Is it better to carry a gun or not?

[Noble Wolf]

Please forgive my ignorance, but where in down town Koxville do you need a bolt action 70/30 hunting rifle?

I've been outback shooting buffalo with a 270 remmington but hardly the sort of thing I'd have at my place. my street, my suburb etc.

As already stated got nothing against recreational shooters, providing they've got nothing against keeping their weapons IN an Armoury and OTF of my suburb.

[ 05-03-2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Noble Wolf ]

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Noble Wolf: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth If you're saying there are more firearm deaths then you're no Sherlock Holmes. Firearms are illegal there and not here.

That is precisely the point of you your whole thread. You've answered your own question. Yes - take away the firearms and there will be less firearm related tragedy (ei. read DEATH)

[/QUOTE]No silly. You're presenting the idea that removing firearms literally erases the crime of murder and I'm saying you're full of s#!t. It just reduces the number of firearm related murders. Just like banning swimming reduces the number of drownings, but doesn't affect the total number of accidental deaths significantly because other activities will replace swimming and they too have an associated risk of death! You know what really reduces the number of murders drastically? An adequately staffed police force that does more crime prevention, enforcement and less traffic ticketing! Courts that prosecute violent criminals more effectively and treat them as they're due! It's a shame when the average incarcerated prisoner has more living resources than a US soldier on a tour of duty in the feild! I don't know if you remember the story of the prison overcrowding solution thought up by one radical warden. He bought a bunch of Army tents, sleeping bags, cots, and feild showers. He rationed things like cigarrettes. The result? Overcrowding solved, prisoners mad as hell, crime rate dropped. He made them live uncomfortably. Isn't that the point? Every time enforcement is tightened, crime rates drop. Unfortunately, enforcement costs money and is a lot of work. The political cookie of "gun control" generates revenue and sounds real good in a speech! Now, why do you think one is concentrated on more than the other?

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Noble Wolf: Please forgive my ignorance, but where in down town Koxville do you need a bolt action 70/30 hunting rifle? I've been outback shooting buffalo with a 270 remmington but hardly the sort of thing I'd have at my place. my street, my suburb etc. As already stated got nothing against recreational shooters, providing they've got nothing against keeping their weapons IN an Armoury and OTF of my suburb.

A 30.06 cal bolt action rifle is the standard deer hunting rifle in the US. Not sure where you got a 70/30. The 30.06 is just a little larger than the .270 Rem that you use to hunt buffalo with. Matter of fact the .270 Rem is a necked down version of the 30.06. I don't believe that Hunting rifles of that caliber are banned in Australia yet, so I imagine that some of your neighbors may have them. Pretty common caliber.

I understand that there isn't much regulation of hunting rifles in Australia, nor Hanguns either. Just semi-automatic, pump and machine guns. Here is a link http://www.guncontrol.org.au/top5.html.



[ 05-03-2002, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Epona: quote: Originally posted by Noble Wolf: I personally, would like to see how a first world democracy could degenerate to a point where any of the people you list could even hope to gain acceptance, let alone some form of power.

How naive! It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see how it could happen, surely? Just yesterday in Britain, Nazis won 3 seats in Burnley local elections, just look at France and the gains made by J-M Le Pen in recent times - this is a man who claims the holocaust to be a 'detail of history'. These are all people who admire Hitler and what he stood for.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that guy makes me sick, luckily though his popularity is decreasing, in his latest speech, well over half the seats were empty... and BTW, did you see the photos of the protest??
Although frankly, him getting even one vote would be bad.

[Noble Wolf]

Most of the arguements I have read, most eloquently support that fact that some people strongly believe that they should be allowed to "own" a firearm, I must say that these arguremnets I do now find to be fairly persuasive.

But no-one has convinced me that these firearms should be anywhere other than locked up in an armoury, if not being used for some specific purpose. (note- household defence I still don't see as a justifable purpose)

But I also now see that gun control has to take into account the types of firearms ie. sports or hunting rifle versus hand gun.

Could I just finally point out,(personal information here) that when I was at Military College one of my juniors, who was in all other aspects considered fairly normal went a little "off" - took some semi-automatic military calibre weapons and proceeded to kill about thirteen or fourteen people in a busy Melbourne street.

This chap, I shall always remember; and I really have felt, since then, that maybe, if such firearms were not so readily available that perhaps there might be one or two more innocent people left alive.

So if some-one from the pro-gun side could please excuse his actions for me. I believe that I could probably fully support their view from then on.

Any takers???

!!!!! My apologies - many typos - 4.30am here!!!!!

