Should guns be outlawed? [Archive]

aikiMac

20-Jun-2003, 09:13 PM

Point 1: The first law of nature is self-preservation.
Proof: It is self-evident. The term "law of nature" comes from philosophy. I didn't make up the term. It is equivalent to the term "natural law." Examples of its use: the writings of John Locke, and the (American) Declaration of Independence. It is variously defined as reason itself, and as a subset of the divine law given to us by God. Take your pick. Examples of its definition: the writings of John Locke, and Romans 1-2 of the Bible.

Preliminary Conclusion: God (by whatever religion you define him) does not want us defend ourselves.

Huh? Wait a minute, does that make any sense? It's
utterly illogical. I must have gotten it backwards. God does want us to defend ourselves.

Point 2: The use of weapons in self-defense is morally justified.
Proof: Try this thought experiment: Suppose Abel saw Cain's blow coming. Would Abel have been justified in defending himself?

Natural law says "yes." We don't know what weapon, if any, Cain used. I assert that it doesn't matter how Cain killed Abel. Suppose he used a stick. Would Abel have been justified in defending himself with his garden hoe? Or with a stick like Cain's stick? Natural law says "yes."

Try this thought experiment: Suppose someone with a gun threatens Joe Citizen with lethal force. Joe somehow disarms the villain (untrained people do it every day) but the villain is still a threat to Joe's bodily welfare. Would Joe be morally justified in shooting the villain with the villain's own gun? Natural law says "yes." Let us change the facts now. Joe had the gun in the first place. It's his gun. Does this small change in the facts have any effect on the answer? As a matter of logic, no, it does not change the answer. Using a villain's weapon against him is logically equivalent to using your own weapon against that same villain in those same circumstances.

Therefore, any political law that denies me the right to use my own gun, logically denies me the natural law right to
use a villain's gun against him. Any law that denies gun ownership indeed denies the use of one's personal gun. Therefore, any law that denies gun ownership violates natural law.

Sometimes you need a weapon. Karate and jujitsu are great, but at 20 feet a gun is greater. No karate master can dodge a bullet. Various martial arts teach methods of bare-handed defense against weapon-wielding assailants. The techniques work but (1) only after many years of disciplined practice, (2) only if your empty-hand skill is better than his weapon talents, and (3) only if you are lucky that day. It is a fact that weapons are superior to bare bodies. Hello, that's why soldiers use weapons.

If one denies the use of weapons in self-defense, then one has
effectively denied self-defense. It is no consolation to the
20-year-old female rape victim living where guns are outlawed that were she a true master of the XYZ martial art, she could have fought off her armed rapist. Natural law and neighborly love say "give her a gun!"

Preliminary Conclusion: The logical conclusion from these several points, above, is that our Creator would want Abel and all of us to defend ourselves right here, right now, as we live and breath. He gave you the resources and the will power to stay alive. Sometimes that means you do a taekwondo spinning back
kick. Sometimes that means you shoot your antagonist.

Point 3: The right of self-defense is logically erased if weapons
cannot change with the times.
Proof: The weapons used today are logically and functionally equivalent to the weapons of old. For example, bats are the same as a stick. If a stick is okay, then logically a bat is okay. And modern guns are functionally the same as swords of old. Times change, but PRINCIPLES remain forever constant. The principle
behind self-defense permits the use of modern weapons just as surely as it permitted the use of swords, shields, sticks, and fists in the past because -- because -- functionally, all weapons are extensions of the mind and body. The PRINCIPLE that would deny one weapon would deny any other weapon, and thus, would deny all weapons.

Point 4: Suppose that a legislature would not have us defend ourselves with weapons. What result?

The result is that "might makes right." The result is injustice.

Evil does what Good (I would say God) does not want done. Good does not want violence, so evil is violent. Good wants justice, not injustice. Justice includes rebuking evil and retaliating against evil. But if -- if -- Good does not want weapons used in self-defense, then violent encounters become hands versus weapons. Weapons win, so in practice, there is no
adequate retaliation against the evil use of weapons.
Consequently, lawful people are easy targets. For want of an equal weapon they are bruised by the evil man's clubs, they are cut by the evil man's knives, they are shot by the evil man's pistol. They cry out for a hero. "Where is my champion? I thought that Good (or God) cares about me, yet I am denied adequate defense in the face present physical evil. This is NOT love!"

Guns are the modern weapon. We don't live in the year 103 or 1003. The same PRINCIPLE that would deny guns must necessarily deny all other weapons of defense throughout the history of Man. Bare hands cannot long contend with weapons, so if all weapons are denied, then self-defense itself is denied. But self-defense is a natural law right that comes from our Creator himself. In a conflict between nature's laws or God's laws and Man's laws, nature and God win.

Final Conclusion:
Weapons must be permitted in self-defense. Therefore, in this age, guns must be permitted in self-defense.

YODA

20-Jun-2003, 09:15 PM

Guns ARE outlawed.

aikiMac

20-Jun-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by YODA
Guns ARE outlawed.
Yes ami, thanks. Sometimes I need the obvious told to me. In this case I thought the question was, "Should guns be outlawed," not, "Are guns outlawed?" My humble apologies if I misunderstood or misread the question. Accidents do happen, you know. I'm perfect only on Tuesdays. Today isn't Tuesday.

Ansatsu

20-Jun-2003, 09:53 PM

Here's my personal opinion, though certain people may not completely agree, which is perfectly ok.

First off, if guns were to be completely outlawed, there's bound to be more people with them than there are now, because there are generally quite a lot of people who do what they're not supposed to, just because they're not supposed to. I myself am that way on a couple things. However, I believe that if guns were kept legal, there would still be violence, but there would be fewer perpetrators because the intended victim her/himself possessed a weapon which thwarte the intended act. However, although I agree that a victim should be allowed to carry and possibly use the weapon if the need were to arise, I completely abhor the use of the weapon to take life unless there is absolutely no other recourse. Here's a scenario (real or imagined is irrelevant). A person is coming out of the store late at night, and is approached by someone who clearly intends malice, the unarmed victim would have no way to defend against the aggressor, and the perpetrator will be happy to find another victim at when the desire arises. However, if the victim were armed and could defend against the crime, the act might probably be thwarted, even if the victim has to use the gun. However, even though the victim's life is in danger, that does not give the victim all rights and priviledges to kill the aggressor, but merely to inflict enough damage to the aggressor's body/pride that the aggressor will (hopefully) think twice about committing another assault. Of course, nowadays revenge is quite a common factor, in which case a kill may or may not be required to prevent any further harm. But as such, the taking of the aggressor's life would be a little more acceptable because the perpetrator would otherwise seek out and kill the victim because of the sustained pain/damage.

Understand¿

LilBunnyRabbit

20-Jun-2003, 09:58 PM

If guns are illegal, then anyone carrying a gun is a criminal, and can be arrested and treated as such.

Cudgel

21-Jun-2003, 01:55 AM

um how about no.

I personally dislike guns being a very peaceful guy sorta, but I feel completely justified in owning firearms to protect myself and my loved ones from those who would wish to deprive them or myself of life or property.

And if even if 'I' cannot own a firearm what would prevent a crimal from getting an illegal firearm? Nothing, gangs in major cities have automatic weapons which are illegal in most states in the US. If theses people have no problem in owning already illegal weapons what will keep them for m gaing to excess to wha they already have?

And it is a fact that when a country bans firearms violent crimes shoot up. Simply because the criminals know that no one else has any, if there is even the slightest hint of danger mosdt criminals flee being in general cowards.

Spike

21-Jun-2003, 02:23 AM

"Should guns be outlawed? "

yes they should

"And why?"

Guns are for killing people, it`s that simple

Anne

21-Jun-2003, 02:32 AM

Hypothetically, guns should be outlawed. We should not create weapons. Hypothetically of course.

But then again, hypothetically communism works.

Just because our world is so screwed up, we have to have weapons, and it's impossible to abolish them.

For those of you who are Matrix fans, in Reloaded the Architect says:

The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime... The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.

And that sums a lot of it up.

Spike

21-Jun-2003, 03:28 AM

Bollocks!

Jazman

21-Jun-2003, 05:25 AM

I agree with Anne that hypothetically there should be no guns. However, being as how the only thing that scares me is guns, of course I'm going to own one if other people own them.(actually, a bbgun can make you feel pretty secure even) However if we could completly eliminate guns I would absolutely love it. But of course that is impossible so we need to be allowed to carry/own weapons

Cudgel

21-Jun-2003, 03:05 PM

HUZZAH
GUns are neede as long as ther are guns hence unless gunpowder suddenly cease to burn we will always have them. Untilk we make something better ofcourse, but now adays humanity is puting more effort into making beter video games rather than weapons.

Spike

21-Jun-2003, 03:13 PM

Why not make it as dificult as possible for criminals to get guns? Rathre than have everyone in the world issued with the power to kill easily?

by the way, Anne, I was saying bollocks to the guy in the Matrix, not to you, I think you made a fair point

Cain

21-Jun-2003, 03:24 PM

It would only encourage more people to get access to guns if they were legal!

|Cain|

grandmaster mat

21-Jun-2003, 04:02 PM

like yoda said guns r outlawed in the uk but ppl still do get hold of them, only about 2 months ago the garage about a mile or so away from me near the motorway had an armed robbery, another person held the shop up with a knife and he went to drive off, he drove across the grass to get onto the motor way quicker and he drove right into the ditch just before the motor way lol it was dark and he didnt notice it

khafra

23-Jun-2003, 06:24 PM

Licensed and registered concealed carry weapons don't really get used in the commission of crimes. I wouldn't say we should let anybody that can wield a credit card carry around a Mk-19 on a turret atop their Hummer, but the weapons criminals use are almost invariably obtained illegally. Ah! And I can predict your next argument: "But, Khafra, there would be fewer guns to obtain illegally if all guns were outlawed."
Perhaps there would be fewer guns, but the criminals using them would certainly feel much safer when they did so. And even if you managed to round up and destroy every single projectile weapon on the globe, including the ones in the government armories that get stolen from every so often, that would only promote the homemade zip gun to the level of unstoppable superweapon, and any 14 year old gang member with mediocre fabrication skills could take out an entire police squad.

Jazman

23-Jun-2003, 11:46 PM

"and any 14 year old gang member with mediocre fabrication skills"
don't you mean 18 year old? :D

Swoop

24-Jun-2003, 12:02 AM

I've noticed that in countries where gun ownership is legal and common people are more paranoid for their safety. I live in a country where guns are outlawed. The chance of someone breaking into my house with a gun in their hand is very VERY small. Most armed robberies here are carried out using replica guns. There is gun crime but not nearly as much as in countries e.g. the US, simply because guns are a little harder to come by and because criminals don't feel they need them because they won't be looking down the end of one if they break into someones house.

There isn't an arms race here between law abiding citizens and criminals.

Swoop

24-Jun-2003, 12:06 AM

You're right khafra. Last thing we want is 8 year olds making home made nukes and causing the downfall of humanity..............bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Jazman

24-Jun-2003, 05:10 AM

even though it's legal to carry a gun in the US I seriously do not fear anyone breaking into my house with a gun. Most gang members would rather carry a knife because of the amount of years possible in jail.(much less if a knife or other weapon is used as far as I know) I still fear burglery, but not enough to want to ban guns(partially cause my family owns several guns)

Andrew Green

24-Jun-2003, 05:36 AM

We get along fine without them.

I see no reason for anyone to have one apart from target shooting (keep it at the range locked up), hunting (hunting rifles, not shot guns/hand guns/assault rifles, machine guns, etc.) crime, military and Law enforcement (who should use them as a last resort)

Why would you want one in your house?

As far as I know the statistics are that more people get shot by accident then in a commsion of a crime. You're probably safer without one...

and the "The right to bare arms" was written in a different time, with different circumstances.

Adam

24-Jun-2003, 12:07 PM

I agree with Swoop for the same reasons. I don't think having more weapons in a society will make it more peaceful. Weapons = Peace. Does anyone see anything wrong in that equation? He's also right that some of the americans I've met seemed to be extremely paranoid of thugs attacking them all the time, even if they live in the boring suburbs, which is why they looooove their guns.

johndoch

24-Jun-2003, 12:39 PM

Guns shouldn't be banned just because the worlds full of F**kwits. I say ban the f**kwits:)

There plenty of legitimate reasons for having guns, farmers need them. Large landowners need em for culls. I've seen airports use them to clear birds from runways after other methods were unaffective. Also sport shooting adds to the economy of rural areas that struggle to find an alternative line of income.

And what do you do when an aggresive country starts making guns and comes a callin, do you fight back with sticks and stones.

I would say if you've got a legitimate reason to have a gun then thats fine but if you dont the justice system should have more power/money to deal with you properly.

:woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :woo: :D

Andrew Green

25-Jun-2003, 04:07 AM

Their is no way in hell civilians armed with hand guns and rifles could fight off an invading army. The sticks and stones would be just as effective, niether would do a thing.

Jazman

25-Jun-2003, 04:34 AM

hmm... what army is attacking and who is defending? I think Southern California would be able to take on quite an army... Most armies in the world wouldn't make it very far...

Andrew Green

25-Jun-2003, 04:49 AM

Do you really believe that the US Armed forces would benefit at all from civilians with guns helping them?

They would get in the way, thats about it.

What are the tools of the infantry, the closest match to civilians with guns?

Assault rifles, Machine guns, gernades, Anti-armour weapons, mortars, APC's, A Radio with a Artillery battery on the other end, etc.

They also rely on strength in numbers, are supported by other units and are a part of a co-ordinated effort.

I wasn't in the infantry long, but I will say without a doubt that civilians with guns wouldn't be able to stop any semi-modern army.

With a army as large as the US Armed Forces civilians with guns are meaningless.

Jazman

25-Jun-2003, 08:18 AM

you forget that if a countrie had over 10 million people, all armed with automatic weapons it would prove difficult for any army to pass. They would definetely pass, they have aircraft and such. It would still prove quite a challenge. It's just a good thing no countries where all of its inhabitants are willing to fight have been invaded.

Adam

25-Jun-2003, 01:18 PM

And just who's going to invade the US of A?

Communists? The Soviet Union's dead and China will soon cease to be communist.

Canadians? Terrance and Philip hasn't been arrested.

South Americans? Too dependant on US dollars.

Palestineans? They're too busy fighting the jews.

The European Union? In the pocket of USA.

Islamic terrorists? Maybe, but they attack in groups of ten, you hardly need a country armed with RPG's to fight them.

JUST WHO THE HELL ARE AMERICANS AFRAID OF?

khafra

25-Jun-2003, 02:49 PM

Er, Adam... Since you don't live here, you're excused for not knowing, but governments are here to provide us the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whenever a government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right and responsibility of its citizens to replace it with a better one.

And armed citizenry is the government's incentive not to become destructive of those ends. And if you don't think citizens with rifles, improvised traps, and the occasional rpg can pose a serious threat, ask any Vietnam veteran about the Viet Cong. Any older Russian soldier about their experiences in Afghanistan. Hell, ask Napoleon about the Basques.

Adam

25-Jun-2003, 03:00 PM

Yeah, but there are currently NO threats to the US mainland from hostile nations, apart from petty acts of terrorism that you hardly need an army to beat, much less an entire people armed to the teeth. National security is not a very good reason for americans to have guns, personal safety might be.

KickChick

25-Jun-2003, 03:01 PM

We (Americans, that is) have a right to bear arms. But what does that mean?
Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns?

When the U.S. Constitution protects a specific right, that individual has some protection against the majority. It does not mean that this right is absolute. We have no right to carry a gun on to the property of a person who forbids the act.
We have no right to use a gun in a way that hurts or directly endangers the person or property of anybody else. It is not to say our rights are being restricted by such limitations. Instead, our (inalienable) rights do not include hurting others or violating their property.

We have the right of free speech but it does not allow us to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater... so the same laws should apply to gun ownership.

Yelling "fire" in a crowed arena is an illegal act so similarly, shooting an innocent person with a gun is not included in the "right to keep and bear arms".

So what is in question here is because the rights of different people are incompatible, the rights of all people must be restricted to achieve social harmony... right?.
or.... on the other hand, our rights are a means to achieve social harmony. The more consistently our rights are protected, the more harmoniously people will live. If rights are curtailed or violated, social conflict results.

aikiMac

26-Jun-2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Adam
JUST WHO THE HELL ARE AMERICANS AFRAID OF?
The truth.
Democrats and Republicans do not believe in any absolute truth.
Conservatives and Libertarians believe in an absolute truth.
Consequently, Dems and Reps fear Conservatives and Libertarians, and vice versa.

The issue of gun ownership is a convenient way to illuminate whether or not a person believes in absolute truth.

Spike says that guns should be outlawed because guns are for killing people. His unspoken but necessary thesis is that anything made to kill people should be outlawed. The consequence of this belief is that the reverse punch of Shotokan karate should be outlawed, and so should neck twists of jujitsu and kempo. Hmmm. Not logical. But it's not based on an absolute truth.

Andrew Green says that self-defense guns should be outlawed because he sees no reason for self-defense guns, and doesn't understand why anyone else would want a gun inside his house. Well, I don't like chocolate ice cream. I see no reason why anyone would want to eat it, or have it in their house. Therefore, by Andrew's reasoning, we should outlaw chocolate ice cream. Hmmm. Not logical. But it's not based on an absolute truth.

No one said that the body of my "proof," in an earlier post, was flawed, but some said that the conclusion was wrong. That's odd. How could the conclusion be wrong except that I made a mistake somewhere higher?

Cain

26-Jun-2003, 05:17 PM

hmm....poll results are interesting....

|Cain|

MATT_LIQUID

26-Jun-2003, 05:23 PM

I think we need minority report and arrest/kill people before they fire the gun. Sounds like a plan bwhahahahaha

then I can provoke YODA to kill me. whooooooooooooooooooooo that would mean no more cheesy jokes.

J/K YODA's the man and his jokes own!

Mind Aflame

16-May-2004, 08:59 PM

Living in England where guns are illegal I don't have direct experience of the issue but it seems to me that guns cause more problems than they solve. If someone get's pissed off in England, say their partner has an affair or whatever, they are realy angry and would shoot the partner had they the chance, as it is they hit them/ beat them/ smack them over teh head with a frying pan. All of which have far higher survival rates than being shot in the face.
Not having guns around lessens the effect of 'spurr of the moment' anger.

shootodog

17-May-2004, 07:31 AM

i read somewhere from the replies that "guns kill people". people kill people! violence will take up whatever weapons necessary to pursue it's goals. people have the right to do the same.

Mind Aflame

17-May-2004, 09:46 AM

The problem with widescale gun ownership as a means of self protection is that the
'let's arm ourselves to the teeth because the bad guys are'
tactic has been tried before. The first world war was started because of it for example. Two equally powered sides to balance each other. This all works fine untilsomething happens to spark of a fight (for example Austria) then one person shoots, everyone shoots, everyone dies.(the 1st world war in a paragraph)
Exactly the same thing happens on a smaller scale, one person gets the wrong end of the stick, or gets jumpy, or does something stupid and it starts of gunfire. The first world war has proved the the tactic doesn't work so why do people persist in using it as an arguement.

jroe52

17-May-2004, 10:11 AM

i think i wouldnt mind, there is always archery for us hunters. i have a much greater love for hunting and nature, then i do for the guns i hunt with. archery gives the joy of target shooting, being in nature ect without being chased down by thugsters with hand guns.

id rather have living children, safer streets, and less violence then having guns. i think they should start with hand guns in the US and see how it moves from there. something to extreme to fast might cause resentment and the whole idea to be shot down like prohibition (though it was dumb).

killbill

17-May-2004, 11:38 AM

it all comes down to this, each of us doesn't trust anyone besides ourselves with a gun.

Kwajman

17-May-2004, 01:35 PM

You know, as usual, Kickchick is making an excellent point. One of my neighbors likes to go out and fire his shotgun in the air several times a month for no real reason. Since we live in a semi-rural area, the rules are real "grey" about whether its legal or not. Also, he's connected with a politician, so the police are skeptical about doing anything.

Sometimes I think, just let everyone carry a gun. Eventually the gangs will kill each other off, the criminals will eventually get shot by the good guys, and the citizens will finally get their cities back. Oh well, its just a thought.

