PDA

View Full Version : New Law to ban swords


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
03-16-2004, 12:39 PM
I wonder how this will affect bokken-practice in Australian dojos?


New law to ban swords (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8907485%255E2862,00.html)

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.

stuartjvnorton
03-16-2004, 03:40 PM
I wonder how this will affect bokken-practice in Australian dojos?



New law to ban swords (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8907485%255E2862,00.html)
Yeah, there have been a few reported incidents of people using "samurai swords" in the last couple of years. For when all your gang mates have machetes & you want to stand out from the crowd...

I wouldn't imagine it would affect bokken, but it would suck to practise Iaido, that's for sure.

Tom Wolowiec
03-16-2004, 05:35 PM
Well, iaido swords aren't meant for cutting, right? As long as you don't flash it around, it should be fine I think.

Nick Simpson
03-17-2004, 03:05 AM
Alternatively, you could apply for the permit?

Niadh
03-24-2004, 09:03 PM
...and the Austrailian National Sword Association says: "swords don't kill people, people kill people"

Sorry folks, touchy area that.

I guess addressing the underlying problem is too difficult and ineffective, so ban the swords

deepsoup
04-29-2004, 10:21 AM
You will notice the Austrailian government make no exeptions for its subjects that practice Martial Arts..
Doesn't look that way exactly, from the rest of your own post:They say:
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.


They don't specifically mention martial arts practice, but they do say groups *such as* yadda yadda. So Aussie iaidoists will have to get a permit and keep their shinto in a gun cabinet. Bit of a faff maybe, but hardly an outright ban.

Sean
x

deepsoup
04-29-2004, 03:27 PM
People on other boards were telling me that they are not issuing ANY permits to MA instructors.....
That in effect is a ban...
If thats true then you're right, it is.

Actually, looking into it a bit further, it does look like a shockingly ill conceived, reactionary and futile piece of legislation. I was taking Haermeyer at his word when he said the law wouldn't impact on legitimate users, but it seems he lied about that.

And its worse than you thought, where he said:
" The Government is also looking at bans on some other weapons " that includes sai, nunchaku, tonfa - all sorts of martial arts gear that can only be included because Mr Haermeyer has seen too many kung-fu films and thinks they're way more dangerous than they actually are.

And now, I'm so shocked at finding myself agreeing with you on a thread about weapon control legislation, I'm going to have to go and have a lie down. :)

Sean
x

Doka
04-29-2004, 03:58 PM
The general priciple sounds the right line to me. I think all lethal weapons should either be registered or legislated against to prevent those who have no reason to have these weapons from having them! Martial arts is a valid reason to hold these weapons. If the Australian government does not see that then the law is wrong!!!

Mind you, it could be that they are trying to say that a Judoka does not need a katana - an Iaidoka does not need Sai - Karateka do not need Silat knives........

Mind you they could be doing like the UK government did with hand guns - ban them all, even competitive (even Olympic) pistol shooters! They let collector off too!

Hmmmmmm!!!

Brad Darr
04-29-2004, 06:54 PM
This may sound cynical but if you ban something because people are killing each other then they will simply find something else to kill each other with. Also banning things outright hurts people with legitimate uses for whatever it is. So if people were using shovels to kill each other following the Aussie government logic they would need to be controlled.

Granted controlling is different than banning outright and I do think that licensing swords would be a good idea. Even if it sounds like something out of the "olden days".

Noel
04-29-2004, 08:22 PM
This may sound cynical but if you ban something because people are killing each other then they will simply find something else to kill each other with.

Well said Brad. Soon as they get the swords off the streets, the pointy sticks will be next. And any Monty Python fan knows what comes next... FRUIT! :eek:

Niadh
04-29-2004, 08:42 PM
...and the Austrailian National Sword Association says: "swords don't kill people, people kill people"

Sorry folks, touchy area that.

I guess addressing the underlying problem is too difficult and ineffective, so ban the swords.

Hey, I'm a politician, makes perfect sense. Except of course for me and those like me...

Niadh
04-29-2004, 09:26 PM
ok, a bit less sarcastically. I stole this from another thread here I just re-read. intersting points.
I think the have relevance
(thank you scott for the post)
Yagyu Munenori wrote this in "The Book of Family Traditions on the Art of War":

"Being "swordless" does not necessarily mean you have to take your opponent's sword. It also does not mean making a show of sword-snatching for your reputation. It is the swordless art of not getting killed when you have no sword. The basic intention is nothing like deliberately setting out to snatch a sword.

