Idiot Oz Weapons Laws

[Ed]

This was just posted on a sword site

"Well, I'm in Victoria and about half an hour ago (March 8th) a local radio station (774 ABC Melbourne) announced in a news bulletin that the new sword laws WILL take effect in July this year (2004). They didn't state all the requirements but they did say that exemptions would be available to legitimate collectors. They also stated that any sale of a sword in Victoria will require the seller to record the personal details of the buyer (presumably to be passed on to a government managed register of sword owners).
Once the new law takes effect, owning a sword in Vic without a permit will be a criminal offence (not just carrying it in public without good reason, just owning a sword without a permit will be a crime)."

How do people down there put up with this level of stupid feel-good patronizing government intrusion? Was there a vote on this idiocy or did some bureaucrats simply determine that this is what is best for the poor inept masses?

[richardm]

There is a reason for this. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594279264.html)

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

The move to list the swords as prohibited weapons comes following a string of incidents involving them, a state government spokesman said.

"There has been a number of incidents involving swords... and we want to make sure these weapons are not freely available," a state government spokesman said.

A 13-year-old boy was last week arrested and charged with possession of a controlled weapon and other offences after he allegedly ran at officers with a samurai sword in central Victoria.

A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by what was believed to be a samurai sword during a brawl in Melbourne last month.

Huy Huynh, 19, was allegedly hacked to death near a Melbourne nightclub in July last year by a group that used samurai swords or machetes.
.

People start thinking it's cool to carry and use swords - the inevitable result should be that you need a permit to own one. If the only reason you can show is that you think it looks cool, then that's no longer good enough.

Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of gun owners who disagree (not least because they assume that anyone attacking them with a sword will get the full Indiana Jones treatment).

Yeah, I know, Tyranny.

[Ed]

Originally posted by richardm
There is a reason for this. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594279264.html)



People start thinking it's cool to carry and use swords - the inevitable result should be that you need a permit to own one. If the only reason you can show is that you think it looks cool, then that's no longer good enough.

Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of gun owners who disagree (not least because they assume that anyone attacking them with a sword will get the full Indiana Jones treatment).

Yeah, I know, Tyranny.

Absurd. A leaf spring + file = Sword

Hell

A 2 x 4 + sandpaper = Sword

So the logic is that anything that could possibly cause harm will be regulated (and given history) subsequently eliminated? Are Ozzies such a cowering lot? Is the goal a riskless society?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Ed

So the logic is that anything that could possibly cause harm will be regulated (and given history) subsequently eliminated? Are Ozzies such a cowering lot? Is the goal a riskless society?

A particular section of society has decided to use swords to attack people. And you don't think anything should be done to try to prevent that? Are you really so disinterested in what is happening to other people?

It's not a case of "Well, swords are nasty pointy things with sharp edges. Someone could get hurt! We must ban all things that might hurt people": people have already been hurt. I don't know what the situation in Australia really is - perhaps it is just the goverment reacting to a wave of media coverage. But if a samurai sword is the latest must-have accessory to use on a Friday night - that's not good, surely?


Maybe a requirement that swords be licenced won't help. But what would a sensible alternative be?

[Ed]

Originally posted by richardm


A particular section of society has decided to use swords to attack people. And you don't think anything should be done to try to prevent that? Are you really so disinterested in what is happening to other people?

It's not a case of "Well, swords are nasty pointy things with sharp edges. Someone could get hurt! We must ban all things that might hurt people": people have already been hurt. I don't know what the situation in Australia really is - perhaps it is just the goverment reacting to a wave of media coverage. But if a samurai sword is the latest must-have accessory to use on a Friday night - that's not good, surely?


Maybe a requirement that swords be licenced won't help. But what would a sensible alternative be?

A section of society? How many people are a large enough "section" for the government to feel it necesary to protect everyone else? Fashion accessory? How about laws (which we have in the US) concerning carrying a weapon? Every legitimate owner of a sword (I will be curious to see what their definition is) now, because of a few incidents, be treated as potential felons? Is sword wielding a problem, really? It sounds like a couple of nuts who would use a butchers knife as well as a sword. So now there will be an even larger government beurocracy. Great.

[corplinx]

The people used swords in attempted crimes. I guess the government won't buy the logic that criminal won't care is a sword is banned or not.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by richardm
Maybe a requirement that swords be licenced won't help. But what would a sensible alternative be? Must a law be passed every time there is a (supposed) threat? People are going to kill people. The notion that people are being killed simply because swords are available is silly.

Is there any empirical evidence that this law will save lives? Or is it simply a visceral response to a problem?

[Ed]

Originally posted by corplinx
The people used swords in attempted crimes. I guess the government won't buy the logic that criminal won't care is a sword is banned or not.

hey, corp, sorry about the price war:D Turns out the damn Danes stiffed me on the bill. C'est la vie.

[richardm]

Originally posted by RandFan
Must a law be passed every time there is a (supposed) threat? People are going to kill people. The notion that people are being killed simply because swords are available is silly.

Is there any empirical evidence that this law will save lives? Or is it simply a visceral response to a problem?

Very little evidence, I should think. The UK has quite strict laws on carrying knives, yet knife crime is still on the increase because it's considered "cool" to carry a knife.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by richardm
. . .Maybe a requirement that swords be licenced won't help. But what would a sensible alternative be?. . .


If it won't help then it harms. If nothing else it wastes public funds that could be used more profitably elsewhere, ala Canada's gun registration laws

Gun registry cost soars to $2 billion (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/13/gunregistry_rdi040213)

keep in mind this program was supposed to cost Cd$2 million

All this for a negligable to minor decrease in gun-related crimes.

A sensible alternative would be to look at the other countries that have instituted gun registries and see how effective they haven't been and the iether scrap the project or just institute an outright ban and require all the weapons to be turned in for destruction. The second option certainly won't stop armed crimes but if the pool of weapons is small it makes it more difficult and expensive to get one.

Weapon control is a waste. Either ban 'em outright of forget about them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Must a law be passed every time there is a (supposed) threat? People are going to kill people. The notion that people are being killed simply because swords are available is silly.

Is there any empirical evidence that this law will save lives? Or is it simply a visceral response to a problem?

