NationStates Jolt Archive

At least not now. I didn't say never.

'Cause your country is pretty safe. You're not faced with criminality everywhere, all the time. To me, it seems it's a reasonable rate. It is little higher as in Europe, but it is containing much more big cities as well.
My country is in Europe, I'm Irish, not American.

Only, we don't have that much guns.
And this is why people in America have more need of guns than most of Europe. Because more American criminals have guns than European criminals. Simple.

A lot. Did I tell you that not one single school in Belgium is having metal detectors?

Can you imagine this?
Yes I can. I've never actually seen a school with metal detectors, though they're not too hard to imagine.

So what does metal detectors in schools in Belgium have to do with guns?
And you still haven't explained what people being macho has to do with guns either.
Watch the movie, especial the episode at the rodeo.

It makes sense.
I've seent he movie. I still don't get it.

[QUOTE=Edwinasia;13136326]I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

I'm living in Belgium for almost 40 years.
Not one time, I met a burglar face-to-face.
Not one time I was in need for a gun.

I know that criminality is some higher in US, but it's still not that hard. Compare their rates with the ones of South Africa, Columbia and others and US is rather a land at peace.

I am rather sure that the average USAian never will meet a burglar face-to-face.

Still, why do they need such guns?

It seems they are very afraid from something. They act like chickens. TOK TOK TOOOOK ![/QUOTEdang brits

America!! **** Yeah, WE HERE TO SAVE THE ************* dAY YEAH!!! aMERICA **** YEAH

Watch the movie, especial the episode at the rodeo.

*snip*

"Watch the movie" is never a good answer to "what do you mean?"

I quite liked your earlier work in the thread. It's a shame to see you throwing your credibility away ... as a heavy drinker, my advice is "the first time you aim for the Submit button and hit the Yawn smilie, quit posting."

My country is in Europe, I'm Irish, not American.


I'm sorry that your are Irish.

And this is why people in America have more need of guns than most of Europe. Because more American criminals have guns than European criminals. Simple.

Doh? And what would happen if American criminals couldn't get guns that easy? Yes, they would use less guns, as they do in Europe.


Yes I can. I've never actually seen a school with metal detectors, though they're not too hard to imagine.

I was a little sarcastic.

So what does metal detectors in schools in Belgium have to do with guns?

Doh again!

No guns -> No metal detector needed.
Guns -> School-shootings -> metal detector needed.

And you still haven't explained what people being macho has to do with guns either.

A lot. Some guy in the thread is using guns to impress girls. Now, he isn't doing that. He's impressing himself.

I would feel macho as well, if I would carry a gun.



I've seent he movie. I still don't get it

Awsome movie. That's what he has said at the rodeo:

"I hope you kill every man, woman and child in Iraq, down to the lizards,"
"And may George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq,"

Oh btw off the record, you want to know the reaction of the Salem people. Just cause a guy is doing some satire:


"If he had been out there a minute longer, I think somebody would have shot him," Jaymes said

As his wife, Lenore, put it: "It's a wonder one of these cowboys didn't go out there and rope him up."

Source: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/xp-16655

Because we like to protect our rights, or at least that's why me & my husband have guns. To begin with, the second amendment (right to bear arms) was created to protect the citizens against or government becoming corrupt, and allow militias to continue to exist.

The rest of the population likes to carry weapons because they're in gangs or live in poverty in "ghettos" and have to carry one to exist. America isn't as rich and f'n wonderful as it seems.

Or they like to hunt.

I'm sorry that your are Irish.
.........



Doh? And what would happen if American criminals couldn't get guns that easy? Yes, they would use less guns, as they do in Europe.
And if it was that easy they wouldn't have guns.


No guns -> No metal detector needed.
Guns -> School-shootings -> metal detector needed.
And what if people start having knife fights in schools? No guns, but you'd still need metal detectors.



A lot. Some guy in the thread is using guns to impress girls. Now, he isn't doing that. He's impressing himself.
You read minds?




Awsome movie. That's what he have said at the rodeo:

"I hope you kill every man, woman and child in Iraq, down to the lizards,"


"And may George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq,"

I still don't see what this has to do with 'I'd trade a thousand children in bodybags for a million who don't have to live in chains.'

Because we like to protect our rights, or at least that's why me & my husband have guns. To begin with, the second amendment (right to bear arms) was created to protect the citizens against or government becoming corrupt, and allow militias to continue to exist.

The rest of the population likes to carry weapons because they're in gangs or live in poverty in "ghettos" and have to carry one to exist. America isn't as rich and f'n wonderful as it seems.

Or they like to hunt.


Which right do you have to protect by a gun? You need a gun to vote?

Lots of Americans, say that your government is corrupt, so it seems it doesn't help.

So 50% of America is poor, living in gangs and ghettos and likes to hunt (do you have one deer left)?

It isn't that rich and wonderful as in many Hollywood productions, but it's still much better as Iraq, isn't?

Which right do you have to protect by a gun? You need a gun to vote?

Lots of Americans, say that your government is corrupt, so it seems it doesn't help.

So 50% of America is poor, living in gang and ghettos and likes to hunt (do you have one deer left)?

It isn't that rich and wonderful as in many Hollywood productions, but it's still much better as Iraq, isn't?

Why do you keep comparing America to Iraq? They're completely different situations.

.........


:)

And if it was that easy they wouldn't have guns.

None at all? No. Some European criminals are using guns as well.


And what if people start having knife fights in schools? No guns, but you'd still need metal detectors.

Sh*t happens. Why are you afraid of something that is rare?



You read minds?

No. I know something (still, not a lot) about girls. I'm rather sure that most of them are not impressed by your gun collection. Really, they don't. Even American ones.



I still don't see what this has to do with 'I'd trade a thousand children in bodybags for a million who don't have to live in chains.'


I feel sorry for you.

Why do you keep comparing America to Iraq? They're completely different situations.

Yes. I would have a gun as well, if I was in Iraq.

But there's no need for, to have one in USA or Europe.

None at all? No. Some European criminals are using guns as well.
My point was that disarming criminals isn't exactly an easy thing to do. Evidently you agree.




Sh*t happens. Why are you afraid of something that is rare?
It was a hypothetical situation. Why do you act as though being afraid is a bad thing?





No. I know something (still, not a lot) about girls. I'm rather sure that most of them are not impressed by your gun collection. Really, they don't. Even American ones.
Pffft. Are you saying there are only a few women in the world who are interested in guns? Don't be ridiculous.





I feel sorry for you.
You feel sorry for me because you can't explain yourself?
Yes. I would have a gun as well, if I was in Iraq.

But there's no need for, to have one in USA or Europe.

In your opinion. An opinion which has no factual basis that I can see.

Because we like to protect our rights, or at least that's why me & my husband have guns. To begin with, the second amendment (right to bear arms) was created to protect the citizens against or government becoming corrupt, and allow militias to continue to exist.

The rest of the population likes to carry weapons because they're in gangs or live in poverty in "ghettos" and have to carry one to exist. America isn't as rich and f'n wonderful as it seems.

Or they like to hunt.

I had to quote this just so I could read it! I thought one of my eyes had become unscrewed, then I made the mistake of looking in the mirror. The words "against or government" seem to be flickering on my forehead in some kind of green laser light.

Are you sure you spelled you name right?

My point was that disarming criminals isn't exactly an easy thing to do. Evidently you agree.


It isn't easy. But it starts by blocking the sales.
If there are less guns on the market, less could be stolen.



It was a hypothetical situation. Why do you act as though being afraid is a bad thing?

Fear isn't bad. But having a generalized anxiety disorder isn't fun as well.


Pffft. Are you saying there are only a few women in the world who are interested in guns? Don't be ridiculous.

He: "Hey, lady, you want to go to my bedroom?"
She: "Yes, sure..."
He: "I want to show you my..."
She: "I know honey"
He: "...gun collection"
She: "Oh really? You're so romantic!"

Wahahaha!






You feel sorry for me because you can't explain yourself?

I'd trade a thousand children in bodybags for a million who don't have to live in chains.

and

"I hope you kill every man, woman and child in Iraq, down to the lizards,"
"And may George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq,"

The tone is exactly the same.

In your opinion. An opinion which has no factual basis that I can see.


I could be mistaken, but I believe the situation in Iraq is different as in Europe or USA. I believe it's a fact...

It isn't easy. But it starts by blocking the sales.
If there are less guns on the market, less could be stolen.
True, but this isn't the topic at hand.

Fear isn't bad. But having a generalized anxiety disorder isn't fun as well.
Are you suggesting I have a generalised anxiet disorder?

He: "Hey, lady, you want to go to my bedroom?"
She: "Yes, sure..."
He: "I want to show you my..."
She: "I know honey"
He: "...gun collection"
She: "Oh really? You're so romantic!"

Wahahaha!
Doesn't address the question at all.


I'd trade a thousand children in bodybags for a million who don't have to live in chains.

and

"I hope you kill every man, woman and child in Iraq, down to the lizards,"
"And may George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq,"

The tone is exactly the same.
If you say so.




I could be mistaken, but I believe the situation in Iraq is different as in Europe or USA. I believe it's a fact...
I was reffering to 'But there's no need for, to have one in USA or Europe.'. That is your opinion and that has no factual basis that I can see.

True, but this isn't the topic at hand.


You started it.

Are you suggesting I have a generalised anxiet disorder?

Are you afraid that people suggest that you have a generalised anxiet disorder?

No, I was referring to an entire society.


Doesn't address the question at all.

Can I ask you a question? How old are you?

If you say so.

I think I'm not the only one.


I was reffering to 'But there's no need for, to have one in USA or Europe.'. That is your opinion and that has no factual basis that I can see.


People in Europe or USA are not constantly faced with terror and criminal activities.

I’m not afraid to be killed by someone.

I can run around at night on my own. I did this in US of A as well.

NOTHING happened.

I never was robbed, neither one burglar entered my house.

I think an overwhelming majority inside USA and Europe is having the same experience.

I think the Iraqi people are dealing another animal, no?

Are you afraid that people suggest that you have a generalised anxiet disorder?
No, though nobody has ever suggested it before. That I know of.

Can I ask you a question? How old are you?
19, why?
People in Europe or USA are not constantly faced with terror and criminal activities.
Nobody is suggesting they are.

I’m not afraid to be killed by someone.

I can run around at night on my own. I did this in US of A as well.

NOTHING happened.

I never was robbed, neither one burglar entered my house.
Irrelevant. What happened to you is not indicative of what happens to everyone else. I've never accidentally cut myself while preparing food, does that mean that nobody else needs to take precautions against such things happening? Of course not. So can you see that the fact that you've never been the victim of violent crime doesn't mean that other people don't have to take precautions against violent crime?

I think an overwhelming majority inside USA and Europe is having the same experience.
You think. You don't know.

If you're terrorized by guns, against them for whatever reason, or just opposed to the idea of self-defence and defending oneself. (pucifist) Simply don't own one.



"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" Freud
ROFLMAOx100

THREAD WIN!

If you're terrorized by guns, against them for whatever reason, or just opposed to the idea of self-defence and defending oneself. (pucifist) Simply don't own one.




ROFLMAOx100

THREAD WIN!

Huh so if you don't agree with guns you may be opposed to the idea of self defense? Yep yep that explains the plethora of unarmed martial arts.

If you're terrorized by guns, against them for whatever reason, or just opposed to the idea of self-defence and defending oneself. (pucifist) Simply don't own one.




ROFLMAOx100

THREAD WIN!


That's a start, owning none.

The problem is that it doesn’t help, when one sick kid enters a high school with a loaded gun.

No, though nobody has ever suggested it before. That I know of.


I wasn't suggesting you are suffering that disease. I'm suggesting that entire US is paralysed by criminals.

In Europe the same is going on. TV news is continuously broadcasting deeds of criminals. Lots of people think it is unsafe outside, they think it was safer in the past.

This while history tables are showing different numbers in most countries.


19, why?

When you're 29 (or earlier) you will know that your gun collection is not what an average chick want to see.

Nobody is suggesting they are.

Yes, YOU are.

Irrelevant. What happened to you is not indicative of what happens to everyone else. I've never accidentally cut myself while preparing food, does that mean that nobody else needs to take precautions against such things happening? Of course not. So can you see that the fact that you've never been the victim of violent crime doesn't mean that other people don't have to take precautions against violent crime?

Fighting crime isn't your job if you're not a police man.

If I need a brain surgery, I'll not try to fix it by myself.



You think. You don't know.

Yes I know for sure.

Crime rates are public available. There's criminality in Belgium, but not that high that everybody is suffering from it.

My doors are still unlocked when I'm at home, even at night. And so are doing most people here.

While criminality is worse in USA it isn't at the same level as in Columbia, South Africa or Iraq.

It's not that every US citizen should be afraid. And it is not that most Americans will face criminality sooner or later. Most will not.

That is making the need for guns worthless.

You know what a generalised anxiet disorder is?

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is an anxiety disorder that is characterized by excessive, uncontrollable and often irrational worry about everyday things, which is disproportionate to the actual source of worry

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_anxiety_disorder

That's a start, owning none.

The problem is that it doesn’t help, when one sick kid enters a high school with a loaded gun.

For someone who thinks that nobody in America needs a gun you just did a great job of pointing out a situation in which a lot of people would wish they had one.

Huh so if you don't agree with guns you may be opposed to the idea of self defense? Yep yep that explains the plethora of unarmed martial arts.

Martial arts are somewhat different. A competent fighter can kill another person (well, if they have a belt or two up on them) but in the process of learning that they also learn to disarm another, to evade attacks, to tolerate pain ... in fact, heaps of skills that give them confidence in situations of physical threat.

By contrast, guns come down to "do what I say or I'll kill you." And you don't get to practice that much unless you're a gangster. Oh, I guess you could lame them with a shot to the leg, then run away ... but it's still not something you get to practice.

For someone who thinks that nobody in America needs a gun you just did a great job of pointing out a situation in which a lot of people would wish they had one.

Well, why is it in Europe very rare, school-shootings? And why is it almost no news anymore when it happens in USA?

A school-shooting begins with having a gun. Without that one, every attemp to a school-shooting would end in a disaster, isn't?

You know what a generalised anxiet disorder is?

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is an anxiety disorder that is characterized by excessive, uncontrollable and often irrational worry about everyday things, which is disproportionate to the actual source of worry


It strikes me that you seem to be the one affected by generalized anxiety disorder. You have already spent more time and thought talking about gun control in this thread thread then i have spent thinking about my gun sitting in my drawer for the last 5 years combined.

Martial arts are somewhat different. A competent fighter can kill another person (well, if they have a belt or two up on them) but in the process of learning that they also learn to disarm another, to evade attacks, to tolerate pain ... in fact, heaps of skills that give them confidence in situations of physical threat.

By contrast, guns come down to "do what I say or I'll kill you." And you don't get to practice that much unless you're a gangster. Oh, I guess you could lame them with a shot to the leg, then run away ... but it's still not something you get to practice.

I have a blue belt in Judo.

I learned enough to kill some one or at least hurt a lot.

I only fight on a tatami. I never used my skills outside.

The purpose of most material arts is not killing, but rather to stay calm.

Given the situation I’m able to disarm almost any guy with a gun, but that won’t say I would do it.

It took me years to learn those skills.

If Americans are that afraid of the evil outside, they should learn some material art. Their world would be lot safer.

It strikes me that you seem to be the one affected by generalized anxiety disorder. You have already spent more time and thought talking about gun control in this thread thread then i have spent thinking about my gun sitting in my drawer for the last 5 years combined.

About 15.000 dead people by 'your' gun in USA alone is worth the time.

Martial arts are somewhat different. A competent fighter can kill another person (well, if they have a belt or two up on them) but in the process of learning that they also learn to disarm another, to evade attacks, to tolerate pain ... in fact, heaps of skills that give them confidence in situations of physical threat.

By contrast, guns come down to "do what I say or I'll kill you." And you don't get to practice that much unless you're a gangster. Oh, I guess you could lame them with a shot to the leg, then run away ... but it's still not something you get to practice.


Heh and that has what exactly, to do with the comment that prompted my response? I'm getting confused now.

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

I'm living in Belgium for almost 40 years.
Not one time, I met a burglar face-to-face.
Not one time I was in need for a gun.

I know that criminality is some higher in US, but it's still not that hard. Compare their rates with the ones of South Africa, Columbia and others and US is rather a land at peace.

I am rather sure that the average USAian never will meet a burglar face-to-face. " You are wrong "

Still, why do they need such guns?

It seems they are very afraid from something. They act like chickens. TOK TOK TOOOOK !


You are wrong ... I live in Columbus, Ohio USA. I had a man stick his illegal gun in my ribs on my front porch ( while his buddy stood in the street watching for cops ) because they wanted my purse. I didn't own a gun then ... I do now. Don't tell me I shouldn't have a gun for my own protection. We both know that regardless of what the gun laws are .... criminals will aways have a gun.

Edwinasia, as I've stated in other threads on this exact subject, I don't own a firearm for the purpose of self defense. It's not concealable (unless I were to wear a trenchcoat, and even then, it would be relatively easy to tell I had SOMETHING under it), and it's not something that I'd carry around for long periods of time (as it weighs a significant amount more than a pistol). I own a firearm to target shoot, because I enjoy it (and hope to one day compete with it). My brother in law owns firearms because he hunts, and because he collects them (many of the firearms he owns, he bought from the widow of a collector). The worst thing my brother in law has to worry about is woodchucks tearing up his yard, leaving holes that his children might trip in/get an ankle stuck in.

So in conclusion, not everyone in the US owns firearms because of a fear of robbery/kidnapping/murder/etc. My brother in law and I are only two examples of the many people that use their firearms for purposes other than self defense.

I have a blue belt in Judo.
I learned enough to kill some one or at least hurt a lot.
I only fight on a tatami. I never used my skills outside.
The purpose of most material arts is not killing, but rather to stay calm.
Given the situation I’m able to disarm almost any guy with a gun, but that won’t say I would do it.

It took me years to learn those skills.

If Americans are that afraid of the evil outside, they should learn some material {martial} art. Their world would be lot safer.

Well, I agree with that last statement, particularly if you take the word "Americans" out and put in "people." Some training and some practice in fighting is the obvious first step for people who are feel physically intimidated by others ... well, that's just about anyone who gets out of the house, because some people are bullies and even decent people can lose their temper.

Getting a gun because you feel threatened is a kind of short-circuit to becoming physically confident. If you can kill them, why bother learning to hurt or restrain them? Bad thinking, I reckon.

There are situations where you'd want both, fighting skills and a gun. There are situations where neither will save you. But I'd say martial arts are a good first step, the gun for self-defense second.

Unless you have experienced being robbed at gun point you shouldn't be talking crap. Anyone that isn't scared when they have a gun stuck in their ribs is either stupid, crazy or maybe a little of each.