Mrs Owt

17-May-2004, 01:55 PM

I have always been conflicted about guns. I was raised in and live in a rural area so most people had hunting rifles to protect livestock, despatch sick or injured animals or to hunt with. When my hubby and I got married I asked him not to bring his rifle into our home. I was okay with him hunting, I just didn't want the gun in our house so he kept it at his parents in their gun safe until he decided to sell it.

Now as I get older I am much more frightened by guns. I know many responsible gun owners and some irresponsible ones. Most people use them for their intended purpose but others use them as a replacement for self-esteem and for intimidation. When someone is a recorded marksman and you have heard that they want to "take a chunk out of someone" because they feel wronged by them it takes on a whole different level of threat than if they were just some average Joe with no firearms experience. So should guns be outlawed, no definitely not. There are valid reasons why many people should own a firearm. Should everyone be allowed to have one? Definitely not. I think anytime a threat is made by someone who has a valid firearms permit their guns should immediately be seized. I don't want to be on the losing end of someone else getting the benefit of the doubt.

dustIn credible

17-May-2004, 05:25 PM

why not just dis-invent them LOL

blaksun

17-May-2004, 06:04 PM

OMFG TEH POLL ISH TIEDDD!11!!

v.v

bcullen

17-May-2004, 08:53 PM

why not just dis-invent them LOL

That's the heart of the issue. Once something is in use it's rather difficult to stop its use.

I've lived in areas where many people carried firearms. The crime rate was lower. Criminals don't fear our justice system. They are, however, afraid of armed citizens.

I have been at the wrong end of the barrel more then once: Paranoid? maybe. Victem? NO!

Just last week I attended the first of a series of seminars our school is doing for basic knife and firearm training. Here's a little tip: If you raise your hands (the stick em up bit) I wouldn't try to disarm. In tests with mock weapons that shot pellets the defender could not deflect the weapon in time in most cases (95% as a guess). Starting from a neutral position it was more like 50/50. If you bring your hands up, it's mostly over without a good distraction you have almost no chance. This is somewhat biased as many participants were advanced students and instructors. Not good odds either way.

Suicideflame

17-May-2004, 09:02 PM

Guns don't kill people. People with guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

shootodog

18-May-2004, 07:03 AM

Kwajman: from what i hear from my dive buddies, rmi is quite the paradise. what are your gun laws there like?

Stolenbjorn

18-May-2004, 10:39 AM

When setting it up like that, with two very bastant alternatives, it becomes difficult to decide. But if I held the chair as world dictator and had to choose, I'd go for outlawing it. (shooting should ultemately be reserved for military and police)

El Tejon

18-May-2004, 07:08 PM

Guns should be outlawed for the serfs. I would retain them! :)

Guns are for me, not for thee, serf! Back to your plow. :cool:

Pepsi32123

19-May-2004, 04:00 AM

I'm not going to give a definate yes or no. They should be legal to those who like to shoot guns, game hunters if you don't think that's wrong. I do, however, think they should be illegal for those that use guns to hide the cowardness in their fight. I think it's kind of dumb when my instructor said that he kne an instructor (7th dan, I think) that shot and killed a guy on a one on one fight! No weapons exept for his one gun! Now, that's just lazy.

TOMcatXENO

19-May-2004, 05:00 AM

Guns shouldnt be outlawed it is apart of our freedom as US citizens but to aquire one a person should have to go threw considerable test and requirements to hold one

Stolenbjorn

19-May-2004, 09:15 AM

bcullen

19-May-2004, 04:19 PM

Somthing I find strange:
There are some 5 million decendents from norwegian immigrants living in USA (more than there are norwegians in Norway) Where we in norway have more guns pr. person than USA, we never carry them for self defence, and have litterary no deaths/accitdents with them.

Now, our relatives in USA allso have tons of guns (like us) but acording to the news, most Norwegian-americans wield their sidearm, are member of all gun societies that exisit + 1 or more anti gouvernment-militias, like the one where the dude blowing up a federal(?) building some years ago.

My question is: how can 3 - 4 generations make people so different in respect for human life and wiews on right to shoot any trespassers/attackers?

Good point, Stolenbjorn. Not many law abiding citizens carry weapons but quite a few have weapons for home defense. The militias are really a small percentage. Distribution of wealth , destruction of the community infrastructure and family unit due to the devaluation of ethics, drugs, government interference, media manipulation and geographic separation (...and this is the short answer).

By the way, Do you know any Gudjonson's? :D

El Tejon

19-May-2004, 05:15 PM

Stolen, McVeigh (who blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City in retaliation for the federal government's burning down a church) is a Norwegian name???

Where do you get the idea that it is lawful to shoot trespassers in any state of the USA? What makes you think there is a distinction between Norwegian and American respect for human life as codified?

Why is it wrong to defend yourself if being attacked? Did not the Norwegians attempt to defend themselves from the Nazis? :confused:

Stolenbjorn

20-May-2004, 05:50 PM

Stolen, McVeigh (who blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City in retaliation for the federal government's burning down a church) is a Norwegian name???:

No, it sounds scottish, but my point was that many norwegian-americans join "paramilitary anti-USA-militias" of the same kind that McVeigh was a member of. (Thanks for providing his name, by the way)

Where do you get the idea that it is lawful to shoot trespassers in any state of the USA? What makes you think there is a distinction between Norwegian and American respect for human life as codified? I'm not saying it is lawful, I just say that from what we get on the Norwegian news (that are biassed against current USA policy and certain aspects of american life, like the right to carry sidearms for defence) -there seems to be many USA'ns out there that deems it to be their right to shoot in self defence. But then again, I could be wrong, I don't live in your country; you do;)

Why is it wrong to defend yourself if being attacked? Did not the Norwegians attempt to defend themselves from the Nazis? :confused:

Well, since you ask; in Norway, the majority thinks that it should be up to the state to apply violence; Police for domestic violence, Military for external threats. There is somthing called self defence in the law, but they only reduce punichment, people seldom gets completely off the hook after having killed in self defence. A 15 year old kid, his two sisters and the mother allmost got no punichment after killing the father who had systematically raped the mother and his sisters for several years, but the counsel for the prosecution appealed and in the "rematch" they got centenced.

Nazis was an ecternal threat, any USA'an are IMHO in their perfect right to commit sabotage against any foregin invaders on USA'an ground!!!

El Tejon

20-May-2004, 06:06 PM

Stolen, thanks for your reply.

I don't know where you are getting this militia information, but I am unaware that there is any sort of ethnic cataloging. Be careful about "militia" as by federal law all males, 17 to 45, are in the militia and in my state, all persons over age 17(male and female) are militia members by the state constitution.

The right to self-defence as a bar to criminal and civil prosecution is codified in federal law and the law of all 50 states. So, I believe that your perception that Americans value their right to life and to act in defence is correct. However, this concept is very, very old extending from The Bible to English law.

I think the different views of individual rights come from our histories. In Norway, you have the history of feudalism where others tell the masses what to do via a monopoly on violence by the elite. In America, you have a history of a free people who created a nation to avoid that situation. :)

Stolenbjorn

21-May-2004, 09:27 AM

Stolen, thanks for your reply.
I'm very glad to see that it's possible to have a polite argument on MAP :)

I don't know where you are getting this militia information, but I am unaware that there is any sort of ethnic cataloging. Be careful about "militia" as by federal law all males, 17 to 45, are in the militia and in my state, all persons over age 17(male and female) are militia members by the state constitution.

Ethnic cataloging is very wrong, yet there's allways some trace of truth in many prejudices. It's a fact that many carismatic christians are opposed to free aborion-laws, and are pro-jews, for instance. There's allso probably quite true that the black comunity in USA have a lower averidge educational level than the "white" comunity(?) That many decendants from scandinavia and Norway in particular are low educated rather conservative, belonging to what FBI might call troublesome elements that are quite racistic and filled with conspiratoric theories, claiming that the white house is controlled by the jews etc. is somthing I've on in a documentary on Norwegian (biassed)TV. I don't mean militia as in Home Guards/ National Guard! That's somthing quite different;we even have that in Norway ;)

I think the different views of individual rights come from our histories. In Norway, you have the history of feudalism where others tell the masses what to do via a monopoly on violence by the elite. In America, you have a history of a free people who created a nation to avoid that situation.
I think you're right. I'm very impressed with your level of knowledge on Norway; a nation smaller in population than Manhattan! Acording to my prejudices on USA'ans, you should believe that Norway was the capital of Sweden :rolleyes: -Seriously; thats one of the many things forums are great at; destroying my prejudices!!! I've yet to encounter any american on any forum that didn't know where Norway was! Norway never really had any feudal-system; the topography of norway + the black plague in 1345 -wiping out 50 - 70% of the population -made it impossible to run feudalism in Norway. We later on got beurocrats, and thay quite possebly helped cowing the norwegian "viking"-attitude of honourkillings, bloodfeuds, etc. -somthing I think we should prais them for! :D

Polar Bear

23-Aug-2004, 12:10 PM

All you have to do is compare gun murder statistics between a country that allows guns and a country that does not. As for the protection element, If you need guns to protect yourself then your country is in such a mess that you better think about starting from scratch and reconstruct your society because it has clearly failed.

The Bear.

El Tejon

23-Aug-2004, 12:58 PM

Polar, so murders are not committed in any other way than with guns? Hammers perchance?

Homicide rates are much higher in more gun restrictive nations than more liberal nations.

UKscrapper

23-Aug-2004, 01:17 PM

I personally think that if you want to keep a gun then it is non of the government's business.
If for example I keep a Glock19 and a Glock26 for home protection and the range, I store them securely but at the same time loaded and ready taking all the precautions to keep these weapons from falling into the hands of kids or fellons then I dont see how the goverment could outlaw something that belongs to me.
Now if I was gonna use the weapon to commit a crime or took it to a football match or a into a goverment building then yes I would be committing an affray but if all I wanted to do was keep my home protected and go to the range it is stupid that the government chooses to treat me like a villain. I think a lot of it has to do with the over-reaction seen in the wake of the Dunblane massacre.

Polar Bear

23-Aug-2004, 02:24 PM

uk murder rate 760 for 1999
us murder rate 18209 for 1997

Wake up and smell the coffee and stop believing the lies.

The Bear.

K_Coffin

23-Aug-2004, 03:36 PM

Why not compare the Canadian and American murder rates then PB? Don't blame guns for murders that people commit. One way or another, we'll all find a way to kill each other.

Outlawing guns is about as fair as outlawing baseball/cricket bats. They can both be used as weapons. It just depends on your intent. The difference is in the degree of lethality they posess. Guns are of a higher lethality, so they should be controlled more rigorously. If it was up to me, you would have to go through a rigorous licensing process, a psychiatric assessment, a background check, and enter into a registration system. We should have strict but fair storage laws that take into account the locality and use of the firearm, and the safety of the family/owner and neighbors.

People need to realize that guns aren't just made for killing people. The vast majority, especially in Canada, are sporting guns. How would you feel if the government banned all combatives sporting goods, including punching bags, shinai, bokken, and all other practise weapons, simply because they could conceivably be used to harm someone else?

animefreak88

23-Aug-2004, 04:31 PM

After reading some of the comments posted here, I've been won over by the idea of maintaining gun legality. but really, they shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Cudgel

23-Aug-2004, 08:44 PM

Good point K_Coffin. I most whole heartedly agree

Commander Zigg

24-Aug-2004, 12:23 AM

I agree with K_Coffin. I think guns should be strictly controlled, maybe with a gun license similar to a driver's license. If you think about it, the responsibilities are about the same. Each one can be used to kill somebody quite easily. I also agree with K_Coffin about the outlawing bit. If guns were outlawed, every martial arts weapon/piece of training gear, half of all the tools out there, and various household objects would also have to be outlawed.
Polar Bear: Go fetch a map. Look at the UK. Aight? Now look at the United States. Look at that map for a while. Now fetch a chart of nations/populations. Look at the UK's population. Aight? Now look at America's population. It IS true that per 1000 people there are less murders in the UK than there are in the US, but you must remember, the UK is a smaller place, and therefore more easily regulated. The US is just too large to be regulated efficiently like that.
Another thing. If we do decide to outlaw firearms here in the U.S., crime organizations would still be able to get firearms from smugglers quite easily. Even if we do somehow manage to make firearms generally unavailable to everybody, we would still run around, killing each other with zip guns, as mentioned before, with knives, with hammers, etc. Unfortunately, the gun was invented. There's no way to uninvent it. We just have to live with it, and use it to our advantage.

El Tejon

24-Aug-2004, 03:27 AM

JKDrei64

24-Aug-2004, 03:32 AM

guns should be outlawd because a gun can allow a lowly worm to kill a great hero on luck alone
.

bcullen

24-Aug-2004, 04:52 AM

uk murder rate 760 for 1999
us murder rate 18209 for 1997

Wake up and smell the coffee and stop believing the lies.

The Bear.

Oh, You mean like comparing statistics between countries where there's greater then a six-fold difference in population size? :rolleyes:

It's not the weapon, it's the mindset of the person holding it.

Cudgel

24-Aug-2004, 05:06 AM

guns should be outlawd because a gun can allow a lowly worm to kill a great hero on luck alone
.

if a "great hero" gets shot by a "lowly worm" with a lucky shot then the hero wasnt so great now was he?
Battle is luck.
Skill only tilts the odds in the favor of the more skilled.
But If i ahd a choice between being skilled and unlucky or unskilled and lucky I would choose lucky.
Something I learned from Role playing games. :eek:

Jeffrey Quinn

24-Aug-2004, 05:52 AM

Hmmmmm . . . I've never owned a gun, but somehow I've miraculously avoided being killed by bad people. Maybe I'm just an abnomoly.

"If guns are made illegal, only criminals will have them." Yes, by definition. You could also say, "If murder was made illegal, only criminals would commit murder." Oh, wait a minute . . .

This question comes up annoyingly often on martial arts forums.

Polar Bear

24-Aug-2004, 07:41 AM

Oh, You mean like comparing statistics between countries where there's greater then a six-fold difference in population size? :rolleyes:

It's not the weapon, it's the mindset of the person holding it.

Ok multiply Britain statistics by six to get like for like.

It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife. You don't have to touch them, smell them and see their eyes as you kill them. Guns mechanise killing. That is the true horror of guns.

Single Shot sporting rifles, shotguns for farmers could be allowed which strict licencing. As a tool, exceptions can be made.

It amazes me that you are all so afriad of each other that you feel you need guns to protect youself. Criminals in the UK rarely use guns because most people aren't armed therefore the criminals don't need guns and less people get killed. The main rise in gun crime in the U.K. are from young black men trying to emulate American ganstas. Sad but true.

The Canadian chap it right, It is American society thats wrong, obviously the society isn't mature enough to handle firearms. Canada is more mature and can handle it. I would say Britian is too densely populated to handle firearms. So I would never agree to having them.

The Bear.

Polar Bear

24-Aug-2004, 08:44 AM

Polar, the UK had a low murder rate when it had no gun laws. In the US the areas with the most gun laws have the most murders and violent crime (whether actual numbers or rates). It is that way across the world as well.

The gun is only an inert mechanical device. It possesses no will of its own, just as a sword or a stick.

Evil is in the hearts of men, not a device.

Commander, several U.S. cities have outlawed firearms. These areas have high murder rates and actual numbers, e.g. Chicago or D.C., inter alia. Of course, gun laws are rooted in racism, but their utilitarian basises have been destroyed over the years.

The UK had a low murder rate when gun were legal because only the rich could ever afford to own a gun. Please understand the context before you make statements like this.

You can't reduce crime by increasing weaponry. Raise Taxes and spend it on Social Serivces, Healthcare and Education.
When I was in New York, I did a stupid thing, I walked everywhere even across rough neighbourhoods. I saw people wearing trash bags queueing up outside of a chruch to recieve bread to eat. While 5 blocks away I was paying $150 a night for a hotel, I felt so ashamed of America at that time and it has never left. Deal with these issues don't waste money on a gun, work on the poverty and injustice.

The Bear.

UKscrapper

24-Aug-2004, 09:39 AM

The main rise in gun crime in the U.K. are from young black men trying to emulate American ganstas. Sad but true.

The Bear.

This has to be the most racist comment I have heard on this forum. Just cause someone is a young black male does not mean he is strapped, it is exactly this attitude which breeds fear and prejudice towards blacks and hispanics and muslims on British streets.

daftyman

24-Aug-2004, 10:05 AM

Here's my farthing's worth.*

I think one of the major problems is the amount of accidents that occur as a result of the over population of guns. What do people need to do to own a gun? It takes a lot of training and education to be allowed to drive a car, is it the same for firearms?
There should be more responsibility placed on owners to ensure that the firearms are kept safe so that they cannot fall into the wrong hands. I am thinking about the incedents of children going to school and shooting/killing people. The owners should be responsible, in some way, for what their firearms 'do'.

True, the above does nothing to address the criminals' use of firearms, but there is such a high number of incidents where 'criminals' are not involved. I am thinking of some statistics that were in Robert Smith's book 'Martial Musings'.

* for those who don't know:
Farthing - one quarter of an old penny. (not a lot)

Polar Bear

24-Aug-2004, 10:32 AM

This has to be the most racist comment I have heard on this forum. Just cause someone is a young black male does not mean he is strapped, it is exactly this attitude which breeds fear and prejudice towards blacks and hispanics and muslims on British streets.

Why is this a racist comment? I didn't say that all black males were criminals only those wishing to follow a particular lifestyle. I am a white man age 18-40, it makes me more likely to be a serial killer, is that a racist comment? No, it's just a fact. I don't like the fact about Gangsta culture in the black community and I'm sure neither do many black people however because I say that there is an issue in this community doesn't mean I am racist. The scottish ned culture of young white male carrying knives is a problem, am I racist about commenting on the bad aspect of my own ethnic background.

The Bear.

Matt Molloy

24-Aug-2004, 10:54 AM

What the Bear said.

If you want to own/carry a gun so much you should join the army. As has already been pointed out, you can hunt, target shoot and control animals in many other ways. (Kyudo anyone?)

Go find another toy. Leave guns alone.

Cheers,

Matt.

Stolenbjorn

24-Aug-2004, 11:46 AM

The problem here is that some people thinks that the army and the police should not have monopoly on shooting at people. If you say you want to have easy access to guns because tha badguys've got them anyway; why bother with paying for having police then? People thinking along theese lines should bother reading about Norway in the Viking-age, where there was law, but noone to enforce it; so it fell upon the individual to stand for his right. According to documents from that time, it was not a very pleassent situation.

I'm not against guns, but I do think they should only be possible to aquire if you can document that you hunt (animals) with them regularely.

Taliar

24-Aug-2004, 12:02 PM

Saying that letting everyone have guns makes it safer for the law abiding people as they can fight back, and that if guns are outlawed sounds like a good answer. However it also sounds alot like the M.A.D. situation of the cold war. (Mutially Assured Destruction). They have big missiles so we must have big missiles so they know if they attack we will attack back.

This will just lead to an escalation in the destructive power, ie good guys have hand gun, bad guys get assault rifle, The criminal elemant will always have access to weapons, giving everyone access to them will not make things safer.

Things need to be dealt with at a supply level, make the gun trade unprofitable, put high taxes etc on guns and ammo. Restrict access to these weapons and ammunition.

edd1

24-Aug-2004, 12:58 PM

OK.
Most guns are illegal in the UK, has this stop'd gun related crim, no it is increasing at a hugh rate. Most of these are commited with illegal guns brourght in from eastern europe. We cant stop thousands of humans comeing in to this contry illegaly, what chance do we have against a suite case full of hand guns.
even if we could stop guns comeing in to the country, that still wouldn't make any difference, dureing the 70's the UDA and UDF were well known for there ability to make effective SMG's from scratch.
I live on a farm, where I do use both a shootgun and a rifle on a regular basis, it costs me sevral hundred pounds a year, and 2 police interviews a year to keep my guns. If i were to comit a crime why would I use a weapon that could be traced to me, when I could by a decant hand gun (cause rifels are not suited for most crimes), for less than my weapons alredy cost me.
Haveing guns in the house does not mean an increase in violance. Switzerland has one of the highest number of automatic weapons kept in private homes, yet has one of the worlds lowest crime rate. although it has been suggested that, the low crime rate is to do with the self dissaplin taurght during your national service (good idea for a new argument).
Oh, and for who ever it was who said guns are built purely for killing people, some people like to use guns purely for target practace, its a fun challange. Some people also like to use bows and arrows, should we ban Zden Archery as these are weapons built for ,killing people. What about Swords, and every other weapon mentioned on MAP. there have been sevral attacks over the last few years useing, mainly, katanas or nunchuks.
Also that statment is wrong because my little 22 riffle would have problems killing anything bigger that a dog, so it's designed for killing small animals and targets, not humans.

