[Stephen Hand]

Hello,

A paper in the UK is having an online vote as to whether swords should be banned. To show your support for our UK friends (and hopefully to show politicians that there's some support for swords out there) you might want to go here http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/displayNode.jsp...eId=137058 and vote.

There is a discussion of the issue on the Legal Issues Forum at SFI.

Cheers
Stephen

[Addison C. de Lisle]

Is it the one referring to whether or not "samurai swords" should be banned? It appears 60% say no, 37% say yes, and 3% don't know (which makes one wonder why they clicked on the vote button in the first place...).

[Stephen Hand]

That's the one. An hour ago the numbers were about 10% more favourable for the Yes vote and just now the votes were 32.8% vs 65.2%.

This is a campaign being pushed by a regional English newspaper to ban swords after some poor chap was killed with one. They have even presented a petition to Downing Street. After combating such campaigns here in Australia I'm trying to keep my finger on the pulse of such silliness. Anyone faced by such lobbying or actual legislation should contact me, or better yet, talk about it on the legal issues forum over on SFI. It's becoming a serious issue, but luckily we have the experience now to know what to say to win people's hearts and minds.

It should be noted that media polls like the one I posted are by no means a true indication of public attitudes. They are an indication of attitudes among people who actually care enough about the issue to vote and whose vote therefore might be swayed by it. It's important to send a strong message that there are people out there who oppose such legislation.

Cheers
Stephen

[Steve Grisetti]

What a ridiculous concept - if they ban swords, what next? Chef's knives?
The current tally is NO = 74.1%, YES = 24.4%.

[Shawn Shaw]

79.7% vote "No"

Myself included....

of all the ridiculous...*grumble grumble*

People have been killed with all kinds of things...from chairs to frying pans. People get killed with plastic bags and rope, for that matter. Let's get a list going so they know what to ban next without having to put any thought into it.

[Shawn Mulock]

It seems to be 79.8% for NO right now.

[Philip C. Ryan]

80.0% NO 18.8% YES

Talk about a ridiculous concept. Heck, firearms and automobiles cause more deaths. Gonna ban them next??? Maybe they should just ban disease and cancer while they are at it!

[Malcolm A]

[Jean Thibodeau]

To keep things in perspective they can't keep knives from being used and made in PRISON ! A law banning everything dangerous means banning just about anything and everything, and if all the good law-abiding citizens actually obey a law like this, the guys you should worry about WON'T

The only result is that " formally " law-abiding citizens who value their sense of freedom will be the ones caught, convicted and jailed if they refuse to obey a bad law: So the results are that the Bad guys are still out there and a lot of police effort is wasted on prosecuting people who were not the problem in the first place.

Oh, the bad guys " job " of being predators is that much safer as the law terrorizes the good citizens into being good and easy " unarmed " victims.

Let the Wolves party chewing on the sheep !

[Mike Capanelli]

Hey I wonder what the percentage of people killing others with their bare hands are? maybe next we can ban hands

[Edward Hitchens]

I cast my vote of no. It's currently 85.8% NO and 13.4% YES.

We have the same issue in the US regarding firearms. There are people here who want guns banned who probably have never held a gun a day in their life. The other side tries to run and hide behind the 2nd Amendment ("I have a right to bear arms, blah blah blah." The 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily work like that, but that's a different topic). I could go on, but I think it also comes down to the law of supply and demand. Just my .02 worth.

[Greyson Brown]

Yes = 12.8%
No = 86.4%
Don't know = 0.8%

I guess there isn't much of a swing vote on this one.

[Stephen Hand]

This topic hasn't been discussed much here, so I've copied a sticky post that I have on the legal issues forum at SFI.

I hope it helps people to understand the issues and what can be done to combat attempts to ban swords. I should add that it's very perilous to hide behind things like the American 2nd amendment. No state has the unfettered right to own weapons. If you doubt this, try to get hold of a nuke, or a canister of nerve gas and see what happens. Every state in the world restricts the ownership of weapons. This is one reason why I believe, that even in the US, we're better running with the line that these items aren't weapons.

Anyway, here's my post,

"It seems that every time the subject of anti-sword legislation (i.e. legislation to ban swords) comes up, I spend hours explaining to people what approach needs to be taken.

I have spent the last three years actively campaigning against legislation to ban swords. I have taken part in four campaigns (five if you count one to ban armour) and through a process of trial and error have discovered what arguments sway the sort of people who are in favour of, or sponsor this sort of legislation (and more importantly what sort of arguments harden their resolve to ban swords).

Basically the sword is not a practical weapon in today's society (although like many easily available items it can be used to harm people). Swords are used in a large number of activities in roles other than as a weapon. These roles include Highland dancing, theatre, re-enactment, fencing, antique collecting, martial arts, belly dancing, Sikhs, Masons, Pipe Bands, and others. The sword is not a weapon in modern society. It is a cultural and sporting item that can be misused as a weapon.