It is not a matter of insistently trying to wrest away what is being deliberately kept from your grasp. Not grasping attempts to avoid having it taken away is also "swordlessness." Someone who is intent upon not having his sword taken away forgets what he is opposed to and just tries to avoid having his sword taken away. Therefore he will be unable to kill anyone. Not being killed oneself is considered victory.

The principle is not to make an art of taking people's swords. It is learning to avoid being cut down by others when you have no sword yourself.

Swordlessness is not the art of taking another's sword. It is for the purpose of using all implements freely. When you are unarmed, if you can even take away another's sword and make it your own, then what will not be useful in your hands? Even if you only have a folding fan, you can still prevail over someone with a sword. This is the aim of swordlessness."

Yagyu Munenori's life depended on his sword, yet he understood that an encounter takes place between a person and another person, not a sword and an empty hand.

aubrey bannah
04-30-2004, 01:01 AM
I just read the weapons act, restricted or ban weapons
[b]anunchaku or kung-fu sticks or simular device
[g] a chinese thowing iron that is a hard non-flexible plate having 3 or more radiating points or geometic shape & designed to be thrown as a weapon
[h] a flail or similar device constructed & designed as a weapon
[i] a device known as a manrikiguisari or kusari consisting of a length of rope, wire etc fastened at each end to a geometrically shaped weight or handgrip.
There arte also laws conering devices that make a loud noise & studs etc.
Police in my state recently chagred a youth in a rock band because he had studs in his wristband.
Police in my state will charge you with assault if you shine a trouch on there faces.
There have been several cases in the last couple of years of people entering schools & thowing peterol over students a lighting it. As has been proved in different countries when there are no weapons available the scum resurt to putting tyres over people a lighting with fuel.

dan guthrie
04-30-2004, 10:09 AM
Well said Brad. Soon as they get the swords off the streets, the pointy sticks will be next. And any Monty Python fan knows what comes next... FRUIT! :eek:
". . . you eat the banana, thereby disarming him." You cracked me up. :D
I hope they get around to banning shiny objects soon, distractions can cause fatal accidents. I'm going to go back to my concrete, pig-iron and lead sheathed bunker and have a nice warm cup of double homogenized soy milk in a cup I recently cleaned with boiling alcohol. I plan on using the fetal position for the next half hour to avoid a cramp.

Doka
04-30-2004, 10:10 AM
Well said Brad. Soon as they get the swords off the streets, the pointy sticks will be next. And any Monty Python fan knows what comes next... FRUIT! :eek:

Fish! :D Remember the fish dance on the harbour?

As for the serious stuff:

Do you have a valid reason for possessing something dangerous?

Yes - well that's fine.

No - well that's not!

Jamie

The reaction of some is due to other names you can quote. You quote Tony Martin. They can quote Michael Ryan! Some of the lunatics have valid reasons to hold the weapons!

That's why I don't have a problem with control. I do with an out right ban.

Doka
04-30-2004, 10:32 AM
Well what do you consider "control" and what do you consider a "Ban"? TOny martin had a shotgun in his house and he stopped a REPEAT intruder... THe intruder recieved less time than him? This control that would have prevented Tony Martin from defending himself is in essence an outright ban....


Australia has taken the next loigical step in oppression or "control" of the people by taking away swords. Gangs represent less than 1% of the population yet they restrict the freedoms of the other 99%?

Makes no sense to me.

Tony Martin broke the law!!! The intruder got the death penalty!

Control? Do you have a valid reason, etc......

Licencing maybe? I have no problem with getting a licence to hold my weapons.

Doka
05-01-2004, 04:01 AM
A quote from the BBC web site:

"The Norfolk farmer's case sparked a national debate after he was jailed for the fatal shooting of a burglar in 1999."

Hell of a wound! Mind you, you are right that the burglar spent less time in jail!

deepsoup
05-01-2004, 04:48 AM
They intruder was wounded.. spent less time in jail for a "hot burgarly" than Ton Martin did for the crime of "self defense"...

