PDA

View Full Version : Should Guns Be Legal?



Tryggvi
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 01:17 PM
Choose the option that represents your opinion best. What's the current legislation in your country? Please motivate your opinion. :)

Aristotle
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 04:42 PM
EYTYXEITE!
Dear Njoerd Eriksson, I vote for the first option because I believe that to keep and bear arms in general eliminates the possibilities of Criminality. If everybody has equal changes to defend himself using a legal weapon, weapons loose their significance because "weapons significance" means inequality of firing power. More or less, the gangsters have any possibility to obtain in any case illegal guns so, under restrictions, the only victim is the Legal being who has no gun to defend himself! Inequality=Criminality!
According my opinion, every weapon must be legal for all citizens!
In my Country, Hellas, the legislation is absolutely stupid! The law is made by some sub-officer of ex Gendarmerie and says that not only real weapons of any caliber and type are illegal but also fake "weapons"-toys that simply resemble to real one!! For example, if you will be arrested bearing a chocolate "gun" you will be imprisoned from 20 days to 6 months!
To the contrary, criminality is very high in Hellas, the men of security forces are on the top of corruption's list and heavy criminality, and foreigner gangsters' armed "activity" has no limits...
I love guns, I keep a private legal shooting ground in my home in Germany but in Hellas I don't ever touch guns because of govermental stupidity!
Choose the option that represents your opinion best. What's the current legislation in your country? Please motivate your opinion. :)

JoeDas
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 05:12 PM
Gun ownership should be legal. However, as a general rule there should be fewer guns on the streets, not more. I can't tell you how many times I turn on the local news and hear about some little girl or little boy who was playing on the street, or even in their home, and ended up being killed by stray gunfire from gang members or drug dealers or somebody else. Or some High school kid who had been out late one night, gotten in a dispute with another kid, and ended up shooting him dead. If he hadn't been carrying a gun, that other guy wouldn't be dead, and the kid who shot him wouldn't be serving 30-life right now.

What I'm saying is, here in USA we already have a pretty big problem with people carrying guns; to legally put hundreds of thousands of more guns on the streets would be nothing short of a catastrophe in my opinion.

Awar
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 06:25 PM
My answer is different.

I know FAR too many people who cannot and will not think before they act.

A police officer I used to know was killed by another police officer. They had a quarrel, the other cop was off-duty, drunk and aggressive. He later committed suicide.

Just take a look at the way people act when they drive. A car is a deadly weapon.
Most people have cars, yet they don't always act rationally and cautiously when they drive. People are scum on general.

The sheer number of people who die every year from car-involved accidents is staggering. What do you think, how many of these accidents would happen if everyone obeyed all the rules for safe driving?

The same percentage of people who follow rules in driving would follow all the rules
for a safe owning own firearms. A small percentage.

Look at the people around you, notice how easily they become confused or enraged.

I think that only extensive personality and IQ tests can tell if someone is or isn't mentally stable enough to drive or to shoot.

My message to those who are pro-firearms is to finally let go of the hypocrisy and to admit that they only want weapons because they are paranoid and bloodthirsty.

The number of situations where a weapon is needed must be reduced. Increasing the number of weapons is just adressing the problem from the wrong side.

Instead of arming two quarreling kids, why not see what's the root of their quarrel.
You can't solve the problem imposed by an aggressive kid who terrorizes his peers by arming his peers. You can solve it by altering the way kids spend their time.

As much as I disagree with Nazis, I agree with how they handled youth.
I'm pretty sure than the kids in the Hitlerjugend didn't spend their time boozing or getting high on drugs or shooting eachother.

Arming everyone is just an extension of the decadent society in which we all live, it's not a counter measure against the dangers, it's a danger in itself.

There are few people who act with total responsibility, their number decreases every day, as we enter deeper into a decadent age. This cannot be helped by arming everyone, it can be helped by fighting this decadence.

The only people I would arm are those who have proven their sense, intelligence and capability.

I wouldn't give a gun to a bllind man. His physical condition allows him to hold a gun and shoot it, but....
How about psychologically impaired people.





Firearms are a bitch. They are highly powerful and effective, small, and easy to operate. One armed person can kill many unarmed persons.
If you ask me, I'd let everyone carry swords and axes. :D

Zyklop
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 06:38 PM
Current legislation in Germany demands extremely high standards to own a gun and even more to carry a gun in public.
The results are illegaly armed immigrants and unarmed Germans. There is or was a clause in the German weapon-law which excludes people from civil war countries like ex-Yugoslavia from owning a gun but usually those immigrants own whole arsenals.
Free men in Germanic societies always were allowed to arm and defend themselves and this should be reinstated. No civilian needs automatic weapons, though.

war
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 07:10 PM
I think guns should be legal for every white person in his/her homeland, because the right of selfdefence is only through guns to achieve in the multicriminal societies.

Tommy Vercetti
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 09:28 PM
I think guns should be legal for citizens, though I think persons background should be checked before he/she can buy a gun.

I'm happy with a gun legislation in my country.If one needs a gun and can state reasons for licensing authority the license to buy a gun is permitted.Criminal record-free citizens can acquire easily all sorts of guns except full-automatic(cognitive reason is needed)

Slavictorious
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 02:13 AM
Total freedom in Gun laws. Full realisation of the Second Amendment.

An armed society is a polite society...

Gareth
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 03:03 AM
Look at the people around you, notice how easily they become confused or enraged. I sometimes welcome doubt and rage and prefer it to stagnation. I had some of my most creative ideas after people turned me angry earlier in the day.