AaronK

24-Aug-2004, 02:57 PM

You know what, not allowing people to have guns will not solve anything, the people who are doing illegal things will still do illegal things, just with one more added illegal thing added to the list (owning a gun) then you take all the possible fear that they might have of doing something harmful to another away, they will actually be more likely to do it now, right? Also, if you look at it from a crime of passion point of view, you can just as easily kill someone with a fork.

cybermonk

24-Aug-2004, 03:35 PM

My personal oppinion: Guns should be outlawed.
Why?
The way things are done(at least in the US) allows for irresponsable people to have the capacity to kill. You take like a 60 hour course on weapon training then some 2 week gun management class and then there you go, you are ready to responsably use a gun. See whats wrong with this idea? Some would argue that martial arts are also meant to kill, but by the time you reach the level when you are profient enough to kill you have already developed a sense of discipline that far exceeds anything you can learn in a 2 week course or 60 hours of training.

The idea of "if we outlaw guns criminals will still have them" doesnt quite hold up either, I lived in Cuba where guns are outlawed for the civilians and I saw all kinds of crime and rarely did I ever see someone with a gun, I think the only time it was an ex cop who was mad about something and came out of his house shooting at the sky. You were most likely to get your chain ripped out of your neck by someone going in a bicycle at high speed or get knocked out with a club by someone trying to steal your cloths than to have a gun pulled out on you.

dsync

24-Aug-2004, 04:08 PM

Hi,

"Guns" refers to a very large category which encompasses, weapons, art, hunting aparatus, tools etc. I think the problem comes with the idea of escalation and where does the escalation of weapons types stop, for example, why stop at allowing automatic weapons, why not allow cannons, missiles, why not let your average citizen have access to nuclear weapons, it is everyone's right to bear arms after all, and how can we compete as ordinary citizens with a government and large powerfull army without having comperable weapons? The problem people have defending the gun issue is one of proportion. For home protection for example, there's no reason to have a handgun, a shotgun has maximum stopping power, and is a fearsome weapon to be starring down, is a handgun neccesary in this situation. A rifle can be used for both accuracy sport shooting, and for hunting, is an automatic weapon neccesary in this situation. The idea behind the 5th amendement for us american folk on here as it pertains to protection against the powers of a corrupt federal government or invading foreign power, were not put into place so you could have and carry an uzi at all times, but rather established towords the development of a proper militia/county/town/state guard which was trained, and had an armory availible to it. So their is a problem I think with this question as a whole, it asks for an opinion on 2 broad a category. A better question would be, should (insert type of gun here eg. handguns) be outlawed etc.

-ds

Fjaslokt

24-Aug-2004, 04:57 PM

Outlawed ? No, but there shuld be limitations though.. Like in norway, you need to have permission from the police to own a gun.. And you must be qualified to use it correctly. It`s not like in USA where any average joe can go buy an bazooka for duck hunting! And if everyone should have a gun for self defence causes, think of how many triggerhappy people out there would shoot the postman every time he rang the doorbell.. ? I really think people who does not live in the USA has a other opinion on this. Allthough, USA makes ALOT of money selling guns..

edd1

25-Aug-2004, 12:27 PM

The idea of "if we outlaw guns criminals will still have them" doesnt quite hold up either, I lived in Cuba where guns are outlawed for the civilians and I saw all kinds of crime and rarely did I ever see someone with a gun

It might of been like that in Cuba, but hear in Britain where virtuially all guns are illegal (some types of rifle and shotgun permited but you need to justify why you want one, and it's hard to do that - home defense is not allowed), the gun crime rate is increasing. We might not be at the level of some parts of the US, but it is increasing and has been for a long time. So no Gun control is not makeing Britain any safer, because any honest person who wants a gun is almost treated like a criminal, and the criminals just go and by cheeper, more effective weapons.

El Tejon

25-Aug-2004, 12:51 PM

"Arms? For what?" Fidel Castro.

Stolenbjorn

25-Aug-2004, 01:42 PM

Any person claiming the right to have guns due to his right to defend himself indirectly states that it's OK to kill people. It is no way you can come around this fact. So all of you saying this should ask yourself this question: Is it OK to kill people in self defence, or is this somthing we should leave to the proes (I.E. police/army)?

If you think it's OK to kill people, I'm glad you don't live in Norway!

bigalexe

25-Aug-2004, 07:35 PM

Stolenbjorn-
how about shooting them in the arm or leg, if you shoot someone then they dont nessecarily die. a gun is a way to inflict damage from a distance without putting yourself in range of the attacker. Just because you can kill them doesnt mean that you have to.

killing people unnesecarily and unprovoked is wrong. but if someone comes into my home and threatens me or my family i believe it is my right to neutralize that threat by whatever means nessecary and should that be (the extremely rare case) killing then that is what must be done. i would take very little pride in it but you have to remember that they attacked me and chose to place me in a position to defend myself and i did what was nessecary to SURVIVE.

as for automatic weapons-
they arent needed, you shouldnt need more than one shot and if you do then you arent proficient enough to be shooting at living things. the only reason i can think you could justify a semi-auto is duck hunting. beyond that there is no reason to fire more than 1 round.

handguns-
are utterly useless beyond target shooting and crime. sure they're a novelty when it comes to the revolvers and such in western movies but come on. does anyone shoot deer with a Glock 9mm. i havent seen anyone lately carrying a Magnum alongside their Beretta shotgun while shooting duck.

eonwei

25-Aug-2004, 08:11 PM

I think that guns should be outlawed even in wars. People should go back to fighting with katana's on horseback and bows and arrows and things like that. People who use guns are cheap fighters lol.

cybermonk

25-Aug-2004, 08:26 PM

It might of been like that in Cuba, but hear in Britain where virtuially all guns are illegal (some types of rifle and shotgun permited but you need to justify why you want one, and it's hard to do that - home defense is not allowed), the gun crime rate is increasing. We might not be at the level of some parts of the US, but it is increasing and has been for a long time. So no Gun control is not makeing Britain any safer, because any honest person who wants a gun is almost treated like a criminal, and the criminals just go and by cheeper, more effective weapons.

Its probably because control of arms in Britain isnt succesful due to the great ammount of arms in the country. To put it simply, in Cuba there is barely enough guns for the army and the cops, the goverment wishes to keep extreme control of the arms because there is a shortage of them. You get caught with a gun and you will either A) Not even make it to prision or B)Spend more than half your life in prision regardless of what the sentence says you are supposed to get.

K_Coffin

26-Aug-2004, 05:32 AM

To build on my previous points - Sure, there's a point to automatic weapons. Keep in mind that not all guns are intended for Home Defense or hunting. There are people (Like me) who just enjoy shooting/playing with/collecting guns. That includes (Especially) automatic ones. Needless to say, since I live in Canada, it's near impossible for me to get an automatic weapon, but I would sure love one, just because they're fun to shoot. In this case, there's just as much reason for someone to have an automatic weapon as there is someone to have a cricket bat. How often do you use a cricket bat in everyday use? Never, outside of cricket. How often should you use an automatic weapon in everyday use? Never, unless you're qualified, and use it in a safe manner in a safe location.

Personally, I think people should be able to buy pretty much any firearm they want, as long as they pass a background check, psych assessment, and keep them locked up safely.

I can't say I believe in using a firearm for home defense. Why not use a taser, pepper spray or mace? They're too lethal in my opinion. Use something nonlethal if possible. As far as handguns? Yes, they're legitimate hunting weapons. There is a pretty big following in wild boar hunting with handguns (Almost exclusively revolvers). They're also legitimate sporting weapons, with lots of target competitions centered around them.

Polar Bear

26-Aug-2004, 12:49 PM

Hey K_Coffin,
I think NUKES are pretty cool or how about a suped-up ebola virus, should I be allowed to have those too? Nukes don't kill people after all, If I keep my ebola locked up it will be safe as houses.
It all come down to what kind of world you want?

The Bear

K_Coffin

26-Aug-2004, 07:09 PM

Sure, but Nukes and the ebola virus aren't firearms, are they? My logic here isn't linear. It's applied on a sliding scale of control and legality. The more dangerous something is, the more it merits legal control. Once you hit a certain boundary, certain objects become too dangerous to be completely legal, and are withheld from the public. I personally think that anything more than a crew operated Machine Gun, over 7.62mm caliber is too dangerous for even qualified civilians to own, and should be controlled by the government. Below that, I don't see a problem as long as the person is qualified and stores it properly.

The kind of world I want is one where people are allowed to enjoy themselves in a safe and responsible manner. I don't see how the world is a more dangerous place because I (A qualified gun owner and marksman) own a few automatic weapons, and enjoy shooting them at the range and collecting them, if I lock them up well and make sure that the police and military know who I am, and where they are.

ToRNaDo LorD

26-Aug-2004, 11:25 PM

I think guns should be out lawed.
Their cheap.
With swords you have a fair fight.

bigalexe

27-Aug-2004, 04:27 AM

K_Coffin, i think you have some good points but.

i wasnt intending that keeping a gun for the sole purpose of home defense is good. in fact i believe that is the worst reason.

as for handguns all i ever hear about them is their use down by 8mile and outer drive and such. there may have a safe legitimate following but i think it is far outweighed by criminals. i have seen the competitions on tv with speed shooting and stuff and its all pretty cool. i just see far too much bad done with them.(i stick to my crossbow)

automatics are fun and utilitarian for the military. i guess i dont think of them as a competition and sporting weapon because i dont have the money to spend on ammo for regular target shooting.

as far as background checks go i agree with them, also as in said earlier i am supportive of gun education and liceneseing. We need to make sure people know how to properly and safely use firearms.

Also everyone against guns should know that more people are hurt by unloaded guns than loaded ones.

Polar Bear

27-Aug-2004, 07:31 AM

K,
Sometimes the desires of the individual have to be weighted against the good of the collective. I like guns too but I care enough about my fellow citizens that I accept that they are too dangerous for people to have. I know that if I owned a gun and someone broke into my house, I would kill them, and that isn't acceptable. Criminals don't deserve to die. If you murder a murderer then you how can you condem murder because you have become the murderer.

The Bear.

K_Coffin

27-Aug-2004, 06:32 PM

I definitely agree with you on the whole self-defense thing. I couldn't use a gun on someone in my house unless they were from an invading army from Russia or something like that. I think it's even a bit of a stretch for me to use my Bokken on them, since I know how fragile the human body can be, and how hard my Bokken is.

I think we just disagree on the one fundamental issue - Where the danger outweighs the benefit. In my opinion - There are benefits as long as the weapons are sufficiently controlled. In your opinion - The risks outweigh the rewards. Fair enough. I think we both have valid points.

Cudgel

27-Aug-2004, 08:42 PM

thats a very nice way of saying things K_coffin usualy whne peopple have opposing veiwpoints on this topic it devolves into flamingn and name calling.
I like shooting nd would like to own firearms, and woul have very little prolem using htem for selfdefence but only if it were a life or death situation ie some one pulled lethal weapon on me.

Sanitarium

29-Aug-2004, 11:35 AM

I think in the UK the dangers would outweight the rewards. Because people haven't been brought up to respect guns, and well half the country is chavscum.

Cougar_v203

29-Aug-2004, 12:27 PM

chavscum? what be this new word i read of? :p

I think gun should be allowed because i've always wanted a glock :D

Miran

10-Nov-2004, 05:58 PM

Aaah,people I think I'm THE MAN to talk about these topic since I live in Serbia where this kind of legislative firearms prohibition actually exists.
I suppose it's because a vast ammount of firearms acumulated during recent wars in ex-Yugoslavia and Kosovo.And I have to admit that Serbs are crazy about guns.A friend of mine claims that you can by a fully functional AK-47 in black market for some 50 euros.Hack!I saw an ad in yellow-pages by a guy who was selling "silenced Ingram with 250 bullets"!
Nevertheless I think that this kind of prohibition is stupid.It only reduces defensive capacity of a regular citizen because criminals don't abide the law anyways so they will continue carrying firearms regardless of authorities' decisions.It will only encourage them in their persuits.
Logically there were series of murders and assassinations all over Serbia after this law was passed through.
I guarantee you that those intelligent heads within every government are completely aware of this logical fact.I have a thory on this subject.So why would they do it anyways?
For the same reason it has been done innumerous times throughout history.
For example in 1588 Toyotomi Hideyoshi proclaimed an infamous sword-hunt.
It naturally meant the oppression of peasants and other civilian citizens.
Likewise,when a government of "some" country forbids carrying weapons and simultaneously enlarges a number of anti-riot law-inforcement forces it will very soon come to dictatorship and cracking the sculls of any protesting group in the streets.I was able to see this kind of misuse of elite law-enforcement special forces against unarmed farmers who were protesting for being reaped off for their only annual harvest.
So I guess I'd rather be imprisoned than allowing someone to spill my brains or guts in the street for no reason! :woo:

woodrow

10-Nov-2004, 06:27 PM

You gotta be careful though these days. Wierd how you are from Serbia. A Serbian was killed by the police here by acting sort of like you are talking. The killing made a big stink.

The Serbian guy was sitting at a popular outdoor cafe drinking coffee. He was relaxing with his legs up on another chair. A Policeman comes by and tells him to move his legs. You know how policeman are, looking for trouble.

The Serbian guy says no. It is a free country. It was an outdoor cafe, the proprietor had not complained or anything. The policeman makes a big deal out of the situation. He was looking at it like "No one stands up to ME and gets away with it". A personal level.

So the cop pulls out a tazer and tazes the man. For those that do not know, a Tazer shocks people with like 50,000 volts. It kills some people because of heart attacks.

The Serbian guy? He got pissed off. He jumps up and fights back. The details are sketchy here but apparently the policeman tazed him 2 or 3 more times! Jeez, talk about torture.

So then the Serbian guy picks up a chair and throws it at the policeman. Can you blame him? He has been tazed 3 or 4 times and he probably is feeling like he is going to die. And the policeman keeps coming.

So the policeman pulls out his gun and shoots the Serbian dead in front of the neighborhood popular coffee shop. For having his feet up on another chair.

Around here? They let kids, 24, 25 into the police. They get in a situation and they get scared and pull out the gun and shoot people. Not because they deserve shooting, but because some kid who was not strong enough to be a real man pulled out a gun and killed someone.

Some poor lady in a domestic abuse got shot awhile back. She was upset and waved a vegetable chopper at the police so they shot her dead. 2 kids and the husband or boyfriend was right there.

Stolenbjorn

11-Nov-2004, 09:13 AM

So I guess I'd rather be imprisoned than allowing someone to spill my brains or guts in the street for no reason! :woo: First off; I respect your oppinion; if I were living in Serbia/Kosovo/Sarajevo/Gaza/Bagdad, I'd might have a different wiev than what I have now, living in peaceful Norway.

It all comed down to culture. In Norway; thanks to the very legislations you're fighting against, we have a long culture of not solving disagreements ourselves with guns. It have not allways been so. Norway was in the 15th and 16th century regarded as an extremely violent country, with the biggest city (Bergen) "enjoying" an averidge kill rate of 12pr. month, quite big, considdering that bergen was a city of some 20 000 inhabitants... Priests were attacked with axes by agitated peassents, etc.

Theese examples of individual "resolution" were not liked by the authorities, who through strict legislations gradually and slowely altered the Norwegian peassants' culture from a rather violent one (remember where the Vikings come from ;) ) to a culture where violence is left with the police and military. It must allso be said that Norway don't have much corruption, and there's much confidence in the authorities; people trust that the authorities are just and follow the rules. I imagine that people swearing to their arms are allso the ones convinced of the autorities dishonesty.

The example mentioned above (with a policeman shooting someone at a cafe) would never have happened in Norway, as police are not allowed to use tazers, and are only allowd to carry guns if threatened (pistols are locked in in the police-car), or if ordered to field weapons by the police-chief. Thus; the argument of carrying weapons so one can protect oneseslf from gun-wielding and gangster-like lawenforcers is not valid in Norway.

Miran

11-Nov-2004, 10:27 PM

WOODROW,please either tell me more about cafe-shotout in the thread or contact me via PM;I'm extremely curious about the situation since obviously there has been some sort of media coverup since none of the media in Serbia reported on this.
STOLENBJORN...Man you shouldn't have written all that!I'm dying to live in Norway like all of my life!!!And when I hear about your society and law...WOW!!!
I agree with you:the corruption within a government structure is probably the main reason of people's insecurity.
O.K.I would agree that firearms should be prohibited in case of such refined countries :Angel: but when it comes to us living in a dog-it-dog world :woo: ...

Cudgel

12-Nov-2004, 12:11 AM

my step fatehr put why he thinks we should able to own fireamrs if we wish ina very eloquent way.
One of the Ammendents to teh US constitution is about hwo wwe all have the right to happiness, and that if collecting working firearms for target shooting or hunting then he has a right to own them.
A veiw I share. I like weapons so I collect them when I can afford them and i seek to learn how to use them in a maner consistant with what it was meant to do even if I never planon using it for reals.
Sure gun collectors couild collect reals guns that have been renderd inoperable, but come on amny peopl ike to use things liek they were meant to be used or at least as close as can be with out actually killing anyone or anything.
Sure peopl do things with guns that are not right but does that mean that those who have no intention on commiting crimes with a gun and who will obey the law regardless of whether or not they are forced to shold have some ting that makes them happy taken away from them?

but what is the opinion if a white middles class male betwen teh ages of 18 and 30 inAmerica worth or that of a redneck in his 40's with little college education.

rtkd-badger

12-Nov-2004, 11:51 AM

Cudgel

12-Nov-2004, 05:46 PM

not to mention that clubbing the animal to death would less human than a bullet to the brain.

Nevada_MO_Guy

12-Nov-2004, 07:51 PM

Hello All,

I believe the government shouldn't say what gun I can't or can own. I believe that it should be reserved for the individual states to decide their gun laws based on their states elected officials.
The Federal government should stay out of it, except to enforce the basic rights of the constitution.

As for England having issues, this news article shows how bad it can get protecting your life, in your own house, in an isolated and rural location, under English rule.

http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=200107200000

UKscrapper

13-Nov-2004, 02:21 AM

Nevada_MO_Guy

13-Nov-2004, 03:40 AM

uk murder rate 760 for 1999
us murder rate 18209 for 1997

Wake up and smell the coffee and stop believing the lies.

The Bear.

Hello Polar Bear. Your numbers are indeed compelling to the cause of gun control. But I believe you are comparing, as they say, apples to oranges.

You are comparing the murder rate for the UK against the USA without taking into account the population.

The population of the UK (as of July 2004) is around 60 million.
The Death rate is about 10.19 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

The population of the USA (as of July 2004) is around 293 million.
The Death rate is about 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Now the apples to apples comparison; The gun rich USA has less of a death rate than the UK.

Tankx1st

13-Nov-2004, 03:53 AM

in, my country, South Korea, it's outlawed for citizens to hold guns, but the Mobsters there, still get their Greasy mitts on them, or they use this Fish Knife, that Long and skinny, called the "Sashimi Knife" the blade is 50 cm long~

If guns are outlawed, you'd create a Black Market

aikiMac

13-Nov-2004, 04:13 AM

Post #4 says what I would say.

Anyone who would deny me and my family the ability to defend our bodies from violent aggression has no love in his heart, and that's that. There is no argument to the contrary.

Denial of legal access to a gun for self-defense is denial of the ability to defend our bodies from violent aggression. There is no argument to the contrary. True is true.

You make the conclusion, and then tonight when you are warm and safe in your home, you think about what your conclusion says about your heart.

I hope we all care enough about other people that we would promote legal access to self-defense. I sure hope we care enough about other people.