[ 05-03-2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Noble Wolf ]

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Noble Wolf: Most of the arguements I have read, most eloquently support that fact that some people strongly believe that they should be allowed to "own" a firearm, I must say that these arguremnets I do now find to be fairly persuasive. But no-one has convinced me that these firearms should be anywhere other than locked up in an armoury, if not being used for some specific purpose. (note- household defence I still don't see as a justifable purpose) But I also now see that gun control has to take into account the types of firearms ie. sports or hunting rifle versus hand gun. Could I just finally point out,(personal information here) that when I was at Military College one of my juniors, who was in all other aspects considered fairly normal went a little "off" - took some semi-automatic military calibre weapons and proceeded to kill about thirteen or fourteen people in a busy Melbourne street. This chap, I shall always remember; and I really have felt, since then, that maybe, if such firearms were not so readily available that perhaps there might be one or two more innocent people left alive. So if some-one from the pro-gun side could please excuse his actions for me. I believe that I could probably fully support their view from then on. Any takers???

That is a terrible tragedy, but why lump the, by far vast majority of responsible gun owners into that catogory? What would have kept him for killing those thirteen or fourteen people with an automobile. By the same logic that you are using with firearms, should we also ban the use of automobiles. They are responsible for 200% more deaths in this country than firearms. Also by that same token, we should also outlaw consumption of alcohol and cigerettes as well. They kill more people than firearms! How many Australians die each year from the use of cigerettes and alcohol? What about banning all computer games that allow teenagers to act out violent fantasies, such as BG, BG2, Everquest, CIV III... etc. Careful what you start banning, your vice maybe next!

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Noble Wolf: Most of the arguements I have read, most eloquently support that fact that some people strongly believe that they should be allowed to "own" a firearm, I must say that these arguremnets I do now find to be fairly persuasive. But no-one has convinced me that these firearms should be anywhere other than locked up in an armoury, if not being used for some specific purpose. (note- household defence I still don't see as a justifable purpose) But I also now see that gun control has to take into account the types of firearms ie. sports or hunting rifle versus hand gun. Could I just finally point out,(personal information here) that when I was at Military College one of my juniors, who was in all other aspects considered fairly normal went a little "off" - took some semi-automatic military calibre weapons and proceeded to kill about thirteen or fourteen people in a busy Melbourne street. This chap, I shall always remember; and I really have felt, since then, that maybe, if such firearms were not so readily available that perhaps there might be one or two more innocent people left alive. So if some-one from the pro-gun side could please excuse his actions for me. I believe that I could probably fully support their view from then on. Any takers??? !!!!! My apologies - many typos - 4.30am here!!!!!

Sorry to hear about that man, that certainly must have been a bad experience.

Listen, I honestly don't believe that you want us to excuse your friends actions. Anybody who could excuse or rationalize his violence should not own a firearm. I for one am certainly not going to even try. He is the reason why gun control is such an issue right now.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Noble Wolf: One of the points brought up in support of people having their own firearms was that, the sort of criminals that use firearms understand only fear. Well I merely wish to orate the view that this "fear" should be imposed collectively by us as a civilised society - rather than individually by us as a bunch of mad gun totting maniacs. I personally, would like to see how a first world democracy could degenerate to a point where any of the people you list could even hope to gain acceptance, let alone some form of power.

Oh yeah! There's plenty of great places that degrade and even fall. It doesn't happen overnight though. Look in the history books.

[flibulzbuth]

Sir Noble wrote:

Then when firearms have been removed from all but military and police services you will end up with a society where people can walk down the street at night.

Absolutly right. I live in the "worst" neibourhood of my town (montreal, canada) and never, ever was i afraid to go out at night. Never, ever, was i afraid of walking by an afro crackhead. Guess why: he has no gun.

Can you americans say the same thing? I don't think you'd even put a foot in this kind of neibourhood in broad daylight.
Guns not only give an easy mean to kill people to these small crooks. It also teach them that you feel so "man" when killing.

Notice that i'm not using statistics, because i would be lying (this blew me)... heh! why would you need a gun to defend yourself from a "coup d'état"? You will surely be on the tyran's side, thanks to the well organized propaganda and the gullible people.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Alexander: quote: Originally posted by Thoran: quote: Originally posted by Alexander: You seem to think that any armed Jews would be armed and trained in the exact same way as the Germans were - which, as we know, would not be true.

Not at all, you're right of course about trainging, but it's fairly standard that an armed resistance inside your borders will require many more troops to quell than the numbers of those armed against you. Look at Israel for instance, I'd guess there's at least an order of magnitude (probably several) more Israeli troops involved in trying to control terrorism than there are terrorists.[/QUOTE]That has nothing to do with gun control![/QUOTE]lol... it was admittedly just an observation based on some statistics I was reviewing, and was in no way intended to be part of the gun control debate... My response was just clarifying my statement, what I'm wondering is why did you respond to it and then make an obvious "not a gun control" statement when I replied?