Should guns be outlawed?

Better a predator than prey!!!

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:

 

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 ****ed 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.

 

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.

 

In Romane Vivito More!!!...

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: ...

 

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.

 

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 . Ever tried to club a 500kg animal to death .

 

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

 

Guns Should be legal and England has issues.

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

 

Tell me about it, mate. The law regarding self defense in this country is a joke.

 

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.

 

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

 

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).

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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: