldn't care less what you think you owe me or don't, I have the right to my opinion, and you are very definately the exception that proves the rule. There is an obvious divide in the opinion as to whether there ought to be regulations for weapons/samurai swords. I come from a culture where there is regulation, and although it's massively on the increase, it's not as perpetual as it is in the US. We don't have the right to bear arms in our constitution, neither do we really want/need it. Time will tell in Victoria as to whether it's successful or not.

Still don't buy the "suicide gun deaths" either. I go on facts and figures made available to us in early 2000, from our own local force as a comparison in gun related deaths between the UK and the US. You gonna tell me that ALL gun deaths for that year were suicides? Your country has a none regulated, easily available gun culture, and you as a nation have problems that occur as a result of that. Taking the guns away, and making them much more difficult to obtain will "help" combat that, making it less and less socially acceptable to use. But, most Americans have always been unwilling to accept that, touting either things like, "guns are in-animate objects", "guns don't kill people, people do." Well yes...They do, with guns. Same with swords. Until this cultural revolution occurs to change attitudes, arming absolutely everyone is a terrifying prospect, I've never felt the need to carry a weapon, even having lived in some seriously dodgy areas, a lot of this is also down to national paranoia. Let the Aussies ban them without licence. No body is saying destroy every single blade and never ever seeing them again. The approach would be to remove them from general sale, and those that want one would need a reason and a licence, subject to them not having a criminal record/history of mental instability. Nobody has an issue with ciggarettes or booze being readily available to kids, admittedly problems still exist there, that isn't in dispute, but until as a species we realise our potential and make the necessary cultural changes, then there has to be something to protect the voting majority. The good thing about laws is that they can be repealed, changed or amended when those attitudes do change.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2005)

Angelusmortis said:
			
		

> You guys have a national obsession with guns, that verges on the irresponsible from what I hear. ...... The rest of the world doesn't have this nonsensical "right to bear arms" bs.



What obsession? Traditions like hunting? The right to personal protection?

About as nonsensical as the Constitution of this great country, which by no surprise was written after we left England.


----------



## Bammx2 (Apr 11, 2005)

Angelusmortis....

I am sorry if you think I meant anything towards you.It was a generalisation.
I have a right to my opinion as well as my privacy.
and my opinion is...I don't have to explain myself to anyone.
I don't hurt anyone.I don't coerce anyone to do bad things.I don't break laws.
And in general,that is all that needs to be known about ANYONE.
And to be fair Angelusmortus....
It is rather impossible to get true emotions over the internet,so I apologise if anyone takes anything I say personally.
But what annoys me more than anything else....
is the fact that some people,of ALL opinions, try to say "what I do is fine for everyone"!
BULL.
It's not! I like weapons of all sorts.
Doesn't mean every frikken lunatic should have access to them and every law abiding citizen should have to jump through hoops just for the privelage...and yes,its a privelage.
Because the criminals are the ONLY ones who will dodge those hoops and when they get caught,its AFTER they have killed a "hoop jumper".
So.....
where does this end?
when you have your way or I have mine?
We are both right and both wrong.
Is there a middle ground?
Is it possible to find it without giving any single entity total control?
I don't want yours and you don't want mine.
Can we do it as a human race without killing each other because we don't like the other guys opinion?
Personally....
I might not like what you have to say,but I'll fight for your right to have those opinions....if you will fight for mine.

Angelus...this is not an attack on your person. I agree with much of what you have to say,the only difference between me and other people such as yourself....
I have lived and taught in the UK for 5 years now and will continue to do so for quite some time...how long have the others lived in the US to form an honest opinion? Holidays don't count
I know the media is a lot to blame for the "discussions" we have as people....

I salute those who make the attempts just the same!


:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 11, 2005)

Just wanted to agree with a couple of the posters--try and guess which ones--about our having built a culture of violence. And it isn't just guns: our cars and our driving habits, our obsessive and lunatic fascination with, "development," our disrespect for poor people and for good manners, our nutbar fetishization of work, all contribute to the problem. In a sense, guns are indeed just the tools we use to express all that.

But the murder and assault rate declined in the 1990s, in part, because the number of males aged 16-24 (the most likely to commit these crimes by far) declined. Fact is, the gun and sword stuff--it's a guy thing. And yet people laugh at Freud.

