The Corrupt Australian Sword Industry: DEFEATED!

[Dolomite]

"Swords will become prohibited weapons from July 1, carrying penalties of up to $12,000 or six months in prison for illegal use or possession, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Andre Haermeyer said today.

Mr Haermeyer announced new sword regulations today, saying they would assist Victoria Police to crack down on incidents involving swords.

"The Bracks Government is implementing these new regulations to help Victoria Police overcome this culture of young people arming themselves with swords," Mr Haermeyer said.

"From July 1, swords will be made prohibited weapons, making it illegal to use, possess or carry a sword.""

http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/798c8b072d117a01ca256c8c0019bb01/53facb21ce5501ecca256e51007dd9be?OpenDocument

Whew!!! I can’t wait to see how much violent crime decreases now!

[patdem]

1. Well there goes all those damn Australian beheadings???

n/t

[texastoast]

2. And just how

Will they clean their nails??

[aden_nak]

3. How vague of them.

What about a machette? Are they banning those, too? A large machette can actually be greater in size and potentially more dangerous than a small sword.

Who was the last person, on record, to have been robbed at swordpoint? Or killed at swordpoint, for that matter. I'm sure the general population feels safer already.

I have friends who live in Australia. I should ask them if there is a 24/7 Highlander network there or something.

[slackmaster]

4. You beat me to it

Machetes are commonly used by gardeners where I live.

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. I have a machete.

I think of it as my Mexican sword.

Till I got a pistol its what I would have used for home defense.

Anyways machetes can be pretty deadly, look at what happened in Rwanda.

This law is pretty silly, most people dont go out and pretend they are the Highlander.

[iverglas]

9. ah, those dimwitted Australians

"How vague of them."

Yes, it's just never occurred to them that a regulation written vaguely will be unenforceable, and that trying to enforce it could result in an impermissible violation of rights. Noooo.

Either that ... or you haven't actually read the regulations in question. I haven't been able to find them myself (did find the older ones).

But no matter; we need only assume that the Australians are too stoopid or too eeevil to know about the rules that require criminal laws to be clear.


Who was the last person, on record, to have been robbed at swordpoint?

Do please come back and read my post just a little lower down. I forget the dates, but I believe there were 3 robberies reported at the site I found, mixed in with all the other homicidal mayhem committed by people with swords.


I have friends who live in Australia. I should ask them if there is a 24/7 Highlander network there or something.

Well ... a thoughtful person who put a little thought into it might think that the fondness for swords on the part of armed robbers and criminal gangs and/or mixed-up youth in Australia might have something to do with the serious difficulty they have getting hold of firearms.

And that maybe, just maybe, there had been a little boom in the retail sword business going on, to supply that demand.

Yup, the ones really intent on committing crimes and homicidal or other mayhem have turned to swords.

But it's gonna be really difficult to wipe out an entire bunch of tourists or schoolchildren with a sword, all the same.

[FatSlob]

5. What an awful place to live.

I feel sorry for the people in that Authoritarian state.

[library_max]

7. Well, it's a democracy,

similar in many ways to the United States, although they have over 90% turnout in their parliamentary elections. Generally, they're more leftist than the US. But they can't carry swords down the street, so that makes them an authoritarian state. Always nice to see a little perspective in the JPS forum.

[Pert_UK]

32. Yeah, Australia's really shit..........

One small restriction on the ownership of deadly weapons (i.e. you've got to prove you've got a half-decent reason for owning one) and suddenly you're under the boot of fascist repression. Unlike in the US, where everyone is free to do or say or own whatever they like without restriction, and where a comprehensive healthcare system ensures that even the poorest can afford decent, essential treatment and err.......what's that? Oh.....shit.

Do you actually know anything about Australia, or do you base all your decisions about "furriners" purely on how many guns the government gives them for Christmas?

[iverglas]

8. if only someone had a clue

I refer, of course, to people who comment on things they know nothing about.

Anybody going to volunteer to actually learn something, and report back?

Start with what we know, from the media release linked above:

Mr Haermeyer announced new sword regulations today, saying they would assist Victoria Police to crack down on incidents involving swords.

"The Bracks Government is implementing these new regulations to help Victoria Police overcome this culture of young people arming themselves with swords," Mr Haermeyer said.