Instead of arming two quarreling kids, why not see what's the root of their quarrel.True so far, at least one should try.

How about psychologically impaired people. Car driving is a motoric activity, what people think recently has less to do with it.

I'm sure or should I say I know "psychologically impaired people" that are excellent car drivers; maybe for the cause of compensation, but they are.

Telperion
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 03:35 AM
There are two competing values at issue in this topic, which are 1.) the potential harm to others caused by guns, and 2.) the liberty of individuals to do as they please, subject to not harming others.

In so far as guns are at least as potentially dangerous as, say, automobiles, it would certainly be anomalous if driving an automobile was a licensed activity, but anyone could own any gun they desired. The rationale for licensing automobiles is precisely that because of their potential danger - to others, and not simply to the person who uses them - people should only be licensed to use them if they can demonstrate basic competence and awareness of safety procedures in their use, and that license can be suspended or revoked if they fail to live up to that standard.

It seems to me that a similar rationale should apply to guns - as potentially very dangerous objects, to others as well as oneself, the possession and use of guns ought at least to be a licensed and regulated activity.

Of course, one could argue reductio ad absurdum that any object is "dangerous" to others if used as a weapon, and so even the use of e.g. steak knives should be a licensed activity on this rationale. But, I would say that this argument, should anyone make it, would ignore the potential scope of harm that can be caused by guns, as they can kill far more people far more quickly than any other weapon available to civilians. One could make an analogy to autmobile driving being a licensed activity, while bicycling is an unlicensed activity (since one is unlikely to harm others while doing it) - the potential scope of harm caused by guns and automobiles is sufficently great to justify licensing their use, whereas the lesser scope of harm that could be caused by knives and bicycles renders licensing undesirable in so far as the scope of the potential harm is not sufficient to justify the restriction on individual liberty incurred by licensing.

On the other hand, one could also argue that no one "needs" to own a gun, and that if there is a public safety issue, that issue should be dealt with by more effective law enforcement rather than widespread gun ownership. But a complete ban on gun ownership would seem an undue restriction on liberty, in so far as someone can demonstrate that they would not use their gun irresponsibly.

I would put assault weapons in a separate category, and ban their use to civilians, since it is difficult to see what purpose they could have other than to kill large numbers of people very quickly, which means the potential scope of harm they can cause if used irresponsibly is so great that (arguably) merely licensing their use is an insufficient remedy when compared to an outright civilian ban.

I've probably said enough there to offend just about everyone, so fire away. ;)

Northern Paladin
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 05:50 AM
Choose the option that represents your opinion best. What's the current legislation in your country? Please motivate your opinion. :)

People have guns here in the US. And judging from the crime rate they don't heistate to use them. :D

Too bad your only allowed to conceal them in Florida though, guess all those old people feel like they need extra protection so they changed the laws.
There are a lot of times I feel the need to carry a gun. I like the feeling of being empowered.

With that said I think guns should be legal. As a means for the people to protect themselves either from criminals or a tyrannical government.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 06:46 AM
I am an American and must respond from that perspective. America is a violent country in comparison to Europe. Watching two Europeans arguing, I have often thought that if these were Americans then a fist-fight would have already broken out. America was born out of violence. Violence is written into our Constitution. Our Constitution says that the government may make no law abridging the right of the people to BEAR ARMS. These words "bear arms" were very, very carefully chosen. Notice, this does not say "guns". "Arms" mean arms like the military has--our military. It was put there so that the milita (another concept in the Constitution) could resist the government (our government) should it become corrupt or oppressive.

So, "arms" are military weapons, not just guns. As stated in our Constitution, we have the right to bear arms, any arms at all. This means ICBMs, rocket launchers, machine guns, laser weaponry or atomic weapons----f--king right, atomic weapons. It also means that the government has no right to even question this right a tiny bit, no license, no legislation to the contrary, no note from my parents.

Of course, this is not the reality of the USA, but if it was, does anybody think for one nano-second that anybody here would be paying taxes or taking shit from Uncle Saul in any way? And guess what, if I were not taking any shit, neither would the rest of the world.

Awar
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 08:58 AM
I sometimes welcome doubt and rage and prefer it to stagnation.

Sometimes, the rage IS the cause to stagnation.

It's common here in post-90's ( after wars, sanctions, bombing ) Serbia to see people in fits of rage. Being overtly agressive is an everyday thing.
This, of course leads nowhere, as it's impossible to build in a society where everyone's dedicated to destruction.



I'm sure or should I say I know "psychologically impaired people" that are excellent car drivers; maybe for the cause of compensation, but they are.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about ALL impaired people, just those who would become potentially dangerous with firearms.

TisaAnne
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 09:24 AM
I chose the 4th option, but meant to pick the third....Either way, I think that any and every auto/semi-auto weapon should only be in the hands of law enforcement, military or any other security personnel. I do not trust the everyday public enough to feel comfortable with hand guns on every man's person....It's unsettling and ultimately disaterous. And besides, what does an average Joe Dandy need with a street sweeper anyway? :eyes

Yes, criminals can easily get their hands on a gun, but is that any reason to make it so everyone can have a loaded weapon holstered on their side, for "protection"? Look how things were during the Wild West days...There were shoot-outs at the saloon, duels and crime and murder was politically and socially acceptable....Do you think that things would be any different nowadays? People have not changed that much, and human nature shows that with a dangerous gun in our hands people will be killed - innocent or guilty. When people take the "law" into their own hands, they lose any logical objectivity and their actions become soley based on emotions...In the heat of an argument or quarrel, it wouldn't be so hard to get carried away and kill someone if there's a gun in your grasp.