The fantasy that having a gun, preferably a big--handgun--will protect you is just that, a fantasy. A story: few years ago, I'm in the locker room, changing. A minister who trains there comes in....also there was a guy I'll call Ralph....lovely guy, cop, recently got onto a SWAT team. As their sniper.

Minister says, "Hey Ralph...I wanted to ask your advice. I'm thinking about getting a gun for my house...what do you recommend?" Me being a jerk, I mutter..."Get a shotgun, if you absolutely have to." Ralph says, "Yeah, good advice...get a shotgun." Minister says no, he wants a handgun. Ralph asks if he's used a gun before...minister says no, Ralph says, OK, well, try getting a used police .38 revolver...they're cheapish, they're reliable, and you won't have to do a lot of maintenance....minister says no, he's thinking about an automatic...and the conversation goes on till the guy says that he's going to get a Glock 19. 

Much of this stuff isn't about self-defense, or hunting, or target shooting. It's about why I quit paintball the third time out, when I found out the idiot next to me had a laser scope on his squirt gun, and we subsequently found out he'd jacked the muzzle velocity up to three times what was allowed. (I suck at paintball anyway.) It's about men's fetishization of their toys, in other words.

I mean, admit it. You need home defense? Get a 12-gauge, load it with birdshot, go to a range and shoot it a few times, take a safety class. Get a trigger lock, discipline your kids, you're good to go. You want to hunt? Get a good over-and-under Marlin or whatever, take classes, buy a license, follow the rules....good to go. Target practice, or just recreational shooting and competition? No problemo. Perfectly legal, perfectly moral.

But fighting for the right to keep, say, a .45 Desert Eagle with a laser scope in every room for home defense? To have nine AK variants, and one o'them cut-down CAR-15s? A Light Fifty? C'mahn. This has nothing to do with self-defense, or sport, or target shooting. It's Boys With Toys.

Which may very well be fine...always in favor of fun. But don't lie to yourself about what you're doing--or the fact that it's personally and socially dangerous. And don't make up stats and facts to justify (or conceal) the fact that some people like to caress their...gun.

Swords, though...are they actually banned, or are you just not allowed to walk down the street with one? Frankly, I consider fascination with swords just as fetishistic--just more acceptable, because without discipline it's a little difficult to use them in a fashion that's anything like as dangerous as a gun.

By the way, I also consider that there's something quite a bit fetishistic about being into books...but there's also something a little more pleasant about the idea of some guy going through a school throwing books into every classroom.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> A story: few years ago, I'm in the locker room, changing. A minister who trains there comes in....also there was a guy I'll call Ralph....lovely guy, cop, recently got onto a SWAT team. As their sniper.
> 
> Minister says, "Hey Ralph...I wanted to ask your advice. I'm thinking about getting a gun for my house...what do you recommend?" Me being a jerk, I mutter..."Get a shotgun, if you absolutely have to." Ralph says, "Yeah, good advice...get a shotgun."



Most gun store owners will reccomend the same thing, and most of their clients will follow their advice. But we are a culture of having the best of the best, the biggest house, biggest SUV. Why would it be any different for owning a gun? Most people in the end can be shown a reasonable or realistic alternative. The folks you mention are more the exception than the rule.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Here here. When one examines our main sources of entertainment in the US, the media hooks and the meat of the advertising industry, it is not difficult to discern a distinct pattern.


While the concept needs investigation, other countries are importing our culture and media in spades.....is it increasing their levels of violence?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

Angelusmortis said:
			
		

> Still don't buy the "suicide gun deaths" either. I go on facts and figures made available to us in early 2000, from our own local force as a comparison in gun related deaths between the UK and the US. You gonna tell me that ALL gun deaths for that year were suicides?