Due to efficient enforcement of gun laws, you don't see many people being killed with guns. However, people are still being hacked to death with swords and machetes. (Rather, mostly stupid, drunk young men).

So yes, a law is being passed to deal with this problem. And it is because the community wants this issued dealt with. I haven't seen any rallies in the streets of people carrying swords and machetes.

The time to get on to this problem is now, as the youth culture is already developing a knife carrying habit.

[Zep]

I posted in another thread of the significant increase in machete-wielding gangs, particularly of Asian background. We are seeing a significant rise in mass street fights where two gangs go at it like a kung-fu movie. As a community, we don't like that, and we are now as mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more.

Look, when two kids in class start a rubber-band fight and the teacher breaks it up, the teacher will take away their rubber-bands to start with, yes? And then make sure the box of rubber-bands is locked away so they can't get more. Yes?

Same deal happening here. BEFORE someone gets REALLY hurt and it gets out of hand.

[The Fool]

I'd like to apologise to all americans who had thoughts of taking a sword fighting holiday in Australia. Unfortunately, the honest law-abiding people who carry swords on the streets are being repressed again so you will have to go somewhere else if the freedom to pack a sword is important to you...again....I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

[NullPointerException]

What about wooden swords like kendo etc etc.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
What about wooden swords like kendo etc etc.

I don't think you will find many people being dismembered with these, as has been happening with machetes. If it starts happening, maybe they will pass a law about it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Due to efficient enforcement of gun laws, you don't see many people being killed with guns. However, people are still being hacked to death with swords and machetes. (Rather, mostly stupid, drunk young men).

So yes, a law is being passed to deal with this problem. And it is because the community wants this issued dealt with. I haven't seen any rallies in the streets of people carrying swords and machetes.

The time to get on to this problem is now, as the youth culture is already developing a knife carrying habit. Let me ask again, is there any imperical evidence that this will save lives?

It should be noted that knives are outlawed in prision. Yet somehow the prisioners keep making them (shives). The law is difficult enough to enforce in prision. I think the one element that those who are blithley defending the new law is that it is not the swords that cause the crime.

Children with rubberbands? If a guy in prison wants to kill someone locking up the rubberbands isn't going to stop him. He will sharpen his toothbrush and wrap it with cloth and masking tape for a handle. We aren't talking about children. We are talking about thinking adults and young adults. If they want to kill they are going to.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
Let me ask again, is there any imperical evidence that this will save lives?

It should be noted that knives are outlawed in prision. Yet somehow the prisioners keep making them (shives). The law is difficult enough to enforce in prision. I think the one element that those who are blithley defending the new law is that it is not the swords that cause the crime.

Children with rubberbands? If a guy in prison wants to kill someone locking up the rubberbands isn't going to stop him. He will sharpen his toothbrush and wrap it with cloth and masking tape for a handle. We aren't talking about children. We are talking about thinking adults and young adults. If they want to kill they are going to. I think you missed the point. What I meant was that we have a culture here of trying to take pre-emptive action BEFORE things get out of hand, not after. Shutting the door BEFORE the horse bolts. Call it a different culture if you like, but the only time we like to see machetes swinging is harvesting bananas.

Perhaps you may be right - it may not make a scrap of difference at all. There are plenty of people here who would agree with you. Maybe we might try something else if this isn't successful, who knows. But we aren't going to sit on our hands and live in fear about it - we are going to TRY to do something about it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Let me ask again, is there any imperical evidence that this will save lives?

It should be noted that knives are outlawed in prision. Yet somehow the prisioners keep making them (shives). The law is difficult enough to enforce in prision. I think the one element that those who are blithley defending the new law is that it is not the swords that cause the crime.

Children with rubberbands? If a guy in prison wants to kill someone locking up the rubberbands isn't going to stop him. He will sharpen his toothbrush and wrap it with cloth and masking tape for a handle. We aren't talking about children. We are talking about thinking adults and young adults. If they want to kill they are going to.

The evidence appears to be that the gun laws are working. Recent brawls, that with guns would have been a blood batch, have still been bloody, but no people killed. One man, for example, had a hand hacked off. If the assailant had a gun, he could have shot the victim instead, and several others.

As to the practice of shives, etc, we will never achieve a perfect world, that doesn't mean we have to put up with the ***** we can deal with. It's not like we are talking about victimless crimes here.
A shive is a less effective weapon. It is home made, not as durable, and looks silly. It is a less efficient killing machine than a purpose designed knife or large machete or sword.

Every weapon that is removed that is more efficient than the replacement means more lives saved.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The evidence appears to be that the gun laws are working. Recent brawls, that with guns would have been a blood batch, have still been bloody, but no people killed. One man, for example, had a hand hacked off. If the assailant had a gun, he could have shot the victim instead, and several others.

As to the practice of shives, etc, we will never achieve a perfect world, that doesn't mean we have to put up with the ***** we can deal with. It's not like we are talking about victimless crimes here.
A shive is a less effective weapon. It is home made, not as durable, and looks silly. It is a less efficient killing machine than a purpose designed knife or large machete or sword.

Every weapon that is removed that is more efficient than the replacement means more lives saved.

For posterity.

Tell me, what about carving knives?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


For posterity.

Tell me, what about carving knives?

Ed, you can quibble about the details as much as you want. The fact is we like it this was, and you don't. That's fine by me. I don't want to live in the states, and, I presume, you don't want to live here.

It's a law, the law can only ever be a blunt weapon when it is used to address an issue. There are always a million what ifs and buts about any law. We just don't want gangs of young kids running around hacking at each other with big, bloody weapons, and not shooting each other, either.

I was fascinated to see "west side story", about the old days of the gangs in the early 60's. Then, it appears, the attitude was that you only resorted to weapons as an exception. We would just like to keep it that way over here. Making guns and knives a part of everyday youth culture is a very scary prospect.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The evidence appears to be that the gun laws are working. Recent brawls, that with guns would have been a blood batch, have still been bloody, but no people killed. One man, for example, had a hand hacked off. If the assailant had a gun, he could have shot the victim instead, and several others. Anecdotal and speculative.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed


For posterity.

Tell me, what about carving knives?

For posterity ed, knives are also restricted in Australia....so you'll have to go elsewhere for your knife fighting holidays too.

