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

Post Reply New Topic

Why, to defend yourself? Not that easy, What if you are defending yourself against someone who was not attacking you after all, being that a mistake of yours. What if you get really angry at someone, hmmm, using your gun to shoot that person would be a good temptation, would you resist it? How about people with anger management problems?

I don't know if you are a parent, but if you were a parent, would you feel safe having a gun in the house with kids around?

Most of the people are not careful enough or responsable enough on their judgements and behaviour, much less when being under emotional stress.

Exactly. Allowing just anyone to walk into a gun dealer and buying a rifle or semi-automatic is the height of stupidity. What for Chrissakes would someone need a weapon for in suburbia anyway, if not to commit some sort of crime? People might say 'to protect themselves', but that is just pure BS. Guns are weapons, they are designed to kill. They have no other use but to kill. If you purchase a weapon, it means that you intend to use it, so you are more than likely going to kill someone. Pretty f****d up logic, if you ask me. No wonder there is so much violence and hatred there. We got rid of most of our privately owned weapons at least 10 years ago after Port Arthur. There still may be killings, but it's mostly criminals who get there weapons on the Black Market that use them. But you Americans tend to use your own weapons at the drop of a hat. As I've said, pretty f****d up logic, and indefensible in the 21st century.

Just WHAT the 2nd amendment was meant to guarentee is
something up for debate. My own reading is that ANY well
organized militia has a right to be armed, but individual rights
can be suspended.

Thus, a group like the Branch Davidians had every right to
ANY weapons that they wanted. As would town militias (essentially
the police). On the other hand, someone living in NYC would be
bound by their communities laws, so long as there was adequate
local protection.

The US has taken this differently, reading that only the State
militias have this right (and given that these are damned near
under federal control anyhow). Worse, I doubt highly that the
federal government would ever accede to the idea of states
having their own strategic weaponry (i.e. nukes). And all the
2nd amendment seems to protect is the right of the individual
(which doesn't seem assured in the bill of rights) to have whatever
weapons that the government chooses to allow them - which is no
right at all, in some cases.

But, the broader question, of whether an armed society is better
than an unarmed one, seems to be the real issue at stake. This is
harder to access. Certainly, as long as weapons are easily obtainable
by criminals, the populace also needs them. BUT, if the enforcement
of gun laws were proper, and if those laws were made more strict,
we might see a great drop in shooting incidents.

Ban firearms?
No way!
Firstly because it wouldn’t work.
Laws only really apply to those who chose to follow it. Criminals obliviously don’t.

Do you think all the gangs in United States would suddenly hand in their guns because the White House decided to abolish civilian ownership of firearms?
In the case of the US, even if they did managed to spend the many billions of dollars necessary to track down and destroy every single registered and unregistered firearm in the county, you would still have plenty being smuggled in from neighbouring Mexico or even (to a lesser extent) Canada.

You see when a knee jerk government decides to ban something, they unwittingly create a lucrative black market that attracts more sophisticated forms of organised crime.

That’s a very sensationalised view of America.
It is easy to become paranoid by the news. Especially the American news that constantly blasts out horror and tragedy 24/7. Bear in mind that the media makes more money if it can make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Oh, and I defiantly wouldn’t recommend that the US follow in the footsteps of the UK and Australia with gun legislation.
Private firearms in the UK are (almost) banned entirely, with only some very specific and dubious exemptions.
Yet the UK still doesn’t seem to look like that utopian wonderland of goodwill the gun-control lobbyists were hoping for.
Despite all the zero-tolerance legislation there are still parts of London where you could be shot if you upset the wrong people.
Surprisingly the various members of organised crime in the UK didn’t hand in their guns before the “Return by” deadline!

Now Australia’s firearms legislation.
It seems that where British government said, “Lets ban all guns”, the Australian government said, “Lets make private arms ownership such a pain in that ass that no one bothers”.

As you have probably gathered by now, I am a licensed firearms owner.
I use a pistol for target shooting at a range and my license is specifically for sporting purposes.
I am not bothered so much by the general calibre limit of .38, the 10 round maximum capacities for magazines, the prohibition of semi-auto rifles, or any of the other trivial rules that have yet to have their reasoning explained by anyone from the government (or the gun control lobby) that has even the slightest understanding of ballistics.
What does annoy me is all the paperwork that needs to be done if I want to have a casual shoot session at my local club.
Below is all the screwing around I have to do before a typical club shoot.
All of which were made a legal requirement due to the irrational fear the public seems to have for private arms ownership.