What are these incidents?

Alternatively, i.e. rather than finding out, we can just all sit here making idiot noises and agree that there were no such incidents, and there is no practice among young people in Australia with a propensity for violence of arming themselves with, and using, swords.

Oh ... did somebody forget we were talking about Australia?

Damn, I hope so. I wouldn't want to think that anybody here was commenting on the legislation and social policies of some foreign jurisdiction. Tsk, heaven's to betsy, what an idea.

Oh, okay. I'll do the work. It's my job, right?

This article seeks to refute the "gang violence" characterization of such incidents in the Australian media; I have no opinion on that aspect, and offer it simply for the facts it reports:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/17/1082140117726.html?oneclick=true

When it came off and flew into the grass, nobody knew it was a hand, except perhaps the young man who'd lost it.

It was chaos in the Fitzroy Gardens at that moment: everybody screaming and chopping and slashing, all of them out of their minds with fear, and with a desperation to not get hit by the blades.

And then they noticed the man sitting in the grass with his back to the madness, nursing his arm.

... So why carry lethal weapons? He had no real answer beyond, "You learn about it at primary school . . . You grow up with it . . . It feels natural to fight with a weapon . . . The aim isn't to kill anybody. The aim is to teach them a lesson." (Apparently, the idea is to mark your foe with a scar.)

Another Asian boy spoke of his life being ruined after a fight with Lebanese youths. . This boy thought it was a fist-fight, but one of his friends pulled a machete, and lopped off one of the enemy's fingers. Now, because he was there, the boy is in deep trouble.

An African youth said he started carrying a knife after he and five friends were caught unarmed and by surprise by about 30 Asian boys, most carrying weapons.

The groups were in conflict over a girl. After that sorry day, he bought a clasp knife with a curved handle. He pulled it a couple of times. The only person he'd ever cut was himself, on the hand. He showed off his scar with an almost whimsical air.

... Richard Tregear, a youth worker with Open Family in Footscray, said he knew the boy who had lost his hand in Fitzroy Gardens, and the boy who had chopped it off.

"They didn't expect it to turn out like that. I know one group was hoping to resolve the situation . . . And all over a girl. Two guys both liked the same girl. The poor girl, she didn't get much of a say in all of it.

"These kids have to get some honour. Fight with their fists, not machetes and samurais . . . But these kids get pushed forward by the momentum. I mean, sure they're up for a fight, but at Salt nightclub, no one expected anyone to get stabbed in the heart."

Sword violence in the news, worldwide:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Fringe.htm

A very long list indeed, including these from Australia:

Brisbane, Australia. May, 2004. A man wearing a black balaclava and armed with a sword, escaped after holding up a 7-Eleven at about 12.50am. The man walked into the store and threatened the store attendant with a sword. Police said the man took cigarettes and demanded money which he passed to an accomplice waiting outside the store before the two fled on foot. (source: www.news.com.au).

Central Victoria, Australia. March 2004. During a domestic dispute a 13-year-old boy was subdued by capsicum spray and arrested after he ran at police officers with a samurai sword. (source: The Age).

Melbourne, Australia. Feb 2004. A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by a samurai sword during a gang brawl in the Fitzroy Gardens. ... <as described in the previous article>

Queensland, Australia. July 2002. One police officer was left seriously injured, a further eight in shock and five police vehicles badly damaged when a Samurai-sword wielding thug went on the rampage. After an eight hour stand-off a 34-year-old man had slashed two officers, nearly severing part of the hand of one, while another suffered cuts to his arm, before being shot dead. Officers tried to disarm the man using capsicum spray, shields, a police dog and special ammunition called "bean bag rounds", designed to hit the body without exploding. Despite being hit by a number of rounds, the sword-wielding man kept up his attack and was finally shot dead. (source: smh.com.au)

Newcastle, Australia. May 2002. Police hunted for a man who held up the Newcastle RSL Club with a samurai sword before escaping with a sum of cash. (source: Newcastle Herald).