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Fool


For posterity ed, knives are also restricted in Australia....so you'll have to go elsewhere for your knife fighting holidays too.

How about steak carving? Can you buy a pruning bill there?

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
Anecdotal and speculative. Nope. Statistically upheld and valid in a number of studies. As of about the 1999-2001 period, in Australia you were 5 to 10 times less likely to be shot for any reason as in the USA. But we have been over this subject many times before, so I'm sure you can look up the stats yourself if you don't agree.

As for sword/knife attacks and injuries here, I have yet to examine the available data myself. But anecdotal evidence is that it is on the rise, and is therefore worth looking into. Is it the same levels as, say, the USA or Indonesia or Japan or the UK? Don't know yet - we shall see.

[Ed]

http://www.twilightarmory.com/images/twilight/weapons/polearms/polearms.jpg

These (and many others) are medieval/renaissance weapons that evolved from farm impliments. If there are a few episodes of crazed farmers lashing their impliments to poles and wailing away at each other would the Austrailian people feel more secure if farm tool were regulated? What happens when everything capable of being used for cutting or cudgeling are banned and all you are left with is human nature?

Do you seriously put a collector of anicent weaponry on the same level as a criminal?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed


How about steak carving? Can you buy a pruning bill there?
I know how you feel, I normally carry a steak knife in my boot in bars in case I am ever offered a complimentary steak and they have no cutlery....stpid facist police state don't want me to carry my emergency steak eating kit in my boot any more....Now I feel all persecuted.
Same deal with the gardening tools.....Damned if I know what I'm going to do now if i happen on a situation where emergency pruning is going to save a life.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/9939/arms06.gif

These (and many others) are medieval/rennaiance weapons that evolved from farm impliments. If there are a few episodes of crazed farmers lashing their impliments to poles and wailing away at each other would the Austrailian people feel more secure if farm tool were regulated? What happens when everything capable of being used for cutting or cudgeling are banned and all you are left with is human nature?

sheesh Ed...I'd have never thought I would have to spank you for straw man falacy...who'd of thunk it eh? Even Ed can't resist a good old straw man rant in the face of a society deciding to try to stop people from carrying weapons.

ok, you can go back to fantasies about arresting farmer fred now.... And Relax, no nasty Australians are not going to take your guns and knives off you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed

These (and many others) are medieval/rennaiance weapons that evolved from farm impliments. If there are a few episodes of crazed farmers lashing their impliments to poles and wailing away at each other would the Austrailian people feel more secure if farm tool were regulated? What happens when everything capable of being used for cutting or cudgeling are banned and all you are left with is human nature?

The whole point of the legislation is to stop the young, drunken idiots killing each other. If you are a farmer, no one is going to stop you working. Ditto with guns. Farmers who need them have no problem getting them.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The whole point of the legislation is to stop the young, drunken idiots killing each other. If you are a farmer, no one is going to stop you working. Ditto with guns. Farmers who need them have no problem getting them.
Shhhhhhh! not so loud....we want them all banned remember. Please dont vary from the position Ed has issued us, it only confuses the argument.

[Zep]

So we won't mention that Australia won the gold medal for trap-shooting at the last two Olympics...?

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Fool


sheesh Ed...I'd have never thought I would have to spank you for straw man falacy...who'd of thunk it eh? Even Ed can't resist a good old straw man rant in the face of a society deciding to try to stop people from carrying weapons.

ok, you can go back to fantasies about arresting farmer fred now.... And Relax, no nasty Australians are not going to take your guns and knives off you.

Hardly a straw man, simply an extention of the logic of safety at any price.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


Hardly a straw man, simply an extention of the logic of safety at any price.

Which is exactly the strawman you are accused of. Guns can be purchased. I could go and apply to buy one today, but I would have tog provide a reason to get a license, I would not be able to buy a semi-automatic, or automatic, and I would have to secure it correctly.

If I used a gun professionaly, eg, kangaroo shooter, I would be able to by a semi-automatic.

It is not safety at any price, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed

These (and many others) are medieval/renaissance weapons that evolved from farm impliments. If there are a few episodes of crazed farmers lashing their impliments to poles and wailing away at each other would the Austrailian people feel more secure if farm tool were regulated? What happens when everything capable of being used for cutting or cudgeling are banned and all you are left with is human nature?

Do you seriously put a collector of anicent weaponry on the same level as a criminal?

Straw man. Collectors of ancient weaponry are not being targeted by the laws. Clearly, the people who drafted the law don't put collectors of ancient weaponry on the same level as criminals.

Incidentally, I think you'll find that the pike didn't evolve from farm equipment, but was purpose-designed by the ancient Macedonians for use in their version of the Phalanx.

[reprise]

::yawn::

Why in the hell do you even care about the weapon controls laws in our nation when by the laws of your own you are allowed to own and use nukes?

I'm really happy for you guys that you have the Second Amendment. Those of us who live here are actually quite OK with our weapon control laws and if YOU believe they should be changed, then you come here, become a PC, and exercise your democratic right to protest against them.

"Sovereignty" as a legal concept reflects the opportunity for the people to make their own laws. When we - the people - exercise our democratic right to make our own laws again and again we vote in favour of weapons control.

You clearly know nothing whatsoever about the US or the Australian Constitution, nor about the origins of either.

You ARE the weakest link.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by reprise
::yawn::

Why in the hell do you even care about the weapon controls laws in our nation when by the laws of your own you are allowed to own and use nukes?

I'm really happy for you guys that you have the Second Amendment. Those of us who live here are actually quite OK with our weapon control laws and if YOU believe they should be changed, then you come here, become a PC, and exercise your democratic right to protest against them.

"Sovereignty" as a legal concept reflects the opportunity for the people to make their own laws. When we - the people - exercise our democratic right to make our own laws again and again we vote in favour of weapons control.

You clearly know nothing whatsoever about the US or the Australian Constitution, nor about the origins of either.

You ARE the weakest link.

I'm sorry; you almost broke my internal irony meter with that one. First of all, your countrymen seem to have so much opinion on USA one could almost conclude that they have a right to vote here. And no one is allowed to own nukes here it's been pointed out many, many times. I like your last paragraph however, I'm going to use that next time none-US citizens speak about USA.