Maybe we should ban cars too - after all, it is possible to crash and kill someone. It seems many of you Europeans have yet to let go of your fascist inclinations. Time to grow up, I say.

Well, why is it in Europe very rare, school-shootings? And why is it almost no news anymore when it happens in USA?
I don't know. This is not an easy question to answer, there are a lot of factors involved.

A school-shooting begins with having a gun. Without that one, every attemp to a school-shooting would end in a disaster, isn't?

Do you think if the guys behind the Columbine shootings didn't have guns they would have just magically become well adjusted members of society? Or if Cho Seung Hui had never had a gun, do you think he'd be just like any other college student?

You are wrong ... I live in Columbus, Ohio USA. I had a man stick his illegal gun in my ribs on my front porch ( while his buddy stood in the street watching for cops ) because they wanted my purse. I didn't own a gun then ... I do now. Don't tell me I shouldn't have a gun for my own protection. We both know that regardless of what the gun laws are .... criminals will aways have a gun.


And ALL Americans have this experience? The majority of America suffered from this?

Odds are high that you wouldn't write this posting if you had a gun at that time. You wrote;

"his illegal gun in my ribs"

If you tried to take your gun, odds are high he would have pull the trigger before you even think about it.

You would have lost your life, now just a purse.

Btw, how do you know the gun was illegal? Did you say something as:

"Wait a minute pal, you can stick a gun in my ribs, but can I first see some registration form?'"

No, not all criminals have guns. They don't in Belgium, for several reasons:

• Don't need one, 'cause the common people have none as well.
• Jail time will double or triple when you're caught with a gun while doing your crime.
• It isn't that easy to get a gun.

Maybe we should ban cars too - after all, it is possible to crash and kill someone. It seems many of you Europeans have yet to let go of your fascist inclinations. Time to grow up, I say.

Are you saying Europeans are fascists because they do not have guns? I thought fascists DID have guns and because of that they gained power... And in the case someone points a gun towards you, your gun is not going to help. Even if you carried seven AK-47 with you always, if someone pointed a regular pistol towards you... your guns are totally useless. No logic with that.

I have a blue belt in Judo.

I learned enough to kill some one or at least hurt a lot.

I only fight on a tatami. I never used my skills outside.

The purpose of most material arts is not killing, but rather to stay calm.

Given the situation I’m able to disarm almost any guy with a gun, but that won’t say I would do it.

It took me years to learn those skills.

If Americans are that afraid of the evil outside, they should learn some material art. Their world would be lot safer.

Yea except in your first post you have actively mention you never gotten into any real life situations. Doing something in a dojo and trying to fight 5 guys off with weapons are 2 different things.

I practice martial art for over 10 years, thugs that come to rob you are not what you see on TV. Those guys engage in street fights more than you do sparing in the dojo. They are not weaklings who you can just knock out and disarm. If you ever got rob by a group with knifes you will know that you can either pull out a gun, or surrender your wallet. A few years of martial art is not going to save you from getting stab in the ribs.

And ALL Americans have this experience? The majority of America suffered from this?
What difference does it make?

No, not all criminals have guns.
Nobody ever suggested they do.
They don't in Belgium, for several reasons:

• Don't need one, 'cause the common people have none as well.
• Jail time will double or triple when you're caught with a gun while doing your crime.
• It isn't that easy to get a gun.

And your point here is?

Odds are high that you wouldn't write this posting if you had a gun at that time. You wrote;

"his illegal gun in my ribs"

If you tried to take your gun, odds are high he would have pull the trigger before you even think about it.

Proof of this?

You would have lost your life, now just a purse.

And there may have been rape involved as well. Just because you are willing to be subservient to the will of a criminal doesn't mean others are.

Btw, how do you know the gun was illegal? Did you say something as:

"Wait a minute pal, you can stick a gun in my ribs, but can I first see some registration form?'"

So you're saying most criminals legally own firearms?

No, not all criminals have guns. They don't in Belgium, for several reasons:

• Don't need one, 'cause the common people have none as well.
• Jail time will double or triple when you're caught with a gun while doing your crime.
• It isn't that easy to get a gun.

And Belgium = US? Is every demographic factor exactly the same? Oh right, we've crossed this bridge before.

Are you saying Europeans are fascists because they do not have guns? I thought fascists DID have guns and because of that they gained power... And in the case someone points a gun towards you, your gun is not going to help. Even if you carried seven AK-47 with you always, if someone pointed a regular pistol towards you... your guns are totally useless. No logic with that.

Of course they would be. Do you know how cumbersum carrying seven rifles would be?

Of course I could provide you w/ numerous anecdotes of people pulling firearms on criminals while have one pointed at them.

Edwinasia, as I've stated in other threads on this exact subject, I don't own a firearm for the purpose of self defense. It's not concealable (unless I were to wear a trenchcoat, and even then, it would be relatively easy to tell I had SOMETHING under it), and it's not something that I'd carry around for long periods of time (as it weighs a significant amount more than a pistol). I own a firearm to target shoot, because I enjoy it (and hope to one day compete with it). My brother in law owns firearms because he hunts, and because he collects them (many of the firearms he owns, he bought from the widow of a collector). The worst thing my brother in law has to worry about is woodchucks tearing up his yard, leaving holes that his children might trip in/get an ankle stuck in.

So in conclusion, not everyone in the US owns firearms because of a fear of robbery/kidnapping/murder/etc. My brother in law and I are only two examples of the many people that use their firearms for purposes other than self defense.

I believe you. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Some uncle is a hunter as well. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I’m not anti gun. I’m anti people who do not use or need it but have one.

He would not use his rifle for self protection.

It's locked away in a iron cupboard. Ammunition is out of the weapon and stored in a separate place.
It's impossible for his teenage son to touch the rifle.

He's not using it to impress chicks. :)

He knows how to shoot.

He will never do point games with so called empty rifles, he'll never never never plays with his rifle.

He just likes legal hunting.

I guess you're doing more or less the same, no?

Well, I agree with that last statement, particularly if you take the word "Americans" out and put in "people." Some training and some practice in fighting is the obvious first step for people who are feel physically intimidated by others ... well, that's just about anyone who gets out of the house, because some people are bullies and even decent people can lose their temper.

Getting a gun because you feel threatened is a kind of short-circuit to becoming physically confident. If you can kill them, why bother learning to hurt or restrain them? Bad thinking, I reckon.

There are situations where you'd want both, fighting skills and a gun. There are situations where neither will save you. But I'd say martial arts are a good first step, the gun for self-defense second.

Ok, replace Americans by people.

Some people are American, some Americans are people, but not all Americans are people ;)

Heh and that has what exactly, to do with the comment that prompted my response? I'm getting confused now.

Well, you brought up martial arts as self-defense. I don't like the idea of everyone owning guns for self-defense, but I'm a lot more comfortable with everyone doing some martial arts.

So I made a statement claiming that martial arts can secure a person in ways guns cannot. Obviously the reverse applies too. There are other benefits (touched on by Edw'a) which are rather off-topic.

I wasn't trying to participate in your debate, I just saw a handle to a somewhat relevant digression. Ed and I did that, so thanks for the opening there.

To all: Cop ya later. (Say that three times fast : )

I believe you. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Some uncle is a hunter as well. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I’m not anti gun. I’m anti people who do not use or need it but have one.

He would not use his rifle for self protection.

It's locked away in a iron cupboard. Ammunition is out of the weapon and stored in a separate place.
It's impossible for his teenage son to touch the rifle.

He's not using it to impress chicks. :)

He knows how to shoot.

He will never do point games with so called empty rifles, he'll never never never plays with his rifle.

He just likes legal hunting.

I guess you're doing more or less the same, no?

You keep going back to this "need" thing. You feel some people may not "need" firearms" when others feel they do. It also belies the fact that "need" has nothing to do w/ it. I enjoy collecting them and target shooting. There's no "need" involved.

It reminds me of the IANSA president during a debate when she was asked about the UK gun bans and target shooters. She replied "get another hobby". The same smarmy tone is present.

Its better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

Maybe we should ban cars too - after all, it is possible to crash and kill someone. It seems many of you Europeans have yet to let go of your fascist inclinations. Time to grow up, I say.

*** BREAKING NEWS *** Some student entered a school with a car and killed - nobody.

You know that's an insult, suggesting that I'm a fascist...

But one without arguments starts sho(o)(u)ting, isn't?

Btw, I don't think that fascist do not like guns. I assume they rather do the opposite.

*** BREAKING NEWS *** Some student entered a school with a car and killed - nobody.
So is this your big objection to guns? School shootings? You know there's more to them than the fact that guns were used.

Unless you have experienced being robbed at gun point you shouldn't be talking crap. Anyone that isn't scared when they have a gun stuck in their ribs is either stupid, crazy or maybe a little of each.

I don't think that 280.000.000 Americans minus the criminals once felt the experience of feeling a gun stuck in their ribs. And most of them will never do.

Still an enormous amount his having a gun or even guns. Some of them have Uzis, AK-47's and M16's and other tools of war.

And this, without a good reason except paralysed fear.

I don't think that 280.000.000 Americans minus the criminals once felt the experience of feeling a gun stuck in their ribs. And most of them will never do.

Still an enormous amount his having a gun or even guns. Some of them have Uzis, AK-47's and M16's and other tools of war.

And this, without a good reason except paralysed fear.

Or because they collect guns. Or because they own gun stores(they own a LOT of guns). But of course, they don't count since you're only focusing on people who own guns because they're afraid and acting like everyone else is in the majority, when in reality you have not shown this to be true at all.

I don't know. This is not an easy question to answer, there are a lot of factors involved.



Do you think if the guys behind the Columbine shootings didn't have guns they would have just magically become well adjusted members of society? Or if Cho Seung Hui had never had a gun, do you think he'd be just like any other college student?

Probably not. But odds are high that they didn't kill that many people if guns were not that easy to get.

School-shooting exist in Europe as well. But much much less as in US.
And so is the level of gun ownership

Just a question: How many people in their thirties or forties (or older) are involved in school shootings?

I don't think that 280.000.000 Americans minus the criminals once felt the experience of feeling a gun stuck in their ribs. And most of them will never do.

Still an enormous amount his having a gun or even guns. Some of them have Uzis, AK-47's and M16's and other tools of war.

And this, without a good reason except paralysed fear.

What? Have you been drinking again?

Probably not. But odds are high that they didn't kill that many people if guns were not that easy to get.

School-shooting exist in Europe as well. But much much less as in US.
And so is the level of gun ownership

Just a question: How many people in their thirties or forties (or older) are involved in school shootings?

So explain the crime levels of Mexico, Russia, and South Africa.

It isn't if it's true.
Incidentally "It's not an insult cos it's true" will not save you from the banhammer. Just so you know :)
Probably not. But...
But nothing. You're blaming guns for school shootings. That's like blaming knives for a spate of stabbings.

School-shooting exist in Europe as well. But much much less as in US.
And so is the level of gun ownership
Actually in Sqitzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland) almost every male citizen has a gun. Can you find any information about school shootings in Switzerland, because I can't.
Just a question: How many people in their thirties or forties (or older) are involved in school shootings?

The teachers at the school, the EMTs/paramedics, the police officers, assorted other school staff. Why do you ask?

*** BREAKING NEWS *** Some student entered a school with a car and killed - nobody.
Wonderful. Now please show, that statistically an average noncriminal citizen armed with a gun for self-defence kills innocent individuals on a frequency that is alarming. How many innocents die in car accidents? By your 'logic' we ought to ban cars too. Simply because criminals use guns is no reason to deprive average citizens of them; criminals will get hold of them regardless.

You know that's an insult, suggesting that I'm a fascist...
It isn't if it's true.

But one without arguments starts sho(o)(u)ting, isn't?

Aren't you the one who started with the shouting? ;)

Btw, I don't think that fascist do not like guns. I assume they rather do the opposite.
Hitler didn't like them much. An armed citizenry was not something he'd approve of.

Incidentally "It's not an insult cos it's true" will not save you from the banhammer. Just so you know :)
Ah, that post came through? I thought it was lost due to a system freeze.

Yea except in your first post you have actively mention you never gotten into any real life situations. Doing something in a dojo and trying to fight 5 guys off with weapons are 2 different things.

I practice martial art for over 10 years, thugs that come to rob you are not what you see on TV. Those guys engage in street fights more than you do sparing in the dojo. They are not weaklings who you can just knock out and disarm. If you ever got rob by a group with knifes you will know that you can either pull out a gun, or surrender your wallet. A few years of martial art is not going to save you from getting stab in the ribs.

And how much do you encounter thugs? Every week?

5 armed guys for 1 wallet? Are you serious? I don't think this is happening a lot. 5 people have to eat from one lousy wallet...

Five would be too much, but I can handle 1, 2 maybe 3. It depends a little.

I was never involved in a street fight but one of my teachers did. He was beaten up heavily, but the other party of 7 was all in hospital. Some had weapons as baseball bats, knives and chains...

Believe me, material arts will help you. Even against thugs.

Btw what will you do with your one gun against 5 armed people anyway?

Believe me, material arts will help you. Even against thugs.
What if I prefer the option of having a gun? Not everyone can do martial arts. What you are saying is that it is proper to deprive me of a gun, even though I never have and probably never will kill an innocent with one. Do you not see how that is authoritarian?

You keep going back to this "need" thing. You feel some people may not "need" firearms" when others feel they do. It also belies the fact that "need" has nothing to do w/ it. I enjoy collecting them and target shooting. There's no "need" involved.

It reminds me of the IANSA president during a debate when she was asked about the UK gun bans and target shooters. She replied "get another hobby". The same smarmy tone is present.

No. There's nothing wrong by collecting guns.

But I don't believe that most Americans are *just* collectors.

And how much do you encounter thugs? Every week?

5 armed guys for 1 wallet? Are you serious? I don't think this is happening a lot. 5 people have to eat from one lousy wallet...

Five would be too much, but I can handle 1, 2 maybe 3. It depends a little.

I was never involved in a street fight but one of my teachers did. He was beaten up heavily, but the other party of 7 was all in hospital. Some had weapons as baseball bats, knives and chains...

Believe me, material arts will help you. Even against thugs.

Btw what will you do with your one gun against 5 armed people anyway?

One assumes that if you're reasonable with your gun you'll be able to kill at least one person before you get hacked/stabbed/beaten. I imagine the individual street thug will not be prepared to chance taking that bullet for the benefit of the rest of the group.

No. There's nothing wrong by collecting guns.

But I don't believe that most Americans are *just* collectors.

you believe things you don't have direct experience with? how irrational of you.

What? Have you been drinking again?

No, did you?

'cause the smell of no arguments are reaching the sky...

No. There's nothing wrong by collecting guns.

But I don't believe that most Americans are *just* collectors.

Explain properly, once and for all, exactly why you think people who don't need guns should be allowed have them. No crap about Borat or massive writing. No claiming it's obvious. Just explain what you're talking about.

America is building a missle defense net in eastern europe... WHY?
To see just how far you can piss off Vladimir Putin, by the looks of it.
To keep the commies out of vermont?

Fuck no.
...
It's to keep the commies out of Europe.
Right, because the Russian Army is entirely fired out of missile siloes now?
And yeah, I say Commies intentionally.
You fail, mate :)

i own two guns, a remington .22 rifle and a 12 gauge shotgun. i plan to refurbish and use them for hunting, since they were my grandfathers', but i also plan on getting handguns too. my top choices are a sig-sauer P239 or a Glock 26. i plan to use them for home defense. also, i'm going into the military, and i don't like the Beretta M92 (its 9mm).

"A pacifist won't retaliate even against those who would use force against him. A warrior is someone who arrays an arsenal about his home and prays never to use them."

So explain the crime levels of Mexico, Russia, and South Africa.

Poverty, no future and easy access to guns.

The details would be off topic. But if you're really that interested there is a tool for you, it's called Google (http://www.google.com/).

Try this link:

http://www.google.com/

It's a wonder. And no, you don't have to say politely 'thank you'

Man, I'm just good people.

One assumes that if you're reasonable with your gun you'll be able to kill at least one person before you get hacked/stabbed/beaten. I imagine the individual street thug will not be prepared to chance taking that bullet for the benefit of the rest of the group.

there is a technique known as 'hip-shooting' or 'quick-draw' i believe, mostly used by security forces. it means drawing your sidearm and firing off quick, selected-area shots by using your hip as a means of aiming the gun. with this technique, it should be easy to dispatch five enemies, or at least wound them. and you just need to get one round in to slow someone down.

there is a technique known as 'hip-shooting' or 'quick-draw' i believe, mostly used by security forces. it means drawing your sidearm and firing off quick, selected-area shots by using your hip as a means of aiming the gun. with this technique, it should be easy to dispatch five enemies, or at least wound them. and you just need to get one round in to slow someone down.

I thought the advantage of firing from the hip was the fact that you can get the gun out and start shooting quickly, the draw back being that you are only aiming in the loosest sense of the word.

Incidentally "It's not an insult cos it's true" will not save you from the banhammer. Just so you know :)


So you join actual the insult? Labelling one a fascist just 'cause I have an opinion contra people that have guns, doesn't make me a fascist.

If you still do so, and insist like you do, then you're just not the smartest guy in the room.


But nothing. You're blaming guns for school shootings. That's like blaming knives for a spate of stabbings.

Your silent about the cars those schoolhunters use. :p


Actually in Sqitzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland) almost every male citizen has a gun. Can you find any information about school shootings in Switzerland, because I can't.

Do your own homework. But I'll help you a little. Those Swiss will not use their army guns to defend themselves against invisible criminals.


The teachers at the school, the EMTs/paramedics, the police officers, assorted other school staff. Why do you ask?

So all those kind of people actual shoot students?

Maybe we should ban cars too - after all, it is possible to crash and kill someone.
As car technology has come on, there's been an ever-increasing effort to cut down on the amount of people crashing and dying and/or killing others.

As firearms technology has come on, the act of killing someone has become easier and easier, from a purely technological point of view (although the needed adrenaline to do so has pretty much remained the same).

Comparing the two is intellectually dishonest and you probably know it.
It seems many of you Europeans have yet to let go of your fascist inclinations.
No, I think we've just realised that having lots of guns around in a place like Europe, where almost every country borders at least a couple of others by land, is probably not such a great idea, as the more guns around, and places around to use them, the more they become the 'solution' to problems which could otherwise be solved through other means.
Time to grow up, I say.
I'll reply with the same.

When it comes to the whole street robbery thing, how on earth do you expect someone with a physical handicap (potentially the most vulnerable people) to defend themselves from a possibly hulking 6 foot 6 muscle bound monster who wants nothing but you wallet and to inflict some pain on you? Now give the handicap fellow a gun and at least they're given a reasonable chance of defending themselves or scaring off the attacker(s)

"A gun is a great equaliser"

Likewise the same scenario could be applied to females, how do you expect a 5 foot 3 woman to defend herself from being raped by a big male or two? Chances are she can't.

