US Gun control

[Asol]

If ordinary people were capable of exercising lethal force sensibly then we would not need to train either police officers or soldiers so carefully.

 

If people were more responsible for themselves and their own interests we wouldn't be so over burdened with public sector parasites right now when we can least afford it. Super good point, you're really coming around on this one.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I believe guns are necessary for self defense. Banning them will not deter those who are hell-bent on acquiring them for criminal use, but it will prevent those who desire to be able to defend themselves from doing so.

[Oblarg]

I believe guns are necessary for self defense. Banning them will not deter those who are hell-bent on acquiring them for criminal use, but it will prevent those who desire to be able to defend themselves from doing so.

 

Guns as a means of self-defense is demonstrably idiotic.

 

For every one time a gun is used in self defense, there are several murders involving firearms.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I believe guns are necessary for self defense.

 

I'd rather have a knife or two, although I will admit that they are less useful in some situations.

['GM']

Finally, Gina, I cannot agree that a civilised society should rely on lethal force resting in the hands of individuals for its justice/law enforcement. At the point where that happens then things have gone horribly wrong. If ordinary people were capable of exercising lethal force sensibly then we would not need to train either police officers or soldiers so carefully.

 

I don't think it is the ordinary people that are the concern. But unfortunately, in all societies, not everyone desires living peaceably.

[Asol]

I believe guns are necessary for self defense.

 

I'd rather have a knife or two, although I will admit that they are less useful in some situations.

 

The function of a firearm is deterrence, a knife simply doesn't provide that.

 

I would like to hear the boards opinions on the Gerald Ung case while on topic as well...

Edited April 21, 2010 by Asol

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I believe guns are necessary for self defense.

 

I'd rather have a knife or two, although I will admit that they are less useful in some situations.

 

The function of a firearm is deterrence, a knife simply doesn't provide that.

 

True, but I wouldn't expect them to be as I carry them concealed and would only draw one if I needed to.

[mkreku]

For those of you who are so anti-gun, let me ask you these questions. Do you think that a country removing all guns out of the hands of its citizens will also include those bent on crime?

As someone sitting on the other side of the fence, I think I can answer these. No, crime will persist. Dumb question. Will it lessen gun related crime (which is by far the most lethal of all crime types)? Yes. It does. End of.

 

Do you think that will stop all death by guns?

Another stupid question. No, it will not stop ALL death by guns, only an idiot would assume so. Will it lessen them? Yes, substantially! Both deaths by gun accident and death by gun related crime.

 

Do you think those in government will be without firearms?

No. Does it matter? No.

 

Do you think that the black markets will suddenly disappear?

Geez, I am not sure if you're being serious with these kindergarten questions or not, but let me humour you. No, it will not disappear. But if you compare having a legal gun shop in every street corner to having to find a criminal who sells guns on the black market, how would you rate the ratio of availability? 1000 to 1? Do you see my point?

 

And maybe most important, do you think that all who own guns are criminals? How about this, do you think that those who don't own guns are incapable of committing a crime? I truly would like to see these answered.

My father owns lots of guns. Having stricter gun control does NOT equal not having guns at all. It simply means you have to prove you are mentally stable, have no criminal record and can handle a gun (hunting license exam here in Sweden). If you want to handle more extreme guns (fully automatic, exotic weapons, army equipment), you join a gun club. You don't take that stuff home with you!

[~Di]

You are aware that in the USA one must undergo a background check to purchase a weapon, and that people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of felonies also cannot carry legal weapons? There is a waiting period while this background check occurs. Do some slip through the cracks? Yes, usually due to gun shows and internet purchases where legal restrictions don't always apply... a big loophole that should be plugged, in my view. In many states, the type of weapons that can be legally sold is restricted. Unfortunately, there is no exam to prove the purchaser knows how to handle the weapon, which I would favor.

 

So it's not like Joe Criminal can waltz from Sing-Sing to the corner gun store and purchase a legal weapon. Will they purchase an illegal weapon? If they can, they sure will. Criminals don't buy legal weapons in the USA, just as criminals in Europe don't buy legal weapons... but they certainly have them. The difference here is that a criminal with a weapon is as likely as not to run into a "victim" who also has a weapon. Oops. In areas where guns are carried openly, crime really has gone down. Criminals want the advantage, and an armed victim is not as vulneralbe as an unarmed one. Criminals don't want to get shot.

