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

Post Reply New Topic

I dont think that TCOs suggestions to remove gun ownership are being posted in the mood of stalinism, fascism, or any other kind of ism at all. There is more than one reason to want a lack of firepower in society that has bugger all to do with opressing people's rights.

I live in what has become a Nanny State, where health and safety has become the new fascism.. but I'm also well aware that a lot of the decisions about what we can or cannot do are based on such things as lowering the cost of compensation society, and in some cases even a misguided desire to see people safe.

Its like banning kids climbing trees or playing conkers.. its , an over reaction, and probably counterproductive, but its based in the theory that sometimes kids DO get hurt doing these things, and a reasonably well meant desire to stop that. And to stop parents sueing for damages from the Council. its not about oppressing the masses or controlling the people.

After all, the UK has gun cntrol laws (that debatably dont work to prevent gun crime) and we are not a totalitarian regime. Australia isnt a fascist state either. So, is it possible that we can get past the idea that someone calling for gun control is automatically general franco please? I've seen TCO state several reasons for his view and ideas, and so far none of them have read like "I want gun nuts to have no guns because I'm a fascist bastard who wishes to oppress others for fun or political gain."
If anything, they have rotated around " I want more gun control because i dont want to get f*****g shot." and TBH, pro or anti gun ownership, we can all agree that getting shot would suck balls in no uncertain terms.

@Macbeth

Well said, I too live in what some see as a 'nanny state' and for the most part it is based on good intentions NOT ill will!
Also I would rather live in a nanny state than one run by Moira Hindley style parents, lol...
peace j

Sorry, I haven't been following the discussion a lot because I've been busy lately, but there something that I wanna say:

Why do non-criminal people need guns for? For self-defense they would say. But think about this. One gangster might use a gun to defend himself against rival gangsters. If those gangsters attempt to shoot him, he will defend himself by shooting them ALL TO DEATH!! ! Using a gun for self-defense can possibly lead to murder, IN MY OPINION. If I ever brought a gun with me in public, people will look at me as some criminal and run away and call the cops.

If someone wants to steal your cellphone and your wallet, just give those things to them, make sure they walk away from you, and go home and cancel your cellphone and credit cards immediately. It'll be much better and safer than have confrontations with criminal-minded people. And DON'T think that all criminals are afraid of guns because they'll still figure out some way to kill you. Guns have been mainly created to harm or kill people whether if they intend to kill someone or defend themselves and TOO MANY American Youth have suffered or died from such incessant gun violence. Enough is enough. Call me crazy but they should start doing more gun buyback programs in U.S. cities.

There are just things that need to be resolved badly in the USA.

How are you going to confiscate criminals' weapons?

And what would you do about cars or trucks used as weapons and molotov cocktails.

I don't keep any guns for self defence. I keep them because I enjoy shooting and hunting as a sport.

Why do people have a problem with me shooting targets or hunting rabbits?

Do you have a few examples of that? I don't believe that happens in real life. And I take my guns in public places a couple of times a year. I have carried them (in cases) on public transport and in busy shopping centres to take them to a gun shop or gunsmith.

What you say doesn't happen.

When someone suggests a house by house
search, to remove the weapons, it sure sounds
that way to me.

If someone is attacked by gangsters, and that person responds by shooting them all to death, then is it not self-defense? There is a moral difference between self defense and murder.

The fact that the person was a 'gangster' does not generally eliminate his right to be alive. Some 'gangsters' are street hustlers, pimps, card-sharks, or drug dealers. Which means that they can be arrested for those crimes. It does not mean that other 'gangsters' can shoot at them for standing on the wrong corner or wearing the wrong color of clothes.

Stray bullets from fire-fights or drive-bys are a real problem in some neighborhoods. One of my friend's sister is paralyzed from such a shooting. But I don't think that there is any practical way to remove the guns from circulation. We can create some spaces where only law enforcement guns are allowed (courthouses, airports). We can try to keep them out of bars and clubs where people congregate to drink (and are not always rational). But there is little evidence that buy-backs reduce gun violence, and there is no way to make a large country gun-free. The law abiding citizens might comply, but others will not.

