Is it WRONG to own guns, rifles, swords, knives, etc.?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you have any relatives you look favourably upon?

Well, if EVERYONE owns weapons then using weapons becomes costly which is actually a very popular argument for allowing guns. The fact of the matter is that violation of the peace can be quickly put down by the rest of the citizenry in a gun-owning world. We would find violence maximized if only non-law-abiding people possessed weapons. I consider the entire matter of owning guns to be cultural more than anything and I do not think that death occurs enough to warrant being incredibly afraid of it. Within the US, it is likely wisest to structure things around guns rather than try to eliminate them though. All cultures have their oddities really.

Never considered the US as a third world nation particularly, but claiming advancement over "most" other nations is a bit cheeky. I've seen the picture quality on your Tv broadcasts. Its crap "Most" things you do or have are roughly equated by similar items and activities elsewhere, and some places supercede you too. Besides, what has that got to do with bearing arms?

It's called vigilantism, which is frowned upon in modern society; first and foremost because the police are paid to do the job of upholding the law, where citizens are actually breaking the law by performing those duties. that is why an armed civilian populace shouldn't be tolerated, and it's why it is a backward step. The wild west may have been able to cope with vigilantes, but not 2007 suburbia.

Nicely said my Aussie cuz'!

Besides, a law-abiding citizen with a gun can quite easily become a criminal. Doesnt take all that much to get someone to shoot someone, or rob someone.

No it really isn't. I know, you are comparing these things to first world nations!! Do you really not understand what I was trying to say? I was effectively saying this: "The US is a first world nation". That is all, nothing cheeky. This has more to do with backwardsness.


Self-defense is not vigilantism and that is precisely what would be advocated. Citizens are not breaking the law by defending themselves or others from crime, vigilantism is typically considered to be seeking out the job of a policeman without actually having authority and going against established legal principles. There is nothing that is really backwards about the proposition at all.


Except within our construct, most people own guns, this means that failure to isolate a person or catch them off guard will prevent the crime. It doesn't take much, I will agree, but the reason people don't perform these acts isn't because of a lack of power to do so but rather consequences after the fact. People don't kill because they will get caught, not because it was EVER incredibly difficult.

And you think London is safer than New York?




the_chosen_one If you want to ban guns, at least be honest and just say you are scarred of things that make loud noises and don't make up all that bullsh*t.

Sorry. Your phrasing gave me the impression that your post leaned towards the arrogant end of things. There is a horrible tendency towards an air of arrogant superiority in evidence amongst a lot of americans.. (or at least the ones on the net.) and after a while it tends to grate on the nerves, and make people tetchy. "We are the best at everything" is a) a lie b) propaganda and c) f*****g irritating like a herd of wildebeest-sized fleas in the crotch. So, apologies if you werent actually doing that...

and if you were, you're a git.

Here, I've never seen anyone with a gun (except an air-rifle), and nobody has tried to use on one me. I bet if I stepped off the plane in LA or San Francisco, or New York the first thing I would hear is BANG BANG while everybody ducks for cover. Not hard to work out where I am safer.

Except from your national army.

No, I was merely defending my nation from the incessant cries that we were backwards. I am not a big patriot in all honesty, but I do like some of the ideas and ideals of my nation.


Not very likely at all. The entire notion is completely ridiculous. The areas where you would worry about that are perhaps poorer/run-down areas, most parts of most cities are very safe. Our murder rate is not astronomical like you seem to think, I have lived in a city in Texas, a big gun state, for most of my life and I have never heard gun shots(except on the television or from a computer) in that life.

You know, America isn't a giant war zone. It's not like your likely to get killed or raped on the way to the gas station to get a loaf of bread and milk you know. If someone decides they want to kill people, they'll find a way to do so. With or without a gun.
If I were to write a death threat, it would be a felony. Would that mean that they should outlaw pencils?

If someone set peoples' houses on fire with a book of matches, should they outlaw matches?

Actually you are more likely to be raped in Australia! Like 2 to 3 times more likely to be raped in Australia. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_r ... per-capita (Yes, I already posted this)

Just because QM would be disappointed if I didn't -

one has nothing to do with the other

Either you are a fascist, afraid of people who are capable of defending themselves, or you are just giving them excuses. I have a number of firearms, none of them kept for self defence.

I have a

• 12ga SxS for competition in that class
• 12ga duck gun (doubles as a sporting clays gun)
• 20ga quail gun
• 12ga spare
• 3 x 22 rimfire
• 22-250 Rem (foxes)
• 270 Win (misc ferals)
• 7mm 96 Mauser (from Boer War - family heirloom)
• 303 (from WW2 - just for interest)

Why should these be taken off me just because you can't handle the idea of me having something that scares you, but is no threat to you?