[Badger]

Does Australia have laws against assault? How about assault with a deadly weapon? Attempted murder? Aggravated assault?

Are such laws enforced?

Why the need to single out swords? Is beating someone with fists, and kicking them in the head with steel toed boots not quite so bad?

I fail to see the advantage of creating new laws that target any specific weapons, rather than enforcing existing laws, and stiffening sentences for the crimes committed under them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I'm sorry; you almost broke my internal irony meter with that one. First of all, your countrymen seem to have so much opinion on USA one could almost conclude that they have a right to vote here. And no one is allowed to own nukes here it's been pointed out many, many times. I like your last paragraph however, I'm going to use that next time none-US citizens speak about USA.

My biggest issue is that we seem to be a part of the cultural imperialism that comes from the US. The fight against guns here is one that is going to have to be fought all the way. And I don't think we are telling you how to run your country, as amazed that you would put up with so many gun deaths every year and not think there was something wrong. 3,000 people died in two buildings, and the world has armies sailing everywhere. 10,000 people die from guns in a year, and it's time to make sure nothing changes.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Badger
Does Australia have laws against assault? How about assault with a deadly weapon? Attempted murder? Aggravated assault?

Are such laws enforced?

Why the need to single out swords? Is beating someone with fists, and kicking them in the head with steel toed boots not quite so bad?

I fail to see the advantage of creating new laws that target any specific weapons, rather than enforcing existing laws, and stiffening sentences for the crimes committed under them.

Of course. What the laws are aimed it is preventing the crime in the first place. I would much rather have someone saved from having their hand cut off, for example, than have the person who did it sent to jail. The common theme of justice as portrayed in the media is one of punishment and retribution. The notion of prevention doesn't seem to register much.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed


Hardly a straw man, simply an extention of the logic of safety at any price.
So describing this legislation as safety at any price is not a misrepresentation of the position? Yea whatever....and what happens when guns and flick knives are sold over the bar to drunks, cash and carry......But thats not a straw man either, you do support that position don't you Ed? After all its just an extention of the logic of the right to bear arms at any price.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I'm sorry; you almost broke my internal irony meter with that one. First of all, your countrymen seem to have so much opinion on USA one could almost conclude that they have a right to vote here. And no one is allowed to own nukes here it's been pointed out many, many times. I like your last paragraph however, I'm going to use that next time none-US citizens speak about USA.
Grammatron...please please please say whatever you like.....we like it .....Honest we do;)

[Badger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Of course. What the laws are aimed it is preventing the crime in the first place. I would much rather have someone saved from having their hand cut off, for example, than have the person who did it sent to jail. The common theme of justice as portrayed in the media is one of punishment and retribution. The notion of prevention doesn't seem to register much.

My point is that potential punishment for the commission of a crime should act as a deterrent, and prevent that crime occurring in the first place.

I doubt that a ban on swords is going to prevent gang violence in Austrailia. They'll just find something else.

I mentioned the steel toed boots above, because that is a common footwear amongst the gangs around here because they are fine things to kick opponents with.

How does one outlaw steel toed boots? Or sections of pipe? Or baseball bats? Or pool balls in woolen socks? Or bolts on the end of cords? The list is extensive, of course.

The method is to ensure stiff punishment for the crime, such that it acts as a deterrent to commission of said crime.

And one can be "preventative" through the use of laws pertaining to concealing or carrying what can be construed as a weapon.

Then, police are not constrained to wait until something bad happens. They can head things off at the pass, so to speak.

[Zep]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


My biggest issue is that we seem to be a part of the cultural imperialism that comes from the US. The fight against guns here is one that is going to have to be fought all the way. And I don't think we are telling you how to run your country, as amazed that you would put up with so many gun deaths every year and not think there was something wrong. 3,000 people died in two buildings, and the world has armies sailing everywhere. 10,000 people die from guns in a year, and it's time to make sure nothing changes. Actually, I was reliably informed by someone who knows and doesn't mind the knowing that the figure is closer to 29,000 per annum gun-related deaths in the USA.

And if the discussion is continuing on that note, I'm bowing out of the conversation because I made a vow not to participate in gun-control debates here.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Badger


My point is that potential punishment for the commission of a crime should act as a deterrent, and prevent that crime occurring in the first place.

I doubt that a ban on swords is going to prevent gang violence in Austrailia. They'll just find something else.

I mentioned the steel toed boots above, because that is a common footwear amongst the gangs around here because they are fine things to kick opponents with.

How does one outlaw steel toed boots? Or sections of pipe? Or baseball bats? Or pool balls in woolen socks? Or bolts on the end of cords? The list is extensive, of course.

The method is to ensure stiff punishment for the crime, such that it acts as a deterrent to commission of said crime.

And one can be "preventative" through the use of laws pertaining to concealing or carrying what can be construed as a weapon.

Then, police are not constrained to wait until something bad happens. They can head things off at the pass, so to speak.

And pray tell, badger, how you can speak with more authority than the people who live here and vote here about what will act as a deterrent in OUR nation?

We have the right to make our own buggered up and irrational laws - as does your own nation - that's what democracy is all about. You don't like our particular buggered up version of the rule of law - don't move here, cause we sure as crap aren't going to invade your nation and try to impose our definition of democracy on you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zep
Actually, I was reliably informed by someone who knows and doesn't mind the knowing that the figure is closer to 29,000 per annum gun-related deaths in the USA.

And if the discussion is continuing on that note, I'm bowing out of the conversation because I made a vow not to participate in gun-control debates here.

Too late, god sees and knows everything, and he knows that you have broken your vow.

[crimresearch]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594297517.html

"...Anyone with a sword in their home will have three options: sell it to a licensed dealer, hand it in to police, or apply to police for permission to keep it as a collector..."

"...Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said yesterday anyone who illegally owned a sword would face fines of up to $12,000 or six months' jail. The maximum penalty for having a "controlled weapon" is $6000 and six months' jail...."

"...The new regulations define a sword as "a cutting or thrusting weapon with a long blade, a hilt, and one or two sharp edges" but do not specify length. Swords are currently on a list of controlled weapons, along with knives, machetes and other implements that have a legitimate use..."