As for shotguns and rifles....I think that even though they can be used as dangerous weapons, it's far more hard to conceal a big rifle than a .38 caliber hand gun, so the element of surprise has rendered the gun a less logical choice for being used in an unscrupulous manner. I own several shotguns and rifles (for sport), but know how to use them responsibly and correctly, and feel that if someone ever broke into my home I would be able to easily dispatch them in an effective, efficient manner.

A common argument is: "Guns don't kill people...People kill people". Sure, that's perfectly true, but most of those people who kill people are packing guns. The answer isn't to arm every man, woman and child in a nation...It's fighting to get dangerous guns out of the hands of the everyday public.

If any decent effort was made in trying to eradicate the gun issue, maybe people wouldn't feel so terrified that they had to carry a small arsenal under their coat. :|

Awar
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 09:30 AM
I don't even want to enter a discussion about US legislations, but, I have to notice a few things:

1. The right to bear arms was written in an era when the most powerful weapon
was a musket.

2. No constitution would be written with an intent to wreck the country it's being written for.

If every individual had personal nuclear weapons, it would certainly mean the end of
that country, and possibly the world also.

One must mention Columbine. There will always be someone who's mentally unstable enough to do such a thing. Imagine what would happen if they had MORE powerful weapons.

I'm just trying to be realistic here.

The right to bear arms, again. It was written in a totally different era.
Who could have thought then that in the matter of a few centuries, weapons that can kill so efficiently would be introduced.

A man with a musket, or a sword or a knife isn't so superior over someone who's unarmed. If such a person is on a lunatic rampage, he can be overpowered, but a person who carries automatic weapons can potentially kill dozens of people.
Not to mention nuclear weapons.

If everyone had such powerful weapons, in a nano-second, the world would be destroyed. Eventually, it would be built-up again, and it would again feature sensible rules regarding weaponry.

The role of a government isn't just in taking your money, it's also in providing a stable society in which money can be made, things could get done.
If we're all armed and dangerous, and very very individual, then, what will it all lead to? Even if we don't all kill eachother, there would be no real order.

What do you know. Perhaps the taxpayer dollars are being also spent on creating a system of defense from a meteor that's heading on a collision course with USA. :)

A bunch of armed individuals ( disorganized because they are all equally armed and equally convinced that being a leader is their job ) vs. a plague.
You can't shoot a plague.

Perhaps, the taxpayer dollars are being spent on stopping a fanatic-a-day from killing everyone you love.

You can't solve everything with a gun, you can't even defend from everything with a gun.

Aistulf
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 11:36 AM
This might sound silly, but I'm for legalization of guns just for the simple fact that the police is not capable/willing to guarantee our security, in a country that is becoming "darker" with the day.

Evolved
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 11:56 AM
People should be allowed to have whatever type of gun they want, but only after completing classes for safety and proper use. It is crazy that people need to go to classes to drive a car, or a boat, but they don't need to learn how to use a gun and care for it properly. (:o

Oskorei
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Guns dont kill people, blacks kill people

Pretty much sums up my view on this. What keeps the murder-rate up in the US is not the gun-laws, it is the high criminal propensity of blacks. In all-white areas with legalized gun-ownership, both in the US and Switzerland, there is no more murders than in the rest of Europe.

After the new order begins, guns should be legal. However, then most immigrants will be gone, and there will be a new feeling of social solidarity.

In Sweden we have extremely strict gun-laws.

bocian
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 12:15 PM
Whether guns are legal or not isn't really the point. There have been comments made about licensing and some sort of competency tests have been suggested, but I think this is all pretty much useless. The criminal isn't going to license his weapon, or ask for permission to go kill someone. Making guns illegal isn't going to make them disappear, but in fact it will leave the dregs and bandits with a tactical advantage.

Maybe a first step in a solution would be for the makers of guns, to make a way less of them, and sell them for a much higher price. The same goes for bullets. Let's make the gun cost $100,000 and the bullets $10,000 each. The price on the street would go up as well. Surely this would discourage some people from buying a gun, and those claiming to 'need' one will just have to shell out a few more bucks. Maybe take out a gun mortgage. :)

I hate guns.

Nordic Dream Maiden
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 03:43 PM
Plenty of gun forums exist on the WWW from the USA perspective--they are very lengthy with alot of topics with very knowledgable people on the subject, if your not American or don't follow all the pro and con, historical, legislation, stats, etc., it can be very confusing, as its a large subject matter with many tangents.

In Minnesota you can carry a concealed weapon as long as you pay around $200 if you request, recently they changed that law so that the local sheriff would determine if you really did need it--before no questions were asked; of the thousands hand gun permits issued, not one person has shot someone out of anger or used it illegally or criminally yet--I'm sure I would hear about it in the press if it did, even once. Millions of guns are unregistered and registered guns can be sold to someone without any paperwork if you don't sell them as a business; guns in the USA are here to stay even if the Juden decided to economically freeze bank accounts until a registered owner gave them up--which he could say he "sold" to someone else. If the USA can be delivered crates of Cocaine from S.America, do you really think guns cannot be sold on the black market or made by a underground machinist in the USA? Machining is way much easier than in the past and is getting easier by the week, to make a single shot gun is a piece of cake for the average garage machinist and to make a repeating one isn't that hard either.

And remember:

ZOG Secular Material Humanism creates violence--a gun cannot be made, loaded, cared, aimed and shot w/o a person manipulating it.