Sydney, Australia. March 2001. A 19-year-old 'skinhead' was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for striking another 19-year-old with a Samurai sword, leaving him permanently disabled. The attacker and other skinheads came into the Strathpine Gardens Park, on Brisbane's far northside, where the victim was with a large group of friends. Reportedly the skinheads made racist remarks to an Aboriginal in the group and then the drunken attacker began swinging the sword around. He deliberately licked the sword and cut his tongue, smearing the blood on his hand and holding it aloft like a trophy. He then began swinging the sword at some girls in the other group and at the victim, who seeing that he was dangerous and would possibly hurt the girls, decided to take action. He lunged at the skinhead as he took a wide swing with the sword. The attacker next swiped four times at the victim, wounding him in the arm and leg. He was left with a disabled and wasted leg, is in permanent pain and now depends on a walking stick. He also sustained permanent damage to his left hand. (source: AAP).

Melbourne Australia, May 2001. In a clash between 11 drunken youths, most former students from a top private school, a 19-year-old man's arm was almost severed with a samurai sword wielded by another 19 year old. He was struck five times with the sword leaving his left arm hanging by the skin and tendons, and his lung punctured. (source: news.com.au and smh.com.au).

These weapons are very obviously possessed for criminal purposes. What normal person carries a Samurai sword around? What normal person needs or uses or wants such a thing for any reason? Doog dawg.

Ya wanna collect the idiot things, get yrself a permit. The regulations allow for that. Ya wanna hold up the 7-11, try a baseball bat. Your victim will have a slightly better chance of surviving, with all his/her limbs and abilities intact.

[Dolomite]

10. "Ya wanna hold up the 7-11, try a baseball bat."

"Ya wanna hold up the 7-11, try a baseball bat. Your victim will have a slightly better chance of surviving, with all his/her limbs and abilities intact."

Wow. How utterly comforting.

Are you a politician by any chance?

My original point was that this ban, based on other bans, will not produce a decrease in crime.

Did you hear about the town in Kansas that's banning Pit Bulls? (I don't know why anyone would want to own one of those things anyway)

[iverglas]

11. that was a point?

My original point was that this ban, based on other bans, will not produce a decrease in crime.

And once again ... it probably also won't lower the tides in the Bay of Fundy. But who knows, maybe it will melt the ice cream in your freezer.

What it might do -- and what it is intended to do -- is reduce the injuries and deaths suffered by some people at the hands of other people who assault them with swords.

Tried cutting anybody's hand off with a baseball bat lately?

Funny thing about baseball bats; when somebody lays about you with one and you raise your arms to protect your head, you don't lose your arm.

If I were a shopkeeper, I'd be a damned sight happier to see someone walk in the door with a basebal bat than with a sword, anyhow.

[library_max]

12. More fun trying to grab the bat than the sword, also. /nt

[Dolomite]

13. Oh God - How could I have been so obtuse?!?!

"What it might do -- and what it is intended to do -- is reduce the injuries and deaths suffered by some people at the hands of other people who assault them with swords."

"Reduce injuries and deaths"/"decrease in crime" - you're right, I'd better check the ice cream in my freezer right now.

[library_max]

14. Well, I don't know how, but apparently somehow.

A punch in the mouth and a sword through the abdomen are both violent crimes. One is a tad more serious than the other. Mayhap the authorities in Australia are trying to cut down on the second and willing to risk a corresponding increase in the first.

[iverglas]

15. just in case you still don't get it

"Reduce injuries and deaths"/"decrease in crime"


... you might try comparing the figure for the proportion of armed robberies that end in death (or, the other way around, the proportion of homicides that occur in the course of robberies) in the US with the same figure for Canada.

If somebody is truly intent on holding me up, I'd be very pleased indeed if s/he did it while wielding a baseball bat rather than a handgun or a Samurai sword, thank you very much.

And hmm, I guess you could say I've been a politician of sorts, but these days I'm just regular folks. And as such, amazing as you for some reason seem to find it, I *do* find it comforting that I'm less likely to be killed in a robbery in Canada, or if I happen to be in Australia, than I would be in the US. And if the criminals around me had taken to holding people up with swords, I'd be happy to know that my government had taken action to stem the flow of said swords into their hands so that I'd be more likely to remain in possession of both my own. Silly me, I know.

[Liberal Classic]

16. All the same, this law does nothing to address the root causes

of violence. Is Australia's gang problem on the increase? If so, why?