I'm am by no means taking a dig at Americans here (because the same things gonna happen to us Brits anyway ;)), but I noticed how various forms of self defence are being mentioned. Now since about 24.5% of American adults are obese, how the hell are they going to be able to learn and effectively utilise a form of self defence which is relatively physically demanding?

Your argument completely fails to take into account the more vulnerable, and for want of a better word; 'weaker', members of society.

Plus you say how you think people who own a gun for something other than hunting/collecting shouldn't have it since they don't need it. Well it's called freedom, looking around my room I see a few things which I defintley don't need and could be used for harm, so I guess I really shouldn't have them huh?

Plus all your 'evidence' is anecdotal and a from one person, not credible at all.

I thought the advantage of firing from the hip was the fact that you can get the gun out and start shooting quickly, the draw back being that you are only aiming in the loosest sense of the word.

well...yeah, but at the space given for a mugging, shooting in the general direction will usually get 'em.


"Good...bad...I'm the guy with the gun."
-Ash

So you join actual the insult? Labelling one a fascist just 'cause I have an opinion contra people that have guns, doesn't make me a fascist.
Nor did I ever say it did.
Do your own homework.
My point was that despite the fact almost everyone in Switzerland has a gun, there aren't as many school shootings as in America.
But I'll help you a little. Those Swiss will not use their army guns to defend themselves against invisible criminals.
And I suppose you know every single Swiss person very very well, because otherwise this statement would be totally worthless.




So all those kind of people actual shoot students?
No, they're involved in school shootings. Not the same thing. Are you going to answer my question now?

well...yeah, but at the space given for a mugging, shooting in the general direction will usually get 'em.

There is that.

you believe things you don't have direct experience with? how irrational of you.

Common sense can be rational as well.

Such as:
"most people are heterosexual"
"most blacks have a black skin"
"most Belgians are talking Dutch"

In all its purity, I can't proof all this. But I can safely assume it is.

I think it is safe to say that most US gun owners are NOT just collectors.

Actually in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland) almost every male citizen has a gun. Can you find any information about school shootings in Switzerland, because I can't.
There are very, very few.

Probably because everyone given a gun is also the recipient of over a year's national service, so people are much better conditioned as regards to being sensible with their firearms.

The same isn't true in the US, where it's fairly easy to obtain a weapon, and the general citizenry isn't a part of a mass training programme.

Common sense can be rational as well.

Such as:
"most people are heterosexual"
"most blacks have a black skin"
"most Belgians are talking Dutch"

In all its purity, I can't proof all this.

Actually it wouldn't be too hard to find a survery on sexuality. What makes people black is the fact that they have 'black' skin, so that's a tautology, and there are likely statistics on what proportion of Belgians speak which language.

Common sense can be rational as well.

Such as:
"most people are heterosexual"
"most blacks have a black skin"
"most Belgians are talking Dutch"

In all its purity, I can't proof all this. But I can safely assume it is.

I think it is safe to say that most US gun owners are NOT just collectors.

Actually:
*1:1000 of the population can be classified as neither XX or XY
*Most blacks have a dark skin color that is not black, but closer to brown. there are only a few tribes in S. Africe w/ true black skin.
*So?

"most Belgians are talking Dutch"
Vlaams, no?

'cause the smell of no arguments are reaching the sky...

The details would be off topic. But if you're really that interested there is a tool for you, it's called Google (http://www.google.com/).

Try this link:

http://www.google.com/

It's a wonder. And no, you don't have to say politely 'thank you'

Man, I'm just good people.

Do your own homework.

Hmm. I wonder where that strange smell is coming from.

Guns are fun to collect and shoot. I am a pretty average citizen in terms of my gun use and ownership. I have about 10 firearms. About half of them are antiques and I do not use them. In fact I only regularly use my shotguns. I know at least two guys that probably buy, sell, or trade at least 10 guns per week. Although, I think that there is nothing wrong with that, I kind of wonder where the heck do they keep all of their guns. I have a few pistols at my office and one by my bed. I have five long guns that I keep in a gun cabinet. I have no problem with people that are much more into collecting guns that I am, however it is not really my bag because I want to be able to walk around my house without tripping over the things.

I might be a little flippant here because I know that there are gun safes that can efficiently store a lot of guns, but still I do not want a couple of these rather large storage devices in my house.

Although people should be able to have as many guns as they want, I think that unless people have unusually ample storage resources they probably should not own more than 12 long guns and 12 pistols.

Nor did I ever say it did.

Yes, you’re right, apologize. I have read it wrongly. English is not my mother tongue.

My point was that despite the fact almost everyone in Switzerland has a gun, there aren't as many school shootings as in America.

And I suppose you know every single Swiss person very very well, because otherwise this statement would be totally worthless.

I know all of them very well. :)

I know 1 Swiss girl. They put their gun, without ammunition in some dark corner of a room they never walk in.

They have a gun. But they really will not use it against an intruder or something. It's a war tool and property of the state.



No, they're involved in school shootings. Not the same thing. Are you going to answer my question now?

Well, I'll explain it different, how many people in their thirties or older shoot at students in high schools?

im Portuguese and so far i haven't needed a firearm (haven't had my life threatened by punks with knifes or fireams)

i suppose i could eventually someday try to legally obtain a gun and safety gun course as well, for interest/curiosity, but i don't think i will need that for real practices (not unless crime rates skyrocket here where i live)

also, paintball doesn't (usually) kills. i think some people could try this instead of shooting targets (ie animals) with real guns for fun...

one thing im certain is that gun control laws are essential

What exactly is wrong with hunting if you eat what you kill?

Vlaams, no?

It depends. Some experts call "Vlaams" an independent language, others label it as a dialect.

They are both more or less the same. See it as American English and UK English.

What exactly is wrong with hunting if you eat what you kill?

yeah, animals are tasty ^_^

Poverty, no future and easy access to guns.

The details would be off topic. But if you're really that interested there is a tool for you, it's called Google (http://www.google.com/).

Try this link:

http://www.google.com/

It's a wonder. And no, you don't have to say politely 'thank you'

Man, I'm just good people.

So how do they have "easy access"? It's nearly impossible to legally own a gun. Oh, right. Criminals get them anyway. Maybe you should have Googled the local laws.

It depends. Some experts call "Vlaams" an independent language, others label it as a dialect.

They are both more or less the same. See it as American English and UK English.
Ah OK.

I live in Tennessee and own a gun. The main purpose for the gun is to hunt and target shot. I have also had to use that gun to defend my grandmother's house once. I don't care what y'all may think, you never will know when you will need a gun to defend something or someone you love.

So how do they have "easy access"?
In all three cases, it's down to a massive downscaling of the military after what was essentially a military dictatorship being in power for several years, and the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of weapons then went onto the black market.

In all three cases, it's down to a massive downscaling of the military after what was essentially a military dictatorship being in power for several years, and the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of weapons then went onto the black market.

Yes, I know that. Like I said, the criminals get them anyway.

please leave them alone.

Nefundland, great points about objects been tools. But I will chide you for saying please. Go look in the mirror, stare into your own eyes and say you'll never say "please" again on this issue. If you've not committed violence for your own selfishness, you have every moral right to possess a firearm.

OK, according to the UK home office Burglary rates dropped by 22% from 2002/03 to 2003/04 this equates to total numbers of 940,000 to 750,000 out of a total of 24million households

Well our raw numbers are higher, but that's because our population is higher.

Bascially there's 39,167- 31,250 burgerlies per million residents.

In 2006 there were 2,183,746 robberies with a population of 299 million.
That's 7,303 burgleries per million residents here.

Unless I screwed up the math somewhere, that makes the UK's stats far more disturbing.

Source for US crimes: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Hmm. I wonder where that strange smell is coming from.

Sorry, that was from me. I just farted. :D

I believe you Snafturi. But not all Americans are having the same profile as you do, isn't?

I am rather sure that most Americans never will face kidnapping. USA is not another Colombia, isn't?

I think it's good sense for anyone who lives in the country to own a gun. And by country I mean outside the city, where the cops aren't 5 minutes away and your next door nieghbor isn't 20 ft away (and I'm not being a smartass, I just know English isn't your first language).

Hunting is another reason people own guns. Most hunters I know eat what they kill. I've known grown men who have cried when they see a buck rotting in the forrest with his horns removed. People that hunt for trophy only are regarded as the scum of the earth.

Some people collect guns. They might not ever fire their guns. They more than likely don't even own bullets for the guns they collect. Why would people collect guns? People have wierd collections. Some people collect keys, some people collect those glass things on the tops of transformers. If they are kept locked in a gun safe (like most the collectors I know do), then they aren't a threat to anyone. If they require special ammo that's not readily accessible, then what does it matter?

Many people with good common sense can own guns. Mosts gun owners have common sense.

I think it's good sense for anyone who lives in the country to own a gun. And by country I mean outside the city, where the cops aren't 5 minutes away and your next door nieghbor isn't 20 ft away (and I'm not being a smartass, I just know English isn't your first language).

Hunting is another reason people own guns. Most hunters I know eat what they kill. I've known grown men who have cried when they see a buck rotting in the forrest with his horns removed. People that hunt for trophy only are regarded as the scum of the earth.

Some people collect guns. They might not ever fire their guns. They more than likely don't even own bullets for the guns they collect. Why would people collect guns? People have wierd collections. Some people collect keys, some people collect those glass things on the tops of transformers. If they are kept locked in a gun safe (like most the collectors I know do), then they aren't a threat to anyone. If they require special ammo that's not readily accessible, then what does it matter?

Many people with good common sense can own guns. Mosts gun owners have common sense.

Don't forget. Some collectible firearms will actually lose value (in the case of a really rare firearm) or be damaged (in the case of an antique firearm) if they're fired.

Well our raw numbers are higher, but that's because our population is higher.

Bascially there's 39,167- 31,250 burgerlies per million residents.

In 2006 there were 2,183,746 robberies with a population of 299 million.
That's 7,303 burgleries per million residents here.

Unless I screwed up the math somewhere, that makes the UK's stats far more disturbing.

Source for US crimes: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
In England and Wales, there were 644,049 burglaries, which is about 8000ish per million residents. Not particularly different.

As far as Robbery goes, we have about 1.6 per million residents. You have about 1.5 per million residents.

Keep also in mind that the areas in which people will have guns in the US, as in their homes, have actually increased in their rates of robbery over the last few years.

This basically shows that there is very, very little correlation between such crimes and gun ownership - the only thing that people owning firearms leads to in such cases is usually robbers getting shot and killed, or, possibly more tragically, the victims themselves being killed or wounded.

No guns -> No metal detector needed.
Guns -> School-shootings -> metal detector needed.
The problem wasn't the guns. We live in the age of the internet. Those kids could do their homework (like the Columbine kids did) and learn to build bombs. The real question is "why did they feel the need to kill their classmates en masse?" Guns are just a convenient side argument to distract from the real question. "Where all those adults in those kids lives fail?"

Yes, I know that. Like I said, the criminals get them anyway.
Bit of an extreme case, no?

Edwinasia, it strikes me that you tend to be ignoring people's points and exaggerating ideas - practically trolling or flamebait in fact. I'm going to respond civilly.

Now then, reasons one might wish to own a gun, with explanations. Until you can show that every one of these is completely bunk, I retain the right to own one.

To exercise my constitutional right. One of the more important. As an American citizen, I have a constitutional right to own a firearm. I like rights. I exercise them as much as possible - free speech, privacy, practice religion, etc. I feel that if I don't remind the Government I have rights by practising them, they'll move to take them away. For this reason, among several others, I intend to purchase at least one firearm once I take up residence in the US again (Currently a US citizen in the UK).

Shooting for pleasure (targets). The other main thing I intend to do with a firearm is target shooting. I plan to buy a bolt action rifle - long, heavy, and accurate, and so I intend to take up target shooting. This would be for enjoyment and to improve my aim, in case I ever did need to use one on another human. Incidentally, shooting for pleasure is also basically the only reason to own fully automatic or particularly devastating firearms, but I support that as well - I feel people should be allowed to shoot whatever gun they want, even if I personally don't want to.

Shooting for food (hunting). While I probably won't take this up, I can see the attraction. It's like target shooting, but the target is probably harder to find. I feel it's perfectly reasonable to own a firearm for hunting as much as target shooting.

Shooting vermin. I'll probably be living in a city for at least the first few years of my US stay (Caltech baby!), so this likely won't be needed. And, for that matter, a bolt action is fairly overkill for this sort of thing. But again, I recognise that people may need to do this, and I support their right to own appropriate firearms for this sort of thing.

Self defence. Ah, that comment so often trotted out in defence of firearms ownership, "I need to defend myself if necessary", and the common response, "You chicken!" Despite that, I support people's right to defend themselves and their property with the best means available to them. In fact, let's split self defence up: Home defence and Personal defence.

Home defence refers, of course, to defending one's home and property. For this sort of task, you're looking at a shotgun or a carbine, which can serve several other purposes as well. Having said that, I feel it's perfectly okay to own a weapon for the sole purpose of protecting one's property - it's quite likely in the US for intruders or attackers to be armed, and I can tell you I wouldn't fancy my chances against a guy with a pistol if I wasn't armed.

Personal defence is the other big area of this. The best possible firearm in most all personal defence situations is a handgun of some description - simple, compact, powerful. I'm a fairly weedy guy here, and I wouldn't fancy my chances against someone much bigger or stronger than me, or a couple of them. And yes, I do have martial arts training, but when it comes down to it, I'd be mashed by a gang of guys out to get me. If I had a gun, I would be able to defend myself much more effectively. "But what if they've already got a weapon aimed at you?", I hear you cry. Well, the 'hipshooting' someone upthread was referring to is more properly called instinctive shooting - basically, you aim the gun with your index finger, and fire with your middle. Devised by the SAS (IIRC), it allows you to target fast and accurately without needing to bring the weapon up to your eye to aim it - try pointing at something from your hip. Easy, isn't it. Quick, effective, allows you to target and take down each opponent rapidly and efficiently. If I felt I needed a gun to defend myself, I'd buy a pistol, get a concealed carry permit, and practice that.

The final thing I want to say on defence is that there's a very common misconception among people - once the guns come out, people are going to be shot. It's probably true that if you're being mugged by a gunman, you may very well be shot. However, if I'm defending myself with a firearm, I do not need to shoot someone - the threat of death is generally quite enough. Almost all situations where a firearm is used for defence are resolved peacefully; the attacker arrives, the attacked draws a weapon, the attacker runs. The other thing people often say is that "It'll just be taken and used against you!" Because, of course, I exactly stood a chance against someone big, strong, and drugged up enough to resist being shot while they closed and disarmed me. No, I'd lose hand to hand or with knives - the gun gives me the best possible chance to defend myself in such a situation.

Collecting. The final major reason people own guns, and a very good one at that. Lets just take the example of bladed weapons shall we? I know a guy who collects weapons: spears, swords, daggers, bows, knives, machetes, etc. You name it, he might have it. One of the nicest and most thoughtful guys I know, just happens to have an arsenal hanging on his bedroom wall. Never uses any of them. The same basic thing applies to firearms collecting - just having them to have them. I think that's perfectly fine, how do you disagree?

There we go - six reasons, with explanations. Demonstrate that all of these are wrong.

I'm not that afraid of crime, so I don't intend to buy a firearm for self defence. I'm also not sure if I could shoot someone, and you never aim at anything you're not willing to shoot. I intend to target shoot and exercise my right, so I'll purchase the appropriate gun for that*.

Bloody hell that was a long post.

*I'm down to a shortlist of about three: Mosin Nagant, Enfield Mk 5, Mauser 98.

I don't think that 280.000.000 Americans minus the criminals once felt the experience of feeling a gun stuck in their ribs. And most of them will never do.

Still an enormous amount his having a gun or even guns. Some of them have Uzis, AK-47's and M16's and other tools of war.

And this, without a good reason except paralysed fear.
And those aren't legal to buy, sell or own in the US. Those weren't stolen out of someone's home. Those came into the US illegally, were bought illegally and used in a crime.

Probably not. But odds are high that they didn't kill that many people if guns were not that easy to get.

School-shooting exist in Europe as well. But much much less as in US.
And so is the level of gun ownership

Just a question: How many people in their thirties or forties (or older) are involved in school shootings?

University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966
Orangeburg Massacre - Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States; February 8, 1968
Kent State shootings - Kent, Ohio, United States; May 4, 1970
Jackson State killings - Jackson, Mississippi, United States; May 14-15, 1970
California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre - Fullerton, California, United States; July 12, 1976
Brenda Ann Spencer, Cleveland Elementary School - January 29, 1979
Parkway South Junior High School shooting - Saint Louis, Missouri, United States; January 20, 1983

Do you have the statistics of gun ownership a few decades ago? You are assuming there were less legal firearms per capita.

No. There's nothing wrong by collecting guns.

But I don't believe that most Americans are *just* collectors.

Stats?

And those aren't legal to buy, sell or own in the US. Those weren't stolen out of someone's home. Those came into the US illegally, were bought illegally and used in a crime.

Well, not easy to legally own. It can be done, but it's expensive and hard, so criminals don't buy their full autos (when they have them) legally. Hell, they barely buy any of their firearms legally.

Fully automatic firearms in the US are primarily owned by fairly wealthy collectors or shooting enthusiasts.

yeah, animals are tasty ^_^

PNW elk is made of win!:D No gamey taste. Not that I mind gamey meat, but some people do.

In England and Wales, there were 644,049 burglaries, which is about 8000ish per million residents. Not particularly different.

As far as Robbery goes, we have about 1.6 per million residents. You have about 1.5 per million residents.
I was just going of the stats he gave me. I looked, and couldn't find anything from a credbile site with stats.

Keep also in mind that the areas in which people will have guns in the US, as in their homes, have actually increased in their rates of robbery over the last few years.
I don't know how much of that has a correlation. Let me give you an example from my state, Oregon. Firstly, you can't trust the gun ownership statistics for this state because guns don't legally have to be registered here unless you purchase them from a gun shop. So it's only a best guess on how many people own guns. Secondly, our property crimes have gone up because the number of cops has gone down. They announced this summer in my county that police would no longer come to your house for a property crime. That has a heck of a lot to do with the increase in property crime.

I can't speak for other states, but it's highly likely the increase in crime can be attributed to other sources.

This basically shows that there is very, very little correlation between such crimes and gun ownership - the only thing that people owning firearms leads to in such cases is usually robbers getting shot and killed, or, possibly more tragically, the victims themselves being killed or wounded.
People shouldn't have guns for personal protection unless they are trained, able, and willing to use them. Period. If there's a bill for mandatory gun safety and the implications of using a gun for personal protection before you can purchase a gun, I'll vote for it. Owning a gun for home protection is a serious decision.

Robbers getting shot and killed is really neither here nor there. An unknown person comes into your house at night, you might have kids, are you really going to wait and see whether that person just wants your TV set? My opinion, if someone breaks into my house during the day when Im gone, they probably just want my stuff. I have to wonder why they'd be breaking into my house at night when I'm there.

