It's been brought to my attention, via a post in the shoutbox by @EndtheMadnessNow that the British government, in their infinite wisdom, are all set to ban "ninja" swords. This appears to me that they are following Ireland's wise lead, where ALL swords are banned - not just the "ninja" variety.
"Ninja" swords are very specific swords. technically, they are actually called "ninja-to". They have a straight, single edged blade, usually somewhat shorter than the classic curved-bladed samurai sword, or "katana". They have a somewhat larger handguard to facilitate their being used as a step for a boost-up in climbing, such as scaling walls, and generally have a cord attached to facilitate retrieval of the sword after such climbing feats, which cord can also double as a garrote in a fight.
They frequently have a hollow scabbard with a hole in the end where the chape would be in a regular sword so they can be used to breathe like a snorkel when the user is submerged under water when infiltrating an enemy stronghold.
so now we know what a "ninja" sword is - basically a katana with a shorter, straighter single edged blade with other features useful in the clandestine art of ninjustsu.
Ninja swords, actual ninja swords, are incredibly rare when compared to, well, ANY other kind of sword. There just aren't that many ninjas around these days, and those who are have upgraded their basic kit to more modern implements.
That's why it mystifies me why the British government would single out such a specific and exclusive weapon for banning.
The announcement of the ban may be found here
When reading through the article, it became clear to me that the ban is not intended to increase anyone's safety so much as to just micro-manage what people are - and more pointedly, are NOT - allowed to own. It's just more people telling other people what and what not to own. many of the phrases included in the announcement are straight out of American gun-banner's mouths. All you have to do is swap the word "knife" or "ninja sword" for "gun", and you have the exact same phrases.
Some examples:
The equivalent US phrase is "gun-related crime", which strikes me as stupid. Why not simply protect the public from CRIME, regardless of it's relatives? Why single out one implement, and let the rest slide?
If it's already illegal to carry weapons in public, what is the value of making yet another law to... make it illegal to carry weapons in public? If criminals ignore the first law, what makes the government think the second is REALLY going to jerk them up short?
Oh. I see. The purpose is to REDUCE prison time so the criminals can more easily and quickly be set back out on the streets among the public. Got it.
Seems to me they should be targeting criminals more than "young people most vulnerable to knife crime", which sounds to me like a really cumbersome phrase that could be streamlined to "victims", but what do I know? I tend to think more in terms of "predators" and "prey", rather than targeting the prey and leaving the predators with their teeth to predate and just pulling their claws. I find that shooting a panther and ending it is far more effective than just pulling it's claws and turning it back loose on the prey with it's teeth...
The equivalent US phrase is "gun crime is destroying young lives". It leads me to wonder, once again, why the implement has to even be mentioned, as if somehow a "knife murder" or a "gun murder" is more heinous than a "claw-hammer murder" or a crow-bar murder". Isn't the MURDER the heinous part of the action? Isn't that where the focus ought to be?
Because everyone knows it's much more pleasant to have one's head bashed in with a brick than it is to be killed with a filthy sword! It's all about the comfort of your death, bucko, not the fact that you died at all!
Again with the "knife crime", implying that all other forms of crime are ok. and "halve" knife crime? I reckon that's a doable target, considering that I can make my own knife in an hour or less, and don't have to worry about where I'm gonna find my next banned item. At least they are realistic enough to realize they will NEVER eliminate it by focusing solely on inanimate objects. They'd come a lot closer to ending "knife crime" altogether if they ignored the instruments and just started hanging the killers. A live killer on the loose can always find another implement of destruction and go on his merry way... but a dead killer, not so much.
A couple of points. There is NO "lethal weapon which took his life". There is no such thing as a "lethal weapon", there are only lethal PEOPLE. Furthermore, no "lethal weapon" can take a life all by it's lonesome. It's inanimate, and will not suddenly jump from a table on it's own and kill someone. When you end the lethal criminals, no one else will ever suffer at their hands. When you end a "lethal weapon", a lethal person will just find another one and keep on keepin' on. The maths don't track.
"We believe ninja swords have no place in our society" - the US equivalent is, word for word, "we believe guns have no place in our society".
"Dangerous weapons" - again, there is no such thing as a "dangerous weapon", there are only dangerous people.
"Getting justice for our boy Ronan" - No. Just... no. getting justice for Ronan would involve hanging his killers and putting their heads on spikes on London Bridge. I would haunt anyone who though banning ink pens would "gain justice" against the man that killed me with an ink pen.
"instruments of war" - the US equivalent is "weapons of war", and is more regularly applied to firearms - usually the AR-15 - over here. Incidentally, the AR-15 is NOT a "weapon of war". No military on God's Green Earth has EVER sent it's boys to war armed with AR-15's, which are semi-auto. The closest anyone has come is sending folks off to fight with M-16's and equivalents, which are selective fire - full auto or semi-auto at the flick of a switch.
"Taking decisive action" involves a short rope and a long drop, not merely banning some toys.
