It's always fun to link a block of text that then hopefully makes your case for you, but... yeah, I had already read through the laws before I even made that comparison. I interpret nothing I read there as a declaration that the ownership of swords is outlawed in Germany, so could you be a bit more precise about what part of that text block you _think_ outlaws the ownership of swords? Because the way I interpret the text is that ownership of swords is legal if you're 18+, the carrying of such a weapon is not.
That's in line with pretty much any source I found via google.
You'd want to generally look at the beginning and in the 2nd appendix. That's largely where weapons are defined.
Anyway you are right in that i was incorrect (not regarding the point though):
You can probably actually get away with owning and even walking around with something that is sharp and that you and i would agree was basically a sword.
With a prototypical sword (say roman sword) the two blades should get you into trouble.
But yes, apparently legal experts have debated to death the Pforzheim killer with his katana - i asume that's what you are refering to - and apparently that's legal now - minus the whacking-people-with-it part obviously.
So anyway. You smart me dumb. It doesn't help you though.
No matter how we slice and dice the weapons act the fact remains:
These things are tightly regulated and there is plenty of prohibition to go around, with virtually no respect being given to the "freedom" that "has value in itself" as per your post #10 in this thread.
We may disagree with this restrictive approach.
But that doesn't change that your comparison falls flat.
We can at that point go back to the US with no overprotective German weapons act to be found, and your comparison still falls flat.
For the more obvious comparison obliterates your position: Most states have harsh, categorical regulations in place regarding pet ownership in general (e.g. regarding "dangerous" animals).
The point remains:There are cats that have killed babies. So let's kill all cats? Not that I'd necessarily be against that one, maybe the world is better off without cats, in fact, I think that's almost undeniable.
The cat wasn't purposefully engineered in the British Empire and the Second Empire for just this porpuse.
Combat dogs are meant to be dangerous and aggressive and, if need be, inflict mortal injury on other humans.
Cats aren't made to do that. Sportscars aren't made to do that. Swords were originally made to do that. Today they are made for the sake of decoration and penis compensation and are tighly regulated.
So the argument in favor of an inherently valuable right to own a dangerous, fascistoid little monster that is "actually totally nice blablabla" and expose other people to it looks ever more shaky.
So, that you debate him in third person at a figurative yard's distance speaks volumes, but anyway.It seems extremely likely that his "years of experience" are the product of passing dogs while emitting all the signals of morbid fear, which would make every unleashed dog react to him as prey. Rabbits see what rabbits see, but that doesn't really bear on the world we live in.
Either way this attitude is shocking.
We, your oposition in this thread, as much as anyone else have a right to walk about in public, to do so giving of whatever vibe and not be forced to go out of our way because someone seized public space with their hideous, dangerous creature.