According to Scotsman.com, a British sword smith is about to meet with members of Parliament in an attempt to persuade them against banning swords.
Mr Macdonald, 33, a former fencing instructor who now makes and sells swords, fears any new laws could also affect those who use them for perfectly legitimate reasons.
He is concerned that
Highlanddancers, fencers, collectors, antiques dealers, battle re-enactment groups, theatre companies and thousands of heritage enthusiasts could lose out if they become illegal.
Unfortunately, weapons banners probably won't really care who their law hurts as they are not likely to acknowledge that there are indeed "legitimate reasons" for owning weapons. Just look at
And he argues banning the sale of swords will do very little to reduce the number of knife crimes in the country. Mr Macdonald claims that only approximately 1% of all knife-related crimes each year involves [sic] the use of a sword.
This poor guy keeps using logic to make his case, something that politicians around the world tend to disdain. Look how California banned .50
For those of you who have never seen a finely crafted sword and don’t understand what all the fuss is about, take the time to view one in person. Visit a museum or upscale sword shop (i.e. a place that sells $1000+ weapons and not just junky wall-hangers). Swords can be incredible works of art, as well as elegant and effective weapons. They are an important part of most cultural histories. Swords have been created to commemorate noteworthy events, carried as symbols of rank/class, and wielded to create and defend nations. Banning them would be akin to banning family crests, or forbidding the creation and possession of sculptures.