New Moderator

[Dennis Boas]

I am pleased to announce that Stephen Hand has agreed to help moderate this forum.

[Stephen Hand]

Thanks Dennis,

For those who don't know me, I'm the Chairman of the Australian Historical Swordplay Federation, and as such at the forefront of fighting current Australian legislation to restrict ownership of swords.

I am particularly interested in keeping discussions in this forum on topic. Some recent threads became bogged down with the internet equivalent of people driving slowly past a car crash, saying "how dreadful". I think we can take it as read that everyone on SFI likes swords and regards laws to restrict sword ownership unfavourably. Questions like "what are these politicians thinking?", references to gun control and criticisms of particular country's system of government really don't help.

So, if you want to help people in those jurisdictions that are introducing controls on swords, take a deep breath before you post and ask yourself if your post in any way helps these people to retain their rights and their swords.

Best Wishes
Steve

[Leighton T.]

Nice to meet you

[B.Conner]

hi

[Ed Dittus]

Originally posted by Stephen Hand
references to gun control ... really don't help.

.

Steve,

With respect, I think that a careful examination of the tactics of gun control activists in the US can prove to be very informative. Further, the specific responses that have been used here might very well save missteps and therefore time and money.

The characteristic mechanisms of overgeneralization, mischaracterization, demonization and a raft of other logical errors are used here, sometimes to good effect. I hear them already in the thread on Scotland.

I think that rather than dismiss the learning that is possible, we ought to specifically examine and mine the US experience.

[Sam Anderson]

+1! Use prior examples to determine future events. Gun control legislation can be used as a framework to defend sword ownership.

[David Lewis Smith]

Originally posted by Sam Anderson
+1! Use prior examples to determine future events. Gun control legislation can be used as a framework to defend sword ownership.

I always look at restrictive laws in another way, a sort of ‘if this than that’ out look

If any weapon restriction is passed, then it is easer for the next weapon restriction to be passed. While we have an agreement on SFI to not discuss fire arms, I think in this forum it fire arms laws be insightful to what may happen to sword ownership laws. A sort of ‘if these weapons are outlawed than these weapons can be outlawed’ I think many of us in pursuit of our hobby weather it is collecting swords just because we like them, buying swords to do test cutting with or treasuring historical pieces forget that a sword is a weapon because we don’t ever think of hurting some one with one.

I think that when a state, country or other local government outlaws one bladed object or weapon of any type it makes it easer to out law another. There is no logical reason for a privet citizen to own a fully automatic weapon, yet some go to great length and expense to do so legally because they like having them and firing them legally. The lethality of this kind of weapon leads to its regulation and in most cases banning of privet owner ship. By way of reflection sword owner ship starts at the opposite end of the spectrum, it becomes illegal to own a fixed bladed knife with a sharp point because it can be used as a weapon then it becomes easer to make sword ownership illegal. On any other forum in SFI firearms would be inappropriate to discuss, but I think fire arms laws can effect sword owner ship laws.

On an off note I don’t collect firearms of any kind, heh, I have one Scots dag for a Jacobite kit that I would never fire do to the value of the pistol, but I would be very concerned if modern pistols were outlawed because the next step would be all pistols.

I appreciate the work the moderators put in very much, keeps the place nice and tidy, and allows me to allow my son to surf SFI at will with out worrying about him seeing or reading something completely inappropriate.

[S. Reinhardt]

I agree that the scientific thinking of "if this than that" is great for the side of all those who own swords (and enjoy keeping it that way) to read about what happens with other (politically) topic related laws. However, I don't think we should use the same sense of logic when talking with the people who disagree about swords.

I've known that to get somebody's opinion to change it's always best to confirm what they believe. You should get inside their head in order to rearrange their thoughts. It helps them understand you when you understand them. Think with logic, but speak their language.

S. Reinhardt

[Eric Cartrette]

Haven't been to this forum in a while so this is the first time I've seen this thread. Sorry for bringing up an old one Steven it is good to have you on board. Your experience is priceless.
S Reinhardt. One thing I've learned is that when you come at someone saying, "Nice train of thought, but you're wrong." All they hear is "YOU'RE WRONG, IDIOT!!!" Not what you said, but it is often what they hear and they immediately shut down and hear nothing you have to say. Good tactic.
SSg Smith (or is it SFC Smith yet?) I completely agree with your line of thought as well.

[Glenn R. Vandergriff]

"There is no logical reason for a privet citizen to own a fully automatic weapon, yet some go to great length and expense to do so legally because they like having them and firing them legally."

Yes, there are logical reasons. Several, in fact. But more importantly, it's that kind of logic that puts our swords at risk. It is MUCH easier to reason that there is, beyond historical study by academics, no reason for swords to exist now.

"There is no logical reason for a private citizen to own a sword."

I'll bet you've heard that before.

I have.

I collect weapons: swords, knives, impact weapons, and handguns. I also have a rifle and a recurve bow. I am a Life Member in the US National Rifle Association, and believe me y'all can pick up some good tips from them.

Be very careful with that "no logical reason" rhetoric. Be very careful when you are willing to give up my hobby, my area of study, my passion to the regulators. I might be just as cavalier with yours.

[Lance davis]

I like canadas self defence laws as they are the middle ground between the US "someone was on my property would you send a coroner to pick up the body" and the UK's "we will make an honest effort to solve your murder". If you use lethal force to defend yourself you had damn well better be able to prove you had no other option. You will probably be remanded and have to go to trial even if your found not guilty.

I am prepared to serve a couple of years on a manslaughter charge to save the life of myself or a loved one but if running away, hiding or crying like a little girl is an option then I will take it.

[G. Allen]

Welcome aboard, the more moderators, the better I say .....you are in a perfect position to know whats needed to stop the legislation, so give us a hint.....I'm new to the Forum, but am not new to weapon legislation....the similarities between fi..arms legislation and sword legislation is probably going to turn out to be huge.....and I wholeheartedly agree with the gentlemen who suggested we could learn from the gun lobbyists mistakes, of which there were many ...... and I personally own many guns, knives, a couple swords, and could even find a baseball bat to whack a miscreant with if necessary.......