Full disclosure. I have a trash can bristling full with swords sitting in the corner of my living room. There are 3 samurai swords - two katanas and a wakizashi - a Persian shamshir, a Chinese dao, a Scottish claymore (the big one like William Wallace used, not one of those wimpy little basket-hilted wannabes), and yes, two ninja swords, among others. Not a single one of them, NARY A ONE, has hands. It would be impossible for anyone to be killed "at the hands of" one of my swords. utterly impossible, because swords don't have hands. You know what DOES have hands? the human wielding the sword. In his or her hands.
Fuck 'em. What the hell even IS "knife crime content"? Would a news report of a London (or Amsterdam) stabbing incident be "knife crime content"? Well that kinda opens up a censorship can of worms, now don't it?
All in all, this is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of. It's right up there with American attempts to end "gun crime" by addressing guns rather than criminals. And, without a doubt, it's in the future for America, once they get guns eradicated and the criminals turn to... knives, as they've done in the UK.
The thing is, without addressing the criminals, putting an end to them, they will just pivot to new weapons of choice once the last greatest hope for them has been banned. Even criminals in tightly controlled prison environments have their home-made (or "prison-made", I suppose) "shanks" for shanking folks with, made out of whatever is available - spoons, even tooth brushes.
They've done the pivot from guns to knives in the UK, and they will do it again once edged weapons are finally banned there. Just so, they will do it in America as well.
Because criminals gonna criminal. The way to end it is to end THEM, not their toys of choice for the day.
Idjits. I despair of the world ever growing any goddamned common sense.
.
"Ninja" swords are very specific swords. technically, they are actually called "ninja-to". They have a straight, single edged blade, usually somewhat shorter than the classic curved-bladed samurai sword, or "katana". They have a somewhat larger handguard to facilitate their being used as a step for a boost-up in climbing, such as scaling walls, and generally have a cord attached to facilitate retrieval of the sword after such climbing feats, which cord can also double as a garrote in a fight.
They frequently have a hollow scabbard with a hole in the end where the chape would be in a regular sword so they can be used to breathe like a snorkel when the user is submerged under water when infiltrating an enemy stronghold.
so now we know what a "ninja" sword is - basically a katana with a shorter, straighter single edged blade with other features useful in the clandestine art of ninjustsu.
Ninja swords, actual ninja swords, are incredibly rare when compared to, well, ANY other kind of sword. There just aren't that many ninjas around these days, and those who are have upgraded their basic kit to more modern implements.
That's why it mystifies me why the British government would single out such a specific and exclusive weapon for banning.
The announcement of the ban may be found here
When reading through the article, it became clear to me that the ban is not intended to increase anyone's safety so much as to just micro-manage what people are - and more pointedly, are NOT - allowed to own. It's just more people telling other people what and what not to own. many of the phrases included in the announcement are straight out of American gun-banner's mouths. All you have to do is swap the word "knife" or "ninja sword" for "gun", and you have the exact same phrases.
Some examples:
Quote:... protect the public from knife-related crime
The equivalent US phrase is "gun-related crime", which strikes me as stupid. Why not simply protect the public from CRIME, regardless of it's relatives? Why single out one implement, and let the rest slide?
Quote:There is already a penalty of up to 4 years in prison for carrying any weapon in public.
If it's already illegal to carry weapons in public, what is the value of making yet another law to... make it illegal to carry weapons in public? If criminals ignore the first law, what makes the government think the second is REALLY going to jerk them up short?
Quote:From 1 August, anyone caught in possession of a ninja sword in private could face 6 months in prison, and this will later increase to 2 years under new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill.
Oh. I see. The purpose is to REDUCE prison time so the criminals can more easily and quickly be set back out on the streets among the public. Got it.
Quote:Ahead of the ban coming into place, the government, in partnership with law enforcement and members of the Coalition to Tackle Knife Crime, will run its most ambitious surrender scheme yet. The scheme will run across the country, targeting young people most vulnerable to knife crime.
Seems to me they should be targeting criminals more than "young people most vulnerable to knife crime", which sounds to me like a really cumbersome phrase that could be streamlined to "victims", but what do I know? I tend to think more in terms of "predators" and "prey", rather than targeting the prey and leaving the predators with their teeth to predate and just pulling their claws. I find that shooting a panther and ending it is far more effective than just pulling it's claws and turning it back loose on the prey with it's teeth...
Quote:Knife crime is destroying young lives
The equivalent US phrase is "gun crime is destroying young lives". It leads me to wonder, once again, why the implement has to even be mentioned, as if somehow a "knife murder" or a "gun murder" is more heinous than a "claw-hammer murder" or a crow-bar murder". Isn't the MURDER the heinous part of the action? Isn't that where the focus ought to be?
Quote:Today we are introducing the final part of Ronan’s law in his memory – banning the ninja swords that his killers should never have been able to use.
Because everyone knows it's much more pleasant to have one's head bashed in with a brick than it is to be killed with a filthy sword! It's all about the comfort of your death, bucko, not the fact that you died at all!