There were two intruders. Brendan Fearon, then aged 33, and Fred Barras, a 16 year old boy. Martin shot both, wounding Fearon and killing Barras. "Self defence" didn't stand up in court for Martin, not least because Barras was shot in the back as he was trying to flee.
Thats better, it was a queasy experience for me to agree with you back there, glad things are back to normal. :)

Sean
x

Doka
05-01-2004, 07:00 AM
Political Prisoner? He broke the law!!! He heard them and fired a gun at them, A shot gun that fires a spread! He wasn't trying to scare them, he knew he would probably hit them. He did and it left one dead!

I have sympathy for him being repeatedly burgled, but there were other things he could have done. He could have inproved the security of his house, for example.

deepsoup
05-01-2004, 08:24 AM
For the local paper you quote, Tony Martin became something of a cause celebre, their coverage had quite a spin on it.
Whether Barras was 'trying to flee' is a moot point, I suppose, since he's dead nobody can ask him what he was trying to do. That he was shot in the back is beyond dispute though, when you shoot someone at close range with a shotgun its kind of easy to spot where the wound is.
Richard Littlejohn is probably the nearest thing we have over here to a 'shock jock', he writes loathesome rabid right-wing nonsense worthy of an intellectual pigmy. I'm not at all surprised to see you quote him.
So back to the topic?
Good idea. And not having anything further to say on the actual topic, I'm outta here.

Sean
x

Doka
05-01-2004, 10:56 AM
how bout the law locking those idiots up for a significant time....

They did! Tony Martin was inside for a few years!

The "cultural" difference is that mindless killing of people is not in my book! I would do anything to protect my family. Tony Martin was not protecting anyone. I can find no excuse for what he did. He is a criminal and deserved to go to prison. He was very lucky to have his murder conviction reduced to man slaughter. It was murder in my opinion.

Just because someone has entered your home is no reason to shot them! That is rediculous!!!

tedehara
05-02-2004, 05:00 AM
Ever since the days of the stone hand axe, people have been devising new and interesting ways of killing each other. Now governments are trying to regulate the tools of war. Isn't it a little late?

Here in Chicago, they are trying to get Tech 9s off the street. A Tech 9 is a cute little automatic that is a model of efficiency and engineering. Police are complaining that it has too much firepower. Now ask yourself - "When do you truly have too much firepower?"
:rolleyes: sarcastic

Richard Cardwell
05-02-2004, 10:09 AM
In Britain and Northern Ireland, live blades may not be possessed without a specific license obtained from the police. A (non Budo-practicing) brother of a friend brought a live katana of some kind back from Japan, where he had worked. There are various rules- you must notify the police if you intend to buy one, even if you have a license, and inform them of the route you will use to take it home. Senior Iaidoka seem to have little trouble getting them- although it's hard to get them, or iaito, through the internal customs between NI and Britain. The main criterion seems to be the absence of a criminal record. These rules were implemented after a minor media frenzy, as mentally ill people seemed to be obtaining katana and using them on their neighbours, Members of Parliament, etc. An outright ban, IMO, will be ineffective- people who intend to use them to commit murder aren't going to be overly concerned about the weapon they use...

Lan Powers
05-02-2004, 10:20 AM
: Ever since the days of the stone hand axe, people have been devising new and interesting ways of killing each other. Now governments are trying to regulate the tools of war. Isn't it a little late?

Here in Chicago, they are trying to get Tech 9s off the street. A Tech 9 is a cute little automatic that is a model of efficiency and engineering. Police are complaining that it has too much firepower. Now ask yourself - "When do you truly have too much firepower?"
:rolleyes: sarcastic

I believe the answer to that is when it is the OTHER GUY who has the firepower...
BTW I have been burgled twice.... I would really consider shooting the bastards if I caught them.(heat of the moment)

Lan

cbrf4zr2
05-02-2004, 11:54 AM
Australians better be careful, or you will only be allowed to live there if you are a quadruple amputee.

A few years back, they banned guns.
Now they are banning swords.
What next? Hands And Feet?

deepsoup
05-02-2004, 03:43 PM
In Britain and Northern Ireland, live blades may not be possessed without a specific license obtained from the police.
I've not heard of this.
I googled and couldn't find any reference to it.
Could you post a link please?