"... Mr Haermeyer said that anyone with a legitimate reason to own a sword would be exempt from the prohibition. He said highland dancers, who tend to use blunt swords, would have no trouble obtaining permission to keep their swords..."
******************************************

Sounds like the definition of 'sword' and 'sharp' could be subjective enough to cover a variety of objects. IIRC, the earlier version of this legislation proposed to include theatrical props, martial arts replicas, wooden wasters, wall hangers, and museum pieces et al.
Looks like folks in those categories might possibly be faced with the choices listed at the top, if blunted swords for dance are going to also be under regulation..

Paul

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Badger


My point is that potential punishment for the commission of a crime should act as a deterrent, and prevent that crime occurring in the first place.

I doubt that a ban on swords is going to prevent gang violence in Austrailia. They'll just find something else.

I mentioned the steel toed boots above, because that is a common footwear amongst the gangs around here because they are fine things to kick opponents with.

How does one outlaw steel toed boots? Or sections of pipe? Or baseball bats? Or pool balls in woolen socks? Or bolts on the end of cords? The list is extensive, of course.

The method is to ensure stiff punishment for the crime, such that it acts as a deterrent to commission of said crime.

And one can be "preventative" through the use of laws pertaining to concealing or carrying what can be construed as a weapon.

Then, police are not constrained to wait until something bad happens. They can head things off at the pass, so to speak.

They are all dangerous weapons, if used incorrectly. The fact is, recent brawls, such as the one that saw the youth get his hand chopped off, are occurring to frequently to be ignored.

The other weapons are bad, but they aren't as damaging. The aim is not the futile pursuit of the removal of all crimes of violence from the state, but the managment of those crimes that are the worst.

[reprise]

BTW, Badger, my degree is in Criminology (specifically, abnormal psychology but I still had to do the basic course), so perhaps before you start sprouting off unsupported horsecrap you might want to pull up a few actual studies on the subject. I wish you luck in doing so, because most of the "accepted" research in my particular discipline in incredibly flawed (starting with the "McDonald triad").

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


My biggest issue is that we seem to be a part of the cultural imperialism that comes from the US. The fight against guns here is one that is going to have to be fought all the way. And I don't think we are telling you how to run your country, as amazed that you would put up with so many gun deaths every year and not think there was something wrong. 3,000 people died in two buildings, and the world has armies sailing everywhere. 10,000 people die from guns in a year, and it's time to make sure nothing changes.

Of course, Imperialism what else could it be. It's US's fault that people outside of it are using guns to kill, I don't know why I didn't reach that conclusion myself.

Well of course it's pure BS that we do nothing because I have high doubt you have proof we just "put up" with all those deaths.

And yes, you don't tell us how to run out country, just every time you think we do something wrong. That's not telling us how to do things at all.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Badger
Does Australia have laws against assault? How about assault with a deadly weapon? Attempted murder? Aggravated assault?

yes, yes, yes and yes....

Are such laws enforced?

yes


Why the need to single out swords? Is beating someone with fists, and kicking them in the head with steel toed boots not quite so bad?

swords are much more efficient for killing and maiming people than head kicking or fists...this was first realised in the early bronze age. Guns are even better than swords....


I fail to see the advantage of creating new laws that target any specific weapons, rather than enforcing existing laws, and stiffening sentences for the crimes committed under them.

so you see no advantage in legislation that makes it illegal to carry swords....ok, whatever. People can carry machettes as long as they are not caught using them? Flick knives...not a problem unless they stab someone. Samuraii sword down the pants....millions of legitimate reasons for that, you may have to open huge envelopes or peel very very big apples.

[reprise]

Originally posted by The Fool


They're worried about our gun laws - let's just use all that uranium in the ground to demonstrate that - by golly gee, John-boy - we'll defend our "right to bear arms"...

[Badger]

Reprise, I don't presume to speak with more authority than the people who live in Australia.

I see people here in Canada beating the crap out of eachother with many weapons, shooting eachother, killing eachother, maiming eachother. And I see the consequences for these crimes, the sentences handed down, being minimal.

Thus, my thought that new laws aren't so much required as enforcement and strengthening of existing laws.

The Fool, you indicated "so you see no advantage in legislation that makes it illegal to carry swords....ok, whatever. People can carry machettes as long as they are not caught using them? Flick knives...not a problem unless they stab someone. Samuraii sword down the pants....millions of legitimate reasons for that, you may have to open huge envelopes or peel very very big apples." which seems to indicate a presumption of guilt as the default position, rather than innocent until proven guilty. I don't know if you meant it that way or not. Either way, your above examples can be covered by concealed weapons laws, or posession of offensive weapons laws in Canada at least.

Further, with strenghtening of, or greater application of these weapons laws, law enforcement could apprehend people with such things as baseball bats (cricket bats in Aus?), lengths of steel pipe, clubs, etc.

I would like to think that if I know someone wishes to harm me, the cops can do something about it before he takes a pipe wrench to my head. Know what I"m saying?

[reprise]

Something happened in Sydney this afternoon which pretty much means that I need to bow out of this discussion as my not doing so could possibly be interpreted in a negative light by appellate courts.

[Badger]

Originally posted by reprise
Something happened in Sydney this afternoon which pretty much means that I need to bow out of this discussion as my not doing so could possibly be interpreted in a negative light by appellate courts.

Whatever went on, I hope things go well for you.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Badger


Whatever went on, I hope things go well for you.

Thank you for your best wishes, but I was not the one who had to make the judgement call and pull the trigger. Right now, my heart is breaking for the person who DID pull the trigger and who has to live with the horribly unexpected outcome.

[Badger]

Originally posted by reprise


Thank you for your best wishes, but I was not the one who had to make the judgement call and pull the trigger. Right now, my heart is breaking for the person who DID pull the trigger and who has to live with the horribly unexpected outcome.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Badger


I'm sorry to hear that.

I'm not asking you to be sorry, I'm just trying to explain why I probably won't visit this thread in the next couple of days. I do not believe that the young constable who actually pulled the trigger had a choice. I do - however - believe that had the whole situation been handled differently and away from the media spotlight then it would never have come down to pulling triggers let alone expecting unerring marksmanship.

Everyone needs to stop watching LA Law and CSI and get a grip on reality.