Stolenbjorn

13-Nov-2004, 01:39 PM

moe389

13-Nov-2004, 03:38 PM

Unfortunatley the bad guys do have guns and some times sticks just are not enough to do defend your self and family. Its also mine and your right to bare arms as stated in the constitution. If you take that away your taking away our freedom that so may people died for.If they destroyed all the guns on earth people would still kill people guns do not make people violent its just in our nature to destroy stuff and each other. Their's never been peace and their never will be murder and crime will always plauge humanity. :woo:

bcullen

13-Nov-2004, 07:05 PM

Well, I hope you never mistake me for a terrorist if I work as a dor to door-salesman in your district.....

The poll is very biassed towards the pro-gun-users,as it asks wether any kind of impliment propelling with gunpowder a projectile forewards should be banned...

I'd have to say no as well to that. The poll would have been far more interresting if dividing beween guns I percieve as tools (hunting-rifles, mainly) and tools hoaned towards the consept of killing people.-or at least restrict such ownerships to strict legislation. It's fun to read how some on this forum regard having an UZI under the pillow as somthing just as ordinary as I think having a guy doing that in Norway beeing locked in in an institution.

What I find interresting is why so different cultures exist. I have a theory that the more sceptic you are towards your gouvernment, the more do people cling to their weapons of self defence. What I've learned about USA is that the constitution is very biased against a strong sentralized gouvernment, somthing I don't find very strange, given the circomstances under which USA became an indipendent country (the war with England).

An uzi is outside the scope of protected weapons, classed as a sub-machinegun. It fires in semi-auto, tri-burst and full-auto modes.
An unmodified uzi is illeagal to posses in the U.S. without a special permit. Remove the auto fire capabilities and reduce it to semi auto (one trigger pull, one bullet) and its legal; of course it's the auto fire modes that make it more then just a bulky 9mm pistol with a big clip. Its hard to conceal and gives no advantage over any 9mm pistol other then holding more ammo in the clip.

In the United States there is a crime thats use is on the rise. It's called a home-invasion robbery. One of the many guises for this crime occurs thusly:
A group of 2-5 scope out a neighborhood, pick a good target house, at an opportune moment one cuts the phone lines while the others bust in the door (sometimes pretending to be law enforcement). The occupants are robbed of anything and everything and in many cases are tortured and/or killed. Other variations use a female apprentice asking for help to gain access etc...

In this situation the police can't help you, the only real defense is to be able to retailiate with equal force.

I don't answer the door with a pistol at the ready (unless I have reason to think otherwise). But I consider all unidentified vistors as hostile until proven otherwise and I'm ready to respond as needed at any second. I keep the security screen locked at all times providing enough time for me to fall back to a defensive area with weapons, ammunition, cover, concealment and a predetermined line of fire (narrow hallway) where I could hold a S.W.A.T team at bay if need be.

Shaolin Dragon

13-Nov-2004, 07:13 PM

Hello Polar Bear. Your numbers are indeed compelling to the cause of gun control. But I believe you are comparing, as they say, apples to oranges.

You are comparing the murder rate for the UK against the USA without taking into account the population.

The population of the UK (as of July 2004) is around 60 million.
The Death rate is about 10.19 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

The population of the USA (as of July 2004) is around 293 million.
The Death rate is about 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Now the apples to apples comparison; The gun rich USA has less of a death rate than the UK.

And you are comparing bananas to bananas when the rest of us are interested in apples.

You have stated the death rates of the two countries. This is irrelevant - what you should be looking for is the murder rates per capita- this is higher in the USA than in the UK. If you want to be more specific than this, look for the murder involving firearms statistics and you will see that america has a substantially higher rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/810522.stm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

However, most of these comparisons are oversimplified and do nothing to solve the problem.

Nevada_MO_Guy

13-Nov-2004, 10:08 PM

[QUOTE=Shaolin Dragon]And you are comparing bananas to bananas when the rest of us are interested in apples.

You have stated the death rates of the two countries. This is irrelevant - what you should be looking for is the murder rates per capita- this is higher in the USA than in the UK. If you want to be more specific than this, look for the murder involving firearms statistics and you will see that America has a substantially higher rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/810522.stm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap
QUOTE]

Shaolin Dragon. Thanks for the link.

I was considering that a death is a death; whether from gun fire or old age. The USA has less than UK, period. So since the USA has more deaths from murder/firearms...and still has less deaths than the UK (per capita)...then maybe the UK's heath care systems needs some work.

The link you provided has some nice information such as:
Perception of safety - Burglary (USA=78%), (UK=58%)
Perception of safety - Walking in dark (USA=82%), (UK=70%)
and of course:
Murders with firearms (USA=0.02 per 1000 people), (UK=0.00 per 1000 people)
Burglaries (per capita) (USA=7.23 per 1000 people), (UK=13.91 per 1000 people) almost twice as in the gun toting USA

However there is defiantly more assaults:
Assaults (USA=7.70 per 1000 people), (UK=7.50 per 1000 people)

What I found interesting is the percentage of Assault Victims:
Assault victims (USA=1.2% (1999)), (UK=2.8% (1999)) over twice as much as the gun toting USA.

Sorry if this seems to have turned into a USA vs UK post...not my intension, but thanks to Shaolin Dragon's link, very good break down, I think is sums up as:

The gun toting; police will shoot you USA; has:
More murders
More murders by firearms
More assaults
Less assault victims
Less of a death rate than the UK.

The anti-gun; police will hit you with a stick UK; has:
Less murders
Less murders by firearms
Less assaults
More assault victims
More of a death rate than the USA.

Thanks again Shaolin Dragon. :)

Shaolin Dragon

13-Nov-2004, 10:52 PM

The USA also has the highest number of adults prosecuted per capita suggesting that the US is a nation of criminals.
*puts on flame-retardant coat.

The US also has higher rates of rape and drug use.

I was also surprised to see that the US has the highest belief in police efficiency, given how often we see TV documentaries about US cops beating up on people.

Yes the UK health system does need a lot of work - but at least healthcare is free in this country.

I think a major point that should be highlighted here is that all of these statistics are generally based on REPORTED crimes, so therefore if a crime is not reported it does not count towards the statistics.

Many of these statistics are meaningless - or at best only give a vague representation of the reality. And any set of statistics can be interpreted in virtually any way.

But we've gone off-topic a little here. Clearly the UK has a higher incidence of violent crime than America - which leads me to wondering, if we didn't have gun control, would we have a problem with gun crime? I am inclined to think that we would.

But whilst I personally do not see any reason for private gun ownership, I would be reluctant to force that belief on other people. After all, martial arts weapons can be used in assaults, and banning them would surely reduce the incidences of this, but I would be very annoyed if the government decided to ban those.

Personally I would suggest tighter gun control (rather than outright bans) and stricter enforcement of this. But then, I don't run the country.

aikiMac

13-Nov-2004, 11:27 PM

But whilst I personally do not see any reason for private gun ownership, I would be reluctant to force that belief on other people.
Thank you. That's an an attitude of love for other humans. "Let each adult decide for himself" is the right way to go.

I see no reason for chocolate, Coca Cola, or Fritos, but I am loathe to force that belief on others. Identical thought process. Junk food causes health problems and in the extreme it kills, you know.

Personally I would suggest tighter gun control (rather than outright bans) and stricter enforcement of this.
This is logically incompatible with your statement above. Does 1 + 1 = 3 for you? In the interest of preserving the physical integrity of our fellow humans shall we ration candy bars and corn chips? The thought process is identical.

kickass

13-Nov-2004, 11:40 PM

whatever happened to the good old days where fighting required discipline and honor. where you would get to know the people who were deemed your enemies before you fought them. where you would fight to save yourself, your loved ones, or your honor. its a shame that now that allies are filled with dropouts engaging petty turf wars and funding them with money from old ladies' purses. i wish things were the way they were back then. :cry:

Shaolin Dragon

14-Nov-2004, 12:07 AM

I support the idea of free will, but only to a point. If raping other people makes you happy, should you be allowed to continue doing it?

By the same principle, I would not give a gun to somebody who is likely to use it on another human being, nor a car to somebody who is likely to drive over people. "let each adult decide for himself" is a fine principle, but when one adult's decisions will effect another person's wellbeing, certain safeguards should put into place.

Nevada_MO_Guy

14-Nov-2004, 12:34 AM

The USA also has the highest number of adults prosecuted per capita suggesting that the US is a nation of criminals.
*puts on flame-retardant coat.

The US also has higher rates of rape and drug use.
That is true. It seems that when a people are given freedoms that they can use that freedom to do dumb things.

Many of these statistics are meaningless - or at best only give a vague representation of the reality. And any set of statistics can be interpreted in virtually any way.
I don't know about that. The statistics, I think, are a valuable tool to help break down all of the blanket statements some people make.
A number versus another number is good solid way to see a comparison.
But we've gone off-topic a little here. Clearly the UK has a higher incidence of violent crime than America - which leads me to wondering, if we didn't have gun control, would we have a problem with gun crime? I am inclined to think that we would.
Since Britain banned handguns, or anything that even looks like one, vicious criminals have come out of the woodwork to "prey on law abiding British citizens" wrote Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book "Guns and Violence: The English Experience." http://www.gunblast.com/020906-Newsmax.htm

UKscrapper

14-Nov-2004, 08:08 PM

As a martial artist I have to say that guns can make you damn lazy. Why bother honing your hand to hand skills if you have a strap by your waistband every time you step out.

Guns are fun but going to a range and letting off 100 rounds gets old very quickly and does not give you the same workout as doing martial arts. As an equalizer however nothing beats a handgun, however the handgun needs to be carried on the individual and easilly accessed with a round in the breech which is at odds with many military protocols which teach that under no circustances should there be a round in the breech when a firearm is carried.

kickass

14-Nov-2004, 08:24 PM

gaz shaw

14-Nov-2004, 08:41 PM

I can't see much point myself. If they were outlawed, bank robbers, murder's, terrorists etc will still be able to get hold them. But then again it may reduced some murders/assaults.

We have gun amnesty's in the UK from time to time, I think thats a better idea than outlawing them.

i totally agree :rolleyes:

Miran

14-Nov-2004, 09:24 PM

Kickass,dude,you might want to read one of Woodroo's previous posts on one of those thingies being used against one of my fellow Serbs who just became annoyed and eventually had to be shot down using a regular gun (the conclusion of my point has nothing to do with my personal feelings on this incident).And as far as I know law-enforcement officers carry even more powerful charges than others.

Please do not swear - Gaskell

bcullen

14-Nov-2004, 09:52 PM

in most situations, people carry guns to protect themselves. in that case wouldnt a stun gun have the same effect and would still be safe.
heres a pic (http://shop.lifesafetyfirst.com/lsf/images/tam18L-taser.jpg)
this thing shoots T-waves that can knockout an opponent regardless of where u hit him (it targets the nervous system) from a distance of 15 feet with no permanent damage. why then are guns necessary?

Actually the jury is still out on exactly how safe tasers are http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17541

Tasers don't break bones and destroy tissue, bullets do. A taser may stop a determined attacker. A bullet almost always will stop even a determined attacker, one way or the other.

There's a great example I saw where an AZ DPS officer encounters a schitzophrenic that has stopped taking his medications. He maces (not pepper spray, real mace) the man who continues to charge him taking the officers baton after being hit with it numerous times. The officer fires one shot into the man who takes one or two more steps before sitting down then collapsing. Happy ending, the officer was unharmed and the suspect survived and recovered from his injuries.
You can see the look on the guys face change from "I'm gonna kill you" to "Oh my god, I'm dying" in a split second.

kickass

14-Nov-2004, 10:31 PM

oppsies :( :Angel:

aikiMac

14-Nov-2004, 11:24 PM

this thing shoots T-waves that can knockout an opponent regardless of where u hit him (it targets the nervous system) from a distance of 15 feet with no permanent damage. why then are guns necessary?
"Why then are guns necessary?" Huh? Why do you even ask that question? What does "necessary" have to do with whether or not a person should be allowed, under the law, to protect his physical body from violent attack?

Your favorite music band is unnecessary. Truly. Absolutely. Literally. It is unnecessary. Therefore, it's albums and singles ought not be sold in stores, or at best, they should be rationed. Agreed?

Chocolate is unnecessary. Therefore, all chocolate candy bars should be illegal, or at best, rationed. Agreed?

Everything on McDonald's menu is unnecessary. Therefore, McDonald's should be shut down by the state and/or federal government. Agreed?

Do you see the fault with your question? By suggesting that a weapon of self-defense is unnecessary, you are advocating that the methods of personal defense against violent physical attack be rationed and restricted according to some third party's definition of "necessary." Dude, that concept literally is a promotion of evil, because it makes evil easier and good harder. I hope you will reconsider what you said.

K_Coffin

15-Nov-2004, 12:03 PM

Definitely an eloquent post there Aikimac. Good stuff.

One thing I don't understand is why, when we are holding a discussion about firearms, do people always assume that the majority of guns are owned for self-defence? You people have no idea how many hunters, target shooters and enthusiasts there are, do you? My family owns over 20 guns, almost all of which are next to useless for self-defence. We hunt, I target shoot, and sometimes we just like to run down to a gravel pit and shoot cans. It's fun. That's why I like guns.

You don't see me writing posts about banning baseball bats or cricket bats do you?

aikiMac

15-Nov-2004, 03:18 PM

One thing I don't understand is why, when we are holding a discussion about firearms, do people always assume that the majority of guns are owned for self-defence? You people have no idea how many hunters, target shooters and enthusiasts there are, do you? My family owns over 20 guns, almost all of which are next to useless for self-defence. We hunt, I target shoot, and sometimes we just like to run down to a gravel pit and shoot cans. It's fun. That's why I like guns.

You don't see me writing posts about banning baseball bats or cricket bats do you?
An excellent point. (Plinking is fun.)
There is no reason in logic or love for a particular entertainment to be banned just because someone else doesn't like it.

Athleng Nordic

15-Nov-2004, 03:23 PM

They aren't ever going to go away.

Cudgel

15-Nov-2004, 03:27 PM

Athleng Nordic

15-Nov-2004, 04:21 PM

it would be like saying rap music should be banned because i hate the lyrics and most of the culture associated with it.
All the guns my family owns are for recreational purposes, even though they have two or three guns that ARE SUPPOSED to be for Self defense but seeing how they are locked in the gun safe.........thats why i trainn with otehr weapons. I can keep my knives and what not in my room and not locked up.

That's very true, to want something made illegal because you don't like it we'd have a real interesting world I must say. Just remember that killing with any kind of weapon will get you in a courtroom. No matter the reason.

kickass

15-Nov-2004, 11:25 PM

Everything on McDonald's menu is unnecessary. Therefore, McDonald's should be shut down by the state and/or federal government. Agreed?

now that i agree with! :D

"i hope you will consider what you said"

sorry i was ill informed :Angel: no harm done?

aikiMac

16-Nov-2004, 04:12 AM

"i hope you will consider what you said"

sorry i was ill informed :Angel: no harm done?
Apparently not. :)
(You don't seem ill informed. You just maybe didn't realize what you were saying.)

Nevada_MO_Guy

16-Nov-2004, 04:24 AM

this thing shoots T-waves that can knockout an opponent regardless of where u hit him (it targets the nervous system) from a distance of 15 feet with no permanent damage. why then are guns necessary?

Yes a taser or stun gun can be an effective self defense device. I don't think they will ever replace the gun for self defense though.

A taser is basically a one shot deal. Not bad if it is just you and the bad guy and he is cooperating by not moving around to much. If you miss your shot, or he has a buddy....well, it is a little inconvenient.

A stun gun is good in close quarters an since there are no projectiles it can be used on multiple attackers....as long as they, again, cooperate and get close enough to you without being to rude and try and use weapons on you.

A gun, of course, can shoot multiple rounds and the noise can alert help.

Albert

16-Nov-2004, 04:34 AM

I like guns so um..we should keep them. :woo:

MarioBro

16-Nov-2004, 04:41 AM

Everything on McDonald's menu is unnecessary. Therefore, McDonald's should be shut down by the state and/or federal government. Agreed?

Actually, I would say that most things on McDonalds menu are deadlier to more people than guns are in total. So yes, agreed.

Why can the government not do something as simple as forcing these money hungry companies to use safer products, such as non-hydrogenated cooking oils, etc.

Maybe all cities should start doing what they are doing in Tiburon, California. See this page:

http://www.bantransfats.com/

MarioBro

16-Nov-2004, 04:47 AM

Oh, so for a conclusion to the question of whether or not to ban guns...

Guns are not the real problem in society, but they sure are useful for these big companies to keep the people and the government agencies too busy to deal with the real killers in the world...the food we eat every day. All they have to do is sit back and laugh as guns get all the attention as thought they are the biggest problem (I mean come on...for the most part the guys who are getting shot are guys who like to shoot others too, and these deaths do not bother me. I do hate the innocent victims, but many things have innocent victims).

People are blinded as to the real problems, so I say everyone wake up and realize the real problems in the world, and stop attacking guns as though banning them (Yes, all the criminals will turn them in right away :rolleyes: of course) will save so many lives. WAKE UP EVERYONE!!!

aikiMac

16-Nov-2004, 04:49 AM

Why can the government not do something as simple as forcing these money hungry companies to use safer products, such as non-hydrogenated cooking oils, etc.

Maybe all cities should start doing what they are doing in Tiburon, California.
How do you reconcile your question and suggestion, with your signature?

MarioBro

16-Nov-2004, 04:51 AM

And this link more direct to the same website...these guys are suing McD's for lying about the fats they use...:

http://www.bantransfats.com/mcdonalds.htm

MarioBro

16-Nov-2004, 04:54 AM

How do you reconcile your question and suggestion, with your signature?
Ummm, nothing to reconcile...why would you say that? What did you extract from my signature that conflicts with anything I have opined?

aikiMac

16-Nov-2004, 05:03 AM

Ummm, nothing to reconcile...why would you say that? What did you extract from my signature that conflicts with anything I have opined?
The meaning of your signature is that people should and can regulate themselves. Seeking to regulate other people is just power trip that infringes upon other people.

Yet you are suggesting that we advocate that government beaurocrats enjoy a power trip by regulating us, rather than, advocating that each of us follow the advice of your sage and regulate ourselves.

I see an implicit hypothesis behind your suggestion, which by no means is unique to you. Millions of people echo your suggestion. That hypothesis is that government beaurocrats are a superior race of humans than the rest of us.

Behind your suggestion is the implicit belief that only government beaurocrats know what is best for us. We commoners, being of inferior blood, do not know what is best for us. We commoners, being inferior to beaurocrats, need beaurocrats to outlaw fatty oil, or whatever -- pick anything -- because we can't figure out all by ourselves what is dangerous and what is safe.

The people who proposed the banning of fatty oils are obviously also of a superior race than the rest of us. Maybe they're cousins of government beaurocrats. I don't know.

MarioBro

16-Nov-2004, 05:25 AM

The meaning of your thread is that people should and can regulate themselves. Seeking to regulate other people is just power trip that infringes upon other people.

Yet you are suggesting that we advocate that government beaurocrats enjoy a power trip by regulating us, rather than, advocating that each of us follow the advice of your sage and regulate ourselves.

I see an implicit hypothesis behind your suggestion, which by no means is unique to you. Millions of people echo your suggestion. That hypothesis is that government beaurocrats are a superior race of humans than the rest of us.

Behind your suggestion is the implicit belief that only government beaurocrats know what is best for us. We commoners, being of inferior blood, do not know what is best for us. We commoners, being inferior to beaurocrats, need beaurocrats to outlaw fatty oil, or whatever -- pick anything -- because we can't figure out all by ourselves what is dangerous and what is safe.

The people who proposed the banning of fatty oils are obviously also of a superior race than the rest of us. Maybe they're cousins of government beaurocrats. I don't know.
Ok, if I did not think you were crazy before..I do now :)!

I am not sure where you got the idea that I think that gov't should control everything for us, but rather make sure that people are properly informed with the truth. And since the truth has not been given prior to so many people becoming complacent about the true dangers of the methods these companies use, then yes I do think that they need to be shut down. Just the same as with smoking...the true health issues were intially hidden or they were even advertised as healthy at one time. Now because they have been allowed to be in our culture for so long and foster a complacency amongst die hard smokers, they also need to be stopped by other methods (control where a smoker can smoke in public) than just advertising the dangers.

