29erUK (sj@c1944.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:18:32 +0000
In message <s843c1ec.021@groupwise.gemini-research.co.uk>, Paul Murphy
<Paul.Murphy@gemini-research.co.uk> writes
>To start with, any suggestion of a ban on edged weapons would perhaps
>be resisted in its entirety using common sense arguments - there are
>lots out there, it would cost a lot of money to compensate the owners
>for their loss, it impacts re-enactment (which is a major tourist draw),
>it also impacts martial artists and antiques collectors, and at the end
>of the day, anyone can buy a 3ft length of sping steel, grind the edge
>down, and turn it into an edged weapon. By a logical extension, the
>purchase of steel plate, and angle or bench grinders, would have to be
>made illegal.
All these arguments were used by the shooting fraternity two years ago.
The true figures regarding the cost of compensation are five times
thaose admitted by the Home Office. The Olympic Games are also a fairly
large tourist attraction....and shooting was one of the few sports we
excelled in to boot.
>Making your own pistol is slightly more complicated
>(though a basic matchlock is easy enough, which is why the propellant is
>limited by licencing requirements), so a ban on these was seen as
>workable.
Working SMG's on the Sten principle are simpler than a matchlock pistol,
and are regularly turned out in Belfast garden sheds. The gun was
DESIGNED to be capable of this type of production in the dark days of
1940 when HMG had other priorities.
Only Black Powder is licensed, probably thanks to Mr Fawkes & co,
propellant such as pyrodex can be freely bought over the counter, what's
more, it is more efficient. I use it in my muzzle loaders.
>
>If the government decided that it was determined to push through some
>sort of ban despite these arguments, the next stage would be to agree
>that some form of controls are necessary, but that these should be
>addressing the main issue with as little fallout as possible on those
>whose use of edged weapons is responsible. As a result, this may lead
>to a licencing requirement, since a ban on the sale of sharp weapons is
>ludicrous (anyone can use a grindstone or whetstone), and a ban on the
>sale of all edged weapons affects the responsible owners as well.
Ibid.
> The
>overheads of running a licencing scheme would be likely to result in
>such a plan being blocked by the Treasury, but if it happened, it would
>probably be better for re-enactment to argue _for_ such a scheme (which
>included re-enactment as a legitimate use) than to argue against it if
>it seems likely to go through despite our protests.
>
>If it came to this, the licencing terms would probably be similar to
>those for firearms, so anyone with mental health problems or a criminal
>record would be banned from holding a licence. However, I would stress
>that this is unlikely to happen.
>
And then? More and more restrictions. Blade length, edge, composition,
construction. Slow but steady erosion takes the place of a blanket ban.
And then you suddenly find your basic licence costing 50 a throw, 20
for each additional 'weapon', and a requirement that police can
effectively walk into your home at any time to "verify your security
arrangements". The latter COULD also mean fitting an expensive burglar
alarm system.
Sounds crazy? This is what we gun owners have to put up with as a fact
of life these days.
-- Stuart K Jarman 29th US infantry Division WWII reenactors (UK)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Jan 2001 - 02:30:53 GMT