[Badger]

Originally posted by reprise


I'm not asking you to be sorry, I'm just trying to explain why I probably won't visit this thread in the next couple of days. I do not believe that the young constable who actually pulled the trigger had a choice. I do - however - believe that had the whole situation been handled differently and away from the media spotlight then it would never have come down to pulling triggers let alone expecting unerring marksmanship.

Everyone needs to stop watching LA Law and CSI and get a grip on reality.

Reprise, I respect what you have to say. Do what you have to do, and maybe sometime this topic will come up again.

It's apparent to me that it's not as important as what you're dealing with.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Of course, Imperialism what else could it be. It's US's fault that people outside of it are using guns to kill, I don't know why I didn't reach that conclusion myself.

Well of course it's pure BS that we do nothing because I have high doubt you have proof we just "put up" with all those deaths.

And yes, you don't tell us how to run out country, just every time you think we do something wrong. That's not telling us how to do things at all.

The other issue, of course, is the way the US seems to have the right to do whatever it wants around the world, in it's own interests, or, even worse, in the interests of some power elite in the name of the US.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If I used a gun professionaly, eg, kangaroo shooter, I would be able to by a semi-automatic.



:eek:

[Ed]

Originally posted by reprise
::yawn::

You ARE the weakest link.

Great, now you want to regulate chains.

[Garrette]

Guns don't kill people; kangaroos do.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Garrette
Guns don't kill people; kangaroos do.

If you outlaw kangaroos only kangaroos will have guns . . .

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Zep
Perhaps you may be right - it may not make a scrap of difference at all. There are plenty of people here who would agree with you. Maybe we might try something else if this isn't successful, who knows. But we aren't going to sit on our hands and live in fear about it - we are going to TRY to do something about it. So without consideration for the price involved, and without knowing whether there will be any benefit, you're going to enact a law to make yourself feel better?

Nice.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by The Fool
so you see no advantage in legislation that makes it illegal to carry swords....ok, whatever. People can carry machettes as long as they are not caught using them? Flick knives...not a problem unless they stab someone. Samuraii sword down the pants....millions of legitimate reasons for that, you may have to open huge envelopes or peel very very big apples. These laws do not criminalize carrying swords in public. They criminalize owning them without a permit.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Garrette
Guns don't kill people; kangaroos do.

Not if I got my licensed semi-auto. Damn 'roos.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Graham


If you outlaw kangaroos only kangaroos will have guns . . .

Sure, act smart. Just cuz St. Paddie drove all the 'roos from Ireland you feel safe.

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Fool


sheesh Ed...I'd have never thought I would have to spank you for straw man falacy...who'd of thunk it eh? Even Ed can't resist a good old straw man rant in the face of a society deciding to try to stop people from carrying weapons.




:D

I always had a thing for Ray Bolger.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zep
So we won't mention that Australia won the gold medal for trap-shooting at the last two Olympics...?

Those were the Special Olympics:D

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The other issue, of course, is the way the US seems to have the right to do whatever it wants around the world, in it's own interests, or, even worse, in the interests of some power elite in the name of the US.

Stops the presses, a country is doing things in its own interest!

Would that be the elite you were talking about when I quoted you(see signature below)?

[JSFolk]

What is a "flick knife"? Are you talking about switchblades (open automatically with a button or lever), or about knives that can be opened manually with one hand? I personally have carried a one-handed knife for the last 13 years, have arguablly been a "young adult male" the entire time, and have never cut nor threatened anyone with the knife. I find it very useful for cutting various objects (fruit, threads, you name it) on a daily basis, yet it could be considered a "dangerous weapon" here in Canada since the law is defined poorly enough that police have wide leeway in determining legality.

That Australian law strikes me as having the same overly-broad definition. What is a "long" blade? How the hell do you expect to legislate something like that and not define what "long" is? Aside from that, you take a katana, remove the tsuba (hilt) and *poof* it's no longer a sword! :confused:

[Zep]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So without consideration for the price involved, and without knowing whether there will be any benefit, you're going to enact a law to make yourself feel better?

Nice. Or we could just convince ourselves that by sitting on our hands and insisting on our constitutional rights to weapons ownership that the rising bodycount is nothing but statistics and "freedom of choice". :rolleyes:

Actually, we DO know there WILL be a benefit. The issue is the size of that benefit versus the costs involved: time and cost of enforcement, measured reduction of assaults of that type, etc. Our experience in tightening the gun laws a few years back showed that it does reduce assaults to some extent.

There's nothing "nice" or heartwarming about it. We see it as a sad reflection that it has come to this for our society, that we have to even consider why we need to do it. But the alternative is worse, as some overseas examples have shown us...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ed
How do people down there put up with this level of stupid feel-good patronizing government intrusion?

There has been enough weighing in by the Australian contingent that I think it's safe to make a prima facie judgement that that's the way (uh huh uh huh) they like it.

To me, the ironic thing is that as recently as four or five years ago, I've seen "if you take away people's guns, they'll just hack at each other with swords" widely believed to be a Stupid American Slippery Slope™ argument.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by epepke


There has been enough weighing in by the Australian contingent that I think it's safe to make a prima facie judgement that that's the way (uh huh uh huh) they like it.

To me, the ironic thing is that as recently as four or five years ago, I've seen "if you take away people's guns, they'll just hack at each other with swords" widely believed to be a Stupid American Slippery Slope™ argument.

They should just go ahead and install 24-hour surveillance everywhere that is sure to cut crime rate drastically if not all together. It's obvious people like Zep do not like "freedom of choice" and the consequence that come with it they rather have absolute safety at any cost.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Stops the presses, a country is doing things in its own interest!

Would that be the elite you were talking about when I quoted you(see signature below)?

That elite would be the likes of Dubya and his oil mates, the fundies, like Condalezee and Dubya, and the military. Only the military don't seem too keen on the mess anymore. They are the ones who actually have to face up to the things that are done.

Doing things in your own interests does not mean you can do them at the expense of other countries interests.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That elite would be the likes of Dubya and his oil mates, the fundies, like Condalezee and Dubya, and the military. Only the military don't seem too keen on the mess anymore. They are the ones who actually have to face up to the things that are done.

Doing things in your own interests does not mean you can do them at the expense of other countries interests.