The stats say that suicides were 56% of total 2002 gun deaths nationwide (US). The remainder being homicides and accidental deaths. Where are you getting the impression that I am saying "all gun deaths are suicides"?:idunno: 

What I am saying is that this signifigant chunk of suicides are lumped in with "gun violence" stats by people with political agendas to make the "firearms problem" appear as large as possible to further their cause.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

Although, for once on this issue I find I agree with more of Roberts statements on a post than I disagree with, I still wonder about the "guns are an inefficient  means of defense" statement. Its fairly obvious that the gun has evolved as the dominant weapon, from its invention to now, for a reason. The main point I argee with Robert on and have said all along on this board is that true "self defense" isnt about styles, MA techniques or weapons as it is about awareness, preparation and mindset. MA is no more the cure all for self defense than the gun. However to dismiss the guns place as an effective tool when properly trained and employed is just as shortsighted.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 11, 2005)

OK, MM, if the guys--and it is guys--obsessed with getting all kindsa nifty guns, regardless of their usefulness are, "exceptions rather than the rule," why do they seem to be everywhere, why do stores sell so many handguns, and why don't people just go buy a good shotgun?

I quite agree that a well-trained, law-abiding gun owner is no threat to me--most likely, anyway. 

But when I lived in Denver, there was a period in which I personally saw: a 12-year-old standing on the corner of Colfax and York, pointing the .22 he'd gotten for his birthday at cars; a guy with a hospital armband on his wrist and a loaded .38 in a paper lunch bag; and (my fave) a guy with a scoped bolt-action rifle, bolt closed, finger inside trigger guard, sling wrapped around arm, standing in his front window pointing the gun. At me. He'd just gotten a new scope, you see--that's what he told me after I cussed him out, which tells you how smart I really am.

What do they sell at gun shows--plain old good shotguns, target rifles, good hunting rifles? Plain old knives? or is it every fancy weapon they can get their hands on?


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What do they sell at gun shows--plain old good shotguns, target rifles, good hunting rifles? Plain old knives? or is it every fancy weapon they can get their hands on?


 Oh, gun shows sell the regular stuff that would be found in a typical gun store, and more. They are required to follow federal rules when making their sales.  If you've never been to a gun show, you might find it interesting to at least visit one.  

  - Ceicei


----------



## Bammx2 (Apr 11, 2005)

"looking up at original header...........

guns?"

 This is a really bad sign to tell ya the truth...
I have been on other forums as well and I have noticed that all discussions pertaining to "weapons" bans...alway reverts to guns.
 Does that mean we,as a civilisation,have become so conditioned that we can't get away from them in any capacity?
 I may be wrong and just caught up in the moment...and I do know I am guilty of it sometimes...
 Or is it that some people  only use them as "ammunition" against the US so we can deny the blatant obvious?
Out of 21,000 gun laws (collectively) only one has PROVEN to work....
Arm everyone so the playing field is leveled.
 I think it sucks...but that has proven to be the only answer so far.
Bottom line.

So once again,I ask....

Guns?

This was supposed to be about swords in australia. Did gun crime in the UK and the US have any effect on that decision?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 11, 2005)

1. Uh...when and where, exactly, did they try arming everybody? And what makes you think that worked?

2. Every gun and knife show I've ever seen--and for knives and swords, I'd include Home Shopping Network--sells a lotta stuff that has very little practical value, but just looks really kewl, as they say.

3. So what exactly was the new law in Australia? Is it as nutty as the anti-nunchuk California law, which allows martial arts students and teachers to possess them in a dojo and stores to sell them, but which leaves it illegal to have them between the store and the dojo?


----------



## Bammx2 (Apr 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Uh...when and where, exactly, did they try arming everybody? And what makes you think that worked?
> 
> 2. Every gun and knife show I've ever seen--and for knives and swords, I'd include Home Shopping Network--sells a lotta stuff that has very little practical value, but just looks really kewl, as they say.
> 
> 3. So what exactly was the new law in Australia? Is it as nutty as the anti-nunchuk California law, which allows martial arts students and teachers to possess them in a dojo and stores to sell them, but which leaves it illegal to have them between the store and the dojo?


 
1)uh...guess I'm wrong since I can't quote EXACT stats....but some european countries that have allowed everyone to have arms have seen a drop in crime.just like states that allow concealed weapons have seen a drop in crime.ya know...the exact opposite of banning guns?!(if I am wrong..STAT me)
 Guess you really can't use general staements when talkin about guns,huh?

2) I agree.

3)they are trying to do exactly what you stated with the exception of people who will own swords must be registered and have a permit and no,you still will not be allowed to carry them on the street unless it's directly from point A to point B.If you have them at a specific location,they must be kept under lock and key.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 11, 2005)

First off, there ARE no European countries that have allowed everybody to have guns. By and large, Europe has far more restrictive guns laws that this country does--and far lower rates of gun murder. There are exceptions in Eastern Europe--all in countries that have been saturated with guns because of their wars, countries in the process of recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union and torn apart by various forms of hatred and stupidity.

Personally, I'm afraid that my position is kinda the same as my position on Roe v. Wade--I think grownups should ideally be able to have pretty much anything in the way of weapons. Problem is, I also think that, a) "grownups," means people who have thought through issues like self-defense intelligently and fairly clear-headedly, gone out and got trained, and got over their fascination with toys; b) we live in a society that encourages violent fantasies, and actual violence, and solving your problems the ready and easy way. This is not a good combination.

And I stand by what I wrote on another thread--sometimes, politicians pander with laws like this, in order to get elected. I'll bet that if you look, you won't find a public emergency--you'll find some guy whose election prospects were looking dim, and a screwed-up political situation that allowed him to get this through the legislature.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> #3. One thing to take into consideration; although we saw a slight drop in crime in the 90's, the homicide rate having dropped as much as it did had more to do with more effecient medical responses then a decrease in violence. People are still trying to kill each other; it is just that EMS arrives and revives a lot better then it used too.


While I agree that medical science does have an impact, I dont know if it can be credited for the entire decline. A 30% (91'-97') decline would mean HUGE leaps in medical science and EMS proceedures and I really havent seen any proof of that....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html



> Israel and Switzerland, where most adult males keep military-type guns at home, have low homicide rates, so easy access to guns cannot be the key factor in homicide. Some nations with strict anti-gun laws also have low homicide rates, but is this cause and effect? The low homicide rate in the United Kingdom holds for both gun and non-gun homicides; strict gun laws cannot account for a low rate of fatal beatings. Japan has harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws and a low homicide rate, but Japanese-Americans, who live under our laws and have access to guns, also have a low homicide rate. Japanese immigrants bring something with them that inhibits homicide and is transmitted to their children and grandchildren. It may be self-control or love of education, but it has nothing to do with laws. Cultural factors are clearly important. To study the effect of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct for all the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is known to do this. The best we can do is observing what happens when new gun laws are passed in the U.S. and Germany, or when Japanese live in the U.S. In these cases, little effect of gun laws is seen.


So perhaps it is our "culture" that bears the responsibility. We as a Nation are fairly "young" and the days of the Settlers, Mountian Men, Wild West etc. are not really very far in our collective past. The whole "Rugged Individualist" and all. However, if you look at other cultures you see that they have "glorified" violence as well. Japanese Warrior traditions, The Illiad and the Oddesy, Heck WWII Germany and their whole obsession with Martial culture...what makes us really any different? Granted I am personally disgusted with the whole "Hip Hop" culture with its glorification of Drug/Gang violence (just listen to some Rap lyrics) as well as some of the video games out there, but can you really place all the blame on them? This is a large and complex issue....


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> OK, MM, if the guys--and it is guys--obsessed with getting all kindsa nifty guns, regardless of their usefulness are, "exceptions rather than the rule," why do they seem to be everywhere, why do stores sell so many handguns, and why don't people just go buy a good shotgun?



I don't see 'em. Maybe because I live in Massachusetts? (for another month anyways - *whew*) Why don't people limit their selection to shotguns? Well, I suppose most everyone ain't a hunter. Maybe they would like to be able to carry their weapon holstered. Shotguns get a little heavy after a while. And, guns aren't just for home and property protection, but personal as well - even when you're outside of your home, imagine that.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What do they sell at gun shows--plain old good shotguns, target rifles, good hunting rifles? Plain old knives? or is it every fancy weapon they can get their hands on?



It's a lawfull industry. No fault in that.

The real issue is that the anti-gun folks want to take away the fancy ones and the good ol' shotguns. They toss around fear tactics about "loopholes" and gun shows, when, well, I've never even seen a gun show hosted around New England. You'd think they happen every day. All 3 of them.