 

I don't expect Europeans to understand our gun laws, and how they evolved. I am, however, consistantly perplexed at how vocal and grieved they are about them. We're not complaining about your gun laws; why are you always complaining about ours?

Edited April 21, 2010 by ~Di

['GM']

For those of you who are so anti-gun, let me ask you these questions. Do you think that a country removing all guns out of the hands of its citizens will also include those bent on crime?

As someone sitting on the other side of the fence, I think I can answer these. No, crime will persist. Dumb question. Will it lessen gun related crime (which is by far the most lethal of all crime types)? Yes. It does. End of.

 

Do you think that will stop all death by guns?

Another stupid question. No, it will not stop ALL death by guns, only an idiot would assume so. Will it lessen them? Yes, substantially! Both deaths by gun accident and death by gun related crime.

 

Do you think those in government will be without firearms?

No. Does it matter? No.

 

Do you think that the black markets will suddenly disappear?

Geez, I am not sure if you're being serious with these kindergarten questions or not, but let me humour you. No, it will not disappear. But if you compare having a legal gun shop in every street corner to having to find a criminal who sells guns on the black market, how would you rate the ratio of availability? 1000 to 1? Do you see my point?

 

And maybe most important, do you think that all who own guns are criminals? How about this, do you think that those who don't own guns are incapable of committing a crime? I truly would like to see these answered.

My father owns lots of guns. Having stricter gun control does NOT equal not having guns at all. It simply means you have to prove you are mentally stable, have no criminal record and can handle a gun (hunting license exam here in Sweden). If you want to handle more extreme guns (fully automatic, exotic weapons, army equipment), you join a gun club. You don't take that stuff home with you!

 

 

Well, thank you for answering my questions.

[Humodour]

I don't expect Europeans to understand our gun laws, and how they evolved. I am, however, consistantly perplexed at how vocal and grieved they are about them. We're not complaining about your gun laws; why are you always complaining about ours?

 

I love this response when one of America's domestic policies is questioned. It's hilarious every time, and reminds me quite a bit of how Chinese nationalists respond when somebody criticises things like China's human right's record.

[~Di]

I don't expect Europeans to understand our gun laws, and how they evolved. I am, however, consistantly perplexed at how vocal and grieved they are about them. We're not complaining about your gun laws; why are you always complaining about ours?

 

I love this response when one of America's domestic policies is questioned. It's hilarious every time, and reminds me quite a bit of how Chinese nationalists respond when somebody criticises things like China's human right's record.

 

You're comparing America's gun laws to China's human rights record? Really? This from the citizen of a nation infamous for treatment of its native citizens as recently as a couple of decades ago? Now tell me, how many threads have been seen on this forum criticizing that domestic policy, hmm?

 

America's gun laws are a source of repeated threads on this forum. I ask why and I get this kind of rude reply. I'm disappointed in you.

Edited April 21, 2010 by ~Di

[mkreku]

You're comparing America's gun laws to China's human rights record? Really?

What do you think kills more people, America's lax gun laws or China's human rights atrocities?

['GM']

You're comparing America's gun laws to China's human rights record? Really?

What do you think kills more people, America's lax gun laws or China's human rights atrocities?

 

How can our gun laws affect someone living in Sweden? What American threatened you at gun point? Or are those 'stupid' questions too?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I would like to hear the boards opinions on the Gerald Ung case while on topic as well...

 

After watching the video and reading the accounts of the shooting it seems that he could have been acting in self-defense - although, of course, the victim is telling a different story. If Ung is believed, and I will admit that the facts seem to support this account more than the other, he shot Ed DiDonato after he, DiDonato, started to attack him -something the footage seems to support- after one of DiDonato's group was "bumped" while doing a pull-up. After being menaced by the four others -in fact the woman with him was knocked down by Kelly, one of the people in DiDonato's party- Ung drew his gun and said "Back the f--- up." something that, according to witnesses, was greeted with "Who you gonna shoot?" and DiDonato charging at Ung. After he was knocked down Ung fired five times, although reports, and statements from both sides, seems to indicate that the attack continued after the shooting. Ung then called 9-1-1 and reported the shooting while DiDonato's friends, or at least the only one who testified, retreated from the area. So, yes, it seems to me that Ung is not guilty of the charges - at least based on the evidence I could find about the case.