My signature does state that true power is in controlling ones self, but does that mean that I think everyone is then able to do that and make rational decisions? Not a chance, sadly.

With your way of thinking, we should just remove all stop signs and signals, stop enforcing seat-belts, allow people to drink and drive, etc, etc, otherwise we are just being controlled. I would not care so much about the trans fats in food, except that mothers and fathers give this crap to their kids. People are not educated or live in a world of 'it will never effect me'. When anything can effect society as a whole by increasing medicare costs, instilling bad habits into our children or otherwise detrementing society...then yes, I say regulate it. control it...outlaw it if need be. Protect those who are unable to protect themselves due to ignorance, inability to make their own decisions, etc.

I truly think that society sometimes has to overlook the individuals right to make stupid choices in order to protect the future of our society. Too much freedom is bad. Too little freedom is bad. For society, for my kids and yours. All in my humble opinion of course...

aikiMac

16-Nov-2004, 06:30 AM

Ah, but that which you are advocating, sir Mario, will not accomplish your goal, because you are addressing only symptoms of a problem, not causes of a problem. The cause of the problem is not that fatty oil or whatever is legal and available. The cause of the problem is that people choose to consume it. Say that again: "People CHOOSE to consume." The cause of this and every other problem is in what people choose to do.

Why would someone choose to consume that which is bad for him? Duh, it's because he doesn't think rightly. He's not thinking in conformity with the mind of God, or Mother Nature, or the Laws of Nature, or whatever word you prefer. When you don't align your thoughts with those of the way of the universe, you necessarily and always stray after wrong desires. That's a tautology. Wrong desires immediately produce greed. And greed leads on to consume to much fatty oil or whatever we're talking about. Greed also leads to gang wars where people shoot people, and blah blah blah. Greed leads to all bad things.

Wrong thoughts are the start of all the bad things. If you're not addressing wrong thoughts, you're not solving the problem. At best you are covering up a symptom of the problem. Making McDonalds illegal will not solve the problem of people eating bad food, because making McDonalds illegal does nothing to stifle people's desire for bad food. Making guns illegal will not solve the problem of people killing and injuring each other because making guns illegal does nothing to stifle people's anger and desire to harm others. In contrast, teaching people to think in conformity with the laws of nature will result in people making wise food choices, and when people make wise food choices, they will not consume unhealthy doses of unhealthy foods, and consequently -- just as a symptom is a consequence of an illness -- they will not die from over consumption of fatty oils. In the same way, teaching people to think in conformity with the laws of nature will result in love, mercy, gentleness, and all other nicities that are incompatible with pointing a loaded gun at a fellow human being.

And that, my friend, is what your signature means. It means that if you renew your mind you will govern yourself. And after you are able to govern yourself, you can teach others the same so that they will not need the protection of that other, more highly evolved, species of human called "government beaurocrat."

So, shall we address only the symptoms of problems and consequently leave our fellow humans to wallow in their madness and live day by day only by the compassion of their masters, the government workers? Or shall we address the cause of problems and consequently lead our fellow humans into freedom?

Polar Bear

16-Nov-2004, 08:54 AM

This is exactly why I will never live in USA. This belief that "do what you want" should be the basis of a society. In the US you are free to starve, live in poverty and be kept ingorant. It is not a land of oppertunity it is a land of exploitation. Guns are used to give you the illusion of freedom. I have a gun and can shoot people so that means I'm free. While your government is bought and sold by big business. You vote for presidents who are compromised by massive donations and business interests. Your culture is oppresive to a point where kids who are excluded take up arms against those how have oppressed them. What does America do, Blame Video Games and Marlynn Manson because they can't accept the foulness of their own society.
You don't need a gun, you need social engineering to repair the damaged psyche of America.

The Bear.

Stolenbjorn

16-Nov-2004, 11:10 AM

In this situation the police can't help you, the only real defense is to be able to retailiate with equal force.

This is how escalation works, mate :D This is what I don't understand with you "I will have the right to defend myself"-people. If the robber comes to rob you with a knife, you shoot him. If he comes with a pistol, you have an UZI(semiauto, of course, but you beloved president and his republican senators works hard to make automatic weapons legal). So then the robber brings an UZI, you bring an M16. Next day, the robber comes with an M16, you field your AGS17(autogrenadelauncher); etcetera......
My point is that you will not solve the problem with escalating the violence!

Wiew it from the robbers point of wiew ;) :
If every household fields X numbers of lethal pieces, you have to go in by force; you cannot turn your back to the victim, as it will pull a firearm and blast you back to your creator.

People in norway are allso robbed, but since nobody in Norway walk around with desert eagles on them, robbers can have a more laid-back-attitude. I bet that robbers in USA would allso be a bit nicer if people stopped shooting after them all the time :woo:

I think it's interresting to see that it's the societies that back up the weak the least who have the most violent crime-tendencies... why is that? In USA (acording to my prejudices) poor people have 3 options in their life since education costs money, and since education is the key to wealth:
A: get a lousy job and live from hand to mouth until you die because you cannot aford hospital insurance
B: join the army (ironically the only social institiution of USA). The only downside is that you have to kill people in other parts of the world :Angel:
C: let your anger and frustration take over and become an enemy of the society (which IMO is the best definition of a criminal; if the society rejects you and look down on you, why should you heed that society?)

MarioBro

16-Nov-2004, 02:09 PM

So, shall we address only the symptoms of problems and consequently leave our fellow humans to wallow in their madness and live day by day only by the compassion of their masters, the government workers? Or shall we address the cause of problems and consequently lead our fellow humans into freedom?
Ya sure..because educating the masses has always worked so well. It is a nice pipe dream, but until it can become reality then let's protect our children. If people are too ignorant to think for themselves then they need to be protected. If you want to continue to not blame the mega-corporations who spend billions on brainwashing the world, or the gov't who allows it because they are lining their own pockets, then fine.

It seems you want to blame the victims here. I wonder...in a situation where a woman is being abused by her husband and yet she continues to stay even though she is smart enough to know she should leave, do you put the blame for her predicament on her? Do you say the police should not get involved because they are then taking away her right to choose freely? That is fine if you do, but I still say protect the children from those who are too ignorant or brainwashed to do it for them.

aikiMac

16-Nov-2004, 03:41 PM

... you need social engineering to repair the damaged psyche of America.

Yes, we do. We need the second part of Mario's signature: "to control yourself is to know the way."

If people are too ignorant to think for themselves then they need to be protected.
You're scary, dude. This is a license to lock up, force medication on, and even kill every dissenter.

Hey, Polar Bear, here's a thought. A summary of your view of America is, "I want to live my life my way." Fair enough? You are advocating something different: "I want you to live your life the way that I want you to live your life."

One side wants to be left alone to do his own life. The other side wants to control people and force them to comply with his (the controller's) ideas about how they (the controllees) should live. Hmm. Who is more loving: the one who will let you decide your own fate, or the one who not let you decide your own fate?

MarioBro

16-Nov-2004, 04:17 PM

Yes, we do. We need the second part of Mario's signature: "to control yourself is to know the way."
You are right...we do need that. Sadly, it only applies to the enlightened.

You're scary, dude. This is a license to lock up, force medication on, and even kill every dissenter.
I am scary? Me? What is scarier...1) saying that we need to make decisions for those who are unable to make ones that do not harm themselves or their children, or you who says that 2) we should all be free to make our own choices, right or wrong, deadly or not. If we make decisions that harm our children or society then so be it...such is freedom and the price we must pay for it?

'and even kill every dissenter'? Are you insane? You add things in to try to make your argument even more effective. Lock up, if needed we do that do we not? Force medication? Well, if they are a danger to themselves or others, I would say so. Of course you would be the one to say 'let them be free to make their own decisions' then they kill themselves or others...at least your all important freedom has not been compromised, right? That is truly scary aiki, truly scary.

I am not ready to concede that freedom is the be all and end all of life. Society is just that...a group effort. To be a part of it we must have some conformation to ensure that it remains a great society. In your way of thinking I guarantee it would go all to hell since there is only a small percentage of citizens who are capable of always making the right choice so as not to harm society and our children.

Who is more loving: the one who will let you decide your own fate, or the one who not let you decide your own fate?Well, if letting one decide their own fate also in turn effects the lives of others, then I am sorry but they are less loving. If the decisions were to only effect that one person, then fine, but that is most often not the case. Do I want my decisions made for me? Of course not, but if my decision is going to harm others and my children, then I would hope that my obvious ignorance on the specific decision, society would step in and stop me from causing harm.

If you do not like the rules that are needed to live in society, then it would be best to move to a secluded mountain cabin and live life however you wish.

aikiMac

16-Nov-2004, 04:43 PM

In other contexts I would agree with you, but let's not forget that the context here was food cooked in fatty oils (as at McDonalds and other fast-food restaurants), and guns kept at home for self-defense, and guns used for hunting and plinking.

'and even kill every dissenter'? Are you insane? You add things in to try to make your argument even more effective.
Yes. Your "protect the children from their parents" argument is conceptually identical to the admonishment to children in other countries in history to rat on their parents if ever they observed their parents speaking or doing anything against the government. The excuse in both scenarios is: "protect the children and the rest of soceity from the dangers wrought by independent thoughts and actions."

Ex from history - Bible reading is bad. If dad read the Bible at home, that's bad for the kids. Must outlaw it because it is bad. Send dad to jail. Reprogram him.
Here, guns and fast-food is bad. If dad has a gun at home or buys a Happy Meal for the kids, that's bad for the kids. Must outlaw it because it is bad. Maybe even send dad to jail because it's bad.

Conceptually identical. That's what is scary.

Well, if letting one decide their own fate also in turn effects the lives of others, ...
I cannot think of an action that does not ripple over to other people, so this test is too broad to be of any use to me.

I see two problems with your plan of designing laws around children. One is the lack of any independent measuring rod by which the "enlightened" members of society can frame a law. For want of any independent measuring rod the laws will change according to the whims of those in power. This is tyranny of the few.

Second, a framework of laws built around children is inherently unstable and prone to failure. Laws should instead be made focused on adults. Ex - if chidren are our focus then forks should and must be banned. This is because if you give a fork to my baby she'll poke herself in the face everytime. But banning forks is absurd.

The best approach, and most right approach, is to focus laws around adults and simultaneously promote virtue and wise thinking (the 2nd part of your sig). I won't speak for other countries, but modern America discourages virtue and wise thinking. It is actively discouraged by governments. And that is the dominant reason why many adults today do stupid things.

I reject the proposition that most adults could not learn good behavior if good behavior was widely taught and broadly promoted. To say otherwise is to say that some humans are a better breed than others.

Reiki

16-Nov-2004, 10:44 PM

Some people need guns. I am a dairy farmer and if I get a cow that wont recover or is in severe pain I have to destroy it :cry: , With no gun I would have to club it to death :eek: . Ever tried to club a 500kg animal to death :confused: .

ditto that!

We only have an air rifle at home, used for shooting nuisance pests like possums and magpies, but I've had to put down a number of injured or sick animals including cattle, horses, sheep and goats. For the big ones I was able to get a vet in to do the job humanely, or a neighbour to shoot for me, but I have had to cut a sheep and goats throat at times. It's not pleasant at all.

Guns like rifles are only allowed here with licensing from the police and are strictly controlled. Handguns are illegal thank goodness.

kickass

17-Nov-2004, 01:22 AM

K_Coffin

17-Nov-2004, 01:35 AM

Reiki - That sounds somewhat inhumane - shooting possums and magpies with an air rifle? What velocity does it shoot at? There are few air rifles I know of that could kill a possum or magpie with one shot. You'd be considered a bit of a sadist here if you used those as pest control.

As far as regulation/freedom - I have to agree with both aikiMac and Mario. Aiki, your points are well backed and well argued. Your use of examples has helped me to follow your train of thought very well. I'm also of the mind that our primary goal in life should be to teach others to live according to the laws of nature, and with a benevolent heart (Funny how that agrees with the teachings of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu). I agree that if everyone could understand the effects of their actions and followed their responsibilities in life, we could all enjoy firearms/tobacco (And certain other drugs) reasonably, and without danger to ourselves or others.

However, I also agree with elements of Mario's points, to the effect that people are ignorant (By their own fault or others), and greedy. These are the roots of the conflicts we see where people abuse themselves and others to their own gain.

But how do we adress the problems? I disagree with prohibition in general, as history has revealed it as ineffective and harmful. However, I feel that until someone can prove themselves responsible, they should be limited in their access to certain things. For example - I love guns. They're great. They're fun, I can hunt and shoot and collect them and love love love them. But I know that not everyone would be responsible as I would with them. I feel that anyone who can prove themselves responsible should have access to a correspondingly dangerous category of firearms. Personally, I'd love to be able to buy assault rifles, antitank weapons and other destructive devices. But I know I'd be responsible with them. I hope to hell that the criminally insane never get ahold of such weapons, as they (By definition) aren't responsible enough to be safely trusted with such power.

As far as I can think, this applies to pretty much anything of the sort. I've got to go to work now, but I'll check up on how this goes.

Cudgel

17-Nov-2004, 04:57 AM

mayhaps there shold be some form of psycological envaulation done when you wih to get a lincese or permit for a firearm

And as for using a air rifle on small animals I have two firends that have been able to kille dove sized birds with a $20 air rifle from Walmart. Although I agree that suing a low velocity air rifle as pest control is a little nhumane id suggest using either a weaon more capable of killing like .22 or using something that most likely wont kill with little harm done, like a slngshot and rubber balls

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 05:03 AM

Yes! By all means ban them! Too many people dying because trigger happy cats are walking the streets.

aikiMac

17-Nov-2004, 05:16 AM

Yes! By all means ban them! Too many people dying because trigger happy cats are walking the streets.
Would banning the guns that those cat are using, have any effect at all on the mindset of those cat? Or would they still be the same murderous, um, felines, that they were before the ban?

I ask because StolenBjorn said that banning guns did not stop robbery in Norway. Apparently in Norway banning guns was a reaction against a symptom, but it did nothing to solve the problem that caused the symptom. That is anecdotal evidence that the problem is in the mindsets of the people. Incidently, the same is true in America. Guns are widely outlawed here, yet gee, people still shoot innocent people. Have we not confused symptoms of a problem with the cause of the problem?

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 05:23 AM

Would banning the guns that those cat are using, have any effect at all on the mindset of those cat? Or would they still be the same murderous, um, felines, that they were before the ban?

A trigger happy cat with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a trigger happy cat with a metal pipe.

K_Coffin

17-Nov-2004, 05:31 AM

A trigger happy cat with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a trigger happy cat with a metal pipe.

That's debatable..... Does the 'cat' know how to use the gun? It might not seem complicated, but you'd be surprised by how many people would be almost completely unable to fire a gun accurately. Anyone can swing a pipe or stab someone.

Anyways, the problem still remains that you have violent people who want/can't help hurting other people. Taking away one of their weapons won't stop them. Ask a cop. People will always find ways to hurt and kill each other. Look at prisons. There are (almost) no guns in prisons. Think there aren't any murders? People find a way.

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 05:37 AM

That's debatable..... Does the 'cat' know how to use the gun? It might not seem complicated, but you'd be surprised by how many people would be almost completely unable to fire a gun accurately. Anyone can swing a pipe or stab someone.

Anyways, the problem still remains that you have violent people who want/can't help hurting other people. Taking away one of their weapons won't stop them. Ask a cop. People will always find ways to hurt and kill each other. Look at prisons. There are (almost) no guns in prisons. Think there aren't any murders? People find a way.

Yeah, but it would be a hell of a lot easier with guns, wouldn't it.

And you don't need skill to hit someone when you're holding the nozzle against his forehead.

aikiMac

17-Nov-2004, 05:38 AM

A trigger happy cat with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a trigger happy cat with a metal pipe.
You quoted my question but you didn't answer my question, sir.

Cudgel

17-Nov-2004, 05:42 AM

yeah in prisons they make what are known as "shanks" and these "shanks" are made form such innocou things as book covers and game boards. If its rigid enough to not fold over with thurst into a fleshy thing then it can be used to make a "shank"
"shanks" are also known as "shivs" jsut if you wondering.

Now I belive taht knives are more dangerous than a gun and a metal pipe even more so. And it very well maybe that knives and imporvised weapons actaiully comprise the majority of weaposn used in violent crimes and murders. but I don thave statisics to back me as I dont know whare to look for statistics taht wouldnt be biased one way or teh otehr or interpetations that are biased.

And its muzzle not nozzel. hoses have nozzels guns have muzzels

sure it takes no skill waht so ever to kill someone witha gun when yoi uhave the gun pressed to their forehead, it takes jsu as much or as little to slit someons throat with a knife when its pressed their throat. SO what is your point. there are numerous reports of gun fights where poepl would miss several shots at close range.

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 05:45 AM

You quoted my question but you didn't answer my question, sir.

In answer to your question, banning guns may not change the mindset, but their mindset is not as pressing an issue as the fact that guns are making it easy to kill people.

Cudgel

17-Nov-2004, 05:49 AM

anyhitng that can be propelled towards human flesh makes it easier to kil someone. Should we ban chairs or shoes?
I knwo that my steel toed boots could easily kill someon if I woere to kick them in the head once.

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 06:00 AM

Cudgel

17-Nov-2004, 06:23 AM

I don tknow but I have heard reports of people beeing kicked to death by serval people.

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 06:25 AM

But does that number compare to the number of cats that catch lead in the chest?

aikiMac

17-Nov-2004, 06:48 AM

But does that number compare to the number of cats that catch lead in the chest?
Do cars kill more people than guns? I suspect so. Let's outlaw cars, eh?

In answer to your question, banning guns may not change the mindset, but their mindset is not as pressing an issue as the fact that guns are making it easy to kill people.
And that's where we part ways. I deeply believe that the cause is more important than the symptom, for the obvious reason that the cause can and will replicate the symptom after we "cure" the symptom. (Can I hear a "duh!," please?) Meanwhile, we've punished innocent people in the name of safety. That's utterly unkind and utterly foolish.

Stolenbjorn

17-Nov-2004, 08:41 AM

Hey, Polar Bear, here's a thought. A summary of your view of America is, "I want to live my life my way." Fair enough? You are advocating something different: "I want you to live your life the way that I want you to live your life."

One side wants to be left alone to do his own life. The other side wants to control people and force them to comply with his (the controller's) ideas about how they (the controllees) should live. Hmm. Who is more loving: the one who will let you decide your own fate, or the one who not let you decide your own fate?

Well, most of the ones you claim to be the most loving are the same people that are against gay people marrying eachother and adopt children, against abortion, for death centences, who are against legalization of drugs, and who wants USA to tell the rest of the world (i.e. the arab nations) how to conduct their lives. What happened with letting others alone? If you really are against any kind of control, then BYE-BYE to airport controls, police, taxation, armies, society, and welcome Mad Max and total anarchy :rolleyes:

I teach refugees from your wars norwegian, and when I'm explaining the word Democracy, I have a big problem, as they associate the word democracy with G. W Bush and his wars in their country (killing wounded and unarmed soldiers, etc.)

aikiMac

17-Nov-2004, 03:35 PM

Well, most of the ones you claim to be the most loving are the same people that are against ...
Most Americans do not think independently. Most are sheep: stupid, lazy, and follow orders mindlessly. Since at least the 70s, if not before then, the government (federal and state levels) has been actively discouraging virtue and intelligence and wisdom in America. So yes, as a nation we do behave inconsistently and we have stupid laws. We could and should be doing better in a lot of areas. That was my broad point.

One of those stupid laws is gun control, for the three reasons I've stated: (1) it is impossible to create a consistent legal system based around children, so we must base it around adults; (2) people murdering people is a symptom of our lack of morality. To treat only the symptom is pointless and foolish and the opposite of wisdom. We must treat the problem. (3) To treat the symptom while treating the problem is unkind and unfair and unjust, because it necessarily means that we will punish innocent people. We would, necessarily, be punishing all the millions of people who never ever shot any person with their gun. That is the wrong thing to do.