Ya wanna hold up the 7-11, try a baseball bat. Your victim will have a slightly better chance of surviving, with all his/her limbs and abilities intact.

I'm sorry, Iverglas, but I find this statement to be asinine. A baseball bat is a deadly weapon, even though it is neither pointy nor goes bang. Where I live, robbing a store and beating a clerk with a bat will still rate commission of a felony with a deadly weapon if not attempted murder. And rightly so.

[library_max]

17. Most of the time, there's not a heck of a lot that criminal law can do

about "root causes." Even if social sciences were actual sciences and it was possible to isolate the "root causes" of antisocial behavior, criminal law isn't going to have much relevance to any attempt at ameliorating those causes unless we are talking about truly dystopian applications of criminal law. It's much more practical to address the means, to try to make society safer by restricting or eliminating hazardous weapons, than to go after the "root causes."

[iverglas]

18. the fixation is inexplicable

Where I live, robbing a store and beating a clerk with a bat will still rate commission of a felony with a deadly weapon if not attempted murder. And rightly so.

Step away from that idée fixe. Take of the blinders, or blinkers, or whatever those things are called. Look past your nose.

Nobody here is talking about what the crime is called.

Nobody here is talking about how many crimes will occur.

When I say "nobody", I mean not the govt of the state of Victoria, and not me, and not anybody serious who supports prohibitions on the possession of certain weapons.

NOBODY IS SAYING that banning swords (or handguns) will necessarily reduce the number of robberies that occur, or turn violent children into teachers' pets.

What is being said is that in the event of a robbery or a schooyard brawl, the victims of the violence WILL HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING ALIVE AND IN POSSESSION OF ALL THE BITS OF THEIR BODIES, AND NOT SITTING IN A WHEELCHAIR, if the "tool" used to commit the robbery is *NOT* a firearm or a sword.

I don't care whether you care about that. I DO. The Australians who support their govts' weapons regulations do. And THAT -- reducing the chances of those harms occurring, and reducing the harms that occur when crimes are committed and brawls occur -- is the goal of those regulations.

So let me return the favour, and assure you how utterly and completely asinine I find your statement to be in the context of this discussion. It's a true statement. It's pointless.

Anyhow, a clerk who is told "hand over the money or I'll beat you with this bat" may be just a tad more likely to say "No!" than a clerk who is told "hand over the money or I'll shoot you" or "hand over the money or I'll slice your arm off". Heck, the clerk might just have a bat of his/her own handy. And so it might be just a tad more unlikely that our criminal will set out to rob our clerk in the first place.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide us with some figures to show the number of people beaten to death in the course of robberies with baseball bat in recent years, along with the figures for the number of people shot to death in the course of robberies with firearm. US figures, of course, so that we're comparing apples and apples: two weapons that are readily accessible by just about anybody who wants one.

A baseball bat is a deadly weapon, even though it is neither pointy nor goes bang.

Yup, and so's my shoe. But the chance of you dying or losing a limb or ending up in a wheelchair if all I have available with which to assault you is my shoe (or a baseball bat) really is just a bit lower than if I assault you with a firearm or a sword. Both because the seriousness of the harm caused if I do it is likely to be lesser, and because I am probably less likely to do it in the first place.

An epidemic of jewelery store robbers wielding baseball bats ... of youth gangs swinging baseball bats at one another ... I just don't think so.

[Liberal Classic]

30. I think maybe it was a flip comment I took too seriously

I realize you're not advocating armed robbery, and the like. Perhaps I took it too seriously. If so, I'm sorry. I don't know why you're so hostile with me all the time. Am I truly so rude?

I do look past my nose, and I try to have a sense of perspective. Blunt instruments used in violent crimes cause a lot of damage, and are no laughing matter.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide us with some figures to show the number of people beaten to death in the course of robberies with baseball bat...

Here is a PDF document released by the U.S. Department of Justice, which serves roughly the same functions (I think) as your Canadian Ministry of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

Blunt objects

Armed with blunt objects such as bats, sticks, rocks, clubs, or blackjacks, offenders committed approximately 356,000 violent crimes as an annual average from 1993 through 2001. Crimes by offenders armed with blunt objects were committed at an annual average rate of 2 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.