 

EDIT:

Also, just in case anyone had heard the earlier, mistaken reports, Ung had a gun permit and so the illegal weapon charges were dropped.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Orogun01]

He got scared, which is what the aggressor should had felt when he saw a gun on his face. Instead he assaulted and during the struggle shots were discharged.

I know that I wouldn't venture a walk through the streets without a group of friends or a gun, precisely because of people like Ed DiDonato and the worse.

[Humodour]

I don't expect Europeans to understand our gun laws, and how they evolved. I am, however, consistantly perplexed at how vocal and grieved they are about them. We're not complaining about your gun laws; why are you always complaining about ours?

 

I love this response when one of America's domestic policies is questioned. It's hilarious every time, and reminds me quite a bit of how Chinese nationalists respond when somebody criticises things like China's human right's record.

 

You're comparing America's gun laws to China's human rights record? Really?

 

No. Read my post properly. I'm comparing a collective inability to handle criticism from those in other nations, which is rather reminiscent of Chinese nationalism.

 

This from the citizen of a nation infamous for treatment of its native citizens as recently as a couple of decades ago? Now tell me, how many threads have been seen on this forum criticizing that domestic policy, hmm?

 

I don't recall seeing any such threads. Could it be because those policies were correctly identified and rejected many decades ago as the disgrace they were? Or are you saying you'd like to move from present-day policy failures in America to those of the past, such as slavery and institional racism?

 

Or perhaps you're just saying somebody from Australia shouldn't criticise America now because Australia has made mistakes in the past. I hope this isn't actually your point, because from a logical perspective it is very stupid.

 

America's gun laws are a source of repeated threads on this forum. I ask why and I get this kind of rude reply. I'm disappointed in you.

 

So are China's human rights records. And I bring that up again because it helps illustrate my point: America is a big nation, one of the world's leading nations, and it acts like it and projects itself as such. When Chinese nationalists get all antsy about people criticising China's human rights record, I point this out to them: critical scrutiny comes with such aspirations.

 

I'm not disappointed in you, however, more amused than anything.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I know that I wouldn't venture a walk through the streets without a group of friends or a gun, precisely because of people like Ed DiDonato and the worse.

 

I have to agree with you, if you're going to be out at night in a city you should have some sort of weapon on you or an intimidating friend or three.

[mkreku]

How can our gun laws affect someone living in Sweden? What American threatened you at gun point? Or are those 'stupid' questions too?

Yes, they are. Extremely stupid, in fact.

 

China's human rights violations does in no way (directly) affect me, yet I oppose them. I also oppose sweat shops in Asia, famines in Africa, drug wars in South America. None of these things affect me in safe little Sweden. I am a member of Amnesty International anyhow. Your view is apparently so slight that you cannot look further than your own little world, your own little nation. Now tell me why I shouldn't oppose an American wrongdoing? Do you think your nation is somehow above all the rest of the world's nations with domestic problems? Newsflash: it's not.

['GM']

How can our gun laws affect someone living in Sweden? What American threatened you at gun point? Or are those 'stupid' questions too?

Yes, they are. Extremely stupid, in fact.

 

China's human rights violations does in no way (directly) affect me, yet I oppose them. I also oppose sweat shops in Asia, famines in Africa, drug wars in South America. None of these things affect me in safe little Sweden.

Energetic fella aren't ya?

 

I am a member of Amnesty International anyhow.

Not my problem....

 

Your view is apparently so slight that you cannot look further than your own little world, your own little nation.

You have insulted me numerous times then turn around and say something like this? It is not ME sticking my nose in another's way of life. I don't care how you live. You're the one who wants to condemn anything or anyone that doesn't agree with your own limited point of view, as you admitted in the first part of this post.

 

Now tell me why I shouldn't oppose an American wrongdoing?

Oh god, LOL! It's not YOUR country! And 'wrongdoing? Read my last sentence in the above section.

 

Do you think your nation is somehow above all the rest of the world's nations with domestic problems? Newsflash: it's not.

 

Bleh... I'm done talking to you.

[~Di]

How can our gun laws affect someone living in Sweden? What American threatened you at gun point? Or are those 'stupid' questions too?

Yes, they are. Extremely stupid, in fact.