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 03:46 PM

Do cars kill more people than guns? I suspect so. Let's outlaw cars, eh?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard that argument. Personally I think it's smacked of idiocy. Cars are designed to transport people, they have a purpose other than killing people. Them killing people is simply a price we pay for their use, and for most people, the price is worth the product.
Guns on the other hand are designed for the sole purpose of causing life ending injury. So someone walking around with a gun (and I don't mean a Remington that they use to hunt game, I mean a 44 they use to split wigs) has the intention of ending life (for whatever reason whether it be protection or malice).
What good do guns do? Do they make you feel powerful? Safe? I suggest we find some other non lethal way to feed our egos.
Besides, when 63 people die from gun related incidents in 2 weeks what we need is an immediate solution to the symptom, we need emergency medicine, not long term treatment options.
Most diseases of themselved don't kill, it's their symptoms that do the bidding.

aikiMac

17-Nov-2004, 04:03 PM

Guns on the other hand are designed for the sole purpose of causing life ending injury. So someone walking around with a gun (and I don't mean a Remington that they use to hunt game, I mean a 44 they use to split wigs) has the intention of ending life (for whatever reason whether it be protection or malice).
Likewise a great many martial arts techniques.
Intent? Are you so sure about that?

We should outlaw Yoda for the reason you just articulated. He has a criminal intent to kill with all those lethal moves he knows, right?

Shaolin Dragon

17-Nov-2004, 04:08 PM

You would most likely get arrested under the offensive weapons act if you were wearing steel toe-capped boots around with no good reason (i.e. other than work etc.) in this country. Which is a good thing, IMO.

I would also suggest that driving licenses are too easy to obtain, and too many people disregard much of their learning shortly after passing the test.

I agree that treating the causes of gun crime would be a far more effective and desirable option than treating the symptoms. But the fact is that treating the symptoms is a lot easier. And no matter how much education you give, some people are just evil.

Anth

17-Nov-2004, 04:13 PM

You would most likely get arrested under the offensive weapons act if you were wearing steel toe-capped boots around with no good reason (i.e. other than work etc.) in this country. Which is a good thing, IMO.

*Waits to be arrested*
I wear STC boots for college (6th form). I walk past the beat-bobbies every day and havent had anything said about them, nor from the policeman who takes his son to my karate class :)

aikiMac

17-Nov-2004, 05:49 PM

I agree that treating the causes of gun crime would be a far more effective and desirable option than treating the symptoms. But the fact is that treating the symptoms is a lot easier. And no matter how much education you give, some people are just evil.
Ya, funny how that is. Across my continent there's millions of people who own gun and who have never used those guns to initiate violence against another person. There's an unknown number of other people who don't own guns but who enjoy their recreational use. Indeed, when a crime is committed, it is very easy to punish all these millions of innocent people. Too easy. But that doesn't make it right. It's actual unjust to punish these people for the crimes of other people.

It's like, I rob a bank, but we put you in jail. That's unjust. Reminds me of the "whipping boys" in English story books. The prince couldn't get a spanking when he was bad because hey, he was the prince, so some servant boy got a spanking instead. Prince does wrong, servant boy gets beaten. Joe Bank Robber shoots somebody with a gun, so Bob Citizen gets punished via a gun law. The analogy isn't perfect because sometimes Joe gets caught and jailed, but the similarity is plain. And it's blatantly unjust, but indeed very, very easy to do.

There are evil people in the world, aren't there? I think the inventor of the whipping boy concept was one of them.

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 06:41 PM

The whipping boy concept applies to everything. It is well known that in any judicial system there will always be convicted innocent. Does that mean that we shoud stop convicting? Punishing the average harmless Joe to stop Joe "Malicious" Guntoter is a perfectly legitimate sacrifice. Would you hold a gun in your home if you know that by doing so criminals are bussing heads in the streets nightly. maybe you'd feel differently if you knew how bad it was in some places in the world.

As for outlawing Yoda ... Yoda hasn't killed anyone yet has he? How many trained MAists/Ex military cats capable of dealing serious damage without a weapon are actually killing people? I have never heard of that happening in my entire life (I mean where I live). And yes, if cats with t3h d34dly techniques were running around splitting wigs I would indeed advocate a law against the dissemination of such techniques.

aikiMac

17-Nov-2004, 07:16 PM

Punishing the average harmless Joe to stop Joe "Malicious" Guntoter is a perfectly legitimate sacrifice.
Are you volunteering to go to jail for the next crime that is committed? It sure sounds that way! You're innocent, right? So we can put you in jail as a sacrifice, right?

(And everyone on MAP cheers. :D J/K)

As for outlawing Yoda ... Yoda hasn't killed anyone yet has he?
Wait a minute, that's my argument! ("Don't punish the innocent people" I said.)

Scarlet Mist

17-Nov-2004, 08:01 PM

Are you volunteering to go to jail for the next crime that is committed? It sure sounds that way! You're innocent, right? So we can put you in jail as a sacrifice, right?

(And everyone on MAP cheers. :D J/K)

Wait a minute, that's my argument! ("Don't punish the innocent people" I said.)

ha! Get your own argument :D. And it would be a sad sad day for MAP when Scarlet Mist no longer posts. :cool:

But, the Yoda's of the world are not a problem right now, it's the Joe Guntoters that are killing cats. If we were to take the gun from him, he would only be Joe Toter, and Joe Toter is a lot less dangerous. Do you know how urgent this gun violence issue is? Sacrifices must be made. And having your gun taken away from you is not the same as losing your freedom so no, I am not volunteering to go to jail for anyone!

aikiMac

17-Nov-2004, 08:27 PM

ha! Get your own argument :D. And it would be a sad sad day for MAP when Scarlet Mist no longer posts. :cool:

But, the Yoda's of the world are not a problem right now, it's the Joe Guntoters that are killing cats. If we were to take the gun from him, he would only be Joe Toter, and Joe Toter is a lot less dangerous. Do you know how urgent this gun violence issue is? Sacrifices must be made. And having your gun taken away from you is not the same as losing your freedom so no, I am not volunteering to go to jail for anyone!
Ya, I'd miss you if you were gone (for real) but you're wussing out, dude. "Sacrifices must be made." You really should stick to your convictions and voluntarily go to jail next time there's a gun crime.

Cudgel

17-Nov-2004, 08:53 PM

so you are asking that I give up my freedom to own somehting?
Regradless of the fact that it is a deadly weapon, it is still a freedom to own it If I do somethig nillegal with ANY weapon or even my self I should be punished. But if I do something illegal and instead of me being punished severa other peopel are punished not much incentive for me to stop doin gilegal things is it?

And if we out law guns why not knives, swords, canes, boots, pens, salt, oleander bushes, anti freeze and alcohol.
All of these are deadly in the wrong or right hands.
And even if guns were outlawed I or any one who can read can get resources to manufacture firearms, from zip guns to military grade weaponry. All it takes it teh right books ,whcih can be purchased easily, hand tools and/or machine tools. There are lots of peopel who know how to makes firearms and ammunitions from scratch. So even if you got all the guns in the world and destroyed them and destroyed all th machinery used to make fireamrs their would be fireamrs made unless you are advocating we eitehr brainwash all people or destroy all machinery that cuts and shapes metal. We could even build guns out of wood if we wanted to.
So not only is it a voilation of a few of teh rights that we Americans hold its also a really sily thing to do s it would be far to costly and futile.

kickass

17-Nov-2004, 10:38 PM

i think we're all agreed that owtlawing guns only disables the innocents because the "bad guys" would get their hands on them anyway. therefore guns SHOULD NOT be outlawed that would only entail more lawlessness.

BAM!! thread closed :D

p.s. i know i flip-flopped but this is my final answer.....no really it is... honest! :Angel:

Stolenbjorn

18-Nov-2004, 10:41 AM

One of those stupid laws is gun control, for the three reasons I've stated: (1) it is impossible to create a consistent legal system based around children, so we must base it around adults; (2) people murdering people is a symptom of our lack of morality. To treat only the symptom is pointless and foolish and the opposite of wisdom. We must treat the problem. (3) To treat the symptom while treating the problem is unkind and unfair and unjust, because it necessarily means that we will punish innocent people. We would, necessarily, be punishing all the millions of people who never ever shot any person with their gun. That is the wrong thing to do.

Well, at least you're consiquent, I'll grant you that, Does this mean that you think people should have the right to abortion, right to never pay taxes, right to smoke anywere you like as well? Theese are examples of laws that interfeere with peoples freedom.

A friend of mine and an ex anarchist said that what made him change his wiev was the dilemma that total freedom is impossible, because total freedom will come on other's expence. My right to walk around with a sidearm with cop-killer-ammo impeeds on my fellow citicens right to walk around without fear of me beeing some war veteran with post-traumatic-stress-syndrome, waiting for an incident to once more pull my firearm and execute my right to "defend" myslef. Freedom to smoke everywhere, for instance excludes allergics from public places. Free sale of guns deprives children from the guarantee that their curiousity won't lead them to accidentaly shoot themselves/a family member the one thime the gun was not properly secured. Americas freedom to wage war on anybody they like impeeds those people's freedom to live in peace.

Those who defend the right to free float of guns made for killing people allways put the emphasis on the street-punks, the criminals, etc. But if you look at statistics; who does most of the killing? I bet you it's the father, the mother, the colegue, the kid, etc. using a legal gun. you could say that if he hadn't used the gun, he could have used the kitchen knife, but we're a MA-forum and you should know better; it's easier to kill with a gun than with a knife/an axe. What makes your family the best argument for free float of guns, when it's the family that suffers the most from free float of guns ;)

In family tradegies, in cases of mental unstability, in cases of misunderstandings, in home accidents etc. what firearms are used? -The legal ones or the illegal ones? When does a gun become illegal? -As soon as a legal one is stolen. So having gun shops all around makes illegal guns more available as well.

Hyo

18-Nov-2004, 03:17 PM

The problem with outlawing the guns is that the criminals don't care about the laws to begin with, so they won't be affected. There is an old saying "an armed society is a polite society"...this, as are a great many things in society, is a double edged sword.
History shows that the second amendment was created for the simple reason to protect the colonies (i.e. America) from invasion. Times have changed but the law has not. This is the conundrum. Everyone seems so caught up with Guns this and guns that they are missing the big picture. Our American society is too soft plain and simple. Criminals have more rights than I do, now what is right about this? Personally, I think criminals should be treated as such, harshly! There are too many over here that worry about the racial implications, or other things that alter how crime is handled. I love guns, and I love my country and I can tell you that if the govt decides to take away all the guns...well IMHO I truly see that as a pre-curser to another bloody civil war. Too many Armed Survivalist groups, who practice tactical movements and know their stuff would resist with extreme predjudice! Anyone remember Waco, or Ruby Ridge? multiply that 50-100 fold. I know for a fact that criminals are preadators, they seek easy victims, weak, sick, unconfident people to attack. (I know that is not 100% the case, but I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts 75%-90%)
What are Americans so paranoid about, that we need guns....My $0.02 is this. Our Government has been castrated by big corporations, and they are so damn worried about upsetting the Corp.'s the justice system is a joke! So the end result is Social Justice. I personally keep my 16ga. by my bedroom door, the shells are on my nightstand, and I am more than willing to blow a hole in someone if they endanger/threaten my family, even in the slightest! There are none who come before family (both blood, and the closest of friends)!
And to the ones who think I am paranoid, oh well. I don't see it that way. I would rather have the knowledge/skill/training/gun...etc. and never have to use it, rather than need it and be up the creek without a paddle!
The same applies to my Ninjutsu, people ask "why, what good will it do you?" well when they are mugged (quite a common occurance in the states) and don't know how to defend themselves they will not wonder any more. Plain and simple I refuse to allow myself to be a victim! So I take my precautions. To ensure peace one must always prepare for war!

Kev63

18-Nov-2004, 06:57 PM

Guns are cool imho if in the right hands, in other hands there bad!!!!

Pat OMalley

18-Nov-2004, 08:06 PM

If you have a gun, you are more likely to use it, hence you have more deaths by shooting, even if you say you are defending yourself.

If everyone has a gun then the criminal needs bigger and better guns hence more deaths by shooting.

If guns are illeagal and you are cuaght carrying one and go down for a long long time then the result is less deaths by shooting.

Look at the USA, everyone can carry a gun and more people per head of capita get killed by guns, look at the UK, guns are illeagal and yes we do have shootings, but death by shooting is a rare thing.

I think that answers the question.

Yes guns should be illeagal were they are not, and should stay illeagal were they are.

"Guns are cool":eek: , no, guns don't make you look cool, they make you stupidly brave.

Regards

Pat

Hyo

18-Nov-2004, 08:46 PM

Pat-
another factor one needs to figure in is the justice sysems...ours here is a friggin joke!

aikiMac

18-Nov-2004, 11:06 PM

Well, at least you're consiquent, I'll grant you that, Does this mean that you think people should have the right to abortion, right to never pay taxes, right to smoke anywere you like as well? Theese are examples of laws that interfeere with peoples freedom.
The questions you are asking can be abstracted: “Who, if anyone, should own property? And to what degree?” If no one should own property then guns should and could be highly restricted. All of your other questions can be restated as a question of property, so those subjects too would be fair game for strict regulation.

But if, instead, individuals should own property, then we immediately come to a different conclusion. Either way, we also have to think about the specific degree of control that comes with property ownership (absolute, or minimal, or somewhere in between). Hmm. Maybe any degree of control is an affront to the conclusion that people should own property?

My preference is built on Natural Law: individual ownership, with absolute control except to the extent that my use of my property infringes upon your use and control of your property. Stated equivalently, I should be allowed to do anything that does not infringe upon your equal right to do your own thing. Stated equivalently, “I don’t hurt you, and you don’t hurt me.”

But this is merely the “Golden Rule” taught in many religions. My proposal is not different from the Golden Rule.

My right to walk around with a sidearm with cop-killer-ammo impeeds on my fellow citicens right to walk around without fear of me beeing some war veteran with post-traumatic-stress-syndrome, waiting for an incident to once more pull my firearm and execute my right to "defend" myslef.
Whether you are afraid of me or the Boogie Man or spiders or mice or darkness or anything else, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I should be allowed to possess and control a yo-yo, or a baseball glove, or anything else.

We give guns to policeman, soldiers, and Secret Service bodyguards. There’s no reason in logic or love to trust these people but not trust the average citizen. I absolutely reject the suggestion that some people are a better breed of human. Policemen, etc. do not have better blood or better DNA or better anything than the rest of us. They are not special in any way. They are just like other people, and fair is fair.

Americas freedom to wage war on anybody they like impeeds those people's freedom to live in peace.
False. America’s act of waging war on other countries impedes their freedom to live in peace. Our ability to attack Jamaica and Norway does not in any way impede Jamaica’s or Norway’s freedom to live in peace.

aikiMac

18-Nov-2004, 11:11 PM

What makes your family the best argument for free float of guns, when it's the family that suffers the most from free float of guns?
...
In family tradegies, in cases of mental unstability, in cases of misunderstandings, in home accidents etc. what firearms are used? -The legal ones or the illegal ones?
My family doesn’t suffer at all from the ownership of guns. Actually, I don’t presently own a gun. But for the sake of discussion I’ve been pretending that do.

You still haven’t gotten past the desire to punish innocent people. Hmm. Will you stand firm and volunteer, with Scarlet Mist, to go to jail the next time someone robs a bank? Surely innocent is innocent. My brother has owned several guns for several years. He has never shot any person with any gun ever, and here you go wanting to punish him because someone else shot a person with a gun. Well, you have never robbed a bank, I hope. And I hope you would agree that innocent is innocent. Why not then punish YOU the next time someone robs a bank? That would be every bit as "fair" as punishing my brother for violence committed by someone else, and it is the only way for you to be consistent with your position.

I could easily accept the proposal of a complete ban on guns if guns were inherently always harmful to innocent people. But they are not inherently always harmful to innocent people, any more so than a car or a steak knife or scissors is inherently always harmful to innocent people.

Wanting to punish my brother because someone else shot somebody else is inherently always absolutely unfair, unjust, and unloving.

Look at the USA, everyone can carry a gun
That’s not a true statement.

Nevada_MO_Guy

19-Nov-2004, 03:25 AM

If everyone has a gun then the criminal needs bigger and better guns hence more deaths by shooting.

I'm not sure about that Pat.

Would the criminal risk going after someone who he thinks might have a gun?

Would he more likely to pass up breaking into a house if there was a warning on the door like; "All Ye who enter with malice intent will be shot......twice."

I think that instead of a criminal spending his time getting bigger and better guns....he would look for easier targets....maybe a visitor from a foreign country :)

Scarlet Mist

19-Nov-2004, 03:41 AM

I'm not sure about that Pat.

Would the criminal risk going after someone who he thinks might have a gun?

Would he more likely to pass up breaking into a house if there was a warning on the door like; "All Ye who enter with malice intent will be shot......twice."

I think that instead of a criminal spending his time getting bigger and better guns....he would look for easier targets....maybe a visitor from a foreign country :)

Not from my experience. Not all criminals think as how you describe. Quite a few of them are malicious and keen to dish out reprisals. For this reason, there are many high powered rifles on the streets because cats want to overpower rival gans, and demolish civilians. Someone I know had some cat put an M-16 to the back of her head and order her to drive across the whole damn country.

blessed_samurai

19-Nov-2004, 05:28 AM

Not from my experience. Not all criminals think as how you describe. Quite a few of them are malicious and keen to dish out reprisals. For this reason, there are many high powered rifles on the streets because cats want to overpower rival gans, and demolish civilians. Someone I know had some cat put an M-16 to the back of her head and order her to drive across the whole damn country.

Well, don't leave me hanging. What happened next? Did she have to drive him back?

Stolenbjorn

19-Nov-2004, 07:59 AM

You still haven’t gotten past the desire to punish innocent people. Neither have you, your arguments can just as easily be used the other way around. An innocent dor to door salesman gets shot because it's the right of any loco to own a gun legally. An innocent boy gets shot because its the right of any neighbour kid to have a father/mother with a gun you can nick if you get pissed off engough...

Well I'd rather go to prison because of what others do than be shot because of what others do -like you seem to think ;)

If everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want, why should nobody be allowed to use heroin just because someone else cannot control their use of the drug?

When you live in a society, you actually have to restrict the freedom to some degree, or else you don't have a society. The first Mad Max -movie is a good example of how things are when people can do exactly what they want. Now what setting to you prefere to live in? Norway -where there exists laws that prohibits some activities for the sake of the common good; or a Mad Max -the ultimate "land of the free; home of the brave"?

Stolenbjorn

19-Nov-2004, 08:12 AM

History shows that the second amendment was created for the simple reason to protect the colonies (i.e. America) from invasion. Times have changed but the law has not. Well so did Norway; we share a kind of common history, as we segregated from an union with the swedes -as you did from the English. We have loads of guns, actually; we have a conscription-army so in fact every house in norway was until 10 years ago having it's G3-rifle. The difference is that in norway; allthough everybody have a rifle, nobody uses it on people. Now why is that? We do allso have criminals. What we don't have is a law-system that kills criminals, that way, criminals are not as desperate when facing imprisonment. Why shoot somebody when there's only 4 years of relatively nice treatment in a cosy prison on the stake?

I know for a fact that criminals are preadators, they seek easy victims, weak, sick, unconfident people to attack. (I know that is not 100% the case, but I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts 75%-90%) Well, criminals are outcasts. Try to think about this: If USA decides to harass your wievs on how things should be; make laws and systems that makes you a looser, take your guns, etc. You say for yourself that you are willing to become the criminal you in another place say you want to purge. Therefore you should be capable of having a more consolitary wiev on other criminals; they think like you do; they're angry with society, they're not Orcs or demons, like some seem to think :D

Stolenbjorn

19-Nov-2004, 08:23 AM

Whether you are afraid of me or the Boogie Man or spiders or mice or darkness or anything else, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I should be allowed to possess and control a yo-yo, or a baseball glove, or anything else. So your fear for terrorists should not result in altering the laws to restrict terrorist actions in USA ;)

We give guns to policeman, soldiers, and Secret Service bodyguards. There’s no reason in logic or love to trust these people but not trust the average citizen. I absolutely reject the suggestion that some people are a better breed of human. Policemen, etc. do not have better blood or better DNA or better anything than the rest of us. They are not special in any way. They are just like other people, and fair is fair. YES! Why bother with education at all! Anybody with a colt in his hand can be a judge, anybody can be a teacher! Why is there somthing called a police academy, then :D (By the way, it seems that your army practices the wiew that training and experience is irellevant by the way they wage war in Iraq, have you ever compared the accident/blue on blue/attrocity -statistics of the USA-army compared to the English army, that have soldiers with far more experience?)