• Fill out the main registry book
- (Name printed, Date, Member #, Calibre, Discipline, Signature)

• Fill out the mandatory pistol attendance book (to have a pistol licence for sport you must take part in at least one shoot every 8 weeks at your supporting club)
- (Name printed, Date, Licence #, Firearms Serial #, Discipline, Score, Signature)

• (If buying ammo) Fill out the ammunition purchase registry book
- (Name printed, Date, Licence #, Calibre, Quantity, Firearms Serial #, Address, Signature)

• Fill out the SSAA’s own mandatory attendance booklet and get it stamped.
-(Date, Discipline, Association branch stamp)

By the time I’ve signed the credit card receipt, I swear I don’t want to see another biro again!

The biggest flaw with all these rubbish rules is that it costs a fortune in taxpayer funds to manage & audit this information.
All to simply create the “illusion” of a safer world.

This illusion might help some people sleep at night, but it certainly doesn’t decrease instances of malevolent firearms use.
It certainly doesn’t help stop the smuggling of cheap, Chinese made firearms (prolific throughout South East Asia) being brought into this county and into the hands of Vietnamese gangs.

What about people without a 2nd amendment?
Here you can own firearms if you're part of a militia or have a hunting license, I think.
You can carry knives in public as long as it's "pocket knives used for their designated purpose" i.e. not killing people.
So I do.
Back in the day, a Swedish man would never leave his house without his knife, so it's a tradition, really.
But it has been more or less forgotten and as soon as you take out your knife, all the wimps start complaining some BS about it being illegal.
BS! I know my laws and I know I'm allowed to carry a knife in public.

I think the problem rests with the people.
A lot of people are just f****d up today, and if you give a gun to a f****d up person, he will do f****d up things with it.
All the gun does is to raise a persons killing potential, so a mentally stable person who don't kill indiscriminantly without a gun won't do it with a gun either, but a wack-job who is just looking for an opportunity to do something stupid will probably do it.

People's fuck-up-edness comes from external sources that have nothing to do with weapons, but how society works.

If a f**ked-up person with a gun starts going hay-wire, then it's nice if there are 10 good people there, with guns, that can take him down.
I believe that there are more good people than bad in this world, just that the bad people makes more noise.

Back in the day, a man in Sweden would carry a long
arm around too. Seems that they had no problem
dispensing with THAT law.

A long arm? (funny visuals)

Thing is, if I can prove that I need a sword in my line of work, it would actually be legal for me to carry it as part of my work uniform, since the knife law applies to clubs, swords and other melee weapons.

Well, yeah, we don't have a constitution ensuring our rights that way, so I'm taking advantage of the few rights I do have.
Our "constituton" only mentions stupid things like which brat would inherit the throne and such nonsense.

Well you have some a-holes in the white house screwing up your country right now and you are not using your arms to fix the situation.

We're not criminals, that's why we're not using guns and violence to undo the wrongs that liberals do to our country.

Agent80s: All that paperwork is obviously there so that a loon can't just walk onto a firing range and blow up anything they like, then go out after practice and knock off East Fremantle or Subiaco (remember Martin Bryant or Julian Knight, cos I sure do). The original idea with the gun laws, if you'll remember was to ban them outright; but the gun lobby complained that much that they were watered down so that you sporting shooters could still practice your hobby. I personally couldn't give a stuff about whether people were killing themselves off for whatever reason, if they want to be f*ckwits, let them. On the same token I would also prefer to be able to go out any time I felt like it, say around Melbourne, and not have the fear that some ret*d loser is going to blow my head off because he didn't like the footy jumper I was wearing. As I said, guns are meant to kill, and it's the idiots on the end that do the damage. Hey, maybe one way to solve it would be if those idiots turned those guns around 180 degrees and blew their own f*cking heads off. Thin the herds that way, and it would save the expense of taking these imbeciles to court.

Quatermass, are you paying attention?

Even if I am untrained, I'd still rather have a gun. I'd rather die at least trying to defend my rights than to do nothing.... I'd rather die standing than live lying down. With guns, we could fire back, and they'd have to shoot us and kill us more quickly, whereas without a gun they could round us up and throw us in concentration camps, which would be much slower and more painful.

When America started as a nation, it was **mandatory** duty that every able bodied man served in the citizen militias, to keep the government in check. Over time people slowly got more and more slack towards this duty, and eventually the government demonized citizen militias.
The national guard is not a citizen militia, they are on call to take orders directly from the government. I think America needs to re-instate mandatory participation in citizen militias, and the militias need to be funded. Militias being reactive, not proactive, of coarse. But I realize this isn't going to happen.

It'll happen if the planet ever gets lit up. All the major cities will be gone and military installations too. You'll be left with farmers. Go farmers!! !

Paying attention to what? you shouldn't feel offended everytime someone disagrees with you, if that's the case.

I think he has a good point. I agree with it.

Class action lawsuit. Suggestion of mass suicide of an entire set of people, by The_Chosen_One.