Weapon Type    Average annual    All violent    All armed
               victimizations    crime          violence

Total          8,896,460         100%

No Weapon      5,863,750         66%            n/a
Any Weapon     2,304,340         26%            100%
All Firearm    846,950           10%            37%
Handgun        737,370           8%             32%
Other gun      100,470           1%             4%
Unknown gun    9,110             0%             0%
Knife/Sharp    569,990           6%             25%
Blunt          356,340           4%             16%
Other          424,160           5%             18%
Unknown        106,890           1%             5%

There are a lot of other statistics in this report, and I don't want to get too bogged down in details. Certianly firearms are used more often in violent crime, but that does not mean that blunt objects are not used.

...youth gangs swinging baseball bats at one another ... I just don't think so.

I'm sorry, Iverglas, but you are mistaken. Though these figures are for the U.S. of course, but I would be very suprised if blunt objects such as clubs and bats were not used during the commission of crimes in Canada as well.

So let me return the favour, and assure you how utterly and completely asinine I find your statement to be in the context of this discussion. It's a true statement. It's pointless.

I beg to differ. I believe my statement is relevant to the subject at hand. I believe your statement to be asinine because it pooh-poohs the use of clubs and bats as instruments of violent crime. This is clearly not the case at all. While blunt objects aren't used as frequently as knives, they are nothing to laugh about.

But the chance of you dying or losing a limb or ending up in a wheelchair if all I have available with which to assault you is my shoe (or a baseball bat) really is just a bit lower than if I assault you with a firearm or a sword.

Ignoring the absurdity of bit about your shoe, please allow me to edit this sentence for clarity.

But the chance of you dying or losing a limb or ending up in a wheelchair if all I have available with which to assault you is my ... baseball bat really is just a bit lower than if I assault you with a ... a sword.

Again, I must strongly disagree with this sentiment.

One good swing from either is sufficient to cause death.

I guess you're just going to accuse me again of the unpardonable sin of not caring enough.

*sigh*

[Jack_DeLeon]

20. I never knew how diverse Australia was.

Lebanese fighting Asians.

Asians fighting Africans.

Skinheads fighting aboriganies.

[iverglas]

21. Australian diversity

Australia is the only country in the world with a higher proportion of its population born outside the country than Canada. (Of course, Australia also has the indigenous Aborigine people, as Canada has the First Nations peoples and the two "indigenous" founding peoples, French and English, and the US has Native Americans and the African-American and Hispanic-American "indigenous" minorities.)

The figure in Canada for born-outside-Canada is about 20%.

The figure in the US is about 10%.

[Jack_DeLeon]

23. So whats the figure for Australia?

One of my relatives once told me that Australia is pretty strict in regardes to immigration. So I'm curious about this.

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. Why not just ban carrying of the weapons, not possession.

Why doesnt Australia just make laws that ban carrying these weapons on the streets? Why do they have ban possession aswell?

I own severals knifes, shortblades and longblades.

It would be illegal for me to walk around the street carrying any knife over 5.5 inches. Its also illegal to carry switchblades and butterfly knives, however its not illegal for me to have them at my home.

Wouldnt laws like this be sufficient. If you see someone on the street carrying a sword he is obviously breaking the law, but why punish someone who has a sword at home?

[iverglas]

22. how about

Why doesnt Australia just make laws that ban carrying these weapons on the streets? Why do they have ban possession aswell?

... because criminals are so well known for obeying the law? </sarcasm>, eh?

Banning possession and sale might actually lead to a reduction in use, that being the actual goal. Quelle novel and strange idea! A law that might actually do something rather than just punish people who break it!


If you see someone on the street carrying a sword he is obviously breaking the law, but why punish someone who has a sword at home?

Someone who has a sword at home and is able to demonstrate that s/he is a legitimate collector and takes proper measures to safeguard his/her swords from theft, etc., is not punished at all.

In fact, NO ONE who is prohibited from possessing a sword is punished UNLESS S/HE POSSESSES A SWORD. Honestly. Does this nonsense not get tiresome?


Its also illegal to carry switchblades and butterfly knives, however its not illegal for me to have them at my home.