Here's a thought - it aint the guy at the gun show legally purchasing a firearm holding up all your California Taco Bells, Robert. Maybe you guys should work a little harder tarnishing the image of the bad guys.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

90% of the street guns I have seen are crap......


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 11, 2005)

Ah yes, my endless support for criminals; a point I make again and again: "I wish there were more criminals!"

My point--if you'll actually read--was that gun and knife shows feature weapons that cater to the desire for something that isn't self-defense (get a shotgun, get pepper spray, practice a martial art, get a CCW and an old-fashioned revolver), that isn't hunting (whatever happened to the, "one shot, one kill," ethic I was taught as a kid? when did it get replaced with, "spray the area?"), that isn't even target shooting or skeet or whatever. They cater to what I'd call a boy's fascination with things that go bang, to the fantasy of infinite threat on the streets, to the fantasy of survivalism against aliens, the government, ZOG, whatever.

Please show me some vague sort of support, or documentation, for the claim that gun control types are trying to take away shotguns, hunting rifles, target rifles, etc.

Oh, and by the way--I also made the point that I though grownups should be able to own, carry, and if necesssary use guns--I just don't agree with their glamorization, and I don't think our society encourages responsible behavior--and making SWORDS illegal--that's just weird.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2005)

I dunno Robert, a gun is a gun. Granted there is marketing and fetishism going on. Cant deny that 100%. But a .375 revolver and a Glock 22, when you come down to it, will probably wind up firing the same ammout of rounds in a typical firearms encounter. Most of the differences are just capacity and cosmetics. 

From a common sense self-defense perspective its more about how often you train with a weapon than it is about design, capacity or caliber. My nifty little G27 only holds 10 rounds. 4 more than a six-gun. Not really an "ultimate killing machine". Just easier to carry and operate from my level of experience and training.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 11, 2005)

I don't buy a drop in deaths due to better medical care. Things haven't improved that much in surgical care. Better emergency response times would be a more likely explanation--getting them to the hospital sooner.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 12, 2005)

A fascination with things that go bang has always been there. Times change and so does arms development. 40-50 years ago the Lone Ranger was getting kids all pumped up over a six shooter. The Duke had the same thing and a rifle. Nobody was shouting the sky is falling like they are now. And that was bleeding edge. It's evolution baby. I thought you guys supported that.

Gun shows see a lot of vets who have used them come out. You don't have teenagers poppin in to buy that latest AK mod. Again, attacking gun shows isn't the solution to gun violence.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 12, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm afraid that my position is kinda the same as my position on Roe v. Wade--I think grownups should ideally be able to have pretty much anything in the way of weapons. Problem is, I also think that, a) "grownups," means people who have thought through issues like self-defense intelligently and fairly clear-headedly, gone out and got trained, and got over their fascination with toys; b) we live in a society that encourages violent fantasies, and actual violence, and solving your problems the ready and easy way. This is not a good combination.



artyon: Yay...Well, I can't disagree with that statement.

Arnisador: Your probably right about it being more related to medical response times then actual care, but I am not a doctor, I omly wish I played one on T.V.

Tgace: Your also making valid points regarding violence. The conclusion that one can make from it is that for every country that has high levels of violence, there is a totality of a circumstance that makes them that way. And, these circumstances could be vastly different from country to country. Example, why an african country under dictatorship has violence might differ greatly then why we might have violence.

Paul


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 12, 2005)

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> SWORDS will be outlawed from July under new laws to curb the growing use of the weapons in street brawls.
> 
> Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said the ban would help police overcome a culture of young people arming themselves with swords.
> 
> ...


 Well I don't live in Australia.  But I have to wonder ... why swords???  Do the Kill Bill movies and such have anything to do with this?

 Perhaps the availability and affordability of practice and decorative swords has something to do with it?  Here in the states you can go to the blade store in the mall and buy a standard katana for anywhere between $75 and $700 dollars.  They're less if you go to an overflow market or an imports store.

 A ban on edged weapons such as knives, however, is intriguing.  We've talked before in these forums on the dangers of knife attack and I'd hate hate hate to give mine up.