Well, not easy to legally own. It can be done, but it's expensive and hard, so criminals don't buy their full autos (when they have them) legally. Hell, they barely buy any of their firearms legally.

Fully automatic firearms in the US are primarily owned by fairly wealthy collectors or shooting enthusiasts.
You have to bring up that exception.:P Yes, I know. I was trying to keep a sub- debate from happening because those people aren't a problem. They never were a problem.

You have to bring up that exception.:P Yes, I know. I was trying to keep a sub- debate from happening because those people aren't a problem. They never were a problem.

Very true, of course. The problem is never with firearms in the hands of responsible people, but in the hands of criminals.

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

So we can effectively revolt should it become necessary.

The Founders were revolutionaries themselves. And unlike revolutionaries before and since, they were sincere--they WANTED to be thrown out if they started going overboard themselves.

My point is that you don’t need a gun at all. Sure, some people still need it, but most Americans don’t.

And I just don't believe that all of them are having a gun for hunting purposes. In my country you don't hunt with AK-47 or M-16's...

Are you aware that you are paying a high price just ‘cause you want to defend an obsolete law?

Countless children are killed by the macho behaviour of some…

About 2 million acts of self defense involving guns occur every year in the US.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

That is 2 million murders, rapes, assaults, robberies and kidnappings that were prevented by law-abiding citizens' possession of firearms (note that, in the majority of these cases, all that the intended victim had to do was to show his firearm to the wannabe attacker)

You seem to have some desire to make Americans look bad for having the temerity to run their society different from you Europeans.

If Belgians don't want to preserve their basic human right to protect themselves by bearing arms, fine. But what do you think gives you the right to tell Americans that we should do things your way?

We Americans couldn't care less how Belgians run their country. Why do you care so much about American domestic laws?

And those aren't legal to buy, sell or own in the US. Those weren't stolen out of someone's home. Those came into the US illegally, were bought illegally and used in a crime.

That's not true. If it is a full auto/select fire firearm manufactured before 1986, then the general civilian population can own it. It's more work to buy one, since you'd need to get an ATF tax stamp beforehand (forms filled out, fingerprinting, paperwork signed by your chief law enforcement officer, a $200 check, and waiting for the ATF to send you the stamp), but it is possible.

If it's manufactured after 1986, you'd need to be law enforcment (buying for the department, not for yourself) or a dealer in class 3 weapons in order to get one.

Here's a video of a bunch of people firing full auto/select fire weapons. There's a couple of Glock 18's (at about 1:12 into the video), a GE minigun (it makes its first appearance at about 1:45 into the video), and a bunch more.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

And those aren't legal to buy, sell or own in the US.

Not quite.

The fact is, though, that since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt against the state should it become necessary, any government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is absurd and illegitimate.

Revolution becomes necessary, or at least justified, when the state begins to act to restrict to its citizens the means of planning and carrying out a revolution.

That's not true. If it is a full auto/select fire firearm manufactured before 1986, then the general civilian population can own it. It's more work to buy one, since you'd need to get an ATF tax stamp beforehand (forms filled out, fingerprinting, paperwork signed by your chief law enforcement officer, a $200 check, and waiting for the ATF to send you the stamp), but it is possible.

If it's manufactured after 1986, you'd need to be law enforcment (buying for the department, not for yourself) or a dealer in class 3 weapons in order to get one.

Here's a video of a bunch of people firing full auto/select fire weapons. There's a couple of Glock 18's (at about 1:12 into the video), a GE minigun (it makes its first appearance at about 1:45 into the video), and a bunch more.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

Well, not easy to legally own. It can be done, but it's expensive and hard, so criminals don't buy their full autos (when they have them) legally. Hell, they barely buy any of their firearms legally.

Fully automatic firearms in the US are primarily owned by fairly wealthy collectors or shooting enthusiasts.
You have to bring up that exception.:P Yes, I know. I was trying to keep a sub- debate from happening because those people aren't a problem. They never were a problem.
Very true, of course. The problem is never with firearms in the hands of responsible people, but in the hands of criminals.
Miss the first half of the page?

Not quite.

The fact is, though, that since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt against the state should it become necessary, any government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is absurd and illegitimate.

Revolution becomes necessary, or at least justified, when the state begins to act to restrict to its citizens the means of planning and carrying out a revolution.

^The side debate I was trying to avoid.

As car technology has come on, there's been an ever-increasing effort to cut down on the amount of people crashing and dying and/or killing others.
And? Accidents still happen. In both the case of guns and cars it is nothing alarming - why ban either? The situation is analogous on another level, in that in the case of cars it is bad drivers that are prohibited from driving, and not car ownership.

As firearms technology has come on, the act of killing someone has become easier and easier, from a purely technological point of view (although the needed adrenaline to do so has pretty much remained the same).
Alright. Now why would an average citizen simply kill off an innocent person? What is the probability of this happening nonaccidentally?

Comparing the two is intellectually dishonest and you probably know it.
Actually, it isn't. Thanks for trying.

No, I think we've just realised that having lots of guns around in a place like Europe, where almost every country borders at least a couple of others by land, is probably not such a great idea, as the more guns around, and places around to use them, the more they become the 'solution' to problems which could otherwise be solved through other means.
And this is based on...?

^The side debate I was trying to avoid.

The OP asked a question; I simply provided the answer.

The OP asked a question; I simply provided the answer.

Just saying.

Miss the first half of the page?

I was working on that post for a bit, looking for that video. When I started to respond, your post was the last one on the page.

I don't own a gun, but there is a good chance I will eventually. Why? Because its my right. I would also like the ability to defend myself, my family, and my home from armed intruders. Maybe I'll take up hunting, which I think I will. Maybe I'll collect.


Also, gun statistics don't mean a thing as many people don't register their guns because when the time comes they don't want a man knocking on their door demanding they turn in their gun.

To see just how far you can piss off Vladimir Putin, by the looks of it.

...

Right, because the Russian Army is entirely fired out of missile siloes now?

You fail, mate :)


No, it's not about "pissing off Vladitmir Putin" you short sighted fool. This is about Deterence.

It means if the Russian Army starts amassing on the Eastern European Border they become sitting ducks.

It also means Moscow is a prime target, as well as numerous other very important russian cities.

It's a gun held to putin's head. It says "Cross the line and you die".

And? Accidents still happen. In both the case of guns and cars it is nothing alarming - why ban either?
Because cars are meant not to kill people, whereas firearms are?
The situation is analogous on another level, in that in the case of cars it is bad drivers that are prohibited from driving, and not car ownership.
Right. So you'd prefer for people who had murdered etc. to be allowed weapons, but not to shoot them?
Alright. Now why would an average citizen simply kill off an innocent person?
Because they got upset for some reason or other with that person, and since there was a gun lying around the place, this made shooting them easier?

Of about two-thirds of murders in which the assailant's relationship is known to the victim, it turns out to be someone that they know - wives and girlfriends make up a pretty sizeable percentage thereof. This is also pretty much linked to arguments making up about half of all identified reasons given for why people murder.

Handguns make up about 65% of all murder weapons, with another 8% or so of weapons being firearms of an unstated type, many of which could plausibly be handguns of one type or other.

That kind of shows to me that firearms, especially those which are convenient to use and are stored on one's person or in an easy-to-reach location, are going to be a big contributory factor to the amount of murders.
What is the probability of this happening nonaccidentally?
Pretty low, although the fact that people are sometimes willing to shoot what they assume are robbers, which actually turn out not to be such people leads to pretty messy accidents.
Actually, it isn't. Thanks for trying.
I think you'll find that it is. As previously stated, in one case it's about trying to reduce deaths, in the other, it's about facilitating them.
And this is based on...?
Basic geography and history?

No, it's not about "pissing off Vladitmir Putin" you short sighted fool. This is about Deterence.
No, it's about pissing off Vladimir Putin by building US bases as close as possible to Russia, and seeing how far he can be pushed before he just gets irritated by the whole thing and snaps, so that the US administration can bomb the Russian gas reserves, so that they're just as fucked as the US when gas starts to run out, and will be forced into a war that they can't win.
It means if the Russian Army starts amassing on the Eastern European Border they become sitting ducks.
Which one of the Eastern European countries' borders?

Oh, right, you're bullshitting as you go, now I remember... :rolleyes:
It also means Moscow is a prime target, as well as numerous other very important russian cities.
A prime target for what?

Medium range anti-nuke siloes?

Because Moscow is full of very secret nuclear siloes?
It's a gun held to putin's head. It says "Cross the line and you die".
Not really. It's a gun held to his head whilst he's got an unpinned grenade that'll go off if he himself die.

It says "Cross the line, and you'll die, but then so will we, rendering the whole thing completely fucking pointless".

Because cars are meant not to kill people, whereas firearms are?
Firearms can be used in a variety of ways - and if killing another is what it takes to defend oneself, where is the problem? In both cases bad use of the tool can lead to innocent deaths. The dichotomy is not as large as you make it out to be.

Right. So you'd prefer for people who had murdered etc. to be allowed weapons, but not to shoot them?
Since my arguments pertain to noncriminals, I do not see how that follows, at all.

Because they got upset for some reason or other with that person, and since there was a gun lying around the place, this made shooting them easier?
In which case they are neither rational nor noncriminal. Also, provide statistics proving this to be a common occurrence.

Of about two-thirds of murders in which the assailant's relationship is known to the victim, it turns out to be someone that they know - wives and girlfriends make up a pretty sizeable percentage thereof. This is also pretty much linked to arguments making up about half of all identified reasons given for why people murder.

Relevance?

That kind of shows to me that firearms, especially those which are convenient to use and are stored on one's person or in an easy-to-reach location, are going to be a big contributory factor to the amount of murders.
And what, pray tell, makes you think criminals will not find other ways to kill or obtain guns, whilst common citizens remain unarmed?

Pretty low, although the fact that people are sometimes willing to shoot what they assume are robbers, which actually turn out not to be such people leads to pretty messy accidents.
Right, and in that case they should be held liable for it. People unlikely to engage in such activities should not be penalized for it. Should a good driver not be allowed to use a car because some people are incompetent?

I think you'll find that it is. As previously stated, in one case it's about trying to reduce deaths, in the other, it's about facilitating them.
Completely banning cars would also reduce deaths caused by accidents.

Basic geography and history?
No, it is neither - now some proof, please?

and God said let there be violence and bloodshed and caps popped in asses and it was so.

and God said let there be violence and bloodshed and caps popped in asses and it was so.

1. I am the Almighty, your God, who brought you outta Egypt when things were tough. Don't put anyone else before Me.
2. Don't make any carved objects or things that look like what is in heaven or below. And don't bow down to these things like they are anything heavy. Not ever!
3. You shouldn't dis the Almighty's name, using it in cuss words or rapping with one another. It ain't cool, and payback's a monster.
4. After you've worked six days, give the seventh to the Almighty. (The Almightly made the heavens and earth in six days. He rested on the seventh day and blessed it as right on.)
5. You shouldn't be takin' nothin' from your homeboys.
6. Give honor to your mom and dad, and you'll live a long time.
7. Don't waste nobody.
8. Don't mess around with someone else's ol' man or ol' lady.
9. Don't go 'round telling lies on your homebuddies.
10. Don't want what you can't have or what your homebuddy has. It ain't cool.

And Will Smith begat The Fresh Prince who begat bad jokes in Bel Air

Because cars are meant not to kill people, whereas firearms are?

Because ropes are meant not to kill people, whereas nooses are?

It doesn't matter why something is created, only how it is used.

If the British colonizers had not had guns and horses, the Native Americans would have kicked them back into the sea.

And that, basically, is why Americans love their guns. Without guns, they wouldn't have a country.

Australia is the same, only we let the Brits write our constitution, so ... no guns.

And? Accidents still happen. In both the case of guns and cars it is nothing alarming - why ban either? The situation is analogous on another level, in that in the case of cars it is bad drivers that are prohibited from driving, and not car ownership.

You're still flogging that dead horse? It's a rotten analogy and you aren't making it any stronger.

The question of purpose:

Cars have a primary purpose of getting individuals from one place to another quickly. They are a refinement of the horse and buggy. Without that purpose, damn right driving around for fun would be banned because of the risks to others.
Guns have a primary purpose of killing animals and people. They are a refinement of the bow and arrow. Risks aside, that is a negative purpose (taking life) which is only justified by some greater gain (turning animals into food, compelling actions from others.)


I grant that guns have other uses, this thread has persuaded me of that. But the primary purpose would be obvious even to someone who had never seen a gun, just from looking at schematics. Is this thing intended for drilling holes in walls?, er, making a sight line to lay level masonry, er, gee, that thing comes out pretty damn fast ...

The question of social utility:

Cars increase productivity by reducing travel time in the course of doing a job, and making commuting more pleasant, leaving more energy for people to do their jobs. They keep vulnerable people safer in public than they would be travelling on public transport.
Guns may reduce property crime (or they may not) but they definitely cause death and injury. The social utility of that can only be argued by a compromise case ("criminals will always have guns" or "its a leveller"). I.e. by assuming that they are already distributed in large numbers.


And now this new one:

Bad drivers are prohibited from driving, not just once they have demonstrated incompetence, but before they have demonstrated some level of competence by driving tests and demonstrating knowledge of the road rules.
Gun ownership as a right, eg as in the US, is unfettered by any tests of competence. Only by breaking some laws can you be disqualified from owning a gun.

You're still flogging that dead horse? It's a rotten analogy and you aren't making it any stronger.
No, no, it isn't rotten at all. Saying so is not going to dissuade me from using it. The argument is that either tool can be improperly used; in one case, we do not ban it, in the other we do. Unless you believe that using a gun in self-defense is somehow an inherent evil, which you'll have to prove.

The question of purpose:

Cars have a primary purpose of getting individuals from one place to another quickly. They are a refinement of the horse and buggy. Without that purpose, damn right driving around for fun would be banned because of the risks to others.
Guns have a primary purpose of killing animals and people. They are a refinement of the bow and arrow. Risks aside, that is a negative purpose (taking life) which is only justified by some greater gain (turning animals into food, compelling actions from others.)

And you are missing my point, which is: if otherwise law-abiding citizens misunderstand a situation and harm an innocent, thus resulting in a harmful accident, why do we not stretch this logic to cars as well, and completely ban their use? Both tools have a positive use, and both can be used to accidentally harm someone. However, the utilitarian arguments are redundant - it is a matter of consistency.

I grant that guns have other uses, this
The question of social utility:

Cars increase productivity by reducing travel time in the course of doing a job, and making commuting more pleasant, leaving more energy for people to do their jobs. They keep vulnerable people safer in public than they would be travelling on public transport.
Guns may reduce property crime (or they may not) but they definitely cause death and injury. The social utility of that can only be argued by a compromise case ("criminals will always have guns" or "its a leveller"). I.e. by assuming that they are already distributed in large numbers.

Cars also emit pollution which may harm others, and can be involved in accidents. It is still illogical in the extreme, to me, to argue for disarming the populace at large, when individuals who specialize in harming others will merely find other ways to do so, whereas the innocent citizen remains helpless.

And now this new one:

Bad drivers are prohibited from driving, not just once they have demonstrated incompetence, but before they have demonstrated some level of competence by driving tests and demonstrating knowledge of the road rules.
Gun ownership as a right, eg as in the US, is unfettered by any tests of competence. Only by breaking some laws can you be disqualified from owning a gun.

Fine, in which case the goal would be to disqualify certain individuals from owning a gun, not banning them outright.

No, no, it isn't rotten at all. Saying so is not going to dissuade me from using it. The argument is that either tool can be improperly used; in one case, we do not ban it, in the other we do. Unless you believe that using a gun in self-defense is somehow an inherent evil, which you'll have to prove.

I don't have to prove anything. I have demonstrated what I think are serious asymmetries in the purpose of cars/guns, in their social utility (whether their existence AT ALL makes society better or worse) ... and my intention is to question the worth of your analogy for ruling out limitations on gun ownership.

And you are missing my point, which is: if otherwise law-abiding citizens misunderstand a situation and harm an innocent, thus resulting in a harmful accident, why do we not stretch this logic to cars as well, and completely ban their use? Both tools have a positive use, and both can be used to accidentally harm someone.

Well, yes. In fact I am vehemently opposed to cars, but saying "yes, in fact we should ban them" would seem to legitimize the analogy. I believe it is quite flawed.

Yes, I did miss your point. Perhaps if you hadn't relied so much on argument by analogy, I would address the point. I don't actually think the risks of accident is a very strong argument against private gun ownership, and could be much more easily addressed by technological improvements and enforced gun safety (eg trigger-locks or gun safes) than a universal ban.

Partial agreement there.

However, the utilitarian arguments are redundant - it is a matter of consistency.

Indeed. Utilitarianism is a can of worms I shouldn't have opened. It always gets messy.

Cars also emit pollution which may harm others, and can be involved in accidents. It is still illogical in the extreme, to me, to argue for disarming the populace at large, when individuals who specialize in harming others will merely find other ways to do so, whereas the innocent citizen remains helpless.

That's the "criminals will always have guns" argument, and while I don't agree, I feel no need to confront it here. It simply has no place in addressing the worth of your analogy.

For instance, apply this argument to cars. "It is unfair to ban cars, because criminals will still have cars, leaving honest people no way of escaping from criminals." Does that seem to work ...?

Fine, in which case the goal would be to disqualify certain individuals from owning a gun, not banning them outright.

The analogy has some merit. It is less than completely rotten. I grant this in exchange for your concession that your latest point weakened not strengthened the analogy.

Now, we can test a person's driving competence, by having a qualified official sit in the car with them while they drive. So let's do that for guns as well: before a person can buy their first gun, they must clean, load and fire a gun under the supervision of an official, also prove that they are aware of their responsibility to keep the weapon secure from children or thieves. For their second gun, they just have to show the ticked-off test from the first, and their ID.

Continue the analogy. A young person passes all the tests and gets their driving licence. I'm not sure if you have a probation period for new drivers there, but in my state newly qualified drivers have many limitations on speed, blood alcohol and the kind of car they can drive. Their license is far easier to lose than that of a person who has been driving for years.

Think about that. That's the only way we have of testing whether a person takes the responsibility (yes, responsibility) of driving seriously. You can't test that with a written test, you can't test it in a supervised drive. You can only test it by waiting for them to break the law, AND get caught.

So let's do the same for guns. A young person with no criminal record gets their first gun (after demonstrating a knowledge of gun safety, etc.) Now they must hold to a higher standard of responsibility than someone who has owned a gun for years without mishap. Perhaps including random testing: an official can call without warning at their house, and demand to see the gun safely stored. The gun isn't in the possession of the person, or some other licensed person, that's it -- license gone. Turn over the gun or go to jail, because the presumption is that the probationer has sold the gun to a criminal for the black market price.