JoeDas
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 06:42 PM
Our Constitution says that the government may make no law abridging the right of the people to BEAR ARMS. These words "bear arms" were very, very carefully chosen. Notice, this does not say "guns". "Arms" mean arms like the military has--our military. It was put there so that the milita (another concept in the Constitution) could resist the government (our government) should it become corrupt or oppressive.

So, "arms" are military weapons, not just guns. As stated in our Constitution, we have the right to bear arms, any arms at all. This means ICBMs, rocket launchers, machine guns, laser weaponry or atomic weapons----f--king right, atomic weapons. It also means that the government has no right to even question this right a tiny bit, no license, no legislation to the contrary, no note from my parentsThe Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. Back then, the only guns that were around were single-shot rifles or pistols that took a long time to reload. The second amendment was made with reference to those guns, not weapons-of-the-future that the writers of the amendment could never envision in their wildest dreams.
What I'm saying is that the second amendment is an anachronism. It was written at a time when the best weapons available could fire, what, 2 or 3 bullets per minute? Now we have guns that fire literally hundreds of times that number, 500, 600, 700, and more rounds per minute. So back then it was fine for the citizenry to have the same weapons as the military, but today it would be totally insane to arm every citizen with fully-automatic weapons and machines guns, and it would be suicidal to let people have weapons-grade plutonium!

Krampus
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 02:04 AM
There are places in my country as bad as Mexico City or Zimbabwe. If my government can't protect my family and me I feel I have the right to the best protection that I can afford as a law abiding citizen with no prior criminal convictions. If that means a fully automatic weapon, than I feel I should have the right to own one.

Of course Americans have more liberal laws regarded firearm ownership than other countries in the world. The first law in the US to ban fully automatic firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934 which came into being, not as a result to fight Al Capone gangs or Bonnie and Clyde bank robbers, but out of our own Government's fear of an attempted coup. A plan was discovered to displace President Roosevelt who had deviated from the gold standard which people feared would lead to inflation. The threat was from a former General Butler who had united a group of US veterans who numbered in excess of 500,000. At the time compared to the current US military they would have presented a threat to that administration.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/coup.html

Mistress Klaus
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Guns are banned in Australia ;( ...bloody do-gooders..grrrrr.
I voted for the first option. I think it is our right to bear arms. I especially think it is actually criminal and unfair for women not to be able to carry a handgun (in their handbag or garter) and the shotgun by the bed. ;). Perhaps a male would think twice about attacking a female if he knew he could get his **** shot off. :D .

kiera
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 08:05 PM
Yes, absolutely. Not just legal, but mandatory.

While governments and criminals are in possession of firearms, so must be the private citizen. It is to encourage repression and victimization to suggest otherwise. In a perfect world, guns would not exist, but this world does not approach such perfection.

To rely on law enforcement officers is complete folly. The motto of police in the U.S. is "To Protect and Serve", but they are not protecting me. Their allegiance is to the welfare of the State and their own interests. Police routinely ignore known crack-houses full of well-armed blacks, preferring instead to extort traffic fines from less dangerous prey.

I was educated from an early age in the proper handling of firearms. I was never tempted to 'play' with weapons. Children should not be kept away from guns; they must be instilled with a reverence for life, and the skills to take it away if necessary.

Too many people (men as well as women), are squeamish about guns. Criminals are not.

Mine is not an unqualified opinion: I have been abducted and assaulted at gunpoint, my home has been invaded, and I have experienced an armed robbery at work. In the first event, I was unarmed, and that was my mistake. In the second, I successfully defended my home without firing a shot (nothing restores order like the sound of a pump-action 12 gauge). In the third instance, I allowed the perpetrator to walk out with the cash, not wanting to risk a gunfight that might have injured others.
Should the world transform into some sort of Utopian paradise, there will be no need for defense; until then, I will not relinquish my guns.

Awar
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 09:46 PM
So, because the world isn't a Utopia, let's make it hell then :P

I agree that firearms should be mandatory, but only for those who can prove
they know how to use it, and prove that they won't abuse it.

The same goes for cars too.
A teenage moron from my neighbourhood passed the driving license tests by paying
some corrupt driving teachers, then bought a car with lots of horsepower and then started to run around town like a maniac. Until one day, he almost ran over a
man who was walking his kids from school.
Thankfully, an older 'gangsta' fellow saw him, and beat the shit out of him.

A couple of years ago, another teenaged moron ran over and killed two women and a child with his BMW. They were standing on a bus-stop.

There MUST be laws regarding the ability or disability of certain people to operate automobiles or firearms. It's not a right, it's a privilege.

bocian
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 01:15 AM
So, because the world isn't a Utopia, let's make it hell then :P

I agree that firearms should be mandatory, but only for those who can prove
they know how to use it, and prove that they won't abuse it.

The same goes for cars too.
A teenage moron from my neighbourhood passed the driving license tests by paying
some corrupt driving teachers, then bought a car with lots of horsepower and then started to run around town like a maniac. Until one day, he almost ran over a
man who was walking his kids from school.
Thankfully, an older 'gangsta' fellow saw him, and beat the shit out of him.

A couple of years ago, another teenaged moron ran over and killed two women and a child with his BMW. They were standing on a bus-stop.

There MUST be laws regarding the ability or disability of certain people to operate automobiles or firearms. It's not a right, it's a privilege.


Sounds right...but how would these laws be enforced?

Awar
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 01:40 AM
I have no idea.