 What do you all think about this?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 12, 2005)

The point about "Kill Bill," is exactly right: this has a lot to do with fashion and marketing (though in Australia, it occurs to be that there may also be a cultural component--one wonders if this isn't, at bottom, an anti-immigrant law), and little to do with actual practicality.

And no, we have not always been fascinated with things that go boom. Because the human race did not always have things that go boom: historically speaking, guns don't go back before about 1400 or so--and it's my guess that by the time you got the average arquebus loaded and mounted and the fuse lit, some of the bloom had gone off the rose. 

Moreover, it's only been pretty recently that we had this country flooded with handguns of all nifty types. And, I'd argue, that flooding is a direct result of marketing: it has nothing to do with necessity, because the streets of any big American city 150 years ago were far more dangerous for the majority of their inhabitants than they are now.


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 15, 2005)

Right. I'm sorry for causing offence to people, but having seen many results of bladed weapons, I can't stand to see them in the hands of people that ought not to have them. And until society does reach it's zenith, we're going to continue having this debate.

Also, my gripe is not with Americans, but with the worlds most powerful country, that is the main exporter of "hip-hop" style, ghetto culture, and it's glamourising of violence. Be it a gun, or a razor sharp katana, the results in the damage they cause to the families left behind are identical. I've said it before on this forum, where America leads...The US alone, however, is not solely responsible for the spread of the glamourisation of violence. It is on the increase the world over, in Western culture, a growing disenfranchisement with their lot, in the "3rd World" for the sheer terrible-ness (is that a word?) of their lives, and in the middle??? Politicians. Lawyers. Corporations. Bankers. The list goes on. As for arming everyone? I'm becoming a hermit if that happens, gonna go up into the mountains, and fish. Sounds like the dog's bollocks to me. Peace.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 15, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Well I don't live in Australia. But I have to wonder ... why swords???


It's my undertstanding that in Kangaroo Land, after they banned firearm ownership and rounded em all up, there was a HUGE outbreak of violent attacks with machetes and other "large bladed" weapons.

Because of this, they are banning swords.

Perhaps there will then be a  HUGE outbreak of violent attacks with hammers and other "carpentry" tools and they will ban those as well.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 15, 2005)

Maybe the martial artists there just need to sit back and let the technologyy curve come back to them...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2005)

I quite agree. My country--and the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis, the South Africans, the Cubans, the French, the Ukranians...{insert name of advanced industrial nation here} have been spreading weapons, weapons training, and the culture of violence for god knows how many years now---and we're shocked, shocked, that these chickens are occasionally flying home to roost, and take a little poop on our heads. 

While some think violence settles everything, I think violence endlessly defers dealing with problems onto other people and the next generation.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2005)

Back to our regularly scheduled program of training to punch, kick, chop, stomp, lock, break and throw our fellow human beings...oh yeah, thats now a "spiritual" endeavor.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2005)

If you can't figure out the fundamental differences between working to gain self-confidence, strength, and the ability to defend oneself on one hand, and the endless, profit-and-politics driven distribution of weapons and the technology of death to countries entangled by ethnic and religious hatred on the other, well, that's a pity. 

Fer crissake, episodes of "Star Trek," show more-developed understanding of the moral issues involved.

Or perhaps try practicality--what exactly were the CIA's contributions to the development of the Taliban and the military education of Osama bin Laden? I forget.


----------



## Angelusmortis (Apr 16, 2005)

I quite agree. Therein lies the difference in training in MA. It "SHOULD" be about making a concerted effort in learning how to defend yourself, not go out looking for confrontation. There's a whole world of difference. There's the way the world ought to be, and there's the way it is. It's crap, but unfortunate.


----------



## Adept (Apr 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> It's my undertstanding that in Kangaroo Land, after they banned firearm ownership and rounded em all up, there was a HUGE outbreak of violent attacks with machetes and other "large bladed" weapons.
> 
> Because of this, they are banning swords.
> 
> Perhaps there will then be a HUGE outbreak of violent attacks with hammers and other "carpentry" tools and they will ban those as well.


 Not really. After the ban there was a decrease in crime over-all, but an increase in violent crime. Firearm ownership isn't banned, it's just restricted. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The point about "Kill Bill," is exactly right: this has a lot to do with fashion and marketing (though in Australia, it occurs to be that there may also be a cultural component--one wonders if this isn't, at bottom, an anti-immigrant law), and little to do with actual practicality.


