longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:18pm:

OK, let's think about this for a moment. Let's say nuclear weapons are legal for you and I. You may want one, but how the hell are you going to get one? Any idea how much they cost? You think your neighbour is going to own one if they were legal? lol

Their so expensive that really only governments can afford them, with borrowed money of course. Even big corporations probably couldn't, and even if they could, why would they? Only government are stupid enough to waste money like that.

I seriously doubt that even if nuclear weapons were legal, they'd be everywhere. But it's a pointless discussion anyway since no one is suggested legalising nuclear weapons for citizens. I just wanted to point out that even your attempt at derailing this discussion doesn't help prove your point at all. Furthermore, the U.S. government owns nuclear weapons and doesn't use them. They are purely a defence mechanism. Just like guns in homes.

You're taking this a bit too far I think. Because all we are asking for is to include "self defence" as a reasonable reason to acquire a gun license. That is all.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:35pm:

It's always those who are anti-gun rights who say if guns were legal to have and to hold they would shoot people. It's like the want the laws in place for them, not for others. Like they are scared they would kill people if they had a gun. Just because you're unstable, doesn't mean the rest of us are. We can own guns without having to kill people.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:35pm:


there are effectively about a dozen people on the planet with access to nuclear weapons. this can be controlled. if there were 12 people with guns there would be no gun-deaths either. it is in the preonderance of such weapons that comes the risk. and it is also becaue with teh preponderance comes access to truly crazy people. that is why the world does NOT want rian to have a nuke - because they ARE crazy enough to use them.

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:37pm:


if you want to debate on principle then you need to actually have them. principles aply across the board and not just where they are convenient. if marijuana is ok 'just at home' then so is child porn. if guns are ok because they rarely hurt people then so is child porn.

you love guns. I get it. just dont try and make a princple-based argument out of it because it fails badly. instead formulate a policy that actually has gun controls and laws that minimse the harm rather than merely accept that it happens.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:43pm:


it was actually a rather clever anti-gun argument. I know that satire translates poorly b ut let me try...

by promoting guns you also run the risk of being shot by them. lil.brat rather cleverly made that point.

LilBrat, please do not even joke about using violence, on anyone, anywhere, anytime, it is totally unacceptable.

Ol 64, don't try and score cheap points because someone made an inappropriate joke, and don't try and pretend a bad joke was meant to be a threat, as it just makes you look like an arsehole.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:47pm:


do NOT attribute that position to me! I am using an extreme example to prove a point. 'principles' corrs boundaries and topics. If we want to ban somethin onthe basis simply of risk and harm' then it is a valid point. the 'harm' of that material is low and certainly lower then the harm of guns. but just as we ban CP because it is intrinscally wrong, so the ban on guns exist because they are not an innocuous device.

if you want a pro-gun argument then make it but dont make it on a 'minimal harm' basis which is also the same argument for home drug-taking.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:49pm:



Not a problem, but I wouldn't mind if you applied the same to brat when he uses cheap shots and ad hominem attacks on others.

In the interest of fairness, of course