Legalizing drugs would release a huge number of cops from pointless duties though :) Crime rates and firearm-related incidents would probably decrease with that. :)

symmakhos
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 12:35 PM
As the world looks like at present, I sure would like to be legally able to carry a gun: I find it humiliating that I should have to think twice before walking the streets alone in certain parts of my own country. In the optimal case, I think the right to carry firearms would be limited to a nobility or elite. I don't believe in any metaphysical "rights" of any kind for the general population.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 08:42 AM
The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. Back then, the only guns that were around were single-shot rifles or pistols that took a long time to reload. The second amendment was made with reference to those guns, not weapons-of-the-future that the writers of the amendment could never envision in their wildest dreams.
What I'm saying is that the second amendment is an anachronism. It was written at a time when the best weapons available could fire, what, 2 or 3 bullets per minute? Now we have guns that fire literally hundreds of times that number, 500, 600, 700, and more rounds per minute. So back then it was fine for the citizenry to have the same weapons as the military, but today it would be totally insane to arm every citizen with fully-automatic weapons and machines guns, and it would be suicidal to let people have weapons-grade plutonium!

That's right, back then the military had single shot weapons. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the citizens of the United States the same--the very same weaponry that the government of the United States had. This was so that if the government ever became oppressive (sound familiar) the citizens would have the ability to rise up and overthrow the government.

How can you maintain that it would be "suicidal" for the citizens of the USA to have automatic weaponry or "weapons-grade plutonium"? First, I don't want plutonium, I want what was promissed to Hitler in 1945, a tritium-deuterium device with a red mercury fuse, hand held, the size of a pineapple. Both the USA and Isrealis have these. I only want what is mine. If these were ours, do you think for one second we would be taking shit off the ADL, the Mossad, the CIA or the NASA?

George Bush has access to modern weapony and has used them. This has become suicidal for Iraqis. If he is fit to command their use, so is anyone else.

Awar
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 12:58 PM
That's right, back then the military had single shot weapons. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the citizens of the United States the same--the very same weaponry that the government of the United States had. This was so that if the government ever became oppressive (sound familiar) the citizens would have the ability to rise up and overthrow the government.

Is having an oppressive government the biggest trouble one might have?
Hitler's government was a 'bit' oppressive.



How can you maintain that it would be "suicidal" for the citizens of the USA to have automatic weaponry or "weapons-grade plutonium"? First, I don't want plutonium, I want what was promissed to Hitler in 1945, a tritium-deuterium device with a red mercury fuse, hand held, the size of a pineapple. Both the USA and Isrealis have these. I only want what is mine. If these were ours, do you think for one second we would be taking shit off the ADL, the Mossad, the CIA or the NASA?

You see, in the time they wrote the law of everyone being allowed to have the same weapons as the army, the high-tech of warfare was a single-shot gun.

I'm repeating this, because, with such a weapon, you couldn't really assault a large number of people ( like in Columbine ), but you could have easily DEFENDED yourself and your property.

No army would be eager to reign with terror over a people where every house was able to defend itself, or at least, kill the first who steps in.

On the other hand, a musket wasn't really effective for berserking psychos who want to assault someone. He could kill one or two people before getting overpowered.

On the other hand, nuclear weapons have the nasty ability to kill millions of people at once. Which is a god-given opportunity to any weirdo.

A musket doesn't cause the entire eco-system to collapse, and a large stretch of land to be uninhabitable for generations.

Also, what's most important isn't the weaponry, it's the organization.
You can take down an entire government if you have a good and dedicated bunch of people behind you. Armed with scissors, or paperweights.



George Bush has access to modern weapony and has used them. This has become suicidal for Iraqis. If he is fit to command their use, so is anyone else.

Yes, but also Saddam had proper briefing regarding WMD's ( if there were any ), he didn't exactly keep an A-bomb under his bed, next to the slippers.
He had a whole team of experts who knew what to do.

In any case, I have more trust in elaborate institutions such as the government to handle WMD's, than I have in an individual.

The fact that we're all still alive is thanks to the good chain of command which doesn't allow anyone off the street to ignite a nuclear weapon and kill everyone.

On the other hand, the individuals on the street are not hand-picked or properly trained, and we can see that by the sheer ammount of people who are killed every day from firearms.

Face it, times changed, with the times, the weapons got more deadly, and that brings a whole new set of rules. A musket is not the same as an A-bomb.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what are the implications.

kiera
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 08:39 PM
There MUST be laws regarding the ability or disability of certain people to operate automobiles or firearms. It's not a right, it's a privilege.
I agree to an extent; however, to be effective and fair, this shouldn't rely on law, as we all know the law to be fallable and corruptible. For example, American teenagers believe it their inalienable right to operate a vehicle at the age of 16. My daughter did not get a drivers license at that age, because I find her to be lacking in certain abilities necessary to drive safely. I have no doubt that the State would issue a drivers permit to her, however, because they cannot possibly have the knowledge of her skills (or lack thereof) that I do. On the other hand, she is good with a rifle...
I have difficulty relying on government legislation of any kind, as I find it to encourage weakness and irresponsibility.

Awar
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 10:55 PM
I agree to an extent; however, to be effective and fair, this shouldn't rely on law, as we all know the law to be fallable and corruptible. For example, American teenagers believe it their inalienable right to operate a vehicle at the age of 16. My daughter did not get a drivers license at that age, because I find her to be lacking in certain abilities necessary to drive safely. I have no doubt that the State would issue a drivers permit to her, however, because they cannot possibly have the knowledge of her skills (or lack thereof) that I do. On the other hand, she is good with a rifle...
I have difficulty relying on government legislation of any kind, as I find it to encourage weakness and irresponsibility.