Yup, you're on the honour system. A system known to work very well among criminals.


Some of us fret about the stripping away of these "freedoms" to do things that no reasonable person gives a shit about in the first place, and no decent person is unwilling to accept restrictions on in the interests of the lives and well-being of others, and possibly even him/herself.

Some of us fret about what actually happens when people who take the opportunity presented by the things they have access to, as a result of all that unfettered freedom, to kill and maim and terrorize other people.

I know which group I'm in.

[Jack_DeLeon]

25. how about some alternatives.

Why not have more police? Its not like Swords are easy to conceal. If you see some people wandering about with them in hand arrest them. Police have the added benefit of reducing other kinds of crime aswell.

Someone who has a sword at home and is able to demonstrate that s/he is a legitimate collector

So what do you have to do to demonstrate that you are a legitimate collector? Also what is the difference between a legitimate collector and an illigeitimate collector? Who decides and how?

Like I said I have a small collection of assorted knives. Nothing historical or special about them. I dont really fancy myself as a collector but I have them because I like them. Would I be a legitimate collector?

Honestly. Does this nonsense not get tiresome?

What nonsense? I'm not tired?

Yup, you're on the honour system. A system known to work very well among criminals.

Well like we talked about in the other thread cops can always do terry searches if they have a reasonable suspicion that I have an illegal weapon or something. Is that not the case in Australia?

Some of us fret about what actually happens when people who take the opportunity presented by the things they have access to, as a result of all that unfettered freedom, to kill and maim and terrorize other people.

Well in another post in this thread you said something to the effect of "well I prefer if the criminal would use a baseball bat instead of a sword to hold up a store, and that its likely the guy in the store might have a bat too and he could fight back."

So does that mean you are okay with potentially fatal baseball bat duels but not okay with potentially fatal sword duels?

[iverglas]

28. do I look Australian?

So what do you have to do to demonstrate that you are a legitimate collector? Also what is the difference between a legitimate collector and an illigeitimate collector? Who decides and how? ... Well like we talked about in the other thread cops can always do terry searches if they have a reasonable suspicion that I have an illegal weapon or something. Is that not the case in Australia?


I only have so much time for googling. Here's the url: www.google.com (I use google.ca myself, since google recognizes my cookies and takes me there automatically, but the results are usually the same).

Maybe we could get one of the Aussie posters to wander over and tell us what they know. Violet Crumble, foreigncorrespondent? Problem is that, like your average Australian, I doubt they'd have given enough of a toss about the whole thing to have paid attention to the details.

As for the born-outside-Australia figure, I'd forgotten the details and didn't bother looking them up, but that was easy: australia population "foreign-born" gives us:

http://www.migrationinformation.org/DataTools/migrant_stock_groups.cfm







These are the figures for the population as it is composed at present, and not for the sources of contemporary immigration. For instance, Canada still has a large population of post-war UK immigrants (1 in 9 foreign-born persons; 1 in 4, in Australia) but the UK is not a leading source of immigrants in this decade. The proportion of Canada's population that is foreign-born increased substantially between the 1991 and 2001 censuses, so the non-UK-born, non-US-born population will be representing an increasingly larger proportion of the foreign-born (and also second-generation, of course) population. I expect that this would be true but to a lesser extent for Australia (non-UK, non-New Zealand immigration is declining as a proportion of total immigration, but probably not as rapidly as in Canada).

Anyhow, Australia's foreign-born population in 2001 was 4,105,688 out of 18,972,350 = 21.64%. Canada's was 5,647,125 out of 30,007,094 = 18.82%. The US's in 2000 was 31,107,889 out of 281,421,906 = 11.05%. (The US figure has remained relatively steady for quite some time, with small recent increases, and is far lower than it was several decades ago.)

For comparison, and for example, the Chinese-born population represents 0.7% of Australia's population, 1.1% of Canada's population and 0.3% of the US population, based on the figures above.

And 4.6% of foreign-born residents of Canada were born in the US, btw; 0.8% of the total population.

Australia's immigration policies have changed radically in the last couple of decades; its formerly restrictive (some quite fairly say racist) policies are the reason for the preponderance of UK/NZ-born immigrants at present. As I understand its present policies, more emphasis is placed on attracting young families regardless of origin. Now, Australia's refugee policy is another matter, and not a source of pride for progressive Australians.