Sean
x

akiy
05-02-2004, 04:55 PM
Why the hell is Hanoi mick now the starter of this thread that I started????
There was already a thread regarding this subject started over a month ago. Your thread has been merged with the previous thread.

Doka
05-02-2004, 07:01 PM
What I do not get is why you would leave that choice of life and death up to the criminal... It makes no sense... The term "A mans home is his castle" comes from u Brits yet I can freely break into your home without worry of being shot? You as a home owner has no choice but to make way. Lest you get charged with the crime of "self defense"?

Jamie

Let me ask you this - Would you physically assault someone for littering?

Doka
05-02-2004, 07:08 PM
Yes, but that is different - that is using reasonable force!

My point was that to shoot someone for breaking and entering is not - it is using excessive force!

Doka
05-02-2004, 07:38 PM
So you are saying that you have to wait and see if this guy intends to rape your daughter and kill you or you observe them beating your wife with a pipe before you defend yourself?

So you are saying that you have to assault the man in the street who smiles at your daughter in case he is about to abduct her!!!

You don't know what someone's intentions are until they reveal them. Someone is not a litterer until they litter. Now that is not to say that you have to wait until they have done (completed) something, but you cannot act until they act (start)!

Remember, innocent until proved guilty? Well, they are innocent until they do something to be guilty of.

deepsoup
05-03-2004, 08:15 AM
You as a home owner has no choice but to make way. Lest you get charged with the crime of "self defense"?

Untrue, self-defence is legal. You're entitled to protect yourself (your family and property, whatever) using "reasonable force". "Reasonable force" does not mean lethal force. (Unless of course lethal force is reasonable - ie: your own life is in danger.)

You'll face criminal charges if you kill someone to protect your VCR from being stolen, because it is not 'reasonable' under UK law to take a human life to protect a VCR. This may seem insanely liberal to you, but I think its probably about right.

Also, in the case of Fearon - the burglar who was wounded by Martin - although he was technically the victim of a criminal assault by Martin, he wasn't quite given full 'victim' status. Usually, the victim of criminal assault is entitled to compensation from the state, but that isn't the case if the victim is comitting a criminal act at the time. So although Fearon was the 'victim' of Martin's assault, he was denied the usual state compensation.
(Part of his motivation for attempting to sue Martin for damages - a lawsuit which, incidentally, got him absolutely nowhere.)

In Britain and Northern Ireland, live blades may not be possessed without a specific license obtained from the police. Back on topic(ish): Richard, I still can't find any reference to this law, are you quite sure it really exists?

Sean
x

Doka
05-03-2004, 11:43 AM
Jamie

Lets look at this. If he has a leathal weapon in his hand climbing the stairs, that's one thing. If he is looking through the pantry he is obviously a burglar. If he then attacks, then that is another thing again.

Reasonable force!!!!

In the US in the state of Texas you can shoot someone for breaking into your car.....

I go back to the word "Reasonable", something that Texas could not be acused of being. :rolleyes:

Doka
05-03-2004, 02:19 PM
Sorry Jamie, but you can't act on a maybe. They have to act for you to react!

deepsoup
05-03-2004, 04:02 PM
So all you have to say is "I was in fear of my life". Is that it? Yep. As long as you say it in such a way that a jury will believe you.
Actually if your use of force is remotely reasonable, theres no way its going to get to trial. The first step along that route is when you're interviewed by a police officer. They don't like burglars, and therefore are generally very sympathetic to the householder in a case like this. They *really want* it to have been 'reasonable force', but when the householder is in possession of an unlicenced shotgun and the burglar is half out a window with a bloody great big hole in his back, that boat is hard to float.

Once this individual breaks into your home while occupied with your family isn't his intent clear. What do you think he would do if you ran across him in your pantry? Run not run. If he chooses not to run is that grounds for lethal force?
I don't think the intent is clear at that point, no. By far the most common intent (in the UK at least) is to steal property and get out again unchallenged. Confronted, he's almost always going to run if he can - because if he runs he guarantees his own survival and may escape.
Confronted by an armed Texan householder its a different situation - he knows if he runs the householder may shoot him trying to escape. He may figure attacking the householder is his best chance of survival, never mind escape.

No, the only legal grounds for lethal force here is the defence of innocent life in the face of a real threat. (That goes for both civilians and police. Armed police will only use lethal force if they believe their target presents an immediate danger to themselves or somebody else. )
In the US in the state of Texas you can shoot someone for breaking into your car..... What can I say? This just amazes me. Texans are overwhelmingly more religious than Brits, there is no comparison in church attendances between here and there. And yet the place with all the Christians is the place where its acceptable to take the life of a human being in defence of a car!? I just dont get it, what part of "Thou shalt not kill" do Texans not understand?
Does not happen all that often but Hot home invasions are almost unheard of there...
I spent quite a while trying to find comparable statistics between Texas and the UK, but didn't manage it. Do you have any links? (You can find authoritative crime stats for the UK at www.crimestatistics.org.uk btw.)

OK, I'm going to bow out of this argument again - I just don't have the time or energy to research proper replies.

That ship sailed a long time ago.... ;)
Looks like it. FWIW, I'm pretty sure there is no such law in the UK, and nor should there be imo.

Hmm its those damn right wing "pygmy's" again and their blasted nonsense...... I had no idea who he is yet you are not suprised that I quote someone who you call a pygmy?
What are you trying to say?
I know him quite as well as I want to. He's a loathesome individual, with loathesome beliefs who has a column in an influential daily newspaper aimed at morons. He makes a living by appealing to the basest, most unnattractive aspects of human nature. Greed, fear, selfishness.
The reason I'm not surprised to see you quote him is that he is one of only a handful of newspaper journalists in this country who writes stuff that a right wing american would like to quote in an argument with a liberal brit.
Also, of course, the subtext was that I was calling you an idiot by association, but that was a cheap shot for which I apologise.

Ian Williams
05-29-2004, 06:14 AM
have to giggle at all the americans getting upset over our (australian) restrictions on the carrying and owning of deadly weapons ...

I for one, am glad that Australia has extremely tight control on firearms and other deadly weapons.

George S. Ledyard
05-29-2004, 09:43 AM
So you are saying that you have to assault the man in the street who smiles at your daughter in case he is about to abduct her!!!

You don't know what someone's intentions are until they reveal them. Someone is not a litterer until they litter. Now that is not to say that you have to wait until they have done (completed) something, but you cannot act until they act (start)!

Remember, innocent until proved guilty? Well, they are innocent until they do something to be guilty of.
You are wrong here! You may not know what heir intentions are but the legal standard is based on the perceived threat, not the actual actions. Jaime is right (I can't believe I am agreeing with him again), you do not have to wait to act. The legal standard is "What would a reasonable person perceive as the threat", that determines what level of force may be used to defend oneself. Of course it's a jury that ultimately gets to decide what is a reasonable person so it better be really believable when you base your actions on it.

Keith_k
05-31-2004, 01:59 AM
The thing that should burn the Aussie MA community and have them writing hate mail to all their elected officials is the question: will this law prevent crime? A bit of reasoning leads me to the conclusion: no. Unless my understanding of Australian culture is horribly out of touch, I don't believe the average aussie goes around caring sizable melee weapons. Unless my understanding of Australian law enforcement is horrible out of touch, I don't believe a person seen caring around a sizable melee weapon would be allowed to wander the street without at least one officer stopping them and asking, "Excuse me sir, just why are you walking around with a six-foot Scottish claymore strapped to your back?" Swords, by nature of their size, are very un-concealable. A person who commits a crime with a sword does not do it in the heat of the moment, a lot of thought and planning has to go into it in order to get the darn thing to the crime scene without a dozen of Australia's finest watching them like hawks. Due to the fact that crimes committed using a sword HAVE to be planned, the criminal can easily substitute a less legally regulated weapon, such as a wood-chopping axe, for the sword (not that I believe this sort of criminal would have obtained a sword in a legal manner in the first place). I don't see how a law banning sword would make any kind of reduction in crime, it simply inconveniences law abiding citizens who do not commit crime, and infringes on personal freedom.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

Just a bit of trivia somewhat related: in the US (in California anyway), if I am pulled over and found to have a baseball bat with me, I can be arrested can charged with a felony; if I have a firearm I can only be charged with a misdemeanor. Ain't law grand? :crazy:

Richard Cardwell
05-31-2004, 12:08 PM
Mr. Orchard- sorry I didn't reply for so long, this thread dropped off my radar! I haven't found any mention of this legislation on the Web myself, but my friend was informed of the necessity by the police. I know that's not much help to a seeker after knowledge! :-)

dan guthrie
05-31-2004, 02:40 PM
Just a bit of trivia somewhat related: in the US (in California anyway), if I am pulled over and found to have a baseball bat with me, I can be arrested can charged with a felony; if I have a firearm I can only be charged with a misdemeanor. Ain't law grand? :crazy:
I'm not positive, but I think you're only going to get a warning if you have a baseball glove or a ball with the bat. It helps if the bat isn't within arm's reach. The felony also applies to brass knuckles, saps, switchblades and sawed off shotguns.
I know of a man who spent +$3,000, and weeks in court, defending himself for the misdemeanor you're citing.

Keith_k
05-31-2004, 05:34 PM
Dan,
You are right of course, but the fact is that you CAN be charged with a felony. I was just trying to point out the absurdity that caring a stick is more illegal than caring a gun.
Keith

Bronson
06-02-2004, 08:24 PM
AN 11-year-old girl led a fellow sixth-grader to an empty classroom during their lunch hour, slit her neck and arms with a box-cutter, and left her to bleed to death. (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9723123%255E401,00.html)

A 15-year-old British grammar school boy has been convicted of inciting an internet friend to murder him. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/29/1085641765286.html)

I think it's high time we banned children :disgust: :grr:

Bronson

happysod
06-03-2004, 04:44 AM
I think it's high time we banned children I like the cut of your gib Mr Bronson :D .

On a related note, rather than having a law per-ce, we've been noticing our weapons taken away from us by the back route of insurance. Most of our dojos are in local council sports centres and several have stipulated that they cannot pay for the insurance for allowing katana or even real knives (which are a bit dodgy here anyway legal-wise) , despite our protestations of "we've got insurance" - anyone else hit this problem.

Mind you, this is the UK, where a private members bill was brought forward to ban all "boxing and martial arts or related sports" on the grounds that it caused violence in our youfs :crazy: . This was a few years ago and the bill never got past the first hurdle, but ....

Bronson
06-03-2004, 10:25 AM
No it's not just the UK.

The college fencing club I used to play with had to move it's practices off campus because of the University's new weapons policy. A french foil is about as far removed from a real sword as you can get. The new rule had a rather extensive list of things it called out as weapons and the last item was "any object brandished in a threatening manner."

When asked what defined "threatening" we were told anything that caused another person to feel threatened.

At the meetings someone asked the board if it had to be brandished at the person. They said "no". We asked "so in effect I could be fencing with my friend and point my foil at his chest in an attempt to land the touch and someone watching the bout could file a complaint against me for brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner." "Yes" was their reply.

One of the guys from the iaido club (no longer existing) asked if he was practicing his form with a wooden sword with no opponent if someone watching could bring a complaint against him. Again, "Yes" was their answer.

It boggles my mind :confused: :freaky: :hypno:

Bronson

Peter Seth
08-24-2004, 06:59 AM
You would not believe how easy going and peacefull a person I am normally.

But, I have been burgled on more than one occassion - luckily we were not in at the time.
Friends and neighbours who have been burgled have been in at the time (frightening) and the trend seems to be at the moment for the burglars to first raid the kitchen draw. From which they take knives, and as they proceed around the house they place them at strategic places, this is along with the usual placing of chairs/obstacles outside doors and at the top of the stairs. So if you disturb them and you are not stabbed, you may be lucky and fall over their trap and break your neck falling down the stairs.
Does such cynical disrespect and disregard for others warrant a '(poor misunderstood individual/s who had a troubled childhood - etc, etc)' excuse, or do you treat them as potential murderers etc?

I'll let you guess whether I would give a burglar the opportunity to even think of harming my family.
Reasonable force - MMMMM? Would they be reasonable??
I think the americans have a phrase 'With extreme prejudice', that fits the bill.


This may be un-Aiki but like every other generation can say - 'we live in violent times'.

What would you do??

PS: I wonder if Tony Martin was 'terrified' during this 'repeat' (I think 4th or 5th time)? assault on his property by 2 career criminals? One of who'm had a record for violence.