I agree that the governments aren't working as they should. If they were, we'd live in a near-perfect world, as we have all the technology we need to achieve a much better living quality.

Having said that, there are many instances in which the government regulates and prevents a catastrophe from happening. It's crude, basic and often misused, but it does work to an extent.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 05:50 AM
Awar, a musket isn't going to back-up an army of jack-booted thugs with M-16s. It is going to take similar firepower to make them think twice. This was the only thing that kept Randy Weaver alive when they came after him. What is needed and what is required in the US Constitution is parity.

This is the situation in the USA. This is not the situation in Thailand, for instance. There the culture is non-violent and such thoughts as I describe are unthinkable.

There were excesses in Hitler's Reich but these were mostly of wartime necessity. There was freedom of the press before the war. Most other freedoms were in place then. The big exception was the eugenics killing of mentally retarded children but there were also eugenics excesses in the USA at the same time. On the upside, there were laws against racial mixture as there were in the USA at that time.

Mac Seafraidh
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 04:59 AM
Hmm, I do not want to sound like a "simpleton" here or very low IQed but since I am in my clouddy state of mind somewhat with this depressional mind blockage.This is my immaginative thinking. In lands belonging to who rightfully own them, so America for instance Europeoids,can carry guns. (Remember Europeans(The Caucasioids) """claimed""" America) Racially mixed will not apply to this. Hunters do not need guns! Let them become vegetarian, and or PISCO-vegetarian. Fish feel pain, but I have heard they have no emotion so it does not matter to eat them. Vital entities are in the sea. Anyway, this will decrease terror by far. I really have not much more to say.

Siegfried
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 10:57 PM
The best deterrent to crime and oppressive government is a well-armed people. Legalisation of gun ownership will revitalise masculine values. The duel should be restored as well (but not before I've become proficient with sword and gun, of course ;) ).

Awar
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 11:26 PM
I disagree with giving weapons to everyone. That's an unrealistic and also dysgenic way of thinking. Especially firearms. Firearms are basically a sort of weapon just perfect to provide unfair advantage to people who otherwise would be no match to genetically more superior people.

Sure, I'd give guns to everyone.....everyone who fulfills certain standards.
I'd also re-instate the duel, but again, only with weapons where the greater genetic legacy, greater skill, greater ability, intelligence etc. is required.

It's easy to point and squeeze, but what about swordplay or boxing.
That's a true duel, both a test of superiority and a selective mechanism for DNA.

George
Friday, October 22nd, 2004, 02:01 AM
After we win the war and get rid of the underclass and generally tidy up society, yes people should not be stopped from having guns. Government should be minimalist. I'd be delighted if duels were reintroduced.

Southern Jarl
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 02:50 PM
I guess most people here like would like to carry a gun (for self defence, of course!). :D

Bridie
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 03:32 PM
I guess most people here like would like to carry a gun (for self defence, of course!). :D

Not me!! :-O I'm totally against loose gun control laws like those in existance in the US. :thumbdown :thumbdown

:P

Siegfried
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 03:49 PM
Not me!! :-O I'm totally against loose gun control laws like those in existance in the US. :thumbdown :thumbdown

The weapon laws of the Netherlands are insane; even pepper spray is banned. The people shouldn't be dependent on a bureaucratic institution like the police for their self-defense, especially not when the police usually only show up once the crime is done.

Bridie
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 03:53 PM
The weapon laws of the Netherlands are insane; even pepper spray is banned. The people shouldn't be dependent on a bureaucratic institution like the police for their self-defense, especially not when the police usually only show up once the crime is done.
Rubbish. Incidentally, what are violent crime rates like in The Netherlands (comparatively)?

Siegfried
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 03:54 PM
Rubbish. Incidentally, what are violent crime rates like in The Netherlands (comparatively)?

Comparative to what?

Bridie
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Comparative to countries with looser weapons laws. :)

Sciz
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Loose gun control laws? What exactly constitutes a loose gun control law? We have bans on certain types of guns here simply because they "look mennacing" and not based on their firepower.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of guns. I don't even own one (I prefer knives and other forms of interesting cutlery.), but is more legislation really the answer? We're already well on our way to becoming a Nanny State as it is. :thumbdown

Patrioten
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 04:20 PM
I think i recall reading about the fact that Switzerland has rather lax gun laws but has had (dunno if it's the same today when multi culturalism has set root there) a low gun related crime rate. Legal licenced guns are not a big source of crime, illegally imported guns are. The criminals will always be able to get ahold of guns if they want to, assault rifles even. Law abiding decent folks must be given the chance to defend themselves, especially now in a time when the police cannot be trusted for security, they lack the capacity and authority to do a good job.

A copied post of mine from another forum:

I'm for gun ownership for responsible law abiding and mentally healthy citizens. If you can show to the police (which i think should be the ones issuing licences) that you can handle the gun type you intend to buy you should be allowed to buy that type for home protection.

I don't think it's necessary to show that you can hit anything at a distance since the distances when firing a gun indoors or on your property aren't great and you will most certainly practise with it after you aquire it to improve your shooting skills.

Regarding limitations on what you should be allowed to aquire weponswise i think they it is necessary with some limitations, semi automatic pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns are guns i think everyone that passes the criterias should be allowed to buy for home protection. A limit on the number of guns you can buy i think would be appropriate, you don't need 20 guns to defend your home. Perhaps a "weapon clauset" of 4 guns per elegible person would be enough, then you could get a weapon of every type, pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle and practise with them and find the weapon that suits you the best.