Evidence to any of what you just said?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Grammatron


They should just go ahead and install 24-hour surveillance everywhere that is sure to cut crime rate drastically if not all together. It's obvious people like Zep do not like "freedom of choice" and the consequence that come with it they rather have absolute safety at any cost. Slippery-Slope Fallacy^TM

I and mine will be free to go about our lives and be far less likely to be hacked by some punk with a machete outside the pub. Not 100% guarantee, agreed, but I think that's a fairly good result, all said and done. Nett result: LESS fear in our community.

Btw, the most pervasive 24-hour surveillance involved is from American spy satellites pointing at our country. So would you mind pointing them elsewhere, feller? I'm trying to get dressed here... :)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Zep
Or we could just convince ourselves that by sitting on our hands and insisting on our constitutional rights to weapons ownership that the rising bodycount is nothing but statistics and "freedom of choice". Reality check: people want to kill other people, and they'll use whatever they can get to do it. You may be able to cut down on sword-related deaths that way (maybe), but you won't make much of an improvement in the murder rate.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
These laws do not criminalize carrying swords in public. They criminalize owning them without a permit.
sorry but they most definitely do....Even if you have a permit to have a collection of swords at home doesn't mean you can wander the streets looking like a ninja...

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Zep
I and mine will be free to go about our lives and be far less likely to be hacked by some punk with a machete outside the pub. Not 100% guarantee, agreed, but I think that's a fairly good result, all said and done. Net result: LESS fear in our community. Yes, but now you're more likely to be slashed with a broken bottle, or whacked by a board with a nail in it.

You've got it in one: these laws are all about reducing the fear of the population, not eliminating threats.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Evidence to any of what you just said?

As I have already stated in another topic, what is being done in your name is so bad you cannot face up to it. The facts are there, and have been stated many times.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Reality check: people want to kill other people, and they'll use whatever they can get to do it. You may be able to cut down on sword-related deaths that way (maybe), but you won't make much of an improvement in the murder rate. [/B]

That is exactly where you are wrong.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Reality check: people want to kill other people, and they'll use whatever they can get to do it. You may be able to cut down on sword-related deaths that way (maybe), but you won't make much of an improvement in the murder rate. [/B]
Reality check:
please rank the following in order of killing efficiency.

1.Piece of wood
2.fists
3.Handgun
4.sword

Do you believe that if everyone in the country had a loaded handgun in thier pocket 24/7 it would not affect the murder rate? If everyone carried a sword do you think it would affect the murder rate? Drunken fist fights would not become drunken swordfights?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So without consideration for the price involved, and without knowing whether there will be any benefit, you're going to enact a law to make yourself feel better?

Nice.

price involved? Lol..... Ok, if your hobby is slashing people with swords then I'm really sorry for the inconvenience. If you are a collector of weapons and have to register them I'm really sorry for the inconvenience..... So besides "don't do anything about it because it may not work" have you got any other bright Ideas? Granted, removing swords from the street may have some hidden downside....damned if I can think of any. Oh yea...I forgot. It persecutes people who want to carry swords.

[Ed]

Originally posted by JSFolk
How the hell do you expect to legislate something like that and not define what "long" is?

According to Australian women "long" is anything over 3 inches.:p

[Zep]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Yes, but now you're more likely to be slashed with a broken bottle, or whacked by a board with a nail in it.

You've got it in one: these laws are all about reducing the fear of the population, not eliminating threats. [/B]OK, I'm convinced. You are just p1ssed off that what we try to do really has results and you have to resort to these pitiful excuses in response. And Australia is hardly unique in this regard either.

Another poster here from the USA proclaimed that his own society now lives in fear of nasty people with ill intent towards him and weapons, so thank God he has Mr Smith & Wesson to keep him safe (I'll try and find the actual post). You might like to compare that appreciation of your own society to ours, where we are refusing to accept such oppression by making and enforcing laws against it, and where we don't want to have to carry weapons all the time to be safe. :p

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by The Fool
Do you believe that if everyone in the country had a loaded handgun in thier pocket 24/7 it would not affect the murder rate? If everyone carried a sword do you think it would affect the murder rate? Drunken fist fights would not become drunken swordfights? So make it illegal to carry them in public. Banning their possession affects everyone who owns a sword - why impose on the rights of law-abiding people by making the weapon itself illegal?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by The Fool
...or peel very very big apples.

In Glasgow, not known for its apple harvest, chibbing (ad hoc al fresco facial rearrangement) competes with the Glasgow kiss as a contender for a national sport. There is consequently regular police activity against people (largely young men) carrying knives. People with offensive foreheads often also get locked up

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Zep
OK, I'm convinced. You are just p1ssed off that what we try to do really has results and you have to resort to these pitiful excuses in response. Combining dismissal of the argument with an ad hominem attack - nice.

You might like to compare that appreciation of your own society to ours, where we are refusing to accept such oppression by making and enforcing laws against it, and where we don't want to have to carry weapons all the time to be safe. Instead of oppression by your perceived fears, now you're oppressed by your quite real legal system. Kudos to the enlightened society of the Aussies, then.

Reality check: you are never safe. If you think you are, you've deluded yourself.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Combining dismissal of the argument with an ad hominem attack - nice.

Instead of oppression by your perceived fears, now you're oppressed by your quite real legal system. Kudos to the enlightened society of the Aussies, then.

Reality check: you are never safe. If you think you are, you've deluded yourself. [/B]

No one has ever claimed we are. It is just a matter of looking what are the most dangerous problems out there, and managing them. Something we elect our government to do. The end result is our murder rate is lower.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm


Reality check: you are never safe. If you think you are, you've deluded yourself. [/B]
let me guess...your not paranoid its just everyone is out to kill you....

LooK out!!!! is that someone behind you??

and you claim australians are opressed by our perceived fears....Lol.

[JSFolk]

Don't assume that all Australians are for this, btw..

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=295482

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So make it illegal to carry them in public. Banning their possession affects everyone who owns a sword - why impose on the rights of law-abiding people by making the weapon itself illegal?
Mate...If you have a desire to collect swords get a permitand you can buy and own a truckfull if you want to.

If you have a desire to wander the streets armed with a sword I apologise for oppressing you..... but....No, you are not allowed to do that.....sad isn't it.