Lyle Laizure
08-24-2004, 04:01 PM
I once read a bumper sticker that said "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." It seems to me that politicians like to pass laws for the sake of passing laws. Don't get me wrong there may be a need for regulation but within reason. It isn't the swords fault that someone decided to use it in an inappropriate manner.

senseimike
08-24-2004, 05:06 PM
Austrailia should put a ban on dingos... I understand that they can be dangerous to children.

graham butt
09-07-2004, 03:56 AM
Personnaly i think that Weapons should be registered for legitimate users, but not banned... It's soooo easy to get your hands on weapons in Scotland it's unbelievable, The shops will sell them if they get money from it.

Dazzler
09-07-2004, 08:03 AM
Hmmmm...go on then, some one enlighten me.

Why is it necessary to own a sword, pike, kung fu stars or whatever.

If its for martial arts practice surely there are safer alternatives!

Toby Hill
09-07-2004, 11:00 AM
Political Prisoner? He broke the law!!! He heard them and fired a gun at them, A shot gun that fires a spread! He wasn't trying to scare them, he knew he would probably hit them. He did and it left one dead!

I have sympathy for him being repeatedly burgled, but there were other things he could have done. He could have inproved the security of his house, for example.

That's true, he could have killed them both! If someone breaks into my home they will not get out alive. I have no way of knowing what their intentions are and I will not wait untill they harm my wife or children to find out. :grr:

Toby Hill
09-07-2004, 11:03 AM
Jamie

Let me ask you this - Would you physically assault someone for littering?

If they broke into my house to do it, damn right.

MitchMZ
09-07-2004, 12:13 PM
Looking at it from an Aikido perspective, it would be totally wrong to assume the attacker wants to severely harm you and attack them first (in this case possibly killing them). Do you blend with a yokomen strike before it is even performed? You need that negative ki to act. But, then again, not everyone is capable of defending themselves in this manner. Would I ever kill anyone for breaking in? No. I think thats bad karma. Would I ever harm them? Yes, but not fatally. I'm pretty sneaky and have some mighty fine hardwood weapons next to my bed. Of course...my huge black lab would probably maul them first. Plus, animals are REALLY good at reading intent.

thomas_dixon
09-08-2004, 07:25 AM
Imagine how angry the Kenjutsu schools are...

I suppose a registration or permit would be more fitting than a ban...I mean it won't kill you to carry a slip of paper in your wallet saying you take a martial art and are authorized to carry a sword...But that also means that they might take a negative stance in the fact that you're not just someone in a street gang swinging a sharp piece of metal around, you're a skilled swordsman...

Darren_Friend
09-10-2004, 02:46 AM
Yeah, there have been a few reported incidents of people using "samurai swords" in the last couple of years. For when all your gang mates have machetes & you want to stand out from the crowd...

I wouldn't imagine it would affect bokken, but it would suck to practise Iaido, that's for sure.

Recently I wrote to Australian Customs about importing jo and bokken tanto etc as I'm returning next year. I was told that import of real swords was not restricted, however if my wooden swords/ knives were at all sharp or pointy it could be a problem. Makes you wonder if customs is staffed by vampires, beware the pointy sticks boys:p

Ron Tisdale
09-10-2004, 08:04 AM
That's a good one Darren! :) You'd think they'd be more worried about the swords...

For what its worth, when I flew back from the first aiki expo with some new buki, I checked them in a locked case after inspection as 'exercise equipment'. No problems at all.

Ron

Shane Mokry
10-08-2004, 12:37 PM
Ron,

I always check my weapons as modern dance props.(trick my teacher taught me) I'll be damned if one of the ticket clerck's didn't want a demonstration....Go figure.
It was actually pretty good improv. Other than that, no problems here either.
:D
Take care,
Shane

Shane Mokry
10-08-2004, 12:56 PM
You know, it seems to me that banning all this stuff is a waste of time. I think governments just have too much time on their hands.

Anyone ever think that maybe it's time to start legalizing things instead of banning certain tools; actually encouraging owning things like swords, knives, guns, battle axes, drugs, etc.

Just think of the possibilities...everyone could be so busy getting high that they wouldn't have time to kill each other. That could also take care of the drug crime problems too. Not to mention the revenues it would generate for the state. Pipe dream I guess..Ha! (no pun intended)

Banning weapons will never change a person's ill intent. The only thing it does is leave a people more vulnerable to greater atrocities inflicted by an oppressive group or government...

Shane