I'm also for making it legal to defend your home and family by any means you deem necessary against people that break into your home, property. Here in Sweden today you have to be careful not to use to much force against an assilant because you as a victim can easily be charged and convicted with assault or man slaughter.

Bridie
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 05:03 PM
Loose gun control laws? What exactly constitutes a loose gun control law?
Allowing civilians, other than farmers, to have guns. Shooting as a sport should be banned. There should be stringent controls on the farmers who are allowed guns as well.

It should be illegal to carry pepper spray in public.



Law abiding decent folks must be given the chance to defend themselves, especially now in a time when the police cannot be trusted for security, they lack the capacity and authority to do a good job.
That's a myth as far as I'm concerned.

If someone broke into your house and threatened you with a gun, or went to shoot you, do you really think that having a gun yourself would protect you? If a crim with a gun saw you going for it they would shoot you dead. There is greater risk if you have a gun in your house of it going off accidentally, especially if there are kids around.

The world is going nutty if everyone thinks that they need a weapon such as a gun to defend themselves. Regardless of whether or not you have a gun, violent crime will still happen.... having more guns knocking around the place can only exacerbate danger.


I'm for gun ownership for responsible law abiding and mentally healthy citizens. If you can show to the police (which i think should be the ones issuing licences) that you can handle the gun type you intend to buy you should be allowed to buy that type for home protection.
All crims were "law abiding" at some stage. It would be VERY EASY for a mentally unstable or unwell person to feign mental stability or wellness for the sake of being issued a gun.

And then what happens when you get a mentally stable person (in ordinary circumstances) who's is crapping his dacks with fear because he's seen that someone has jumped his back fence at night and he thinks that perhaps the person might try to break in, so he shoots them in a panic?? What if it turns out that it was just a kid "sneaking out" at night crossing his yard? ---- my point is... even mentally stable people sometimes behave irrationally and impulsively out of fear, anger etc. Put a gun in the hands of someone in that state and we have a problem....

Also, the more guns there are in a country the easier it is for the crims to get their hands on them. Sure there will always be a black market, but do we have to hand them the guns so readily???



I'm also for making it legal to defend your home and family by any means you deem necessary against people that break into your home, property. Here in Sweden today you have to be careful not to use to much force against an assilant because you as a victim can easily be charged and convicted with assault or man slaughter.
I believe that it should be legal to defend your home and family using violence as long as it's not with a gun, bomb, flame thrower ;) etc.

Sciz
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 05:07 PM
I don't think it's necessary to show that you can hit anything at a distance since the distances when firing a gun indoors
I think some form of safety and usage class should be standard. In stressful situations, people become idiots. A class that helps them gain at least some short range proficiency will reduce the likelihood of accidentally damaging their property or, gods forbid, killing a loved one.


A limit on the number of guns you can buy i think would be appropriate, you don't need 20 guns to defend your home.
What would be the point of limiting the number an individual can own? What about collectors who own multiples of antique and rare makes and models? You can only drive one car at a time, but why should you be restricted from buying a pristine Model T at auction just because you already have one?


Here in Sweden today you have to be careful not to use to much force against an assilant because you as a victim can easily be charged and convicted with assault or man slaughter.
We have that problem here as well. If a criminal breaks into your home you have to virtually put up with being victimized. If you defend yourself, the criminal can charge the victim with assault. Faced with being victimized and killing the intruder outright (which crazily enough is legal to do), some pick the later. It shouldn't have to happen, but I have no sympathy for the criminal in those cases.

Patrioten
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 05:12 PM
I think some form of safety and usage class should be standard. In stressful situations, people become idiots. A class that helps them gain at least some short range proficiency will reduce the likelihood of accidentally damaging their property or, gods forbid, killing a loved one.I think it's a good idea, but i don't think it should be mandatory to be able to get a licence.



What would be the point of limiting the number an individual can own? What about collectors who own multiples of antique and rare makes and models? You can only drive one car at a time, but why should you be restricted from buying a pristine Model T at auction just because you already have one?I'm talking about guns for home protection, not for hunting/sport shooting/collecting. They should all have separate limits, collectors of course need a bigger quota of guns than the average person wanting to defend his family.

Sciz
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 06:01 PM
Allowing civilians, other than farmers, to have guns.

So Citizen A is allowed to have firearms, but Citizen B isn't? On what justification? Protecting his crops from roving bands of cow tippers? ;) Honestly though, that kind of inequality will only end up with more people feeling justified in getting their guns on the black market, thus making the problem worse, not better.


It should be illegal to carry pepper spray in public.

You've already taken away their other weapons, should they not have at least pepper spray as a token effort in self defence?


Law abiding decent folks must be given the chance to defend themselves, especially now in a time when the police cannot be trusted for security, they lack the capacity and authority to do a good job.

Agreed 100%.



That's a myth as far as I'm concerned.

My appologies if I sound flippant, but it sounds as though you live in a place where there's not alot of crime and the police always do what is right and are on time. If so, damn, I want to live there too. The places I've lived, though, the police are generally apathetic to the real crimes that are committed. A fair number are also actively hostile toward law abiding citizens.


Regardless of whether or not you have a gun, violent crime will still happen....

But that's the problem, isn't it? If violent crime is going to happen anyway, and in may places, the police cannot be trusted to even arrive on time, citizens need a method of defending themselves. You say that citizens should be allowed to use violence to defend themselves, but by what means? Generally, all other weapons are useless against a gun.