Quote:... our mission to halve knife crime over the next decade.
Again with the "knife crime", implying that all other forms of crime are ok. and "halve" knife crime? I reckon that's a doable target, considering that I can make my own knife in an hour or less, and don't have to worry about where I'm gonna find my next banned item. At least they are realistic enough to realize they will NEVER eliminate it by focusing solely on inanimate objects. They'd come a lot closer to ending "knife crime" altogether if they ignored the instruments and just started hanging the killers. A live killer on the loose can always find another implement of destruction and go on his merry way... but a dead killer, not so much.
Quote:Pooja Kanda said:
Today marks a very important day for us as a family and our campaign. Since losing our beautiful boy Ronan, we have relentlessly campaigned for a ban on ninja swords – the lethal weapon which took his life. We believe ninja swords have no place in our society other than to seriously harm and kill.
We are so grateful to our government for hearing us and for recognising how important and urgent it is to get these dangerous weapons off our streets. Each step towards tackling knife crime is a step towards getting justice for our boy Ronan.
A couple of points. There is NO "lethal weapon which took his life". There is no such thing as a "lethal weapon", there are only lethal PEOPLE. Furthermore, no "lethal weapon" can take a life all by it's lonesome. It's inanimate, and will not suddenly jump from a table on it's own and kill someone. When you end the lethal criminals, no one else will ever suffer at their hands. When you end a "lethal weapon", a lethal person will just find another one and keep on keepin' on. The maths don't track.
"We believe ninja swords have no place in our society" - the US equivalent is, word for word, "we believe guns have no place in our society".
"Dangerous weapons" - again, there is no such thing as a "dangerous weapon", there are only dangerous people.
"Getting justice for our boy Ronan" - No. Just... no. getting justice for Ronan would involve hanging his killers and putting their heads on spikes on London Bridge. I would haunt anyone who though banning ink pens would "gain justice" against the man that killed me with an ink pen.
Quote:Patrick Green, CEO, Ben Kinsella Trust said:
The Ben Kinsella Trust welcomes the government’s decision to ban ninja swords and implement Ronan’s Law. These weapons, with no practical purpose beyond violence, are simply instruments of war and have absolutely no place in our society or on our streets. The ease with which such dangerous items have been available has contributed to far too many tragedies.
The additional measures under Ronan’s Law, designed to hold those who sell these weapons to account, are critical in breaking the supply chain that fuels this violence. We commend the government for listening to victims’ families, and for taking decisive action.
"instruments of war" - the US equivalent is "weapons of war", and is more regularly applied to firearms - usually the AR-15 - over here. Incidentally, the AR-15 is NOT a "weapon of war". No military on God's Green Earth has EVER sent it's boys to war armed with AR-15's, which are semi-auto. The closest anyone has come is sending folks off to fight with M-16's and equivalents, which are selective fire - full auto or semi-auto at the flick of a switch.
"Taking decisive action" involves a short rope and a long drop, not merely banning some toys.
Quote:Sandra Campbell, Chief Executive Officer, Word 4 Weapons said:
Word 4 Weapons stands firmly behind the introduction of Ronan’s Law. Ronan’s tragic death at the hands of a ninja sword highlights the urgent need to tighten legislation around dangerous weapons, online and otherwise. This law is a crucial step toward reducing violence and protecting lives in our communities.
Full disclosure. I have a trash can bristling full with swords sitting in the corner of my living room. There are 3 samurai swords - two katanas and a wakizashi - a Persian shamshir, a Chinese dao, a Scottish claymore (the big one like William Wallace used, not one of those wimpy little basket-hilted wannabes), and yes, two ninja swords, among others. Not a single one of them, NARY A ONE, has hands. It would be impossible for anyone to be killed "at the hands of" one of my swords. utterly impossible, because swords don't have hands. You know what DOES have hands? the human wielding the sword. In his or her hands.
Quote:... significant fines for executives who fail to remove knife crime content for their platform.
Fuck 'em. What the hell even IS "knife crime content"? Would a news report of a London (or Amsterdam) stabbing incident be "knife crime content"? Well that kinda opens up a censorship can of worms, now don't it?
All in all, this is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of. It's right up there with American attempts to end "gun crime" by addressing guns rather than criminals. And, without a doubt, it's in the future for America, once they get guns eradicated and the criminals turn to... knives, as they've done in the UK.
The thing is, without addressing the criminals, putting an end to them, they will just pivot to new weapons of choice once the last greatest hope for them has been banned. Even criminals in tightly controlled prison environments have their home-made (or "prison-made", I suppose) "shanks" for shanking folks with, made out of whatever is available - spoons, even tooth brushes.
They've done the pivot from guns to knives in the UK, and they will do it again once edged weapons are finally banned there. Just so, they will do it in America as well.
Because criminals gonna criminal. The way to end it is to end THEM, not their toys of choice for the day.
Idjits. I despair of the world ever growing any goddamned common sense.
.