People who want to ban swords are thinking emotionally or reacting to people thinking emotionally. People thinking emotionally aren't swayed by logical arguments, such as the fact that swords aren't used as weapons very often, axes are cheaper and more effective etc. They can be swayed by emotive arguments, and arguments that present swords in a light they didn't expect and/or present them with unintended consequences of a sword ban.

Essentially any argument that treats swords as weapons will fail. The people who want to ban swords are hoplophobic. That is they are scared of weapons. If you allow them to catalogue swords in their own minds as weapons, then you have lost. Swords = weapons and weapons = bad; end of story.

What you must do (and I stress that this is not conjecture, it is based on personal experience of putting these arguments to politicians, bureaucrats and the media) is to confront these people with the consequences of a sword ban. I find the best approach is to try to get them off balance by asking why they want to ban Highland dancing and the plays of Shakespeare? They will be expecting something about weapons. To be confronted with a (truthful) claim that their ban will outlaw two perfectly harmless and very constructive activities throws them off balance.

If you can get the thought in people's heads that swords are items used for harmless and constructive activities and that banning swords will ban these activities then you are most of the way to winning their hearts and minds. Remember that politicians will only enact legislation that they think people want and will gain them votes. If they think they will alienate a large number of voters, they will not legislate to ban swords, or they will bring in some sort of wimpy compromise that appears to ban swords but doesn't (satisfies the voters, but sword owners and police hate it - but at least we get to keep our swords).

Fighting this sort of legislation requires a bit of a paradigm shift among sword owners. Most of us read our history, which is replete with examples of the sword as a weapon. Treating the sword as something other than a weapon takes a bit of a mental jump. But the sword isn't a weapon in the modern world. Axes were military weapons once, but nobody today considers an axe as a weapon. It is a tool that can be used as a weapon. That is how we have to look at the sword and it is how we have to make others look at it. This is not a lie, or a convenient twisting of the facts, it is the truth. Swords are bought and used as antiques, sporting implements, dance and threatre props, symbolic items for religion and ritual, as decorative items, but not as weapons.

The current lunacy to demonise weapons will not go away, at least not in a hurry. What we can change is people's perception of individual items as weapons. If you allow people to think of swords as weapons then anti-sword legislation is a danger. You must ensure that people see the sword as a tool used in harmless and constructive activities by worthwhile, law-abiding people. It is the only approach that I am aware of that has met with success.

Good Luck"

[Steve Grisetti]

[Addison C. de Lisle]

[Joel Whitmore]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Bill Grandy]

[Micha Hofmann]

Mmmm.... after reading through all of this, I'll try to add my 2 cents.

In my opionion, the call for the "ban" of a certain weapon/ dangerous item, whatever you call it is influenced by three factors:

1. The dangers of malign use/ misuse of the item in question.

2. The utility said item poses, when used for "non-malign" stuff, such as rifles being used for hunting, knives as tools etc.

3. The "oddity-scariness-factor" of the item in question.

I give an example: A couple of years ago, after a german youth shot several pupils and teachers at his school, weapon laws in germany became more strict.

Among the items banned were Butterfly knifes ( Balisongs, not the Kung-Fu-shortswords ).
Why were those knifes banned?

IMO not because they were very dangerous weapons, but because the had no real utility that other knifes, such as liner lock folders could not duplicate and because they had a bad reputation as "gang kid knifes" ( i.e. they seemed "odd" and "scary" to the average folk on the street ).
So the government thought that not a lot of voters would miss them, but that many associated those knifes with crime and violence, and would welcome such a ban.

The problem is: The same could happen to swords, once some deranged idiot goes on a rampage swinging a sharp blade.
I flinch every time, i hear about someone attacking another person with a sword in Germany. Once the yellow press picks it up, some politicians might do so, too...


But i disagree regarding Stevens post about swords not being weapons.
There's swords and swords.

Is my 420 Steel - decorative Katana a weapon? No, though it looks like one?
Are my blunt sparring longsword and saber weapons? No, though they could be used as such. Their primary purpose is different.

Are my really sharp Paul Chen Katana or my friend's Crecy weapons?
Yes, even though we only use them for cutting tests and solo drills.
They are designed as weapons.
Anachronistic weapons, but weapons. And they are a lot more dangerous than blunted/ decorative swords.
And even if I did not think so, people arguing for a ban of swords would keep thinking this way.
It's a bit like comparing an air pistol to a Glock-17 Autoloader... just my two cents.

Edit: I do not want to ban swords, but I understand why people would want to forbit them, especially if they do not own one.

[Bill Grandy]