[iverglas]

29. in a nutshell

Well in another post in this thread you said something to the effect of "well I prefer if the criminal would use a baseball bat instead of a sword to hold up a store, and that its likely the guy in the store might have a bat too and he could fight back."

So does that mean you are okay with potentially fatal baseball bat duels but not okay with potentially fatal sword duels?

Well you betcha, eh?

Let me tell ya, I'm even more okay with potentially fatal spitting duels.

The lethality of the weapon really does matter. For two obvious reasons:

- people are a little less likely to actually engage in baseball bat duels than they are to engage in brawls involving swords or in shoot-outs;

- people who do engage in baseball bat duels (let me know when you hear of any) are a little less likely to end up limbless, quadriplegic or dead.

These are the two main reasons why people *do* use firearms for purposes like this -- e.g. killing other people.

- the weapon is the most efficient available: it enables the most harm to be inflicted with the least effort and the least risk;

- the weapon is the most effective available: it is the most likely to have the desired effect.

No one is likely to use a sword to kill or terrorize when s/he has access to a firearm; no one is likely to use a baseball bat when s/he has access to a sword.

People are likely not going to try to do certain things with swords that they would have done if they had had access to firearms. And people are really pretty unlikely to use baseball bats for most of the things they would use a sword for, let alone a firearm. Really. Pretty unlikely. That's because:

- the risk to themselves is greater (you can't fire a baseball bat from 20 paces);

- the risk of failure in the purpose they are attempting to carry out is greater (other people are more likely, and more able, to defend themselves against baseball bats, and to have other people come to their defence).

So all in all:

- reducing access to firearms (and swords) will likely reduce the number of incidents in which people are killed, maimed or terrorized;

- reducing access to firearms (and swords) will likely reduce the harm that occurs when people nonetheless use some other weapon to carry out their purpose.

[Columbia]

24. Watch out

Pointy sticks are next!

[Jack_DeLeon]

26. illegal spears should be banned

you might poke someone's eye out.

[Columbia]

27. I agree

BTW, welcome to DU!

[Pert_UK]

31. Well bugger me with a fish fork.......

Government recognises threat posed to general citizenry by increasing presence and misuse of easily available specific weapon.

Government passes law banning easy availability of that weapon + restrictions on ownership.

AAAARRRGGGHHH! Fascism!

:eyes:

This will be that centre of repression "Australia" then, where all guns are banned....errr......except they're not of course. And where all swords are banned....errrr.....except of course that they're not.

Did you even read the article? I suspect you did, and then decided to completely misuse it anyway.....Your question, "I can’t wait to see how much violent crime decreases now!" is ignorant and disingenuous. How about, "I can't wait to see how much violent crime involving the misuse of swords decreases now!"......My suspicion is that kids will stop attacking each other with swords if they can't buy swords. Anyone claiming that this isn't a positive move must have been pretty twisted by their views on gun ownership.

"It is illegal to sell prohibited weapons other than in limited circumstances. Vendors will only be legally permitted to sell a sword to an individual who can produce evidence that they fall within an exempt category or have a specific approval from the Chief Commissioner," he said.

...Mr Haermeyer said the Government would establish exempt categories to ensure legitimate sword owners were not disadvantaged.

"There are some cultural, religious, military and collector groups that have legitimate reasons to own swords," he said...

"Our intention is to ensure that security requirements provide a level of community assurance without being too onerous for legitimate sword owners." "

Holy fucking repressed minorities Batman! Anyone who has a good reason for owning a sword (which DOESN'T include trying to kill rival gangmembers) can still get one - I presume from your disdain that you'd like violent Australian teenagers to regain free access to deadly weaponry?

I'm getting pretty bored of people bringing up situations like this as if it's an easy victory for the pro-gun lobby. There are some excellent arguments for the freedom to own guns/swords....so stop making childish, ignorant and misleading ones. I dare you.

[MrBenchley]

33. LOL!!

"I'm getting pretty bored of people bringing up situations like this as if it's an easy victory for the pro-gun lobby."
Welcome to the club, mate.