You know, it’s not like everyone walks around with a samurai sword strapped to their back doing Highlander imitations. It’s not like you have crossbow snipers roaming the cities. So what is this all about? You took away your citizen’s guns, now you’re trying to take away what little weaponry is left that they can use to protect themselves.
Next up-rocks. Boy, someone got bludgeoned to death, so rocks are bad. Or maybe water-gee, somebody drowned to death, so let’s ban water.
I know I don’t live there, and if you like it this way, great. But if they tried this in the US there would be total and utter hell to pay. A gun ban would be bad enough. But swords? Crossbows? How ludicrous. Our populace would never stand for that nonsense.
They’re banning crossbows while it is still legal to possess and show the movie “Kangaroo Jack”? Seems to me they’ve got their priorities completely backwards – they could be using the crossbows to hunt down those responsible…
You know how annoyed you get when people whine on about America’s gun laws being too loose, and how ludicrous that is, and how assinine people in the US are to stand for it?
Well it’s not any more fun when you do it. Each to their own, and if a country wants to ban crossbows and swords then that’s their choice.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, friend. If I have to endure criticism after criticism of my country, its policies, and its populace, then I’m afraid you’re just gonna have to suck it up when something this absurd comes down the pike.
After all, you have no reservations about teeing up my country and taking a swing, do you?
You know, I can recall me berating the UK’s gun policy, but I live here and have to endure the questionaires and such like whenever I renew my shotgun license, but I really do not recall ever calling America’s gun policy assinine, ludicrous or nonsense. So can I ask what you mean by that?
With all due respect: each country? What about individual citizens. For example, me. Countries cannot ‘want’ anything. Anthropomorphic nations?
Do I own the above items? No, I do not. Is bannig them really really stupid? Yes it is. As we have found out, with the near ban on firearms, bannig things does nto remove them from criminals.
“Hi, I am a killer/burglar/whatever I want to turn in this weapon because it is now banned”
I gotta admit that’s pretty damn silly and is usually a knee jerk reaction. I mean, come on! One kid almost gets his arm cut off and suddenly we should ban 'em? Why don’t be just ban stupid kids?
I’m glad Toronto is resistant to stupid knee jerk reactions. We had a spat of paintball/bb gun incidents and the cheif of police actually said banning these items does nothting to prevent these kinds of incidents. If people are going to commit crimes, they’re going to commit crimes with whatever tools they can get (maybe a nail gun, they’re legal).
Proud owner of a cross bow, a hunting bow (for target shooting only) and 2 paint guns
Hey cool, that’s my old school! We’re more than just hedgeburners now.
Part of this is the Police Minister trying to get some good publicity for himself - he hasn’t had a good time recently, having been involved with some unfortunate breaches of civil liberties and privacy. I kind of agree that this is a bit of unnecessary nonsense, but
the possession of weapons by ordinary citizens for protection is just not an accepted thing here. We just a have a different notion of what it means to live in a civil society.
Any debate here will be about hunters and collectors. Nobody mainstream will seriously suggest that people should be allowed to carry or keep such weapons for self-defence.
I apologise profusely for saying “a country” rather than “the people of a country”. Honest. Really. In no way am I shaking my head and muttering the phrase “nitpicking gimp”. Honest. Really.
Please see preceeding post. If you want to get stuck into your system then go for your life, but I find Airman’s condemnation to be as tedious and as cringeworthy as when a UK poster (usually a newcomer) sails into a predictable and usually poorly informed attack on US gun laws. For example, his claim that:
“you’re trying to take away what little weaponry is left that they can use to protect themselves”
Crossbows and samurai swords as implements for self defence? In Oz? I know it’s been a while since I lived there, but it hadn’t quite got to that level of post-apocalyptic mad max scenario the last time I checked.
I used to have several edged weapons, and a few blunt ones, at the ready in my place. That went away with Aaron’s arrival.
I guess the way I said “you’re trying to take away what little weaponry is left that they can use to protect themselves” was rather vague. You guys have left the ability to protect yourself on the street to random luck or fortunate accident. At least with an edged weapon of that size you have a fighting chance at home. Or a legal projectile weapon. For now.
I don’t want to speak for Australians on this matter, being a resident of Mississippi and all. But the impression I’m getting from Gary Kumquat’s posts is that the need to defend oneself on the street with a firearm presumes a near-impossibly remote situation. It sounds almost as if some Australians (most?) consider street muggings, home invasions, and carjackings to be on a par with being struck by lightning … almost like an Act of God. Why carry around protection agains lightning strikes 24-7? Ergo, why carry around protection against personal attacks 24-7?
Or so it sounds to me. Gary Kumquat, correct me if my impression is incorrect.
On the other hand, in many American cities, some folks just about presume that they will be bodily harmed on any given venture outside of their homes. Now, to be sure, there are some rough parts of any sizeable town, but I think some folks (no one on this thread) could tone down their paranoia against their fellow man just a wee bit.