True, a house-to-house search is in the style of facism, but then I can think of lots of crimes that would benefit from that level of policing. Still doesnt mean he favours a jackboots-and-trenchcoats, dawn-raids, death-camps form of government. Just means he really doesnt like guns.

Besides, everyone gets a bit right-wing now and then. The number of threads about some crime or other against an innocent that are summarily filled with posts like "they should be f*****g executed" is huge. Doesnt mean their all facists.

Along with a number of other personal liberties,
like free speech, and sexual freedoms. You've
got the wrong ally here. Don't waste your breath
trying to defend him.

Now we're discussing another member who hasn't even posted in a week?

Its more a matter of perspective. The "fascist" label is one of many I,ve seen applied hereabouts, along with that whole "youve been brainwashed by the zionists/reverse vampires/whatever" thing. Usually from people who rant about having freedom of speech, and being open-minded, and considerate of others views. Best way to bollox up a decent debate is to start generalising like that. Rather than just cry "thats fascist, you're a nazi", surely its better to respond with some well-thouhgt out reasons why house-to-house searches are unrealistic, or wrong, or whatever.

Just for reference, I havent said I agree with everything TCO says. I just think life would be easier if people didnt make s**t up, or generalise so badly.

I happen to quite like guns and weapons, from a collectable/antique/historical sense, as befits any wargamer. I'm just not so sure that people NEED these things in such a frothy lunatic "you can have my gun when you prise it from my cold dead fingers" way.

Again I concur, it is possible to have a myriad of other perspectives.
I play war games as well and in fact used to play regular sessions of war games with the children of a pacifist commune that had some of it's founders imprisoned as CO's during WWII.
It is possible that some of us see the folly in armed civility, just as some see humans as inherently social and collective in nature and only tending to digress when the environment nurtures other behaviors.

Does my playing WWII battles as the Germans require some agreement with their cause? - Of course not, however being open to the subject of arms, war, violence from several perspectives and another cultural root means that some of us will see it differently and desire a different attitude and approach.

This forum is made up out of an international community and not just an American/US one, don't bring these subjects up for open discussion if you yourselves are not up for open discussion

peace j

I actually tend to have SOME empathy
with the sides that I play in a wargame.
At least an admiration.

Then again though, I just admire most
militaries.

I consider it possible to have admiration or respect for the actions of a military force, without paying respect to the political powers behind them. Soviet ideology was suspect at best, but the T-34 was an OUTSTANDING piece of armour, and the men who accompanied it fought deftly and bravely, despite the fact they were just as likely to be gunned down by their own political officers. (Or perhaps because..)

Likewise, the wermacht did some spectacular things in a military sense, even whilst crippled by a frankly ret*d high command. Likewise, when the SS wasnt doing terrible things to civilians and pows, they were one of the toughest and most dangerous military units around.

I can even muster respect for the american military sometimes, as they have sometimes achieved great feats, and do have some nice kit. I tend to lose it again due to their shabby pattern-recognition training though. (Orange rockets?? WTF?? A Zil truck looks nothing like a scorpion from ANY angle, even in the dark with your eyes shut....)

Its wholly possible to like all matters militaria, without feeling the need to keep a firearm to shoot at people, or being so frothy about having them.

I'm also not so sure that its a basic human right to be able to own a device specifically designed for the destruction of human life. I can understand sports shooting etc, but a lot of the most angry pro-gun posting here was done because of the requirement for SELF-DEFENCE and defence against the government.. both acts that require people to shoot at, not squirrels.

I'm not too worried about protection from
criminals, but am seriously worried about
the government. Still, I doubt that handguns
are enough to provide any real security. So
long as local forces are not on the same
level as what the federals have, the current
trend towards a Big Brother society shall
continue.

In a vaguely relevant sidebar - Guns owned by Annie Oakley, including an engraved gold-plated .38 Marin are up for auction in Maine next month. Suggested sale price: £125,000 pounds sterling. So 250 000 bucks, give or take a bit. Hows that for quality collectables?