You can use an analogy to supposed rule something out, then of course I can use the same analogy to rule something in. You comfortable with all the restrictions I want to put on your gun ownership? Testing, licensing, a probationary period, permanent loss of license for reckless use of a firearm occasioning no actual harm? Or is it cramping your "rights" ?

You're still flogging that dead horse? It's a rotten analogy and you aren't making it any stronger.

The question of purpose:

Cars have a primary purpose of getting individuals from one place to another quickly. They are a refinement of the horse and buggy. Without that purpose, damn right driving around for fun would be banned because of the risks to others.
Guns have a primary purpose of killing animals and people. They are a refinement of the bow and arrow. Risks aside, that is a negative purpose (taking life) which is only justified by some greater gain (turning animals into food, compelling actions from others.)


I grant that guns have other uses, this thread has persuaded me of that. But the primary purpose would be obvious even to someone who had never seen a gun, just from looking at schematics. Is this thing intended for drilling holes in walls?, er, making a sight line to lay level masonry, er, gee, that thing comes out pretty damn fast ...

The question of social utility:

Cars increase productivity by reducing travel time in the course of doing a job, and making commuting more pleasant, leaving more energy for people to do their jobs. They keep vulnerable people safer in public than they would be travelling on public transport.
Guns may reduce property crime (or they may not) but they definitely cause death and injury. The social utility of that can only be argued by a compromise case ("criminals will always have guns" or "its a leveller"). I.e. by assuming that they are already distributed in large numbers.


And now this new one:

Bad drivers are prohibited from driving, not just once they have demonstrated incompetence, but before they have demonstrated some level of competence by driving tests and demonstrating knowledge of the road rules.
Gun ownership as a right, eg as in the US, is unfettered by any tests of competence. Only by breaking some laws can you be disqualified from owning a gun.




Do guns contribute to global warming on any level that cars do?

Pound for pound it could be argued that potentially, fossil fuel burning autos will end up being more destructive than gun ownership.

Is it?

It will be a shock for you, but we are in 2007. The great British Empire, those days are over since a long time.

My little country is on the globe since 180 years. We are not repressed by the British one single time. At least, if I don't count Rod Stewart.

It seems we shouldn't be that afraid of the British anymore.

It wasn't about defending against Britain, it was about keeping the government in check by the people so that it could not carry out tyranny.

For instance, apply this argument to cars. "It is unfair to ban cars, because criminals will still have cars, leaving honest people no way of escaping from criminals." Does that seem to work ...?

Wrong. That assumes the car and the gun have identical uses, which you yourself have said before don't.

Do guns contribute to global warming on any level that cars do?

Pound for pound it could be argued that potentially, fossil fuel burning autos will end up being more destructive than gun ownership.

Fair cop. I have already conceded that point to Imp Braz. Utilitarianism allows one to argue just about anything ... :)

Wrong. That assumes the car and the gun have identical uses, which you yourself have said before don't.

Well thanks for reading. The whole point of my post was to show the shakiness of the analogy. You might find several examples of things that are "wrong" in that post.

That's the point.

I'll try to overcome my cowardice and address the actual issue, but for now this "disproof by analogy" thing is bugging me. I've seen it before and it struck me as facile, too easy by half. It's a kind of rhetorical device which is even worse than "proof by analogy."

Goes kind of like this. "If you can say that about A, then you can say the same about B. Do you agree that the same applies to B?"

Yes. "Then you believe both xA and xB? But A =/= B, so you contradict yourself"
No. "So xA but not xB. But you accepted my analogy, so A=B, so you contradict yourself"

Basically, the looseness of any analogy allows the positor to exploit either the differences or the similarities of the two things, once they have made the refuter choose.

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

I'm living in Belgium for almost 40 years.
Not one time, I met a burglar face-to-face.
Not one time I was in need for a gun.

I know that criminality is some higher in US, but it's still not that hard. Compare their rates with the ones of South Africa, Columbia and others and US is rather a land at peace.

I am rather sure that the average USAian never will meet a burglar face-to-face.

Still, why do they need such guns?

It seems they are very afraid from something. They act like chickens. TOK TOK TOOOOK !

The simple answer: One doesn't need to explain oneself when exercising their rights.

The more pragmatic answer: Perhaps you'd be willing to play the odds that you'll never be in fear of your life from an attacker. I sincerely hope you never are. Not everybody is willing to play those odds the same way that you might. Some prefer to have a way to deal with a home invasion or a robbery themselves.

Police are handy to have around when you want a crime investigated, but they're quite useless in preventing them in most cases. Should people be forced to sit and be victims while a violent criminal does what they please before the police arrive?

Some say no.

My apologies, Noble Hobos. Excuse my ignorance.

My apologies, Noble Hobos. Excuse my ignorance.

Oy! Don't go all wussy on me. I've made some quite indefensible posts in this thread, and am really quite perplexed as to why I haven't been stomped yet.

Perhaps I have a guardian angel, the same one which kept me safe on the streets of Redfern and crashed out barefoot in country bus-shelters, the one that kept me safe as I talked down screaming paranoids and ambled innocently through the demi-monde of Sydney junkie culture. I got robbed a lot and a few times had to run ... but the only guns I ever saw were on the belts of cops. Only once did I ever see one drawn.

Perhaps it was my guardian angel who carried the gun, so I didn't have to. Should have had her carry my wallet as well ...

I don't have to prove anything. I have demonstrated what I think are serious asymmetries in the purpose of cars/guns, in their social utility (whether their existence AT ALL makes society better or worse) ... and my intention is to question the worth of your analogy for ruling out limitations on gun ownership.
The only actual measure of social utility that matters is whether they are of use to their consumers and cause little to no harm to innocent third parties. In that regard, guns differ little from cars.

Well, yes. In fact I am vehemently opposed to cars, but saying "yes, in fact we should ban them" would seem to legitimize the analogy. I believe it is quite flawed.
Why?

That's the "criminals will always have guns" argument, and while I don't agree, I feel no need to confront it here. It simply has no place in addressing the worth of your analogy.
Well since the objection has been repeatedly brought up that certain miscreants will use guns to harm others, it is a valid question what banning them achieves exactly.

For instance, apply this argument to cars. "It is unfair to ban cars, because criminals will still have cars, leaving honest people no way of escaping from criminals." Does that seem to work ...?

It definitely does demonstrate the stupidity behind the equivalent argument on guns.

The analogy has some merit. It is less than completely rotten. I grant this in exchange for your concession that your latest point weakened not strengthened the analogy.
How?

You can use an analogy to supposed rule something out, then of course I can use the same analogy to rule something in. You comfortable with all the restrictions I want to put on your gun ownership? Testing, licensing, a probationary period, permanent loss of license for reckless use of a firearm occasioning no actual harm? Or is it cramping your "rights" ?
How cute, you put rights in quotation marks, as if the right to defense is somehow fictional, and less important than so-called civil rights. That aside, the question would be: are such stringent requirements necessary for licensing guns? If not, then no, that much would not be necessary at all.

I know 1 Swiss girl. They put their gun, without ammunition in some dark corner of a room they never walk in.

They have a gun. But they really will not use it against an intruder or something. It's a war tool and property of the state.
One girl is not indicative of all Swiss people.


Well, I'll explain it different, how many people in their thirties or older shoot at students in high schools?
Not many. Why do you ask?
And Will Smith begat The Fresh Prince who begat bad jokes in Bel Air

This is a story all about how the big G created everything around, so if you'd like to take a minute and just sit right there, I'll tell how we all got made by that Guy in the air.

One girl is not indicative of all Swiss people.

No, but it seems she's right:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Btw, Swiss people will not show their gun, even if they are in trouble. They really don't do.

Some (American) people here on the board said they did...

The Swiss associate their gun as a tool to protect the country, not their private life.



Not many. Why do you ask?

Well, I had that feeling as well.
Young people are stupid and less responsible.
Sure there are old bad people as well.

But it's so insane that a 17 year old boy can buy guns and ammunition. That's just asking for trouble.

If USA would raise the age to carry a gun to 26 years old or something, a significant share of the homicides would drop. School shootings would be rare, etc…

No, but it seems she's right:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Btw, Swiss people will not show their gun, even if they are in trouble. They really don't do.

Some (American) people here on the board said they did...

The Swiss associate their gun as a tool to protect the country, not their private life.
That link does not say that Swiss people won't use guns to defend themselves or their property. Nor does it say that they see their gun as a tool to defend the country as opposed to their private lives.





But it's so insane that a 17 year old boy can buy guns and ammunition. That's just asking for trouble.
Where in the USA can you legally buy guns and ammo at 17?

If USA would raise the age to carry a gun to 26 years old or something, a significant share of the homicides would drop. School shootings would be rare, etc…

Prove it.

Explain properly, once and for all, exactly why you think people who don't need guns should be allowed have them. No crap about Borat or massive writing. No claiming it's obvious. Just explain what you're talking about.

Still haven't responded to this, Edwinasia.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Massive Wang Land promotes safe use of guns for fun/sporting, personal protection and ornamental purposes.

IF every one did compulsory military service, as is LAW in Massive Wang Land, people would understand and respect guns.


<3 (y)

"If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do ya?"
-Homer Simpson

That link does not say that Swiss people won't use guns to defend themselves or their property. Nor does it say that they see their gun as a tool to defend the country as opposed to their private lives.


You didn't read the text

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.



Where in the USA can you legally buy guns and ammo at 17?

In Michael Moores "Bowling for Columbine" (saw it yesterday, marvelous movie) a 17 year old boy bought tons of ammunition in some K-mart.

I just checked the NRA site. They say you have to be 18 to buy a shotgun or rifle...

Insane, really.


Prove it.

Use common sense.

And if you send a cheque, I'll drop my work and do some research for you.

In Michael Moores "Bowling for Columbine" (saw it yesterday, marvelous movie) a 17 year old boy bought tons of ammunition in some K-mart.

Ahh, I see your mistake there.:rolleyes:

Still haven't responded to this, Edwinasia.

Originally Posted by Ifreann
Explain properly, once and for all, exactly why you think people who don't need guns should be allowed have them. No crap about Borat or massive writing. No claiming it's obvious. Just explain what you're talking about.

I think you're trying to say 'why I think people who don't need guns should be allowed NOT to have them', no?

Simple.

In my opinion the following people can have a gun:

* Professionals, such as police men.
* Hunters.
* Collectors. But maybe their guns should be sabotaged.

Maybe there are some other groups, but most of you don't need a gun at all.

Less guns will result in clear benefits:

* less guns will be available for criminals.
* less accidental shootings.
* less school-shootings.
* less any kind of shootings.

Anyway, it's clearly insane that teenagers can buy shotguns and rifles.


And if you beg again for proof, well, visit Europe once…

In Michael Moores "Bowling for Columbine" (saw it yesterday, marvelous movie) a 17 year old boy bought tons of ammunition in some K-mart.

Ahh, I see your mistake there.:rolleyes:

Sure. Moore is a liar and the movie is outdated.

Well do some research via Google, you'll find enough articles about teenagers younger than 18 that bought weapons 'legally'.

It seems that USA doesn’t ask always for an ID when buying a gun but always do when you order a beer…

I think you're trying to say 'why I think people who don't need guns should be allowed NOT to have them', no?

Simple.

In my opinion the following people can have a gun:

* Professionals, such as police men.
* Hunters.
* Collectors. But maybe their guns should be sabotaged.

Anyway, it's clearly insane that teenagers can buy shotguns and rifles.


And if you beg again for proof, well, visit Europe once…

How do you prove that which is bolded? and why is is insane that teenagers (18) can buy guns?

Ifreann is Irish by the way so I don't think he needs to visit Europe

How do you prove that which is bolded? and why is is insane that teenagers (18) can buy guns?

Ifreann is Irish by the way so I don't think he needs to visit Europe

Hunters

I don’t know how it is working in USA but paying for a yearly hunting licence and having some mandatory education about hunting and wildlife (with a test you have to pass), a delay of 1 month in the actual delivery of the weapon, would do the trick.

Sure, still there will be ‘fake’ hunters, that pay the tax, study for the hunters certificate and will be prepared to wait for their oh so desired gun.

I think that most people say ‘no’. Too much effort and money just to feed an impulsive buy.

Collectors

If the guns don’t work, ‘fake’ collectors will not be interested. I don’t think that collectors would moan that hard if their gun can’t shoot anymore.

Further on I would forbid all machineguns or any weapon equipment designed for an army.
Only people above 26 should have access to guns.

i'm pretty sure in Australia you can get a Junior Class A firearm license at a fairly young age (14 or something?). So wouldn't you be able to purchase a rifle??
I dunno if i'm right...someone will say if i'm not.

Only people above 26 should have access to guns.

What makes your age limit so good compared to other arbitrary choices?

How do you prove that which is bolded? and why is is insane that teenagers (18) can buy guns?

Ifreann is Irish by the way so I don't think he needs to visit Europe

Because I don’t think that 18-years old teenagers are having the same level of self-control, stability, seriousness; responsibility, tact, endurances, experience and objectivity as 26-years old adults.

At 26, university or college is over for most of us. Most will have passed their first serious relationship, most of us are at work, etc…
For most of us, the brain is fully developed. (yes, there’s empiric evidence for this one).

At 18 you don’t know nothing, you’re just a kid and you still can’t handle the responsibility of having a gun.

And ALL Americans have this experience? The majority of America suffered from this?

Odds are high that you wouldn't write this posting if you had a gun at that time. You wrote;

"his illegal gun in my ribs"

If you tried to take your gun, odds are high he would have pull the trigger before you even think about it.

You would have lost your life, now just a purse.

Btw, how do you know the gun was illegal? Did you say something as:

"Wait a minute pal, you can stick a gun in my ribs, but can I first see some registration form?'"

No, not all criminals have guns. They don't in Belgium, for several reasons:

• Don't need one, 'cause the common people have none as well.
• Jail time will double or triple when you're caught with a gun while doing your crime.
• It isn't that easy to get a gun.


Well I figured it was an illegal gun because people are usually smart enough not to use a gun registered in their name to commit a crime. Just as I figured you would be smart to see this for your self. But I guess I could be wrong. Finally I was wondering who made you the supposedly only expert on this subject? Oh and by the way he didn't get my purse because I snookered him. But I'm not stupid enough to think that what I did might work twice. As for not being able to get my gun out in time .... I saw them a half a block away but was unable to get in my house in time, so yes I would have had more then enough time to pull my gun.

Use common sense.
Son, you're the one making the argument, the onus is on you to prove it. 'Use Common sense' is a cop out.


Anyway, it's clearly insane that teenagers can buy shotguns and rifles.
Here's a better idea: how about we just make sure that whoever is competent and responsible enough to own a gun can do so, instead of descending into myriads of unnecessary qualifications?

Well I figured it was an illegal gun because people are usually smart enough not to use a gun registered in their name to commit a crime. Just as I figured you would be smart to see this for your self. But I guess I could be wrong. Finally I was wondering who made you the supposedly only expert on this subject?

Since when are criminals smart people?

And is it not possible that he was sure not to kill you, but just trying to intimitade you?

If he doesn’t fire, he could use a legal gun as well.

Since when do you have to be an expert on this board to have an opinion about something?

And what is making you thé expert?

And when you’re out of arguments, one start shouting.

Son, you're the one making the argument, the onus is on you to prove it. 'Use Common sense' is a cop out.


Here's a better idea: how about we just make sure that whoever is competent and responsible enough to own a gun can do so, instead of descending into myriads of unnecessary qualifications?

Well, some children of 5 years old consider themselves as very competent.

Give them loaded AK47's...

Since when are criminals smart people?

And is it not possible that he was sure not to kill you, but just trying to intimitade you?

If he doesn’t fire, he could use a legal gun as well.

Since when do you have to be an expert on this board to have an opinion about something?

And what is making you thé expert?

And when you’re out of arguments, one start shouting.


For you to assume these people are stupid just because they are criminals is your first mistake.

The fact that I have experienced it first hand is what gives credit to my opinion. Further I never said I was an expert, I said that I don't believe you are, and that you shouldn't put me down because I own a gun to protect myself. I'm wondering why you think its any of your business anyway?

[QUOTE=Imperial Brazil;13142349]Son, you're the one making the argument, the onus is on you to prove it. 'Use Common sense' is a cop out.

Can you proof I'm your son?
Can you proof I made an argument?
Can you proof I am the one that have to proof?

Few months ago some guy asked proof 'cause one said that in car accidents, generally the damage is harder when you drive faster...

It's a special category of posters. The 'proof people', they always ask for proof, sure for ridiculous things, to keep you busy. On their own side, they generally don't proof anything by themselves.

You didn't read the text

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.
Dang

In Michael Moores "Bowling for Columbine" (saw it yesterday, marvelous movie) a 17 year old boy bought tons of ammunition in some K-mart.
Which doesn't mean that he did it legally.

I just checked the NRA site. They say you have to be 18 to buy a shotgun or rifle...
And there you go.




Use common sense.
Don't try and worm your way out of it. If you think that raising the age for owning a gun and ammo to 26 would reduce the number of school shootings then it is up to you to convince me you're right. I'm not going to go out of my way to convince myself.


I think you're trying to say 'why I think people who don't need guns should be allowed NOT to have them', no?
Oh, yeah. Damn my typing is crap these days.
Simple.

In my opinion the following people can have a gun:

* Professionals, such as police men.
* Hunters.
* Collectors. But maybe their guns should be sabotaged.

Maybe there are some other groups, but most of you don't need a gun at all.
And why do you tihnk they don't need them? Because YOU have never been the victim of violent crime? We've been over how that's a terrible reason already.
Less guns will result in clear benefits:

* less guns will be available for criminals.
* less accidental shootings.
* less school-shootings.
* less any kind of shootings.
So basically, you want there to be less guns in general. So why are you trying to take them away from law abiding people? Surely you should take them away from the criminals first. Less criminals with guns will mean people won't need guns as much. So they're not as likely to buy them.

Anyway, it's clearly insane that teenagers can buy shotguns and rifles.
Only to you, you'll have to explain it to the rest of us.

And if you beg again for proof, well, visit Europe once…

I've lived in Europe all my life. I've never left Europe. I still want you to back up your claims with some kind of evidence. Something other than just claiming it's obvious.

Well, some children of 5 years old consider themselves as very competent.

Give them loaded AK47's...
Strawman. Read what I said. Carefully.


Can you proof I'm your son?
It's an expression.

Can you proof I made an argument?
If you're not doing so, then what is your purpose here? To troll?

Can you proof I am the one that have to proof?
You're the one making the argument. Want me to believe it? Provide proof.

It's a special category of posters. The 'proof people', they always ask for proof, sure for ridiculous things, to keep you busy. On their own side, they generally don't proof anything by themselves.
Yes, asking you to prove something that statistical evidence is readily available for for a claim you made is 'ridiculous'. Please come back when you're ready for a serious debate.

Well, some children of 5 years old consider themselves as very competent.