False. America’s act of waging war on other countries impedes their freedom to live in peace. Our ability to attack Jamaica and Norway does not in any way impede Jamaica’s or Norway’s freedom to live in peace. But an attack on Norway based on -say your new defined "right" to wage pre-emptive wars would result in a restriction on my right to live in peace, don't you think?

Stolenbjorn

19-Nov-2004, 08:30 AM

I'm not sure about that Pat.

Would the criminal risk going after someone who he thinks might have a gun?

Would he more likely to pass up breaking into a house if there was a warning on the door like; "All Ye who enter with malice intent will be shot......twice."

I think that instead of a criminal spending his time getting bigger and better guns....he would look for easier targets....maybe a visitor from a foreign country :)

Do you remember the sniper-incidents in USA not long time ago? The handcannons of those victims didn't seem to help them much. I think you have a point though, If I were a criminal, I'd not try to rob a guncrazed house; I'd prefere to go for the guy with the "paccifism is good"-sign in the yard :) But I'd allso have a very lethal piece on me as well, in case the paccifist isn't too true to his principles. And the next day, while high on somthing, I might shoot your kid on his way to school on impulse while you're at work and is unable to protect :(

Hyo

19-Nov-2004, 02:31 PM

Well, criminals are outcasts. Try to think about this: If USA decides to harass your wievs on how things should be; make laws and systems that makes you a looser, take your guns, etc. You say for yourself that you are willing to become the criminal you in another place say you want to purge. Therefore you should be capable of having a more consolitary wiev on other criminals; they think like you do; they're angry with society, they're not Orcs or demons, like some seem to think :D

I do not want to become a criminal in any form however, our Govt is based on hypocrisies! They tell us in our constitution (in not so many words) that if we as the people are displeased with the way our Govt is being run we can rise up and change it...yet if we do rise up we are criminal! The majority of the US population would never dream of changing the Govt...even if they hated it. Most here have become numb sheep to the way things are run, and just accept the fact that one day they will die, so what is the point of raising a fuss about the way things are run?

Pat OMalley

19-Nov-2004, 03:08 PM

Because if you don't raise a fuss, it will never change.

A small poem from WWII.
They came for the Comunists and I did nothing, because I am not a Comunist.
They came for the Jews and I did nothing, because I am not a Jew.
They came for the Coloureds and I did nothing, because I am not Cloured.
They came for the Christians and I did nothing, because I am not Christian.
They came for me and there was no one left to save me.

Say nothing and nothing is exactly what happens.

Regards

Pat

Hyo

19-Nov-2004, 05:13 PM

Agreed!

aikiMac

19-Nov-2004, 06:35 PM

Stolenbjorn, I'm not an apologist for the USA invading Iraq or Afghanastan or any other country! I've said on MAP several times in other threads that I don't like what America is doing and that I never voted for President Bush. Yes, an attack on Norway would be a violation of your right to be left alone. I would object to an attack on Norway just as I currently object to the invasion my country made on Iraq.

You are right -- my fear of terrorism (assuming that I had a fear) was no reason to alter the laws to make terrorism harder in America. Terrorism was already against the law in America (anyone surprised by that?), and we already had protections against it. I am absolutely in no way safer now, after numerous new federal laws, than I was a month before those planes crashed in New York City. Honestly speaking, my life is more difficult and less pleasant now than it was before, because now US airports are a pain, and opening bank accounts takes longer now. The new laws are totally redundant to what we already had and totally unnecessary and I wish they would all be repealed.

An innocent boy gets shot because it's the right of any neighbor kid to have a father/mother with a gun you can nick if you get pissed off enough.
You made a mistake of law. It's not his right to shoot anybody just because "he's pissed off." That's not a valid reason for use of force. Gun, tree branch, cricket stick, the belt around his waist, or his fists or his feet -- the weapon doesn't matter. Illegal is illegal is illegal. He has no right to attack just because "he's pissed off." None. Zero. And that raises a question I have long had.

I am still, and always have been, bewildered at why people think that adding another law will stop criminal behavior. Two cases come to mind:
1) Stolenbjorn suggested that a homeowner will shoot a door-to-door salesman. Ergo, that homeowner must not be allowed a gun.

That makes no sense. Attacking a door-to-door salesman is ALREADY illegal. Gun or no gun, it's already illegal. So, what was the point of adding a second law on top of the first law? How many laws do we have to write that say attacking a door-to-door salesman is wrong before the people won't do it anymore? Shall we add 99 more statutes to make the point that attacking a salesman is wrong? I do not know what to say.

2) Scarlet Mist said a person with an M-16 hijacked a car and forced the driver, at gunpoint, to drive all around the country. I can think of 3 crimes and 3 torts that were committed that do not depend on the use of a gun. Three crimes. Maybe there's even more. If we include the gun then we have at least one more crime, but come on, we already had at least three crimes. So, I wonder, what was the point of calling for gun control? We already had at least three crimes and 3 torts that he committed even without mentioning the gun.

In honesty and sincerity, I do not understand that way of thinking.

What I do think is that, maybe, the problem is not the gun, and maybe the problem is not that we don't have enough laws. Maybe the problem is actually the person.

bcullen

20-Nov-2004, 02:01 AM

This is how escalation works, mate :D This is what I don't understand with you "I will have the right to defend myself"-people. If the robber comes to rob you with a knife, you shoot him. If he comes with a pistol, you have an UZI(semiauto, of course, but you beloved president and his republican senators works hard to make automatic weapons legal). So then the robber brings an UZI, you bring an M16. Next day, the robber comes with an M16, you field your AGS17(autogrenadelauncher); etcetera......
My point is that you will not solve the problem with escalating the violence!

Wiew it from the robbers point of wiew ;) :
If every household fields X numbers of lethal pieces, you have to go in by force; you cannot turn your back to the victim, as it will pull a firearm and blast you back to your creator.

People in norway are allso robbed, but since nobody in Norway walk around with desert eagles on them, robbers can have a more laid-back-attitude. I bet that robbers in USA would allso be a bit nicer if people stopped shooting after them all the time :woo:

Automatic firearms have been and will continue to be illegal. There aren't any plans to change that now or in the future. If B.A.F.T ( The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) even suspects you own anything close to military ordanance they kick in your door and tear the place apart to find it (literally; they will pull up floorboards, take out walls...whatever is "deemed necessary"). The broad and far reaching powers excersised by this group are a contributing factor to many Americans distrust of our political system.

Here's the issue: Any firearm evens the odds so there isn't a need to escalate. If you don't have one you are at the mercy of the invader(s). The general public not being allowed to own firearms is not going to make them any kinder or any less likely to have firearms themselves. Having an Uzi, Mac-10, AK-47 or M-16 etc... isn't necessary. Having a firearm of some type is (12 gauge shotgun is a good choice).

In principle it's very similar to the "bully" situation. If you give him your lunch money, he has got you. He will demand what he wants and beat you to a pulp even if you comply; because you let him. Same situation but the kid fights back, he doesn't win but gets a couple of good shots in. Next day Mr. Bully looks for a new victem, this one is just too much trouble.

"Please don't shoot me" might work, The racking sound of a shotgun slide is guaranteed to motivate them to leave. Mutually assured destruction isn't the preferred way to handle conflicts, but it does make a good argument for peace.

Never appeal to a mans better nature; he may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you much more leverage. ~Robert Heinlein ;)

Shaolin Dragon

20-Nov-2004, 03:03 PM

You made a mistake of law. It's not his right to shoot anybody just because "he's pissed off." That's not a valid reason for use of force. Gun, tree branch, cricket stick, the belt around his waist, or his fists or his feet -- the weapon doesn't matter. Illegal is illegal is illegal. He has no right to attack just because "he's pissed off." None. Zero. And that raises a question I have long had.

I am still, and always have been, bewildered at why people think that adding another law will stop criminal behavior. Two cases come to mind:
1) Stolenbjorn suggested that a homeowner will shoot a door-to-door salesman. Ergo, that homeowner must not be allowed a gun.

That makes no sense. Attacking a door-to-door salesman is ALREADY illegal. Gun or no gun, it's already illegal. So, what was the point of adding a second law on top of the first law? How many laws do we have to write that say attacking a door-to-door salesman is wrong before the people won't do it anymore? Shall we add 99 more statutes to make the point that attacking a salesman is wrong? I do not know what to say.

2) Scarlet Mist said a person with an M-16 hijacked a car and forced the driver, at gunpoint, to drive all around the country. I can think of 3 crimes and 3 torts that were committed that do not depend on the use of a gun. Three crimes. Maybe there's even more. If we include the gun then we have at least one more crime, but come on, we already had at least three crimes. So, I wonder, what was the point of calling for gun control? We already had at least three crimes and 3 torts that he committed even without mentioning the gun.

In honesty and sincerity, I do not understand that way of thinking.

What I do think is that, maybe, the problem is not the gun, and maybe the problem is not that we don't have enough laws. Maybe the problem is actually the person.

Whilst I agree with your arguments in principle, you have missed the point with these above arguments. The laws about gun control are not designed to emphasise existing laws, but to protect the innocent. Take the door to door salesman. Attacking him may already be illegal, but attacking him with a firearm is more likely to kill him. Stricter gun laws would reduce such occurances.

As to other points raised about punishing the innocent - I would like to own a nuclear weapon. I have no intention of using it on anyone, but would like it for my collection/ as a deterent etc. Why should I be punished by not being allowed to own one, just because somebody else might put them to criminal use?

Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm sure everyone can agree on that. The only thing really under debate here is where it is fair to draw that line.

bcullen

20-Nov-2004, 03:58 PM

Whilst I agree with your arguments in principle, you have missed the point with these above arguments. The laws about gun control are not designed to emphasise existing laws, but to protect the innocent. Take the door to door salesman. Attacking him may already be illegal, but attacking him with a firearm is more likely to kill him. Stricter gun laws would reduce such occurances.

As to other points raised about punishing the innocent - I would like to own a nuclear weapon. I have no intention of using it on anyone, but would like it for my collection/ as a deterent etc. Why should I be punished by not being allowed to own one, just because somebody else might put them to criminal use?

Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm sure everyone can agree on that. The only thing really under debate here is where it is fair to draw that line.

We are talking about someone with a mental state that says it's o.k. to take the life of another because they irritate you. Do you think breaking the law to obtain a firearm matters to them? Heroin is illgeal here and in the U.K., but there are still plenty of addicts in both countries. Passing laws will not make anything go away, it never has and never will. The law of supply and demand overules anything the legislature puts forth.

Atomic weapons are the same argument applied to countries rather then individuals. Global disarmament would be wonderful, however, it's not pragmatic. Nuclear weapons will not just magically dissappear from the face of the earth. We have atomic weapons in our arsenal, you have atomic weapons in yours and even if a world wide treaty was signed banning all atomic weapons tomorrow, every country that possessed them at the signing would still have some hidden away somewhere, just in case. To not do so would be foolish.

renshinkai

21-Nov-2004, 09:50 AM

Passing laws will not make anything go away, it never has and never will.

Are you sure? Look at gun crimes in the UK - less than 0.5% of crime involves firearms. Now, look at the US - around 29%. Maybe my sources are telling me crap, but I doubt it.

bcullen

21-Nov-2004, 03:01 PM

Are you sure? Look at gun crimes in the UK - less than 0.5% of crime involves firearms. Now, look at the US - around 29%. Maybe my sources are telling me crap, but I doubt it.

The problem is they're already here and numbering in the millions and that's just the legal ones. The U.S. is around six times the size of the U.K. in both population and geographical size. The draconian tactics needed to enforce such measures would both violate the princples the country was founded on and prove to be more costly in time and money and personel then the war in Iraq. Once a cultural mindset takes hold it tends to continue under its own momentum. They are here and the use and ownership are long time establishments. Once a practice takes hold reversing it becomes a monumental task. If your country never had a narcotics trade, you don't have to worry about it. Once one is set up, you'll forever be fighting the problem.

[edit] BTW: You are wearing the wrong color belt :)

aikiMac

21-Nov-2004, 09:43 PM

I would like to own a nuclear weapon. I have no intention of using it on anyone, but would like it for my collection/ as a deterent etc. Why should I be punished by not being allowed to own one, just because somebody else might put them to criminal use?
Are you a nuclear engineer, or nuclear physicist, or something of the sort?

YODA

21-Nov-2004, 09:48 PM

The problem is they're already here and numbering in the millions and that's just the legal ones. The U.S. is around six times the size of the U.K. in both population and geographical size.
UK - 94,249 Sq Mi ; Population 59 Million

USA - 3,618,784 Sq Mi ; 271 Million

MarioBro

21-Nov-2004, 10:25 PM

Table removed since formatting does not remain proper when pasted here.

Some info I found...not sure how accurate.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/american.html

Regarding the table showing states with restrictive or relaxed gun laws, and the murder rates in those states (near the center of the page):

Of course, I guess the question here will be cause or effect...did the restrictive gun laws not help, or were the restrictive gun laws enacted due to the high numbers in those states...

bcullen

21-Nov-2004, 10:34 PM

UK - 94,249 Sq Mi ; Population 59 Million

USA - 3,618,784 Sq Mi ; 271 Million

Alright, closer to five times in population and 38 times in land.

Some one feeling a bit pedantic today? :p

YODA

21-Nov-2004, 10:36 PM

Alright, closer to five times in population and 38 times in land.

Some one feeling a bit pedantic today? :p
:Angel:

Just in one of those moods mate :D

Wierd things happen at this age LOL!

MarioBro

21-Nov-2004, 10:39 PM

Alright, closer to five times in population and 38 times in land.

Some one feeling a bit pedantic today? :p
That 'pedantic' word has been used way too much around the forum lately!! ;)

Shaolin Dragon

21-Nov-2004, 10:42 PM

Are you a nuclear engineer, or nuclear physicist, or something of the sort?

No. Do I have to be a weapons technician to own a gun?

We are talking about someone with a mental state that says it's o.k. to take the life of another because they irritate you. Do you think breaking the law to obtain a firearm matters to them? Heroin is illgeal here and in the U.K., but there are still plenty of addicts in both countries. Passing laws will not make anything go away, it never has and never will. The law of supply and demand overules anything the legislature puts forth.

No, we are not talking about that person. Obviously, if someone wants to obtain a gun badly enough, they will.

What we are talking about are criminals who carry guns because they know that the police and Joe Public have them too. What we are talking about are children who get into Dad's unlocked gun cabinet. People who shoot in self-defence when they don't need to. Situations that wouldn't happen if stricter gun control laws were in place.

YODA

21-Nov-2004, 10:44 PM

That 'pedantic' word has been used way too much around the forum lately!! ;)
That was a bit pedantic :Angel:

MarioBro

21-Nov-2004, 10:52 PM

That was a bit pedantic :Angel:
I figured that you, if anyone, would pick up on the irony of that statement...

bcullen

21-Nov-2004, 11:23 PM

Now its become just plain pedagogic. :D

[Edit]Hey, I just noticed the irony that I'm calling someone else pedantic. Where's that "pot calling the kettle black" pic?

Pat OMalley

21-Nov-2004, 11:32 PM

Are you sure? Look at gun crimes in the UK - less than 0.5% of crime involves firearms. Now, look at the US - around 29%. Maybe my sources are telling me crap, but I doubt it.
A good example of how gun restriction can and does save lives.

Never mind how many people live in what ever country, we are not talking about numbers in the population, we are talking percentages per head of population.

e.g. if you have 500 people in you population and the gun crimes is made by 50 people that's 10%
if you have 5000 people in your population and the gun crime is still commited by 50 people then that's 1%.
So it worng to look at population numbers on a subject like this, it is more realistic to look at the percentage rate of the point in question, "gun crime".

Fact "Less guns mean less gun crime". Even the innocent are more likely to commit gun crime if they have a gun in their possesion, rage and oppertunity can be a funny thing.

Regards

Pat

MarioBro

21-Nov-2004, 11:49 PM

Now its become just plain pedagogic. :D

That statement was perhaps pedagogically questionable...

aikiMac

22-Nov-2004, 03:24 AM

No. Do I have to be a weapons technician to own a gun?
No. But you should know how to and be able to safely use, care for, and store the gun before you dare say that you'll not hurt anyone with it. Seems rather obvious to me. My apologizies for not expressly saying so before. It also seem rather obvious to me that if you're not some sort of nuclear technician then you would be factually incapable of safely storing and caring for the nuclear bomb that you crave. Consequently, discussing whether or not you should be allowed to have one at this point in your life is meaningless. The answer is "no."

That second quote in your post #212 is falsely attributed to me.

bcullen

22-Nov-2004, 03:56 AM

That second quote in your post #212 is falsely attributed to me.

Oh, I guess the balls is in my court. Unless you would like a shot at it *bad pun alert- on the count of three prepare to groan* :D

What we are talking about are criminals who carry guns because they know that the police and Joe Public have them too. What we are talking about are children who get into Dad's unlocked gun cabinet. People who shoot in self-defence when they don't need to. Situations that wouldn't happen if stricter gun control laws were in place

The police, citizens, criminals, et al. adopted them becuse they are the superior personal weapons of the century. Proper training and responsible owners prevent the things you mentioned. Laws often get in the way of actual progress and even common sense on occaision. Especially in the area of self-defense.

Stolenbjorn

22-Nov-2004, 07:29 AM

No. But you should know how to and be able to safely use, care for, and store the gun before you dare say that you'll not hurt anyone with it. Seems rather obvious to me. So you don't have any problems with me owning a nuke as long as I know how to operate it???

I could list 1000 items you probably use everyday without having a clue about how it really works. It's the easiest thing in the world to make a completely safe and easy-to-use-nuclear-devise (hey; theese tactical nukes is supposed to be opreated safely in a combat theathre!), so IMO, you need not to know any more about a nuke than you do about a firearm; "here's the trigger; here's the safeety switch".

So it seems to me that you finally want to draw a line somewhere you too :)
I draw a line somewhere, and I do that when it comes to firearms meant for killing people. Someone else might want that line drawn somewhere further up or down the scale, and those I can understand.

aikiMac

22-Nov-2004, 06:04 PM

So it seems to me that you finally want to draw a line somewhere you too :)
I draw a line somewhere, and I do that when it comes to firearms meant for killing people. Someone else might want that line drawn somewhere further up or down the scale, and those I can understand.
Yep.

Tell me about your martial arts training. I'm curious about you now. You're an interesting fellow. What do you study? Do you practice any moves meant to kill? maim? seriously injure?

Lanakin

22-Nov-2004, 06:10 PM

Sure, outlaw guns. Let the general public be defenseless. It'll be fun.

:woo:

K_Coffin

23-Nov-2004, 12:39 AM

Sure, outlaw guns. Let the general public be defenseless. It'll be fun.
That's concerning.

Fact "Less guns mean less gun crime". Even the innocent are more likely to commit gun crime if they have a gun in their possesion, rage and oppertunity can be a funny thing.

Really? That's funny, because I live in this country, called Canada, where we have relatively high gun ownership, but extremely low rates of homicides committed with firearms. In addition, I'd say your view is a bit skewed on this topic, as you seem to think that the majority of "gun deaths" consists of crimes of passion and accidents.

Since I'm Canadian, and this applies most to me, I'll use Canadian statistics. Of all "gun deaths", where firearms were the cause of death, 80% were suicides. Funny how that didn't come up before, did it? So, accidents, homicides, police shootings, and "unknown" only cause 20% of all "gun deaths". So, by restricting access to firearms, the biggest dent you'll put in "gun deaths" is making a suicidal person choose another way to go. And don't worry.....I'll head you off at the pass here. Before you say that you'd be taking away a more effective method of suicide, research has proven that using a firearm is as effective as hanging, and carbon monoxide poisoning. And even after all that effort, you'd still only be inconveniencing 20% of suicides.

So, more on this later.....I have to go shower.

MarioBro

23-Nov-2004, 01:00 AM

Fact "Less guns mean less gun crime". Even the innocent are more likely to commit gun crime if they have a gun in their possesion, rage and oppertunity can be a funny thing.

