Yes Jim, I know you did write, as did many other people in other countries.
The reason you have not been contacted again is because the review is not yet complete. The Department has the obligation to respond to all those who wrote to them in either support of or opposition to the proposal to legislate against swords.I have spoken with the officer who has carried out most of the review of this legislation, and I specifically asked if those people who are residents of other countries and who wrote in opposition to this proposed legislation, would be contacted. I was assured that all who wrote would be contacted. I will be monitoring this matter, and if necessary I will take whatever action I am able to take to try to ensure that all those who wrote do receive the report.
Spiral, from my perspective the definition you have quoted:-
“a curved, single edged sword (sometimes known as a “samurai sword”)”.
is a very good definition.
Effectively it says:- " a samurai sword is something that is recognised as a samurai sword"
Yes, it lends itself to ill informed interpretation by officers in the field, but when it gets into court the prosecutor will have to demonstrate that there is a widely held view that the sword in question is something that would be referred to as a "samurai sword". With a couple of expert witnesses this would be very easy to defend, should the sword in question not be a "samurai sword".
In fact, this definition parrallels Sir Richard Burton's definition.He wrote a chapter in trying to define a sword, but it all boils down to :- "well, you'll recognise a sword when you see one".
The fact of the matter is that politicians need to count votes to hold on to their jobs. If the wider community sees a threat in swords, the pollies need to do something to convince voters that they should stay in their job.
After the black operation that was the Port Arthur Massacre, our most highly respected prime minister, John Howard (who has just lost his seat---there is a God) had legislation ready within three days to ban specific types of weaponry. This was the effective beginning of increasingly restrictive laws against all types of weaponry in Australia. All across Australia concerned citizens demonstrated against these proposed laws. In Sydney there was a public rally that was attended by over 70,000 people ( this was reported in the media as something like 5,000 people). Enormous numbers of people protested against these laws. The governments of Australia took no notice of these protests and the laws were introduced.
Why did they take no notice?
Because even with the massive number of people protesting against the legislation, there were more people in the community in favour of it.
Public opinion had been manipulated in a way that did not allow any argument against the introduction of these laws.
Now, there was one good thing that did result from the goverment's extreme actions.
Firearms ownership in Australia had been politicised.
A pro-firearms political party was formed in New South Wales, and we currently have two senators in office.
At the recent federal election we ran a candidate for the first time. He was not elected, but provided we maintain our committment to our ideals, I believe that eventually we will also have a senator at the federal level.
When something is politicised, the only effective way to deal with it is by political means.
Look at the NRA.
Ranting and raving about the injustice of any legislation that affects us adversely does nothing except to direct our energies into thin air. I am extremely angry about the anti-weapon legislation that my country and my state has been saddled with, but I do not preach to the converted about it. I sit down and try to construct calmly logical arguments that will assist in softening the legislation when it is introduced---and believe me:- it always will be introduced.
What we need to do is to provide the politicians with ways in which they can have their laws, calm the community, but not affect us too heavily.
This can only be done by calm, logical argument and by going through recognised channels.
In the real world of professional criminals the weapons of choice are now, as they have always been, of two basic types:- the effective, purpose built tool designed to terminate life, for example, firearms of various types, and secondly,various everyday objects that can be used, disposed of, and have a low probability of being linked to the crime, for example, a length of pipe wrapped in newspaper.
Tools such as "samurai swords" are used by either unbalanced individuals, or by people who set out to frighten , rather than to kill. These two types of people will continue to use exactly the same tactics, even if all swords were to magically evaporate into thin air overnight.
Is there anything more frightening than somebody with a cup full of petrol and a cigarette lighter?
|