Give them loaded AK47's...

I don't see IB saying anywhere that a person should be able to judge their own competence

Can you proof I am the one that have to proof?

It's a generally accepted rule. When you make a positive claim you're expected to back it up. There's always some people who refuse and demand that they be proven wrong, but they seem to be the ones making ridiculous claims that they can't back up.

Maybe there are some other groups, but most of you don't need a gun at all.
Then how are we supposed to revolt when the time comes?

Less guns will result in clear benefits:

* less guns will be available for criminals.
* less accidental shootings.
* less school-shootings.
* less any kind of shootings.
Even if that were true, it's not an acceptable tradeoff when the cost is tyranny.

Anyway, it's clearly insane that teenagers can buy shotguns and rifles.
Not at all. Teenagers can revolt just as well as adults can.

Since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt should it become necessary, any government restriction on the civilian ownership of weapons is illegitimate and patently absurd.

Then how are we supposed to revolt when the time comes?


Even if that were true, it's not an acceptable tradeoff when the cost is tyranny.


Not at all. Teenagers can revolt just as well as adults can.

Since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt should it become necessary, any government restriction on the civilian ownership of weapons is illegitimate and patently absurd.

How do you feel about the Patriot Act - was that a step towards tyranny?

Since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt should it become necessary, any government restriction on the civilian ownership of weapons is illegitimate and patently absurd.

But such restrictions exist. So when will you be revolting?

It certainly was, although I'm not quite sure why it's relevant here or what made you think of it.

For you to assume these people are stupid just because they are criminals is your first mistake.

The fact that I have experienced it first hand is what gives credit to my opinion. Further I never said I was an expert, I said that I don't believe you are, and that you shouldn't put me down because I own a gun to protect myself. I'm wondering why you think its any of your business anyway?


Yes, I consider most criminals as stupid people. When one is risking his life for a lousy wallet, I don't consider that as an act of smartness. But hey, if you insist, you can find them smart.

So I have to be an expert to form an opinion and you not?

Sure, it's traumatic and I understand very well your reaction. Maybe I would do the same in your place.

But 'cause maybe I'm not used to that kind of situations, I can look at it from a distance.

I still think that odds are higher that you would be killed or really hurt if you had a gun at the time of the incident.

Without gun:

• Guy points gun in your ribs, trigger ready
• Shouts for wallet
• Motive to kill: zero, he wants your wallet, he’s not out to kill you else he would have killed you.
• Give wallet, bully will fly away.

Now, same situation, with gun:

• Guy points gun in your ribs, trigger ready
• Shouts for wallet
• Motive to kill: zero, he wants your wallet, he’s not out to kill you else he would have killed you.
• Try to take YOUR gun.
• Odds are higher than 50% that he’ll shoot you:
o He’s afraid, you are out to kill/hurt him, now he has a motive to pull the trigger
o He’s in a better position than you are: his gun is trigger ready and aimed at you
• Sure he can be afraid and run away and what if it is not like thousands of Americans discover each year?

Sure, it’s not my business if you want to bet with your life... go ahead

It certainly was, although I'm not quite sure why it's relevant here or what made you think of it.

Probably isn't relevant here , I was just curious as to how you viewed it.

guns are bad


Guns Are not Bad. Some people who use them chose to break the law and some follow the law.

Then how are we supposed to revolt when the time comes?


Even if that were true, it's not an acceptable tradeoff when the cost is tyranny.


Not at all. Teenagers can revolt just as well as adults can.

Since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt should it become necessary, any government restriction on the civilian ownership of weapons is illegitimate and patently absurd.

The revolution item...

How many times did you have to revolt last year, last decade, last 100 years?

I'm wondering how you'll stop F16's, tanks and Apaches with your toy gun anyway.
And are soldiers not trained and fit to kill? The last time I was in US of A, I was in shock about the enormous amounts of fat people. And those will stop Navy Seals and other superior trained people?

I don't believe that your army will shoot its own people. At least not in a way that the entire army is hunting all US citizen.

And if you're that afraid from your own army, why not reducing its size?

Fear fear fear. Tok Tok Tooooook

I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one.

But such restrictions exist. So when will you be revolting?

When/if it becomes evident that less drastic means will not work.

I'm all for using the political process when possible.

But it's not a cure-all.

An elected government will only respect the sacred rights of individuals so long as enough people are willing to respect those rights themselves, and only so long as those in power are willing to honor the election results.

How many times did you have to revolt last year, last decade, last 100 years?
There's a first time for everything.

I'm wondering how you'll stop F16's, tanks and Apaches with your toy gun anyway.
Did you miss the part where I said that any government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is illegitimate and patently absurd?

And are soldiers not trained and fit to kill? The last time I was in US of A, I was in shock about the enormous amounts of fat people. And those will stop Navy Seals and other superior trained people?

Two words: Iraq. Vietnam.
Two more words: American Revolution.

And if you're that afraid from your own army, why not reducing its size?

Not an acceptable tradeoff, and not necessarily possible.

No, but it seems she's right:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Btw, Swiss people will not show their gun, even if they are in trouble. They really don't do.

So you claim, but the article says nothing about this.

I find this passage from the article funny:

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Of course violent crime is rare. Who in their right mind would, for example, break into a home in Switzerland? The article talks about a very high rate of gun ownership and fairly permissive gun laws. Criminals are very hesitant to commit crimes when they know that a good percentage of the people around them might be carrying a firearm.

The Swiss associate their gun as a tool to protect the country, not their private life.

So you claim. But you have provided no evidence for this claim. Do you really think a Swiss homeowner would not grab his rifle to defenfd himself and his home from an intruder?

But it's so insane that a 17 year old boy can buy guns and ammunition. That's just asking for trouble.

In the US? No, a 17 year old cannot legally purchase firearms or ammunition.

If USA would raise the age to carry a gun to 26 years old or something, a significant share of the homicides would drop. School shootings would be rare, etc…

Criminals don't care about gun laws. They buy guns either through a "straw man" (by getting someone else to buy the gun for them) or they simply buy guns on the street. All that strict gun laws do is prevent law abiding citizens from buying firearms to protect themselves.

I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one.
I've never understood this little slogan. It seems so totally pointless.

"I'd rather have a gun and yet never be in a situation where I would need to use it, than be in a situation where I need a gun but not have a gun."

Who would rather be in a situation where they need a gun, as opposed to not? Hell, only the absolute most batshit crazy of gun owners would actually WANT to be in a situation where they'd need to shoot somebody.

I'd rather never be in a situation where I'd have to shoot somebody, regardless of whether or not I've got a gun on me.

There's a first time for everything.

Sure. You could be afraid for the flying spaghetti monster as well


Did you miss the part where I said that any government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is illegitimate and patently absurd?

Why is it absurd? It works in Europe. No revolutions here. And the armed criminals are not worse as in USA...


Two words: Iraq. Vietnam.
Two more words: American Revolution.

Sure. USA attacked those two countries, no?
Well, Europe is compared to USA gun poor.
But the guns would arrive fast when you would enter our continent.
War is business. Guns is business. All wars need guns.

So, even if your own army would attack you, the CIA (or any other company) would first give/sell you some toys to fight a little.


Not an acceptable tradeoff, and not necessarily possible.

Why not? Involved in too many wars, lately?

So basically, you want there to be less guns in general. So why are you trying to take them away from law abiding people? Surely you should take them away from the criminals first. Less criminals with guns will mean people won't need guns as much. So they're not as likely to buy them.

I agree. Taking away guns from Law Abiding Citizens is like asking them to commit sucide, in my opinion.

I'm sorry, but you can take away guns from any criminal, and sure some of them might turn there life around, but what about the rest? News Falsh buddy: Crminals can use something you might not consider a weapon, and find away to use it a a weapon. They can go out and buy bats!!! They not only have to have guns or knives they can use a sledge hammer, jackhammer, crowbar, and maybe even a back scratcher to hurt people! Crminal are not idiots as to limit them selves to one weapon. Theres a majority of weapons they can use to hurt innocent people. So what are you gonna do then?

Are you gonna take away baseball bats because they can be used a a weapon? I think not, because then there wouldn't be anymore baseball in the world.

Since thats clared, what about childrens toys? You wouldn't take a rattle away from a baby because if you beat someone hard enough with it you'll kill them.

In situations like this the smartest thing is to simply lock consibrably dangorus objects up, and only take them out when you need them.

Taking away guns from everyone is just stupid, as I may have pointed out earlier.

One more point to add:
Will rasing the age of buying gun help with school shootings?

I don't think so. You would be amazed at what some of these people will do just to get in to a school. Adults could pretend to be a childs parent, or maybe this will hwelp un scramble your brain: DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT THE TEENAGERS COULD GET GUNS BY STEALING FROM THERE PARENTS, THOURGH THE BLACK MARKET, OR MAYBE BUYING ONE OFF'N THE STREET FROM LIKE A GANG MEMBER OR SOMETHING?

Before you counter think it thourgh. If you think hard enough you will see that I make a good point.
-Shilang

I've never understood this little slogan. It seems so totally pointless.

"I'd rather have a gun and yet never be in a situation where I would need to use it, than be in a situation where I need a gun but not have a gun."

Who would rather be in a situation where they need a gun, as opposed to not? Hell, only the absolute most batshit crazy of gun owners would actually WANT to be in a situation where they'd need to shoot somebody.

I'd rather never be in a situation where I'd have to shoot somebody, regardless of whether or not I've got a gun on me.

I assume it's NRA marketing fun.

I've never understood this little slogan. It seems so totally pointless.

"I'd rather have a gun and yet never be in a situation where I would need to use it, than be in a situation where I need a gun but not have a gun."

Who would rather be in a situation where they need a gun, as opposed to not? Hell, only the absolute most batshit crazy of gun owners would actually WANT to be in a situation where they'd need to shoot somebody.

I'd rather never be in a situation where I'd have to shoot somebody, regardless of whether or not I've got a gun on me.

We can say what we'd rather have. It's easy. I'd rather have a million dollars than go to work today. I'd rather eat steak than meatloaf tonight. I'd rather not get rear-ended by some half-asleep businessman whilst getting on the highway. A couple of thousand people would rather have stayed home on 9/11. Thousands of people would rather a hurricane not destroy their homes. It's easy to say what we want, but there's no telling what we'll get. What that little "slogan" means is that I'd rather be prepared for the improbable than unprepared and crapping my pants.

Now, same situation, with gun:

• Guy points gun in your ribs, trigger ready
• Shouts for wallet
• Motive to kill: zero, he wants your wallet, he’s not out to kill you else he would have killed you.
• Try to take YOUR gun.
• Odds are higher than 50% that he’ll shoot you:
o He’s afraid, you are out to kill/hurt him, now he has a motive to pull the trigger
o He’s in a better position than you are: his gun is trigger ready and aimed at you
• Sure he can be afraid and run away and what if it is not like thousands of Americans discover each year?

Sure, it’s not my business if you want to bet with your life... go ahead

That's not how it works. Criminals prefer the first situation you described- they want to be in an environment where they know that law-abiding citizens are not armed. That gives them a massive advantage.

In an environment where law-abiding citizens are allowed to be armed, the criminal is taking a risk every time he tries to rob someone. It's almost irrelevant if the person they are trying to rob is armed (though, if they are armed, the minute the criminal turns his back to run off with the victim's wallet, the victim is going to pull out his gun and shoot him. I read an article where an old lady in Oklahama did exactly that- she put 6 rounds into a fleeing mugger's back). Someone else on the street might be armed and can put a bullet in the mugger.

What you propose is allowing criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens without any real fear that they will be wounded or killed. That makes no sense to me.

We can say what we'd rather have. It's easy. I'd rather have a million dollars than go to work today. I'd rather eat steak than meatloaf tonight. I'd rather not get rear-ended by some half-asleep businessman whilst getting on the highway. A couple of thousand people would rather have stayed home on 9/11. Thousands of people would rather a hurricane not destroy their homes. It's easy to say what we want, but there's no telling what we'll get. What that little "slogan" means is that I'd rather be prepared for the improbable than unprepared and crapping my pants.

Sorry, but for me, a big part of US is having some generalized anxiety disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_anxiety_disorder)

Sorry, but for me, a big part of US is having some generalized anxiety disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_anxiety_disorder)

You're just as entitled to your opinion as I am a personal sense of security. While we're generalizing, though, aren't you afraid of soccer hooligans?

Why is it absurd? It works in Europe. No revolutions here. And the armed criminals are not worse as in USA...
You completely missed my point--since any government restrictions on civilian weapons ownership is absurd, then citizens would also be able to purchase tanks and attack aircraft themselves.

It's all about parity.

And that's just my point: The most tyrannical governments in the First World are in Europe, and yet you're not able to revolt against them because you're unarmed.

And if it's a choice between safety and security vs. being free from oppression, I'll take being free from oppression any day. If it makes life a bit more dangerous, so be it.

Sure. USA attacked those two countries, no?
Well, Europe is compared to USA gun poor.
But the guns would arrive fast when you would enter our continent.
War is business. Guns is business. All wars need guns.

Again, you completely missed my point, and this time I'm not sure where to begin.

That's not how it works. Criminals prefer the first situation you described- they want to be in an environment where they know that law-abiding citizens are not armed. That gives them a massive advantage.

In an environment where law-abiding citizens are allowed to be armed, the criminal is taking a risk every time he tries to rob someone. It's almost irrelevant if the person they are trying to rob is armed (though, if they are armed, the minute the criminal turns his back to run off with the victim's wallet, the victim is going to pull out his gun and shoot him. I read an article where an old lady in Oklahama did exactly that- she put 6 rounds into a fleeing mugger's back). Someone else on the street might be armed and can put a bullet in the mugger.

What you propose is allowing criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens without any real fear that they will be wounded or killed. That makes no sense to me.

Well. It seems that despites the overwhelming amount of addicted and tok tok toook feared gun users, criminality is pretty high in USA. It's not lower as in Europe.

Seems like it doesn't stop those criminals, no?

Sure, the old lady is a hero. And what if she missed...

If there are fewer guns on the streets, I am pretty sure that criminality will not rise. There’s evidence for: Europe.

You're just as entitled to your opinion as I am a personal sense of security. While we're generalizing, though, aren't you afraid of soccer hooligans?

No, not at all. Why?

No, not at all. Why?

Point made.

It certainly was, although I'm not quite sure why it's relevant here or what made you think of it.

Hey, are you really Linus and Lucy? Cos' right there you're coming across like that plaster bust that Shrodinger keeps on his piano. J's kidding.

At what point does it it become necessary to rebel against the government? When does that clearly switch from being high treason to high patriotism?

Better start regulating that militia, fella. Only, don't use phones, the internet, mail or spoken conversation in any building. Don't do it where you can be seen by satellites. Don't plan it in your car, they can bug that without telling you.

Dude, it's time to start digging a foxhole.

Point made.

I'm in my late 30ties. I go to the stadium since I'm 6 or something.

On average I see 40 games a year, that's about 1200 games in my entire life.

I saw hooligans in action, 3 or 4 times. So I have a chance of 0,3 % to see hooligans.

Hooligans usual fight each other or cops. It's rare that they turn to common spectators.

I never, never was involved in any fight or whatever.

So, if I was that tok-tok-tooook afraid like many Americans, I should stay away from the stadium or arm myself with a gun?

Btw, hooliganism is not 'hot' anymore. It's something of the past.

Hey, are you really Linus and Lucy? Cos' right there you're coming across like that plaster bust that Shrodinger keeps on his piano. J's kidding.

At what point does it it become necessary to rebel against the government? When does that clearly switch from being high treason to high patriotism?

Better start regulating that militia, fella. Only, don't use phones, the internet, mail or spoken conversation in any building. Don't do it where you can be seen by satellites. Don't plan it in your car, they can bug that without telling you.

Dude, it's time to start digging a foxhole.

It's still a good movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_%28film%29

It's still a good movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_%28film%29

You know how sometimes I say "if you have a link, I'll read it" ..?

I read pretty quick. If Mel Gibson is on the screen, I read ALOUD! Thx tho.

Well. It seems that despites the overwhelming amount of addicted and tok tok toook feared gun users, criminality is pretty high in USA. It's not lower as in Europe.

Um, no. Crime rates in Europe keep going up, while crime rates in the US are going down or staying level. Sweden, for example, has a crime victimization rate 20% higher than the US.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/266umtwb.asp

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

John Lott, in his book "More Guns, Less Crime" showed that making it easier for law-abiding citizens to own firearms leads to a decrease in the crime rate.

Seems like it doesn't stop those criminals, no?

There will always be criminals. But you propose making it easier for them to rob, rape and murder their victims.

If there are fewer guns on the streets, I am pretty sure that criminality will not rise. There’s evidence for: Europe.

Criminals don't care about gun laws, and they will always find a way to obtain firearms. Even if you were to magically make all privately-owned firearms in the US disappear, more would make their way onto the streets through smuggling, illegal production etc.

The UK has some pretty strict gun laws, but criminals there don't seem to have a problem getting their hands on firearms.

I think your argument basically comes down to: "Belgians are smarter than Americans, so Americans should pass the same laws as Belgians."

Thanks for the input, but a Belgian's opinion on gun laws in the US doesn't really matter much.

Well. It seems that despites the overwhelming amount of addicted and tok tok toook feared gun users, criminality is pretty high in USA. It's not lower as in Europe.

If there are fewer guns on the streets, I am pretty sure that criminality will not rise. There’s evidence for: Europe.

General criminality is linked to economic and social conditions, not to gun ownership. Only a handful of specific crimes are closely linked to gun ownership, and then it's not a causal relationship. As an example of this, look at the Swiss article that you posted. Switzerland is a wealthy country, with a strong identity and close communal ties. Guns are an important part of their culture, in that ownership is viewed as a social responsibility, like paying taxes. It's something of a symbolic way for the Swiss citizenry to take ownership of their government, their communities and their lives, and all of this dates back to the earliest days of the Halberdiers and the Eidgenossen.

Furthermore, don't be too hasty in comparing US and "European" crime rates, as they vary from country to country, especially when you are lacking in actual statistics. Differing economic and social policies result in different scenarios, and overall you might be surprised at exactly how comparable our crime rates are.

Furthermore, don't be too hasty in comparing US and "European" crime rates, as they vary from country to country, especially when you are lacking in actual statistics. Differing economic and social policies result in different scenarios, and overall you might be surprised at exactly how comparable our crime rates are.

And, the dirty little secret is that if you don't count crimes commited by minority groups in the US, the US crime rate would be low even by European standards.

Take that for what it's worth.

And, the dirty little secret is that if you don't count crimes commited by minority groups in the US, the US crime rate would be low even by European standards.

Take that for what it's worth.

Minority groups are still part of the US aren't they?