Facts:

Less cars mean less accidents, so lets start banning vehicles.
Less people mean less personal crimes so lets start removing people.

Less knowledge and understanding about the real problems in society means more people thinking that restricting gun ownership (mostly of which are law abiding citizens) and totally insane assumptions that those who have illegal guns will turn them in...rediculous. The problem is NOT with guns, it is with society. Fix society and there will be no gun problem. Keep blaming guns as though they are the root of all evil and society will keep decaying due to people being unwilling to accept the truth that they are a part of a much bigger problem.

What is that problem you ask (or don't ask...no matter to me)? The problem is that for a long time now, material possessions have become more important to the majority of people than the hungry, the needy, the oppressed. Society as a whole is selfish and this will ultimately lead to society consuming itself.

Profits are more important than public health risks (trans fats, Viox, etc, etc). Pleasure for the individual is more important than the pain caused to others. We are a selfish world and we will pay the price for it, but it has nothing to do with gun control....wake up everyone!

K_Coffin

23-Nov-2004, 02:34 AM

MarioBro

23-Nov-2004, 03:06 AM

Good points Mario. I agree with you entirely, but what do you recommend in the meantime? We need something in the meantime, but personally, I think banning guns will accomplish nothing but creating a massive underground market for them, increasing profit for organised crime, taking away any accountability we have right now through tracking sales in gun stores and prohibiting use by dangerous users, and making criminals of innocent people who only want to enjoy a safe and harmless sport.I agree with you 110%. What people need to start doing is going back to single income families with either the man or woman staying home. This is probably the single most important thing in the world right now, but yet it seems so hard for people to do it. The kids gain so much more out of it than they would the extra 'stuff' they might have if both parents work. Things such as values, appreciation, caring, respect. And I do not mean one parent staying home to be there, but sending the kids outside to play all day while they watch Oprah or Days of Our Lives or whatever other crap. I mean interacting, teaching, showing them they mean something.

I know I am dreaming if I think that anything like this will happen anytime in my lifetime...but what is life without hope.

taekwondobob

23-Nov-2004, 05:44 AM

...outlaws would have guns...

My dad and I are both sporting shooters. we shoot on targets, as well as pig hunting. Because we own guns, does that make us outlaws? lol!!!
I do believe youve either got your facts wrong, or you've made a BIIIIIG wording error.

I'll agree with you on the fact that, if we were to make guns illegal, criminals will still be able to get ahold of them.

But lets take a look from this view. Say we were to ban guns, they would be illegal, we'd have to hand in/sell our weapons to the government. Imagine you are a 70 yr old widow, all you have for protection is your deceased husbands shotgun which you leave next to the bed.

If guns were to be made illegal, old people such as the widow would be forced to hand in the weapons. This makes them TOTALLY vulnerable to robbers/criminals/rapists/murderers etc.

My point is...there is NO benefit gained out of banning guns. criminals do NOT have gun licenses, therefore banning guns is going to have NO effect! criminals do not abide by the law, therefore they are not going to hand in their guns. criminals dont care if they get their guns confiscated, they'll just smuggle in some more! By banning the guns, you are only punishing the innocent, you are punishing people who require guns for a living, you are punishing people who use guns as a sport/hobby, you are punishing people who require guns for protection, heck, you are even punishing people who collect guns for a hobby!

Why ban guns? the more you restrict the ownership of guns, the more criminal activity involving guns will rise.

MarioBro

23-Nov-2004, 06:27 AM

Why ban guns? the more you restrict the ownership of guns, the more criminal activity involving guns will rise.May be a waste of breath trying to convince those who have no clue that criminals will not turn in guns because they are law abiding citizens. I do not know why but it is as though all the anti-gun people ignore that fact.

Like I said before, it is easier to blame guns than to face the fact that as a society we are going all to crap. Material possessions have become more important than the family unit...and anti-gun people are afraid the guys with the guns will come and take some of their stuff. What they do not realize is that if a law was passed banning guns they will still come and steal their stuff, except they will feel even safer doing it because they will know that most law abiding citizens do not have a gun to protect themselves with.

Stolenbjorn

23-Nov-2004, 08:07 AM

"Society is the problem, not the guns" -yes, there's truth in that statement. It seems that Canada and Norway is somewhat similar when it comes to availebility of guns. What kind of guns do Canadians have? Norwegians have hundtingrifles, shotguns, and -up till 5 years ago -assault rifles (due to our proximity to the former Soviet union...) What we do not have, is the same attitude towards guns as many of you pro -gun'ers do on this forum. The majority of you use the right to self defence as the chief argument for owning a gun, while perhaps 99% of the gun owners in Norway have hunting for reason why they want a gun (read:rifle/shotgun). Guns aren't used in crimes in norway, period; they're regarded as tools -like a tractor, a spoon, an axe or a chain-saw. I find it facinating that Norway/Canada and USA have such a different wiew on what firearms have as a function despite the fact that we have so much in common when it comes to history and availebility of firearms.

So when you say "I need a gun, I'm a hunter", or "I need guns; they're my hobby", i symphatize with you; while when you say "I need guns, so I can protect myself and my family"; I start wondering wether we live on the same planet :p If "your" society is going to the hounds, as MarioBro, indicates; I cannot help wondering if more of the same; that is more availebility of guns; is the best medicine? I want to remind you that violent societies have been made more peaceful in history through hefty legislations and strong gouvernments.

Stolenbjorn

23-Nov-2004, 08:26 AM

May be a waste of breath trying to convince those who have no clue that criminals will not turn in guns because they are law abiding citizens. I do not know why but it is as though all the anti-gun people ignore that fact. I do not ignore that fact; no, the criminal won't turn in their guns, but they'll be more visible; stick out in a crowd.

But you seem to ignore this question: If you were a robber and none of your victims have guns; why bother shooting with your gun? A bank robbery is 100% safer in Norway, where the robbers in 50% of the cases use kids plastic toys to rob a bank with -yes they can do that, as there's no chanse that some "loco local law enforcer" who secretly wonder if he's got what it takes with his desert eagle decides to be the hero of the day and gun you down while you look stupid with your plastic thingiemabob!!!

Allso consider this; if a pistol is illegal to carry; if you body search someone on the street and they've got a gun; well, it's not legal, you can take the gun, period. In USA, you can start about you having a licence, did forget it at home, etc.

There's a big difference between a criminal with a pistol, and a criminal with a pistol facing a victim with a pistol.... You are so focused on self defence... The ultimate self defence that watchmen and police learn in Norway is to not escalate a conflict; if someone robs your money-transport, give them the money, and do nothing!!! (Odds are that the police can trace the money anyway and upprehend the criminals when they're sleeping in their beds.)

Shaolin Dragon

23-Nov-2004, 11:48 AM

Appologies for my earlier misquote.

The query on making nuclear weapons available to the public has yet to be addressed. By earlier logic, anyone who is qualified to maintain and operate a nuclear device should be allowed to own one.

MarioBro

23-Nov-2004, 01:50 PM

I find it facinating that Norway/Canada and USA have such a different wiew on what firearms have as a function despite the fact that we have so much in common when it comes to history and availebility of firearms.

Actually, Canadians do not have a similar view as the USA...we do not generally talk about firearms for protection but rather for hunting and sports. We are however having a very hard time due to recent legislation (which was supposed to cost a few million to iimplement and ended up costing billions) and the legislation ended up not working very well in the end.

I myself do not talk about firearms for protection, but only say they are taking the focus from the real problems.

Stolenbjorn

23-Nov-2004, 02:15 PM

Actually, Canadians do not have a similar view as the USA...we do not generally talk about firearms for protection but rather for hunting and sports. That's what I meant; sorry that my post was unclear. What new legislations have Canada imposed on their citicens? In Norway, you have to be member of a pistol club and have a permittance from the police in order to own a pistol/revolver. In order to have a rifle/shotgun, you have to be registered at the police and be above the age of 18.

Military weapons (HK -MP5/-AG3) have been totally illegal since from about 2 years ago, and when people were ordered to return their weapons, all but 20 were returned in acordance with the order; pretty few thinking about that there were some 38.000 AG-3's around in peoples homes to begin with.

MarioBro

23-Nov-2004, 03:01 PM

What new legislations have Canada imposed on their citicens? In Norway, you have to be member of a pistol club and have a permittance from the police in order to own a pistol/revolver. In order to have a rifle/shotgun, you have to be registered at the police and be above the age of 18.

Canada has (tried to) implement similar laws, but the implementation and enforcement of the whole program is quite the joke. You can read more about it here:

http://www.fathersforlife.org/articles/report/boondoggle.htm[/url]
http://www.fathersforlife.org/articles/gunter/guncontrol.htm
http://www.fathersforlife.org/humour/funny2.htm

Here are some interesting reading:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20021126.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20021127.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20021128.shtml
[url="http://www.fathersforlife.org/articles/gunter/guncontrol.htm"] (http://canadaonline.about.com/od/guncontrol/)

http://www.fathersforlife.org/images/billboard-ab.jpg

Hyo

23-Nov-2004, 03:23 PM

Once again we fall back on the fact that the US govt will do nothing about the criminals! Since the coporations have their hands in the cookie jars, we are screwed. I agree that if we take guns off the street, legal guns, the criminals will stand out more, but our Law Enforcement here is a joke! The people of this country would never stand for having a more strict Police Force. Take a look at our airports, security...HA! I flew in to Frankfurt this last April, there were security forces gaurding with MP5's and two full security checkpoints we had to pass through. But it would be too inconvenient to do that here, might put some folks out and cause a little more time at the airport, yet they want security. It is like taxes, you need to have the taxes in place to fund the Govt, the lower the taxes the less funds for security and the such. Sorry I got off on the rant about the airports but itis a sore issue to me, and it holds some relevancy to the way most of my fellow americans, or at least the ones with the loudest mouths, feel.

Pat OMalley

23-Nov-2004, 04:16 PM

I agree with you 110%. What people need to start doing is going back to single income families with either the man or woman staying home. This is probably the single most important thing in the world right now, but yet it seems so hard for people to do it. The kids gain so much more out of it than they would the extra 'stuff' they might have if both parents work. Things such as values, appreciation, caring, respect. And I do not mean one parent staying home to be there, but sending the kids outside to play all day while they watch Oprah or Days of Our Lives or whatever other crap. I mean interacting, teaching, showing them they mean something.

I know I am dreaming if I think that anything like this will happen anytime in my lifetime...but what is life without hope.
And women should be chained to the sink right:mad: .

Please, this is after all the 12st Centuary, we are better than that, because to partners are working it does not mean society is worse off for it, as a matter of fact it did me no harm at all to be a child of a single parent who worked 3 jobs a week to keep us going.

Your right, guns dont kill people, people do, but take away the gun and the chances are minimised.

Regards

Pat

Hyo

23-Nov-2004, 04:30 PM

Mario said either the man or the woman staying home...not just the woman. I agree with him, kids need interaction from parents, in cases of single parent families the staying home idea is not applicable. Kids raised in day care don't learn the same values/morals as those raised by loving parents, but if the parents that are home just ignore the children then they may as well get off their lazy butts and earn some $$. All ideological but in today's society, not too plausable.

Pat OMalley

23-Nov-2004, 04:38 PM

Because 2 people in a family unit work, it does not make them bad parents and it is not a factor in the child growing up to be a bad person either.

Bad parents, even if staying at home make bad children. And this is still not a reason for owning a gun for self defence.

Guns for sport, I totaly agrees with, Guns for self defence means you will use it to kill someone and the oppeonent is more likely to own and use their gun too.

Regards

Pat

Hyo

23-Nov-2004, 05:10 PM

Guns for self defence means you will use it to kill someone and the oppeonent is more likely to own and use their gun too.

All the better reason to own a gun for self defense! Ever heard a Shotgun chamber? it is one of the most distinct sounds of any gun, and if the perp hears that they know that the one on the other end has a better chance of not missing! Killing is to be avoided at all times, yet if someone is in my house illegaly, I sure as hell am gonna pull that shotgun on them, and if they surrender, cool cops get the bad dude, if they fight and I take their life, sorry but I am not the criminal. Would I feel bad? Not in a life or death situation. Truth be told, I would hope my dogs would deter the perp, if not I hope they would rip the perp a few new holes, if that fails me and my trusty 16ga will be standing in the shadows!

aikiMac

23-Nov-2004, 07:20 PM

The query on making nuclear weapons available to the public has yet to be addressed. By earlier logic, anyone who is qualified to maintain and operate a nuclear device should be allowed to own one.
There's a little bit more to it than that. I said previously:

It also seem rather obvious to me that if you're not some sort of nuclear technician then you would be factually incapable of safely storing and caring for the nuclear bomb that you crave. Consequently, discussing whether or not you should be allowed to have one at this point in your life is meaningless. The answer is "no."
I do not crave a nuclear bomb. I crave that people treat me as I treat them: leave me alone. Stop looking over my fence. Stop being a gossip and a busybody. Stop being a whiner and a wuss. I have matured to the point that I can take care of myself without recourse to the government. Why haven't other people matured equally, huh?

Maybe, like the government workers, I too have better blood. Maybe I too am of a superior race of humans than my fellow citizens, and that is why I can take care of myself but they can't take care of themselves. Point to ponder.

You say that you are capable of safely maintaining a bomb, and that they're actually easy to maintain. I do not know if that's true or not. Let's assume that you are correct. The inquiry is not finished. English common law, which the USA inherited and which the USA theoretically still follows, is based upon Natural Law. It contains a cause of action called "nuisance" both in tort law and in property law. (It's the same cause of action.) Possession of a nuclear weapon is arguably a nuisance. I actually think that the argument would prevail, and more importantly I believe that by staying close to the roots of common law, the argument could be made in a way consistent with everything else I've said.

The same cannot be done for guns. There is no argument consistent with natural law for a general restriction of guns.

MarioBro

24-Nov-2004, 01:41 AM

And women should be chained to the sink right:mad: .

You did notice that I said man or woman, did you not? It seems to me that you automatically interpreted it as saying the woman, a Freudian slip perhaps;)? Why is being a home-maker such a bad thing these days?

If you are going to tell me that society in general is not better off having one or the other parent at home with the kids just because you turned out ok (so you say...hehe :D), then I am just plain shocked :eek:. And how do you know you would not be that much better had you had one parent caring for you? Perhaps it would have given you that extra feeling of love and connection as opposed to that feeling of abandonment thus giving you a lower sense of self-worth (no, I am not saying you specifically..).

Everybody wants society to raise their kids nowadays, and then we all wonder what happened to good old family values. Then when parents get home, they have the TV or the XBox or a nanny continue to babysit, or if all else fails they are sent outside to play until bedtime. I dunno, but unless I am just plain crazy, a kid would love to have more time from their parents and could benefit greatly from it.

MarioBro

24-Nov-2004, 01:47 AM

By the way Pat, I do agree that bad parents may likely raise bad children, and that good parents can raise great children even if they both work. My contention is that good parents can do even better if one or the other was to remain home.

And just remember, those bad parents may be the product of a lonely household in which the kids did not learn how to value themselves and others. We learn to parent by how we were parented, thus if we learn nothing then that is what we will have when we become parents.

Stolenbjorn

24-Nov-2004, 09:46 AM

You who will go in with a gun in your hand if someone is inside your house:
-what if he's a plummer gone to the wrong adress? when he sees you with a gun, he's gonna pull his own piece (since he believes you to be the criminal) you both shoot eachother; now isn't that fun?

The point is that a gun is very, very lethal, and the fact that it's lethal means you're gonna make some really huge decitions that will influence the rest of your life; now it's easy to brag on a forum that killing someone; even if he was a drug addict-is not gonna influence you at all (psychiatrist have diagnosises for such people, you know...) -It's somthing completely else to actually shoot somebody, I think.

We have laws, because the world isn't perfect. In a perfect world, anybody could have he's own nuke, since all would be nice...
Those of you who wants the gun to be a valid self defence impliment say that you need it, because police is incompetent and overworked, and because there's a lot of loco's and criminals out there. The same time; you don't want people looking over the fence.... Hmm, well, then: how the squid is the gouvernment gonna be able to protect you when you don't want them poking and checking around, and when you want to have guns issued to everybody?????????????

I prefere to live in a state where we have authorities poking in my house to check that my kids live acording to the standards set by UN, to have taxation-authorities who pokes to check tha everybody pays his chare, to have police poking around to check that people don't do criminal stuff.

Hyo

24-Nov-2004, 01:48 PM

I for one would welcome the Govt to get more involved. I honestly think this country is too easy going for its own good! They gave an inch, now the whole damn rope is missing because the people of this country want want want but don't want to give. Don't misunderstand me, I love my country very much, and consider myself to be a Patriot. But we are too soft! Until the time our government grows some balls and takes responsibility for EVERYONE'S safety, I will take my safety and that of my loved ones in my own hands. I am not a die hard NRA loving fella, I just know that in the society I live in I would rather be armed, because anyone coming into my house without consent has a good chance of being armed themselves.

MarioBro

24-Nov-2004, 01:58 PM

-what if he's a plummer gone to the wrong adress? when he sees you with a gun, he's gonna pull his own piece (since he believes you to be the criminal) you both shoot eachother; now isn't that fun?

The point is that a gun is very, very lethal, and the fact that it's lethal means you're gonna make some really huge decitions that will influence the rest of your life

There is nothing better than those who create entire unrealistic scenarios to try to prove a point. Scenarios that may happen 1 in a billion times are not useful to support a bad idea.

Cars are also very, very lethal. So are knives. So are baseball bats. So are some martial artists. Like everything else, they are lethal only when used incorrectly...so shall we ban them all?

Johnno

24-Nov-2004, 03:24 PM

Hyo

24-Nov-2004, 10:58 PM

As for the plumber being armed while working, I wouldn't put it past many...especially in my area! :Alien:

Stolenbjorn

25-Nov-2004, 10:32 AM

As for the plumber being armed while working, I wouldn't put it past many...especially in my area! :Alien:I'll let you answer that one ;)

I just know that in the society I live in I would rather be armed, because anyone coming into my house without consent has a good chance of being armed themselves.

As for the plummer beeing an unrealistic example; I'll conseed that it is somewhat wierd. My point was, however that people do get into your house on occation due to misunderstandings from time to time (the incident with the plummer actually happened in Norway, but since neither the plummer or the houseowner were armed, it all ended up beeing a fun story (..what would you think if you found someone dismanteling your WC when you needed it the most?)

And when theese wierd incidents occur, there's a bigger chanse that it ends with a laugh in a society where people trust eachother and are unarmed, than in a society where people are paranid + have lethal weapons.

As for knives and cars; they are intended for somthing else than killing people; somthing military shotguns, pistols revolvers and SMG's are not.

Sgt_Major

25-Nov-2004, 11:25 AM

This is one long-ass thread getting!! I had to vote outlawed, but I dont technically mean 'outlawed'.

I personally own a 12guage shotgun for sporting purposes.....there are limitations tho' I cannot buy a .22 rifle, unless I am a member of a certified Gun Club and the rifle will be stored at their premises....this also goes for handguns/assault rifles etc......I have been invited to a Gun Club with my uncle who owns pistols of many degrees and at that club I have shot pistols, rifles, even an mp5.....but i see no need to have them in my house, my shotgun is stored in a wall-bolted cabinet that would need to be ripped off the wall with a JCB to get. I also regularly go game shooting/ trap shooting with it, so the availability of it is an issue.....but for those people who want a high velocity rifle so they can go to the range now and again, i dont see that as a viable option....either let the range keep the rifle in storage, or let the range buy a set of rifles that people can use when they are there??? I think if every one has a gun, their mindset changes....if someone pulled a gun on me, my thought process would be along the lines of "beep" followed by complete self preservation.....fighting them would be a strictly last resort scenario....but fro what i gather from reading here the gun-toting persons thought process is more like: "beep! How dare he/she! Wheres my gun so i can kill them?!" the immediate defense mechanism gives way to an aggressive one.....if the attacker droped their gun, youd still shoot them.....

as for the post regarding Tony Martin, i believe he got what he deserved....he killed a person with a unlicensed firearm....and under dubious circumstances......no man, unless authorised by society, has the right to take the life of another.......

but like most posters here i know im gonna take flak for it, buts thats my opinion

Please do not swear, even if it is disguised - Gaskell