 It isn't so much an anti-immigrant law as a vote garnering law. In Australia, particularly in the state of Victoria (which is where the legislation in question is in place) there is a large voting demographic known as 'The Doctors Wives'. They are usually the pacifist suburbanites who don't take the time to inform themselves about an issue, but hold a strong opinion never the less. When an opportunity to gain votes from these people, while only upsetting the much smaller demographic of firearm or other weapons owners, the government will take it. They did the same thing after the Port Arthur Massacre, and the Monash Uni shootings.

 But you are right, the laws themselves have little to do with practicality.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If you can't figure out the fundamental differences between working to gain self-confidence, strength, and the ability to defend oneself on one hand, and the endless, profit-and-politics driven distribution of weapons and the technology of death to countries entangled by ethnic and religious hatred on the other, well, that's a pity.


 Well, it all starts to get very complicated about now, as we encounter the notions of 'the lesser of two evils' and 'pre-emptive action'.

 Sure, the USA armed and trained elements of the Taliban and OBL. If they hadn't, maybe the russkies would have taken Afghanistan. Maybe the world would have been much worse off. Maybe. No one really knows.

 Anyway, trying desperately to drag the thread back on topic - The swords went from 'restricted weapons' to 'prohibited weapons'. Before, it was illegal to carry them down the street without a very good reason. Now, it's also illegal to have them in your home unless you have adequate storage facilites and the appropriate license. The list of prohibited weapons is, IMHO, well and truly over the top and the product of a paranoid and deluded government. It includes, but is not limited to - 

 Pepper spray, mace and similar. 
 Accoustic devices such as airhorns.
 Any knife with a two edged blade.
 Any knife with a sheath. Yes, this includes the filleting knife you keep in the fishing tackle box.
 A laser pointer with sufficient output.
 A cat-o-nine-tails with knotted lashes. Will result in some 'interesting' license applications, I'm sure.
 A shanghai or slingshot designed for commercial production.
 Armoured vests of just about any kind.
 About any type of martial arts weapon you would care to name, from katana through shuriken and shaken to nunchaku and even extendable batons.

 I was reading through the list on my application form and thinking of all the things I have in my house, and all the hoops I have to jump through just to have my toys, and shaking my head in disgust. If they had a 'shall-issue' policy I wouldn't mind so much, but what we have is very far removed from that.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 16, 2005)

Apparently when I wasnt looking all martial artists became pure spiritual beings only interested in self-development, exercise and self-defense (no ego or martial fantasy whatsoever). While all gun owners became scared, untrained rubes grasping their guns like talismans...or became criminals. :idunno:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 16, 2005)

Good to know that all that stuff I've repeatedly posted about the intellectual limitations of imposing simplistic binary oppositions upon discourse and upon reality has gone essentially unheard.

And good to know that whatever it costs us, "the market," will solve everything.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 17, 2005)

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/sanity.htm


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 17, 2005)

First off, I can't find any place where I said anything anywhere close to, "gun owners are all crazy"--nor do I think it true. I said that guys who aren't cops or soldiers (and it usually is guys) who endlessly pile up weapons, take innumerable courses in "combat handgunning," and constantly come up with scenarios in which their fancy guns and their endless training will be necessary are more than a little weird--and one of the several problems our societies have to deal with, these days.

Franlky--and given the recurrent fantasy that I'm a tree-hugging liberal, this should shock--I actually think there are two types of adults who want to own guns: a) those who can be trusted with pretty much anything; b) those who shouldn't have so much as a potato gun. Our problem is that we can't tell these two groups apart easily, and we can't seem to figure out a Constitutional way to keep the toys out of the hands of the latter group. 

And second, great article by Mr. MacYoung & Co.--as have been the other two or three things of his I've read. Disturbing that somebody could be that big, that skilled, and that good a writer on the subject. Probably all martial arts types ought to have to read that essay from time to time--not just in case they're hooked up with a pack of lunatics, but as a basis for sorting through some of their good and bad habits.

I think I'll post the link on KenpoNet--where of course, everybody's rational.


----------

