[Slade]

The way I see it, having the ability to own fire arms helps slow down the gradual descent toward dictatorship countries always seem to take, regardless of form of government. If your populus is armed, you'll have a harder time enforcing a police state. Regardless of the type of weapon, the only people who are going to use it illegally are going to buy it illegally as well. The only way to stop that would be to stop producing assault rifles. And then they'd just use hand guns instead. Take away the handgun, they'd prolly move to knives, etc.

Personally, I enjoy target practice. And parts of the NRA are fucking insane.

This post has been edited by Slade: 17 October 2004 - 04:39 PM

[J m HofMarN]

I guess a hand gun might possibly be useful for home defense though it's statistically more likely to kill a member of the household than an attacker. But couldn't you use a hunting rifle for the same thing? And more over even if handguns have useful purposes you still cannot point out a use for an assault rifle.

[Owyn]

In Australia there was a complete gun ban(will there where a few exceptions, but the the mass majority couldn't get one legally). I'm not quite sure what this criminal spree your talking bout is, i can't remember one being reported, i do however remember a massive shift towards knives as being used by criminals. Thats why they indroduced knife laws preventing knife pruchases by people under 16 and anyone with a knife in public(even concealed) without a damn good reason(like your directly on the way to your job as a chef or something like that, not including for self defence) gets fucked over by the system. I however remember why this gun ban was introduced, the Port Arthur Massacre, the largest civilian massacre in the world i belive(by just one civilian that is). i guess we just see things differently then america now.

Oh yeh Slade, guns wont stop a military state, Vietnam stopped the American Army and the French Army, and they started with nothing but spears. IF Americas really becoming a police state its because you allow your politicians to vote in laws like the Patriot Act(dear god, you can tell just from the name how explotive of 9/11 it is), and unfortunately the equivelent Australian Act

This post has been edited by Owyn: 18 October 2004 - 03:02 AM

[Slade]

Well, it also depends on the combat setting, and a whole mess of things, but I'll feel better about it if I have a firearm instead of a knife or a potato launcher if the military ever starts rolling in.

The problem is the people of this country are too stupid to realize when they are being stepped on, too apathetic to do anything about it, or too poor to have any say. And then there's the political corruption...

I'm just waiting for it to all blow up in their faces, hide out for a while, and then play video games and piano in a post-apocalyptic war zone until I die.

[Amber-Nicole]

JM, I already said that there was no real use for an assault weapon. And as far as a hunting rifle goes, I'm a small girl. I want a small weapon. Something easily concealed, so that I can maybe hide the fact from the attacker that I'm even armed. Also, I am not a statistic. I have known how to handle guns since I was a little girl. I'm very careful when handling guns, and there's no reason I would have one pointed at a family member.

[SimeSublime]

Hey, Iheard that in Australia, a complete gun ban was set into place, and then the criminal element that had never disarmed went on a spree, is this true? Is it exagerated (undoubtedly) by the NRA and similar?

I know this was posted on beforehand, but I would like to add my two cents. Owyn(?) said that he remembers a total gun ban, but to be honest I don't. I do, however, remember a ban on all semi-automatics. Perhaps this is what they're refering to, or perhaps there were total bans in states other then WA. I do, however, remember hearing about the NRA's comments on Bowling for Columbines, wherein Michael Moore shows that it was a blatant lie.

[SimeSublime]

On to AN's comments on security, I can understand your reasons, but I hold the better solution would be to instill either some basic morals in your fellow townsfolk, or to increase the ability of the police force to actually police such fuckheads. Lets face it, their primary job is to act as a deterant to crime. Catching criminals after a crime is simply a way to do that. Education and Law Enforcement are much better forms of security then by arming the general public.

[Laura]

I don't know how you propose Amber "instill morals in the townsfolk," but if I were her I would (a) demand heavy locks on all the doors and unbreakable glass in the windows, and ( refuse to stay home alone at night. I would also take a self-defense class. Knowing unarmed combat methods, including for escaping from, knocking out, and disarming your opponents, is more useful than gun ownership. What if you're caught without your gun? What if they disarm you?

[J m HofMarN]

I think the point I'm trying to make us that if I were a looter and I came to your house I'd be equally intimidated by a knife, a single shot derringer, a rifle, or an assault rifle. All of these things let an attacker know that you're not to be fucked with. However only the assault rifle can be used to massacre someone's english class. Autmomatic weapons = bad.

[Madam Corvax]

Concerning weapons I have a questions to those from the States. Would you kindly confirm if it is true what we hear in the news over here that in some states it is ok to bring guns to school, whereas if you are caught with a file nail you can be expelled for breaching the safety?

Well, even if it is not true, it about sums up the attitude of our public towards the law that allows carrying guns in the States - that they are just a trifle ridiculous.

However, I heard that the attitude of the other side towards our laws concerning guns is silimar. Allegedly there were bumper stickers in the Stetes saying 'Poland has a gun control'.

Apparently (that is the explanation of the stickers that I heard) Poland is an embodiment of a backward, uncivilised country which has such barbaric law on carrying guns, that by no means should America emulate someone like that.

On the other hand, my friend from Englad was shocked on discovering that policemen in Poland carry guns, because they don't in England. There you are.

[Owyn]

Ay Sime, i think i got that mixed up a bit, i remembered the semi-auto ban aswell, however something gave me the impression they did something bout pistols too, or maybe they just tightened up registration.

And I agree with you bout the whole education and law enforcement thing, it seems to work a treat in Australia, however thats not exactly something Amber has control over.

Amber i know youd prefer the more clear cut kill, but don't underestimate weapons like pepper spray, it can be carried around with you incase something happens to you in public and it goes great on stake.... or so i've heard.

And Madam Corvax, i can't make much sense of that bumber sticker, but with just a slight grammer change, "Poland had gun control", or even if it was meant in this way, then theres the all too common argument that an 'unarmed' civiliant state is vulnerable, as Poland was conquered both pre-WW1 for hundreds of years, and then again in WW2, and then was controlled by the USSR, so Poland kinda represents getting fucked by the system

[Jordan]

Poland was conquered both pre-WW1 for hundreds of years, and then again in WW2, and then was controlled by the USSR, so Poland kinda represents getting fucked by the system

They were not 'fucked by the system'. They were occupied by another country.

[Owyn]

by system i mean the world : p

This post has been edited by Owyn: 19 October 2004 - 02:46 AM

[Madam Corvax]

theres the all too common argument that an 'unarmed' civiliant state is vulnerable, as Poland was conquered both pre-WW1 for hundreds of years, and then again in WW2, and then was controlled by the USSR, so Poland kinda represents getting fucked by the system

Hmmmm, it is quite an interesting point that you are making here. Do I understand you correctly that you implicate that carrying guns by civilians makes for a strong, unconquerable country? That basically it is the law on carrying arms rather than the current geopolitical situation combined with backward technology that makes some countries to fall prey to looting and occupation at various stages of their history? I have never heard that one before.

Just one example against it - carrying all sorts of bows, tomahawks, knives and pointed sticks by all and sundry did not prevent American Indians (natives from Tasmania, Carribeans etc.) from being exterminated with utmost cruelty. Now that is what you might call being f…d by the system.

[Owyn]

I have never heard that one before.

I have but i know alot of idiots No thats not my opinion, and i know the reasons for poland falling, but bumber stickers aren't always the most reliable history lesson. In fact the more common version of that I've heard is Germany had gun control as well as Hitler supported gun control, where despite next to no understanding of the reasons for hitlers rise to power, they use the common osociation of hitler and fascism and place that next to gun control, therefore making gun control look like a route to facism.