 

China's human rights violations does in no way (directly) affect me, yet I oppose them. I also oppose sweat shops in Asia, famines in Africa, drug wars in South America. None of these things affect me in safe little Sweden. I am a member of Amnesty International anyhow. Your view is apparently so slight that you cannot look further than your own little world, your own little nation. Now tell me why I shouldn't oppose an American wrongdoing? Do you think your nation is somehow above all the rest of the world's nations with domestic problems? Newsflash: it's not.

 

You've been just about rude enough. America's gun laws are not a "wrongdoing", and are not comparable to sweat shops, famines and drug wars. Your personal attack on a fellow poster is just plain out of line. America as a nation was forged by ordinary citizens carrying weapons to defend themselves since they first stepped onto these shores, from the Revolution to the wild west and beyond. It was carved into our constitution by people who had seen the disarming of the populace in other countries lead to dictatorships and tyranny. You don't like our gun laws, fine with me. Stay in Sweden and assure that Sweden's gun laws... which don't sound that much different than America's frankly, although you couldn't be bothered to respond to that... remain "pure". That doesn't give you license to personally insult other posters in particular and America in general.

[mkreku]

Bleh... I'm done talking to you.

Good. It's a bit tiresome discussing world politics with someone who doesn't have the slightest clue how these things work. Do not for a second think you'll have these absurd gun laws forever. Just as you won't have the death penalty forever, you won't disallow gay marriage forever, etc. Unless the rest of the world suddenly changes views too, of course. Unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Just as China will not stay communist forever and why apartheid in South Africa is no longer present. World opinion is a strong influence.

 

You've been just about rude enough.

I haven't even started. She asked me if her questions were stupid, I gave my honest opinion.

 

America as a nation was forged by ordinary citizens carrying weapons to defend themselves since they first stepped onto these shores...

Jesus Christ, what a tiresome argument! Yeah, you also had slaves. Times change, get over it.

 

That doesn't give you license to personally insult other posters in particular and America in general.

I have done neither.

[Monte Carlo]

Favourite bumper sticker, seen in Texas in the early 90's.

 

"An armed society is a polite society"

 

For the benefit of Americans here, the Europeans aren't all 'unarmed' by their governments. Firearms ownership is legal in most European countries, the UK being a notable exception. The UK has the strictest firearms legislation in the world, with replica guns now even under scrutiny. The UK still has firearms crime, which supports the contention that (like all commodities) prohibition doesn't necessarily eliminate demand and supply.

 

However, a lack of ammunition does hamper firearms crime in the UK. Criminals can point unloaded guns at each other all day.

 

The main reasons why folks in my country are fascinated by Americans and their Second Amendment is that;

 

1. Difference: we don't see guns here often

2. The liberal media has has created a meme where an interest in firearms = sinister

3. We aren't bothered by guns and gun ownership, Americans are. We find that fault line interesting.

 

Personally I think the Second Amendment is your business and, FWIW, pretty appropriate for your country. I drove from The Gulf of Mexico to El Paso once and twice wished I were armed, can Avis do you a decent self-loading pistol and a mossberg pumpgun nowadays? It's not a biggie for me. It certainly makes me careful in America - I think some of you are trigger-happy, and that a tiny minority of Americans would love to shoot me for no other reason than they like shooting things and trespass is a groovy excuse.

 

As for the Second Amendment and the sanctitiy thereof. I saw a dude on Fox news (I actually like Fox news) arguing that Muslims need to see parts of the Koran in a 21st Century context and that too many Middle Eastern folks were stuck in the 7th. It's not a bad argument, actually, to discuss theology of any organised religion. I'd turn that around and view the Second Amendment the same way. What did the Founsing Fathers envisage? What has America achieved since then? Does your Second Amendment now mitigate for more gun control, or less?

 

Just an honest POV from a critical friend of the US.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Arizona will allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit. http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/aze...-bill16-ON.html

 

 

I'm gonna be packin' heat this summer!

[~Di]

America as a nation was forged by ordinary citizens carrying weapons to defend themselves since they first stepped onto these shores...

Jesus Christ, what a tiresome argument! Yeah, you also had slaves. Times change, get over it.

 

That doesn't give you license to personally insult other posters in particular and America in general.

I have done neither.

 

You have done both. I'm sick of your America-bashing. Times have indeed changed. We have a black president. We are over it. You are nothing more than a bigoted troll. Shame on you. Shame on you all.