Crossbows, samurai swords to be banned in Victoria

Crossbows and samurai swords would be banned in Victoria, the State Government announced yesterday.

Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said Victoria was already preparing legislation, but a spokesman said machetes would not be included in the ban because they had a wide range of legitimate uses.

SNIP

"It is about making them generally unavailable to those people who just want to carry them around, either for self-defence or to commit deliberately aggressive acts," he said.


Full story is here:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/02/1056825457398.html

A machete is just as effective as a weapon as any Samurai sword.

Who the hell would carry around a genuine Samurai sword worth thousands of dollars, or a fake Samurai sword worth only a hundred bucks yet worthless as a weapon?

How many crossbow murders have there been in Australia's history? This crap reminds me of - here - where the San Diego City Council just banned bowfishing from Ocean Beach Pier. People have been bowfishing there for several decades and there are exactly zero records of injuries from it.

The RKBS nuts don't care how much death they create. And the corrupt sword industry arm in arm with our own bowfishing crowd create a market for this. No doubt the Republican party will do the work for these groups with all of their blood money while listening to Ted Nugent.

Fishing is murder, and those Samurai swords are war booty from a NUKULUR ATTACK anyway.

:hippie:

The RKBS "enthusiasts" hooey leads to more killings.

Or someone who TAKES a crap.

got me on the floor crying. Nice job. No question who that is.

That's a little over the top, don't you think?

What has the sword industry done that's corrupt?

The National Sword Assocation has blocked every piece of common-sense sword control legislation since 1949.

The courts are all packed with sword-huggers, and the NSA has an office in the White House.

The US has more sword violence then all other Western industrialized nations combined.

Swords kill or maim 13 kids every day.

Swords are not regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission or any other federal agency.

Any wacko or terrorist can go to a knife show and buy a sword of any length without a background check or waiting period.

Unlicensed sword dealers are selling military swords, which have no legitimate sporting use.

Permissive sword laws in some states allow anyone to buy a sword and smuggle it into states with sword control. We need strong national sword laws.

The sword lobby says sword laws are not being enforced, but the NSA gutted the Bureau of Razors, Scalpels, and Knives so it has no enforcement capabilities.

:-)

you don't have to bend over to pickup dog turds.

:-)

I be packing muh Barnett to knock the homies that get in muh way!

Have they even fired a crossbow???

"The Northern Territory is resisting the national ban because the weapons are used for controlling feral animals."


Heh. Heh. or maybe New South Wales? New Guinea? New Zealand? Tasmania?

Not ALL of Australia is banning them.

""It is about making them generally unavailable to those people who just want to carry them around, either for self-defence or to commit deliberately aggressive acts," he said. "

They're not banning them, they're making it harder for people to use them as weapons. This probably won't affect the collector or martial artist.

FYI in the UK there have been several occasions where a Samurai sword has been used to kill or injure people in attacks, including the personal assistant of an MP.

I'm actually in Australia at the moment, and as far as I can tell from the news here, what they're doing is trying to stop people who have no genuine reason to own these things from having them. I have no problem with this.

"I'm actually in Australia at the moment, and as far as I can tell from the news here, what they're doing is trying to stop people who have no genuine reason to own these things from having them. I have no problem with this."

What 'genuine reason' do we have to own anything?

Collectors, martial artists, film armourers etc. may have genuine reasons for owning them.

If you happen to be someone with convictions for violent assault, gang membership or who can't actually give a convincing reason for wanting one, then maybe you forego your "right" to own a big sword.

they had HUGE swords for sale in a shop. Presumably to anyone.

Look, I don't have an axe (ha ha ha) to grind about this.

If a government feels that its citizens aren't allowed to own big swords without a reasonable explanation then that's fair enough.

If a government feels that its citizens (or visitors) can buy big swords then fair enough.

If there was a spate of sword killings then I'd probably go for it, if we were in Braveheart times then I'd probably be against it, but as it is I'm not that bothered.

I'm just saying Spain has common sense in sword policy. Australia does not.

But anyway, your point doesn't hold much water....

You want them to wait until AFTER a load of attacks before banning them?

OK, now I appreciate that using my argument then there could be a pre-emptive ban on everything that presents the remotest risk to people, but we're talking about swords here...which are primarily designed to slice people.

I'm not defending the "nanny state", but I fail to see why people are so against this. The Victorian government has said that a dangerous object with no inherent utility should not be owned by its citizens unless they have good reason.

No sky diving/could get killed
No speed boats/could get killed
No race cars/could get killed
No atv's/could get killed
No Sking/could get killed
None of the tools for these sports have no utility in my opinion.
And I disagree if the popluation at large has no business owning swords then the ninjas and movie makers don't need them either.

Rather than just piping up rubbish.

I don't mean to be offensive but NONE of your comparisons work.

In everything that you list, the risk is to the individual participating in the activity of their own free choice. Certainly I'll concede that observers may occasionally be the victim of a freak accident, but it's never deliberate, never used as a weapon, and generally speaking an observer will be consciously aware of the potential danger they're in and can leave if they so wish. All of the activities you list have a distinct utility i.e. fun and fitness.

The point with the sword "ban" (and it isn't actually a ban) is that it's to prevent people purchasing a WEAPON and using it to cause injury to SOMEONE ELSE without their consent. The weapon has no particular inherent utilitiy with the possible exceptions of martial artists or collectors, both of whom ought to be able to provide decent justification for their continued ownership of a sword.

Now I don't happen to think that the general population should be allowed to own RPGs, but I have no objection to them being used by documentary makers or military personnel.

Look, I don't really care either way on this issue, but if you're going to try to argue with me then at least try to say something that relates to the situation and my comments.

P.

Do you want them only restricted to chefs with permit?

Especially not something with such inherent utility.

I don't even WANT swords banned. I'm merely saying that if the government wants to restrict ownership of swords to people who can give a reasonable explanation for why they want one, I'm not going to be in the streets protesting against it.

I don't see it as a first step on an inevitable journey towards a totally restrictive nanny-State. The government already places a great many restrictions on our daily lives. This extra one would be a minor incovenience to a very small number of people. It's a very specific law, not the mandate that we all wear rubber suits and use plastic cutlery in case we hurt ourselves.

P

Yes you do have an opinion about this. I have investigated murders with baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, bricks, a garbage pail lid of all things, peice of broken glass from a glass top coffee table, arson, of course guns, have also investigated two shootings that were determined to be self defense. I guess what I'am saying is it is really stupid to ban objects. Only we to keep everybody safe is to have everyone wearing a straight jacket in a padded cell.

My opinion is that the government already places many restrictions on people in order to reduce the risk of death and injury, e.g. compulsory wearing of seatbelts or helmets for motorcyclists.

I don't even WANT swords banned. I'm merely saying that if the government wants to restrict ownership of swords to people who can give a reasonable explanation for why they want one, I'm not going to be in the streets protesting against it.

I don't see it as a first step on an inevitable journey towards a totally restrictive nanny-State. The government already places a great many restrictions on our daily lives. This extra one would be a minor incovenience to a very small number of people. It's a very specific law, not the mandate that we all wear rubber suits and use plastic cutlery in case we hurt ourselves.

If the government doesn't do this, then I don't care. I agree that any object can be used as a murder weapon, but some are more uniquely suited to it than others. In some countries it is illegal to own a radar detector that informs you prior to a police speed trap, or illegal to own flick-knives/butterfly knives. It can also be illegal to own the plastic implement that car-thieves use to open car doors. Yes, in theory the banning of an object is absurd - objects don't commit crimes. However, in practice it often makes sense - the banning of an object prevents people from committing a crime with that object. If the object's only purpose is to commit a crime, or if it is inherently suited to committing a crime but has little other utility, then a ban (as a last resort) seems appropriate.

P

No more samari warriors roaming the streets of Vancover now, wheew, what a relief. And as soon as public works gets rid of the jungle canopy, I will not need my machete anymore either.

I understand that on several ocassions people have been killed or injured with bikes, pogo sticks, ropes, irons, stoves, bundles of shingles, nail guns, rabbid dogs, mosquitos, frying pans...well, you get my drift. Now we only have re-runs of Sat Night Live to watch what a real Samari is like. Those things can sure cut a tomato.