Um, no. Crime rates in Europe keep going up, while crime rates in the US are going down or staying level. Sweden, for example, has a crime victimization rate 20% higher than the US.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/266umtwb.asp

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

John Lott, in his book "More Guns, Less Crime" showed that making it easier for law-abiding citizens to own firearms leads to a decrease in the crime rate.



There will always be criminals. But you propose making it easier for them to rob, rape and murder their victims.



Criminals don't care about gun laws, and they will always find a way to obtain firearms. Even if you were to magically make all privately-owned firearms in the US disappear, more would make their way onto the streets through smuggling, illegal production etc.

The UK has some pretty strict gun laws, but criminals there don't seem to have a problem getting their hands on firearms.

I think your argument basically comes down to: "Belgians are smarter than Americans, so Americans should pass the same laws as Belgians."

Thanks for the input, but a Belgian's opinion on gun laws in the US doesn't really matter much.


No Belgians have bigger balls than Americans. We don't need to carry a gun for something that will never appear.


It's not that I'm Belgian and you're having another nationality, that your opinion is worth more.

Because I don’t think that 18-years old teenagers are having the same level of self-control, stability, seriousness; responsibility, tact, endurances, experience and objectivity as 26-years old adults.

At 26, university or college is over for most of us. Most will have passed their first serious relationship, most of us are at work, etc…
For most of us, the brain is fully developed. (yes, there’s empiric evidence for this one).

At 18 you don’t know nothing, you’re just a kid and you still can’t handle the responsibility of having a gun.

(Emphasis mine)

Well, that's your problem right there then isn't it? :P

Joking aside, it still strikes me that you're deliberately ignoring all the reasonable points, only responding to the pro-gun trolls, and flinging around ridiculous accusations.

Here's another set of arguments you've been ignoring, which I posted earlier. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13139568&postcount=347

On a more general note, you appear to be approaching this from the idea of "If you don't have a good reason to own something, don't own it." Americans will often approach from the other side "If you don't have a good reason for me not to own it, I will." This is an idea enshrined in their very constitution, which lists the rights of the Government and then says that all others belong to the people. It also lists the 'inalienable' rights of the people, and states that even though not all rights were included, the others are not forfeited.

In other words, demonstrate that I can have no good reason for owning a gun, and you can ban them. Until you do, I'll buy one.

General criminality is linked to economic and social conditions, not to gun ownership. Only a handful of specific crimes are closely linked to gun ownership, and then it's not a causal relationship. As an example of this, look at the Swiss article that you posted. Switzerland is a wealthy country, with a strong identity and close communal ties. Guns are an important part of their culture, in that ownership is viewed as a social responsibility, like paying taxes. It's something of a symbolic way for the Swiss citizenry to take ownership of their government, their communities and their lives, and all of this dates back to the earliest days of the Halberdiers and the Eidgenossen.

Furthermore, don't be too hasty in comparing US and "European" crime rates, as they vary from country to country, especially when you are lacking in actual statistics. Differing economic and social policies result in different scenarios, and overall you might be surprised at exactly how comparable our crime rates are.


Not that high. I already posted that one by myself. But many Americans see criminals *just* everywhere.

When I'm talking about Europe, I think about the EG + Scandinavia.

And, the dirty little secret is that if you don't count crimes commited by minority groups in the US, the US crime rate would be low even by European standards.

Take that for what it's worth.

Which is why we should be busting our asses to reach out to minority groups, especially in areas of education.

Inner city and rural schools need to be secure places, with quality facilities and sufficient funding.

Only then can we abolish this ludicrous "old west" image that some folks (Edwinasia, for instance) seem to have developed of the United States. Our goal should be to be like the Swiss, only without the Xenophobia and racism, that is.

(Emphasis mine)

Well, that's your problem right there then isn't it? :P

Joking aside, it still strikes me that you're deliberately ignoring all the reasonable points, only responding to the pro-gun trolls, and flinging around ridiculous accusations.

Here's another set of arguments you've been ignoring, which I posted earlier. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13139568&postcount=347

On a more general note, you appear to be approaching this from the idea of "If you don't have a good reason to own something, don't own it." Americans will often approach from the other side "If you don't have a good reason for me not to own it, I will." This is an idea enshrined in their very constitution, which lists the rights of the Government and then says that all others belong to the people. It also lists the 'inalienable' rights of the people, and states that even though not all rights were included, the others are not forfeited.

In other words, demonstrate that I can have no good reason for owning a gun, and you can ban them. Until you do, I'll buy one.


So according you, in general, 18-years old teenagers are having the same level of self-control, stability, seriousness; responsibility, tact, endurances, experience and objectivity as 26-years old adults?

Minority groups are still part of the US aren't they?


Sure. I'm not saying otherwise.

I'm just pointing out that the US has always been less homogenous than most European nations. We also have had a history of various racial problems which has contributed to our crime rate.

It's tough to compare the US to any European nation when talking about crime rates, causes of crime etc. The societies are different, and it's impossible to tie crime to such a simplistic analysis as "guns cause crime."

So according you, in general, 18-years old teenagers are having the same level of self-control, stability, seriousness; responsibility, tact, endurances, experience and objectivity as 26-years old adults?

So according to you, something magical happens to people when they turn 26 that suddenly makes them into rational, responsible people, when before they were bloodthirsty killers who murder everyone the instant they get near a gun?

Hey look, I can make ridiculous comments as well! Try actually responding to my points I raised there, not just ignoring them (there being my previous post, and the one linked to in it).

Not that high. I already posted that one by myself. But many Americans see criminals *just* everywhere.

When I'm talking about Europe, I think about the EG + Scandinavia.

First: What's the acronym "EG" stand for?

And, second: I think we can actually pinpoint where this one originates from. The American people have historically had a weak national identity, and the resulting alienation (I would prefer to use the German word Erfremdung here) that we have from our fellow citizens. It's an effect of the size of our country, its diverse nature and the inter-regional struggles of our shared history. This is important in that it plays a key role in leading towards individual feelings of insecurity, this weak group identity.

So according you, in general, 18-years old teenagers are having the same level of self-control, stability, seriousness; responsibility, tact, endurances, experience and objectivity as 26-years old adults?

Actually, in the US the legal age for purchase is 21.

No Belgians have bigger balls than Americans. We don't need to carry a gun for something that will never appear.

Or, it could simply be that you Belgians are such big cowards that you'e afraid of loud noises, so guns scare you.

Or, you're too stupid to take precautions to protect yourselves, and instead rely on your big-mommy government to protect you.

Let me ask you something- when you are in a car, do you put on your seatbelt? If so, following your logic, that makes you a coward because you are taking safety measures to protect yourself from something that is not likely to occur.


It's not that I'm Belgian and you're having another nationality, that your opinion is worth more.

No, the fact that you're Belgian makes your opinions on American guns laws worth less than a glass of warm spit. You don't live here, you've demonstrated that you are completely ignorant about America (you think Central Park is in Brooklyn), and you wouldn't have to live with the consequences of your proposals.

So, why should Americans care about how you do it in Belgium?

I'm in my late 30ties. I go to the stadium since I'm 6 or something.
Are you serious? I'd have thought you to be around half that, especially with your recalcitrant posts on burden of proof.

Are you serious? I'd have thought you to be around half that, especially with your recalcitrant posts on burden of proof.

Stop using long words you don't know the meaning of. This is friendly advice.

Impressing the fools who don't bother to look it up doesn't compensate for proving your foolishness to those who don't have to.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Massive Wang Land promotes safe use of guns for fun/sporting, personal protection and ornamental purposes.

IF every one did compulsory military service, as is LAW in Massive Wang Land, people would understand and respect guns.


<3 (y)

Wrong forum. You want Nationstates or International Incidents. The General forum is not for role playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw5-GOG8SXo :D

Sure. Moore is a liar and the movie is outdated.

Well do some research via Google, you'll find enough articles about teenagers younger than 18 that bought weapons 'legally'.

It seems that USA doesn’t ask always for an ID when buying a gun but always do when you order a beer…

Someone under the age of 17 CANNOT legally purchase a firearm.

And you clearly have no understanding of how legal firearms sales are undertaken, if you think that you wouldn't have to show ID in order to purchase one. I needed to show TWO forms of ID, submit to a background check, and fill out forms in order to get mine (I also had to wait 14 days per state law, since I didn't have a hunting license or state issued pistol permit).

Which is why we should be busting our asses to reach out to minority groups, especially in areas of education.


If I recall correctly, better education tends to have a negative correlation with a persons tendency towards violence. Clearly, the solution to the crime problem in the US is not, "lol let's give everyone guns and we can shoot all the criminals." Likewise it's not, "dur nobody needs guns, they only make perfectly normal people into violent psychopaths." Like most problems, the answer lies somewhere in the middle, with better education for those who aren't getting it, and gun laws that are responsible without taking away people's rights.


Our goal should be to be like the Swiss, only without the Xenophobia and racism, that is.

You mean the 'gun in every house, nationally sponsored shooting competitions, culture of marksmenship, and despite this very little crime' Swiss? :p


I'm just pointing out that the US has always been less homogenous than most European nations. We also have had a history of various racial problems which has contributed to our crime rate.

It's tough to compare the US to any European nation when talking about crime rates, causes of crime etc. The societies are different, and it's impossible to tie crime to such a simplistic analysis as "guns cause crime."

It's a shame this isn't obvious to more people. The US is a completely different culture (it's several completely different cultures) and not the homogenous national indentity that most European countries have. Comparing the two is, well, apples and oranges.


PS: Sorry to start a discussion and then disappear on ya, Nobel Hobos. I got swamped with homework and had just enough time to poke my head into this thread again (I'm surprised it's still around). Suffice it to say you got me on a couple points with your reply :p

Wrong forum. You want Nationstates or International Incidents. The General forum is not for role playing.


That needed to be said.

It's not immediately obvious to folks who just wandered in.

Stop using long words you don't know the meaning of. This is friendly advice.

Impressing the fools who don't bother to look it up doesn't compensate for proving your foolishness to those who don't have to.
I'm sorry, are you trying to make a point?

re·cal·ci·trant
1. resisting authority or control; not obedient or compliant; refractory.
2. hard to deal with, manage, or operate.


An adjective that can easily be used to characterize the contents of a post.

Thank you for trying.

First of all, guns do not make violent people. I can be violent without a gun. I've done it before.

Trust me, if US police can't stop a bunch of high schoolers from getting their hands on a handle of Vodka or stop people from making crystal meth in their garage, there is NO WAY that they can get all of the guns off of the streets. Banning guns would take a viable method for self-defense out of the hands of responsible people.

The feminist, passive, cowardly attitude that is growing exponentially in our country scares me. Owning a firearm doesn't mean you need to carry it around with you to defend yourself - it means you understand them. How many lives would have been saved at VTech if someone knew the capabilities of a 9mm pistol? Most people didn't even know what the pistol sounded like when it was fired. Way to go, gun-free school zone. 32 lives, when it could have been one or two if someone recongnized what was going on. You got a classroom full of students and one guy in the doorway with a pistol - this should have turned out differently.

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

I'm living in Belgium for almost 40 years.
Not one time, I met a burglar face-to-face.
Not one time I was in need for a gun.

I know that criminality is some higher in US, but it's still not that hard. Compare their rates with the ones of South Africa, Columbia and others and US is rather a land at peace.

I am rather sure that the average USAian never will meet a burglar face-to-face.

Still, why do they need such guns?

It seems they are very afraid from something. They act like chickens. TOK TOK TOOOOK !

Americans believe god created the gun and that it was meant to be an extension of a mans penis.

Actually, in the US the legal age for purchase is 21.

For handguns, yes. For rifles and shotguns, it's 18 (I used to sell firearms when I worked in the sporting goods department at Wal-Mart).

Americans believe god created the gun and that it was meant to be an extension of a mans penis.

:rolleyes:

And of course, you have proof to back up your statement, right.

I really wish the hoplophobes would get some new personal attacks. I'm bored with the ones they CONSTANTLY repeat.

*...*

One more point to add:
Will rasing the age of buying gun help with school shootings?

I don't think so. You would be amazed at what some of these people will do just to get in to a school. Adults could pretend to be a childs parent, or maybe this will hwelp un scramble your brain: DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT THE TEENAGERS COULD GET GUNS BY STEALING FROM THERE PARENTS, THOURGH THE BLACK MARKET, OR MAYBE BUYING ONE OFF'N THE STREET FROM LIKE A GANG MEMBER OR SOMETHING?

*...*

Shouting doesn't make the point any stronger. Stealing guns from parents (or anyone else) is easier the more guns there are around. Same applies to the black market. What exactly the difference is between "the black market" and "from a gang member" I wonder ...

That's not how it works. Criminals prefer the first situation you described- they want to be in an environment where they know that law-abiding citizens are not armed. That gives them a massive advantage.

It's funny how the law-abiding people think they know the criminal mind so well. The vast majority of criminals are either committing property crimes for money, or committing crimes of passion (eg killing or assaulting their partners.) That's not a "all criminals think such-and-such" statement, it's publicly available crime stats.

And I don't count people as criminals just because they take illegal drugs. Obviously the law does. The only link between drugs and people getting shot is that drug use is forced underground, driving up prices and removing the protection of the law from users.

In an environment where law-abiding citizens are allowed to be armed, the criminal is taking a risk every time he tries to rob someone. It's almost irrelevant if the person they are trying to rob is armed (though, if they are armed, the minute the criminal turns his back to run off with the victim's wallet, the victim is going to pull out his gun and shoot him. I read an article where an old lady in Oklahama did exactly that- she put 6 rounds into a fleeing mugger's back). Someone else on the street might be armed and can put a bullet in the mugger.

Wow. That right there is the problem with honest law-abiding citizens like yourself owning guns. You don't have the faintest idea what is legal and what's not. "Just go with the gut feeling and blow them away" seems to work for you.

Really quite scary.

What you propose is allowing criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens without any real fear that they will be wounded or killed. That makes no sense to me.

... and what you are proposing is a system where those too timid or scrupulous to pull a trigger are at the mercy of everyone else, whether those others are recognizable members of a gang, or a little old lady committing her first murder.

And, the dirty little secret is that if you don't count crimes committed by minority groups in the US, the US crime rate would be low even by European standards.

Take that for what it's worth.

Poverty (particularly as perceived by the perp) and a lack of social integration incline people to commit crime. Not all poor and disempowered people commit crime, not all rich people with a valued place in society are law-abiding. But there's a strong correlation.

First: What's the acronym "EG" stand for?

And, second: I think we can actually pinpoint where this one originates from. The American people have historically had a weak national identity, and the resulting alienation (I would prefer to use the German word Erfremdung here) that we have from our fellow citizens. It's an effect of the size of our country, its diverse nature and the inter-regional struggles of our shared history. This is important in that it plays a key role in leading towards individual feelings of insecurity, this weak group identity.

Wow. You struck a clear and penetrating note there. Very helpful indeed!

I'm in my late 30ties. I go to the stadium since I'm 6 or something.


Are you serious? I'd have thought you to be around half that, especially with your recalcitrant posts on burden of proof.

I'm sorry, are you trying to make a point?

Eh, I was drunk. I couldn't understand what you said, and I thought it might be because you actually meant something other than "recalcitrant."

You also didn't say which posts you meant, and made a rather derogatory personal reference to Edw'a who, though ribald towards USians and definitely refractory, has not to my knowledge got personal on anyone.

Sorry for the personal attack. I retract the imputation of foolishness. I still have no idea what you meant, though ...

Originally Posted by Dumfook
Americans believe god created the gun and that it was meant to be an extension of a mans penis.

WT??? I'm American & Christian and it's the first I've ever heard of that. It's like saying that God created Limburger cheese and its an extension of a fart.
Ah, I love the sweeping generalizations that appear on these forums:p.

So according to you, something magical happens to people when they turn 26 that suddenly makes them into rational, responsible people, when before they were bloodthirsty killers who murder everyone the instant they get near a gun?

Hey look, I can make ridiculous comments as well! Try actually responding to my points I raised there, not just ignoring them (there being my previous post, and the one linked to in it).

Are you born with pubic hair?

Are you showing the same behavior of a child of 3 years old?

Did you get interest suddenly in the other gender?

People change and develop. By nature and by their own experience.

It’s not rocket-science, everybody can see the differences in behavior between 18-years old and 26-years old people.

Sure some 18-years old one will be more mature as some 26-years old one.
And some 26-years old one (or older) will never be mature.

But in general; the behavioral differences between the two age groups are rather big.

Actually, in the US the legal age for purchase is 21.

According NRA, one can buy shotguns and rifles at 18.

First: What's the acronym "EG" stand for?

And, second: I think we can actually pinpoint where this one originates from. The American people have historically had a weak national identity, and the resulting alienation (I would prefer to use the German word Erfremdung here) that we have from our fellow citizens. It's an effect of the size of our country, its diverse nature and the inter-regional struggles of our shared history. This is important in that it plays a key role in leading towards individual feelings of insecurity, this weak group identity.

EG = Europese Gemeenschap

Sorry I'm not used to write EC :)

I don't know Andluciae and what about Canada? The Canadians have an equal weak history as Americans. But it seems they are not that afraid as Americans...

Or, it could simply be that you Belgians are such big cowards that you'e afraid of loud noises, so guns scare you.

Or, you're too stupid to take precautions to protect yourselves, and instead rely on your big-mommy government to protect you.

You don't need a brain to carry a gun. Your bigger-papa government is protecting you as well. Or are those policemen just there to please the tourists?


Let me ask you something- when you are in a car, do you put on your seatbelt? If so, following your logic, that makes you a coward because you are taking safety measures to protect yourself from something that is not likely to occur.

Eh no. In my country, wearing a seatbelt is mandatory. It's law. I have no choice. But I'm not pushed to have a gun.

Driving a car is dangerous. Odds are high that anyone will be involved in a car accident. Much, much and much higher than finding a criminal in your living room....

Criminality is that low in US, that odds are almost zero that you'll have to face a criminal.

You are protecting yourself for something which is not realistic.


No, the fact that you're Belgian makes your opinions on American guns laws worth less than a glass of warm spit. You don't live here, you've demonstrated that you are completely ignorant about America (you think Central Park is in Brooklyn), and you wouldn't have to live with the consequences of your proposals.

I didn't. I said that Central Park is near Brooklyn. Which is true.


So, why should Americans care about how you do it in Belgium?

Yeah, yeah, I should mind my own business.

If you would drop the personal insults, we could have a decent conversation. What do you think?

Are you serious? I'd have thought you to be around half that, especially with your recalcitrant posts on burden of proof.

Hey, are you not that guy who said 'cause I am not pro gun, I'm a fascist?

YES, you are that guy.

And now you are insulting me again.

Are you suffering from the Tourette syndrome?

Someone under the age of 17 CANNOT legally purchase a firearm.

And you clearly have no understanding of how legal firearms sales are undertaken, if you think that you wouldn't have to show ID in order to purchase one. I needed to show TWO forms of ID, submit to a background check, and fill out forms in order to get mine (I also had to wait 14 days per state law, since I didn't have a hunting license or state issued pistol permit).