[Zep]

Originally posted by JSFolk
Don't assume that all Australians are for this, btw..

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=295482 Of course. And not all Australians supported the tighter gun laws either. Some still don't despite the obvious results.

Gosh! Is that freedom-of-speech in action? Naw, couldn't be. We would have legislated that "freedom" away years ago... :rolleyes:

[Zep]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Instead of oppression by your perceived fears, now you're oppressed by your quite real legal system. Kudos to the enlightened society of the Aussies, then.

Reality check: you are never safe. If you think you are, you've deluded yourself. Oh yeah. It's all just "perceived fears". *snort*

http://www.abc.net.au/nsw/news/200402/s1045871.htm
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8492861%255E1702,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s603653.htm
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8635450%255E1702,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/1077072758474.html

I happen to think that giving the police and the courts the "teeth" they need to stop these bastards before they hurt someone else is a good thing. Don't you?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I notice you're not increasing the penalties for assaulting a person with swords... or enforcing concealed weapons statues.

Instead, you're criminalizing perfectly harmless behavior in your attempt to prevent the harmful behaviors. Baby with the bathwater, perhaps?

Yeah, the UK had a lot of success with reducing its violent crime rate after it banned guns... I'm sure Australia will be much the same.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Grammatron
They should just go ahead and install 24-hour surveillance everywhere that is sure to cut crime rate drastically if not all together.

:con2: Maybe they'd like that. I don't know. England is well on their way to video surveilance in all public places.

Zep put it most succintly in his rubber-band metaphor. The citizens of Australia are schoolchildren, and the government of Australia is the teacher.

At least The Fool is continually responding as if a ban on carrying swords were the same thing as a ban on owning swords, which may be the result of some vague awareness that a ban on carrying is more easily defensible than a ban on ownership. (As rhetoric, it's pretty transparent, but what do you expect?)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I notice you're not increasing the penalties for assaulting a person with swords... or enforcing concealed weapons statues.

Instead, you're criminalizing perfectly harmless behavior in your attempt to prevent the harmful behaviors. Baby with the bathwater, perhaps?

Yeah, the UK had a lot of success with reducing its violent crime rate after it banned guns... I'm sure Australia will be much the same.

Think about it.

Violent crime with guns Vs. violent crime without guns.

One involves more deaths.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by epepke


:con2: Maybe they'd like that. I don't know. England is well on their way to video surveilance in all public places.

Zep put it most succintly in his rubber-band metaphor. The citizens of Australia are schoolchildren, and the government of Australia is the teacher.

At least The Fool is continually responding as if a ban on carrying swords were the same thing as a ban on owning swords, which may be the result of some vague awareness that a ban on carrying is more easily defensible than a ban on ownership. (As rhetoric, it's pretty transparent, but what do you expect?)

Not quite. We get to choose who makes the laws, it's called democracy. We also agree to give up some freedom, in exchange for others.

For example, I am more free to walk around safely because we restrict availability of weapons, and that includes criminals.

[epepke]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Not quite. We get to choose who makes the laws, it's called democracy. We also agree to give up some freedom, in exchange for others.

I'm not denying that it's a democracy. But zep's metaphor was pretty clear about the cultural view. I wouldn't come up with a metaphor like that, because I'm from a different culture.

And for that matter, if it's a great democracy, I guess that a draconian policy on Indonesian immigration must be widely supported, too. Not to mention the Australian government's support for the invasion of Iraq. Which didn't amount to much, but they were pretty gung-ho.

As for the rest, it's always a matter of exchanges, isn't it?

And most people seem terribly certain that the exchanges that they make are exactly the right ones to make, and all other exchanges are totally stupid, don't they?

Maybe they're right, and maybe they're wrong. I bet that five years ago you weren't even thinking much about swords, and five years from now, you could quite easily be thinking about something entirely else.

Sometimes I'd like to be frozen and wake up 200 years from now. It would be interesting to see which cultures and nations have stood the test of time. Because, whatever your political and ideological beliefs may be, time wounds all heels.

[Zep]

Originally posted by epepke
I'm not denying that it's a democracy. But zep's metaphor was pretty clear about the cultural view. I wouldn't come up with a metaphor like that, because I'm from a different culture.

And for that matter, if it's a great democracy, I guess that a draconian policy on Indonesian immigration must be widely supported, too. Not to mention the Australian government's support for the invasion of Iraq. Which didn't amount to much, but they were pretty gung-ho.

As for the rest, it's always a matter of exchanges, isn't it?

And most people seem terribly certain that the exchanges that they make are exactly the right ones to make, and all other exchanges are totally stupid, don't they?

Maybe they're right, and maybe they're wrong. I bet that five years ago you weren't even thinking much about swords, and five years from now, you could quite easily be thinking about something entirely else.All points noted.

1. Our laws are aimed at ensuring safe usage for EVERYBODY, not outright bans. Unlike circular saws, the user of dangerous weapons is rarely the innocent one who gets hurt when things get out of hand. Perhaps you might like to think of laws like this as "safety rules" instead.

2. No, our government did not have the support of the majority Australia to send our forces to Iraq. So what? That will will be dealt with at the next poll.

3. "Indonesian" immigration is not a problem - most Indonesians do like to live in Indonesia instead of here. Unless you mean the illegal immigrants from Afghanistan and Iraq and such places who are trying to bypass our clear immigration laws by using Indonesia as a stepping stone? I don't like how they are treated currently (and I am trying to see that changed myself) but these people ARE illegal immigrants nonetheless. What would be your solution?

4. Five years ago, machete and sword attacks were almost unheard of here. Now they are becoming much more common. Seems to be the up-and-coming thing in thug tactics... What do you suggest we do? Ignore it and let it be just a passing fad like yo-yo's?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zep
4. Five years ago, machete and sword attacks were almost unheard of here. Now they are becoming much more common. Seems to be the up-and-coming thing in thug tactics... What do you suggest we do? Ignore it and let it be just a passing fad like yo-yo's?

Interesting point. A couple of years ago "air rage" was in all the papers here. Basically .00001% of passengers turn into violent drunks. Much hand wringing ensued. I recall that a few lone voices pointed out that the incidence of these events was basically constant over time. Point being that the media invented a problem.