In the movie, a seventeen year old boy is buying ammunition in some K-mart...

In the movie, a seventeen year old boy is buying ammunition in some K-mart...

Illegally.

Illegally.

I don't know.

The film is a little older, maybe at that time it was allowed that teenagers of 17 could buy ammunition at will?

Or the people at K-mart thought maybe 'cause the presence of M. Moore and cameras that everything was OK and forgot to ask for an ID?

Anyway, that's not the issue. At 18, one year later, you can buy it legally: ammunition + rifles & shotguns.

It's equal sick. The only people that say that you're mature at 18 are people of 18 :) and gun loving people that think it's cool to learn 5 years old children the 'art' of shooting.

Are you born with pubic hair?

Are you showing the same behavior of a child of 3 years old?

Did you get interest suddenly in the other gender?

People change and develop. By nature and by their own experience.

It’s not rocket-science, everybody can see the differences in behavior between 18-years old and 26-years old people.

Nope. That's the wonderful thing about people -- each one is different.

I'm thinking it might actually be rocket science after all. Which would make you a rocket scientist.

Which makes me happy to be on the other side of the world from you! :p

Sure some 18-years old one will be more mature as some 26-years old one.
And some 26-years old one (or older) will never be mature.

Good. I'm glad you recognize that.

But in general; the behavioral differences between the two age groups are rather big.

This has been argued quite a bit on NSG, usually in relation to teenagers having sex (gee, wonder why NSG would care about that ...)

It's really difficult, and people seem to get entrenched in one of these positions (at least, these are the ones I took seriously):


There should be a 'sliding scale' of rights and responsibilities with age. No magic birthday when suddenly you have rights.
There should be some way of testing responsibility, or some measure of physical maturity (assuming therefore that mental maturity will correspond), or individual cases should be tested in court.
Just keep it the way it is because it's too hard.
Treat children exactly the same as adults, adjust adult rights if necessary.
The government should butt out and leave it to parents.


There are serious problems with each.

Or to put it another way, you'll get crushed trying to take any position on that subject.

------------

I'm for strict gun controls, but that's easy for me because I live in a country which has them. To some extent, my wish not to own a gun myself is not so much a position of principle, as a decision based on circumstances. I don't want to be the person who has a gun, among unarmed people. A gun, to me, seems like a liability not an asset. It would allow me to do things I might hugely regret ... but I'd get one if I had to repel feral animals from stock, or meant to go sailing in the China sea and would have to consider pirates.

If I went and lived in the US, quite possibly I'd change my stance after a year or so. Particularly if I or people around me had the experience of being threatened with a gun as so many in this thread have recounted.

This thread has been a jolly stoush. Your points have been leavened with much wit and pleasing choice of words ... though the chicken noises were a bit too provocative for my taste. To some extent, you argue with yourself!

You are, however, at an inherent disadvantage in prescribing a better system for people who are living in a different country with a very different culture (dare I say "a gun culture lock stock and barrel"? :p ). And it's around about this point, where you start trying to find a way of turning their system into the one your country has, that it really gets too hard.

Look for instance at the range of different but interlocked reasons for owning guns. That, there, is a heavily entrenched position ... analogous to overlapping fields of fire in a defensive position. It should be pretty obvious to you that the gun-nuts have seen you coming ...

I don't know.
No. You don't. But despite this it continues to be true. The whole point of him buying ammunition was to demonstrate that it can be done illegally.

Anyway, that's not the issue. At 18, one year later, you can buy it legally: ammunition + rifles & shotguns.
Yeah, that's how age limits tend to work.

It's equal sick. The only people that say that you're mature at 18 are people of 18 :) and gun loving people that think it's cool to learn 5 years old children the 'art' of shooting.

Some people are mature at 18. Others aren't. Some people aren't mature at 26 either. Or in their 30s......

Nope. That's the wonderful thing about people -- each one is different.

I'm thinking it might actually be rocket science after all. Which would make you a rocket scientist.

Which makes me happy to be on the other side of the world from you! :p



Good. I'm glad you recognize that.



This has been argued quite a bit on NSG, usually in relation to teenagers having sex (gee, wonder why NSG would care about that ...)

It's really difficult, and people seem to get entrenched in one of these positions (at least, these are the ones I took seriously):


There should be a 'sliding scale' of rights and responsibilities with age. No magic birthday when suddenly you have rights.
There should be some way of testing responsibility, or some measure of physical maturity (assuming therefore that mental maturity will correspond), or individual cases should be tested in court.
Just keep it the way it is because it's too hard.
Treat children exactly the same as adults, adjust adult rights if necessary.
The government should butt out and leave it to parents.


There are serious problems with each.

Or to put it another way, you'll get crushed trying to take any position on that subject.

------------

I'm for strict gun controls, but that's easy for me because I live in a country which has them. To some extent, my wish not to own a gun myself is not so much a position of principle, as a decision based on circumstances. I don't want to be the person who has a gun, among unarmed people. A gun, to me, seems like a liability not an asset. It would allow me to do things I might hugely regret ... but I'd get one if I had to repel feral animals from stock, or meant to go sailing in the China sea and would have to consider pirates.

If I went and lived in the US, quite possibly I'd change my stance after a year or so. Particularly if I or people around me had the experience of being threatened with a gun as so many in this thread have recounted.

This thread has been a jolly stoush. Your points have been leavened with much wit and pleasing choice of words ... though the chicken noises were a bit too provocative for my taste. To some extent, you argue with yourself!

You are, however, at an inherent disadvantage in prescribing a better system for people who are living in a different country with a very different culture (dare I say "a gun culture lock stock and barrel"? :p ). And it's around about this point, where you start trying to find a way of turning their system into the one your country has, that it really gets too hard.

Look for instance at the range of different but interlocked reasons for owning guns. That, there, is a heavily entrenched position ... analogous to overlapping fields of fire in a defensive position. It should be pretty obvious to you that the gun-nuts have seen you coming ...


The TOK TOK TOOOOK was for my own fun :)

The initial posting wasn’t brought as a provocation (except the tok-tok-took a little :p).

I was really curious why they want guns…
I’m not out to change (nor having the power) their attitude against guns.

I had the feeling that fear was a factor and the people their replies here underlined this:

• They are afraid for their own government, one day, they should be able to revolt! :)
• Fear for criminals. While there is not that much criminality in US

Except for the few personal insults (but I was prepared, such ‘hot’ items will always attract hillbillies), it’s a very nice thread.

No. You don't. But despite this it continues to be true. The whole point of him buying ammunition was to demonstrate that it can be done illegally.


Yeah, that's how age limits tend to work.



Some people are mature at 18. Others aren't. Some people aren't mature at 26 either. Or in their 30s......

Yes, but generalization works.

I don't think that most 18 years old boys and girls are "gun-ready".

Yes, but generalization works.

I don't think that most 18 years old boys and girls are "gun-ready".

And we should all go along with what you think?


Why do I get the feeling that you're actually going to say yes? Ugh.

And we should all go along with what you think?


Why do I get the feeling that you're actually going to say yes? Ugh.


No. :)

The marketing power of NRA is enormous. Tomorrow they’ll start a campaign to arm yourself against Smurfs and the people will eat it.

We'll have to wait till the male president of the NRA is trapped in some toilet trying to get some butt sex.

Indiscretion works fine in USA. Sure if it is sex related. :)

No. :)

The marketing power of NRA is enormous. Tomorrow they’ll start a campaign to arm yourself against Smurfs and the people will eat it.

We'll have to wait till the male president of the NRA is trapped in some toilet trying to get some butt sex.

Indiscretion works fine in USA. Sure if it is sex related. :)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13139568&postcount=347

Hey, you're still ignoring these. No answers, eh?

Maybe you have the wrong impression of the US gun laws. Once I turn 18, I'm allowed to buy rifles and/or shotguns (depending on various bits of State law). This doesn't include handguns, for which the limit is 21. It also doesn't include such things as fully automatic weapons, silencers, etc, which require separate licenses that are rather hard to get at that age.

In other words, it's not that at 18 I can go down to the gun store and buy four machineguns and a backpack full of ammo.

Also, I bet that the scene in Bowling For Columbine had Moore actually buying the ammunition. (Which I have seen, and is a good film, raising some good points).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13139568&postcount=347

Hey, you're still ignoring these. No answers, eh?

Maybe you have the wrong impression of the US gun laws. Once I turn 18, I'm allowed to buy rifles and/or shotguns (depending on various bits of State law). This doesn't include handguns, for which the limit is 21. It also doesn't include such things as fully automatic weapons, silencers, etc, which require separate licenses that are rather hard to get at that age.

In other words, it's not that at 18 I can go down to the gun store and buy four machineguns and a backpack full of ammo.

Also, I bet that the scene in Bowling For Columbine had Moore actually buying the ammunition. (Which I have seen, and is a good film, raising some good points).


But no, I'm not ignoring it. It's already answered. :)

I'll summarize:

To exercise my constitutional right.
Society evolve and so are laws, once you could have slaves. Since 1948 women can vote in my country. People would have a laugh if you suggested that women should have voting rights before that date.

While that constitutional right was created, it was maybe wise to include it. Now, the situation is different.

Shooting for pleasure (targets).
There’s nothing wrong with that one. But you don’t need your own gun for having this kind of fun. One could borrow one of the club.

Shooting for food (hunting).
There’s again nothing wrong with that one. Hunters need a (paid) license, have to get a certification, etc…

Shooting vermin
This is a job for licensed hunters. And I don’t think city people suffer a lot from foxes.

Self defence.
I don’t think that common people should play police. They are experts, let them do their job. And criminality isn’t that high in US as well that there is a clear need to protect yourself. Most Americans will never meet a criminal face-to-face in their entire life.

It’s not South Africa, Colombia or Iraq.

Collecting.
There’s nothing wrong with that. But maybe it’s wise to sabotage these kind of guns. It would be in the interest of the collectors as well.
If everybody (including criminals) knows that you have collecting guns, nobody will break in.

In short, I have nothing against guns. Adult people, with no criminal record should get one.

Guns are only useful for shooting things. Thus one would only own a gun if one felt one would need or want to shoot something. Guns which, for whatever reason, cannot be used to shoot things, would only be owned for show, for sentimental value, because they are toys, or possibly because one is a pack rat.

This has been another edition of smart answers to stupid questions.



Er...mate.... ding aling..u are not so smart. Er...i think u are a clown, u know, the guy on the back row in classroom...telling stupid jokes ad acting clever? wHEN IN REALITY HE IS A LOW iq SON OF A BITCH.

Self defence.
I don’t think that common people should play police. They are experts, let them do their job. And criminality isn’t that high in US as well that there is a clear need to protect yourself. Most Americans will never meet a criminal face-to-face in their entire life.

It’s not South Africa, Colombia or Iraq.



The police have very little to do with self defence. I've been mugged several times and in none of those situations did my attackers give me time to get out my mobile phone and call for help. Perhaps in Belgium though....

Er...mate.... ding aling..u are not so smart. Er...i think u are a clown, u know, the guy on the back row in classroom...telling stupid jokes ad acting clever? wHEN IN REALITY HE IS A LOW iq SON OF A BITCH.

You might as well just go straight to moderation and report your own post.
That's bannable, absolutely no question. The moment someone reports it, you are an ex-nation.

In fact, save the mods the effort and just go.

Er...mate.... ding aling..u are not so smart. Er...i think u are a clown, u know, the guy on the back row in classroom...telling stupid jokes ad acting clever? wHEN IN REALITY HE IS A LOW iq SON OF A BITCH.

Nice start to NSG

The police have very little to do with self defence. I've been mugged several times and in none of those situations did my attackers give me time to get out my mobile phone and call for help. Perhaps in Belgium though....

Several times? Amazing. Where do you live? Why don't you leave?

And what did you do when you were mugged?

You would not have enough time as well in Belgium.

Police are patrolling around, investigate suspicious cars, that kind of stuff. But not at a rate that you feel yourself in a police state.

I think the rate of criminality is comparable to USA.
Like everywhere is it in the cities higher as in the country.

I live in the city, but I don't feel unsafe at night and nothing ever happened to me.

And I know just few people that had to face a criminal. Some girlfriend met a
carjacker in Brussels and some friend was robbed in a street in Antwerp (partly his own fault, he was drunk and in the "wrong" neighbourhood)

Er...mate.... ding aling..u are not so smart. Er...i think u are a clown, u know, the guy on the back row in classroom...telling stupid jokes ad acting clever? wHEN IN REALITY HE IS A LOW iq SON OF A BITCH.

This is your first posting...

I'm wondering who you really are, 'cause this isn't your first posting, isn't my dear?

Er...mate.... ding aling..u are not so smart. Er...i think u are a clown, u know, the guy on the back row in classroom...telling stupid jokes ad acting clever? wHEN IN REALITY HE IS A LOW iq SON OF A BITCH.

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/lolani.gif

The irony! It burns!

Actaully, have people already reported this? It'd make for a lol worthy addition to mah sig, but I don't think the mods approve of sigging flames, even if you are the person they're being directed at.

Sorry for the personal attack. I retract the imputation of foolishness. I still have no idea what you meant, though ...
He made a post a few pages ago where he refused to offer proof for his statements, and resorted to being obtuse to excuse himself from doing so. In future, don't drink and post. ;)


Are you suffering from the Tourette syndrome?
No, but then again, I am not the person who has no concept of the notion of 'burden of proof'...

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/lolani.gif

The irony! It burns!

Actaully, have people already reported this? It'd make for a lol worthy addition to mah sig, but I don't think the mods approve of sigging flames, even if you are the person they're being directed at.

Not me. In fact, I regret giving it as much attention as I did.

I guess I find it reassuring. There is some level of crap post I'm not in danger of sinking to ...

So, where were we?

Shooting a gun is a skill; one that takes a lot of practice, because it is more difficult than the movies portray. Like many other skills, shooting takes practice: if I practice enough, I'll get good at it. Then I'll know one more skill than you, and won't that be a shame.

He made a post a few pages ago where he refused to offer proof for his statements, and resorted to being obtuse to excuse himself from doing so. In future, don't drink and post. ;)


No, but then again, I am not the person who has no concept of the notion of 'burden of proof'...

Even so, that doesn't give you the right to start insulting.

Once you'll be polite and then I'll answer you. Deal ?

Several times? Amazing. Where do you live? Why don't you leave?

And what did you do when you were mugged?

You would not have enough time as well in Belgium.

Police are patrolling around, investigate suspicious cars, that kind of stuff. But not at a rate that you feel yourself in a police state.

I live in the city, but I don't feel unsafe at night and nothing ever happened to me.


I was mugged once in Northern Ireland, once in Portugal and once in Thailand. In none of those countries do I feel any more, or less, safe than anywhere else. I just understand that everywhere has their criminal elements and it may affect me but it's unlikely.

You understand that the police can't be everywhere at once but you dismiss the self defence aspect of guns as unneccessary because it should be left up to the police? Don't you see a problem with this?

Shooting a gun is a skill; one that takes a lot of practice, because it is more difficult than the movies portray. Like many other skills, shooting takes practice: if I practice enough, I'll get good at it. Then I'll know one more skill than you, and won't that be a shame.

I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand......

But no, I'm not ignoring it. It's already answered. :)

I'll summarize:

To exercise my constitutional right.
Society evolve and so are laws, once you could have slaves. Since 1948 women can vote in my country. People would have a laugh if you suggested that women should have voting rights before that date.

While that constitutional right was created, it was maybe wise to include it. Now, the situation is different.

No, maybe you misunderstand the idea of a constitutional right. Slaves were not a constitutional right, and there was a good reason to ban slavery. Firearms are one, listed right after free speech. This was a country founded by a bunch of rebels who didn't want to pay taxes, I think they'd have like people having guns.


Shooting for pleasure (targets).
There’s nothing wrong with that one. But you don’t need your own gun for having this kind of fun. One could borrow one of the club.

Sure. So how about if there's no local gun club? What if they don't have the sorts of firearms I want to shoot? It's possible to do target shooting in your own backyard (especially in the rural US), so should that be forbidden?


Shooting for food (hunting).
There’s again nothing wrong with that one. Hunters need a (paid) license, have to get a certification, etc…

They do. But you were busy saying that people have no reasons to need a gun - looks like you've just given us at least one.


Shooting vermin
This is a job for licensed hunters. And I don’t think city people suffer a lot from foxes.

Shooting vermin is a job for licensed hunters? No, hunting is a job for licensed hunters. Shooting vermin refers to foxes, squirrels, rattlesnakes, etc. This is, of course, mostly a rural concern, but even so, it's another valid reason to own a gun.


Self defence.
I don’t think that common people should play police. They are experts, let them do their job. And criminality isn’t that high in US as well that there is a clear need to protect yourself. Most Americans will never meet a criminal face-to-face in their entire life.

It’s not South Africa, Colombia or Iraq.

I'm not saying that common people should play police. I'm saying that people should have a right to defend themselves against attack. By your logic I'm not allowed to have pepper spray to defend myself, not allowed to fight an attacker in self defence, etc. The police are experts at reactive work - responding once a crime has been committed. Fortunately, they can't do any sort of precrime stuff, so crime will still happen, people will still be attacked, and their rights to life and liberty still stand. Hence, firearms for self defence.


Collecting.
There’s nothing wrong with that. But maybe it’s wise to sabotage these kind of guns. It would be in the interest of the collectors as well.
If everybody (including criminals) knows that you have collecting guns, nobody will break in.

You seem to be under the impression that as soon as someone has a gun, criminals are lining up to break into their house to steal it. A criminal who is already armed doesn't need to break in to steal more, and a criminal who isn't will be very unlikely to break in to the house of someone they know is armed.


In short, I have nothing against guns. Adult people, with no criminal record should get one.

Hm. That's new, from all of your other posts in this thread.

Also, nice to see you saying that people should be allowed guns at 18, as that's the age of adulthood.

I'll just get the ball rolling again by suggesting that the idea that a "well regulated militia" can overthrow what they percieve to be tyranny in the US has been tested ... and it failed.

Called the Civil War I believe ...

I was mugged once in Northern Ireland, once in Portugal and once in Thailand. In none of those countries do I feel any more, or less, safe than anywhere else. I just understand that everywhere has their criminal elements and it may affect me but it's unlikely.

You understand that the police can't be everywhere at once but you dismiss the self defence aspect of guns as unneccessary because it should be left up to the police? Don't you see a problem with this?

Maybe, the 'I voted for Bush' t-shirt was over the top :p

Do you realize what could happen, if you had a gun and try to show/use it...

Now, you lose some money and sure the experience is traumatic. But losing a life is worse...

I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand......

Oh, I don't know. Isn't the topic "hey bring it on you gun-nuts! You'll lose your temper long before me!" ...? ;)

EDIT: WOOT, the half-millenium is MINE! MINE!