What if it turns out that it was just a kid "sneaking out" at night crossing his yard?

If a person can't tell the difference between a suspicious looking man (generally with odd body language and a means to conceal their face), and a kid "sneaking out," then they're an idiot and fall under Patriotpatrik's mantal stability clause.

Southern Jarl
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 07:38 PM
I thought that my post had been deleted...now I see it's been turned into a whole thread...



Not me!! :-O I'm totally against loose gun control laws like those in existance in the US. :thumbdown :thumbdown



I drew my statement out of the fact that most people had got 100% "Conservative" in your test's "Defence and Crime" section, including you :D , so I thought that most answers to the point "Carrying a gun is:" had been "Taking responsibility for one's own defense, and admirable".
First of all, we must consider the purposes of guns, which are hunting and self defence. Hunting is a sport, very traditional and ancestral (and very Germanic ;) ), which involves healthy contact with nature, and while it has some impact, it also needs a well preserved environment. That's why true, responsible hunters & fishermen are avid conservationists, and this is only logical, for if they want to keep on practicing their sport, nature must be preserved. So, IMO, hunting should be allowed. Weapons which are meant for hunting, such as bolt action rifles and shotguns, should be legal.
Then we've got self defence. Now, this is generally more controversial. I believe that after certain conditions are met, people should be allowed to provide for their own defence. So I totally agree with this:



I'm for gun ownership for responsible law abiding and mentally healthy citizens. If you can show to the police (which i think should be the ones issuing licences) that you can handle the gun type you intend to buy you should be allowed to buy that type for home protection.


So not everyone should be able to get a weapon, only those who are mentally fit and have some sort of basic training.
Weapons which have a military purpose, such as assault rifles, should be banned. This is more out of common sense than anything else. I know, they're lovely and I would really like to own one, but it's trusting too much firepower to a civilian. You can overpower a police unit with one of those! Not to mention machine guns, and other weapons such as sneaky SMGs...There's where I think American legislation is too loose (if it's true that in some states you can get an assault rifle). There should also be restriction based on caliber, for example, you shouldn't be able to purchase a .50 cal bolt action rifle -it's unnecessarily powerful for civilian purposes.
For the record, I've read that here in Argentina less than 1% of legal owners have been charged with some gun related crime. I don't know why, but I feel that many of those fellows would have committed such crime (say, murder) with or without the gun. Seeing the horrific crime rates in Argentina, it's obvious that the overwhelming majority of these felonies are committed with unregistered, illegal weapons. It would make sense if the same thing applied to developed countries.

Jäger
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 08:03 PM
I don't have anything against guns for citizens, the problem nowadays is, that everyone can become a citizen :(

But I am for gun control, which means that it is not unregulated, and it should at least kept track on who owns a gun etc.

A gun for self-defense is a two-sided sword, I doubt one can get his gun ready in time in most of the cases, but I don't have anything against gun ownership, I am for strict hunting laws, and against concealed carrying though.

Patrioten
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 10:25 PM
I don't have anything against guns for citizens, the problem nowadays is, that everyone can become a citizen :(I agree fully.


But I am for gun control, which means that it is not unregulated, and it should at least kept track on who owns a gun etc.Yes i am for a gun registry, i'm not paranoid as some americans seem to be regarding a registry. If a gun owner is convicted of a crime or gets a mental disorder it should be reported and his/her guns taken away asap. Also if a person is brought to trial for a serious enough crime but not convicted i think it should be considered if the guns needs to be taken away.


A gun for self-defense is a two-sided sword, I doubt one can get his gun ready in time in most of the cases, but I don't have anything against gun ownership, I am for strict hunting laws, and against concealed carrying though.If you have the gun already loaded near your bed or easily accessible when you're at home it doesn't take long. And in countless of cases guns have indeed saved lives, and people should at least have the ability to make use of the excellent protection that a gun provides, if they want to. I'm also against concealed weapons permitts, the gun should only be allowed to be carried/stored in your home/property (not car), unless you are moving it, to a shooting range naturally, or to your summer house for example.

Weg
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 11:31 PM
What annoys me is that when weapons are illegals (not even a knife, sometimes), the only people, policemen excepted, who possess guns and such are criminals. So honest and innocent people should be weaponless when facing armed to teeth outlaws? In a State that can't protect its own defenseless (natives) citizens against armed outlaws (natives or not), it's about time that citizens should care of their security by themselves against aggressions since the rotten State's official institutions are literally unable to do so and accomplice of criminality.

Æmeric
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 12:43 AM
The problem with gun control laws is that criminals would ignore the law. If America ever had gun control laws like those in the Netherlands or Canada most of us (Whites) would be at the mercy of the racially based criminal gangs.

Jäger
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 12:48 AM
So how often have you had shoot outs with ****** gangs?

Patrioten
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 12:55 AM
A small, newly established biker gang here in Sweden had their property raided by police some weeks ago, they found a glock 9mm pistol, a kalashnikov ak74 (i assume since it had a foldable stock and a 74 looking sight), an m45 military sub machine gun, a double barreled sawed off shotgun and a scoped hunting bolt rifle. All of which illegal.

The police can cage them in for a while but they'll be out on the streets in no time, and get ahold of a new set of guns. The police/judicial system is completely useless when it comes to stopping crime because they lack the proper authorities as mentioned to do so. The people must be able and allowed to defend itself against the rampant criminal elements which plague our nations.

Patrioten
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 01:29 AM
That's a myth as far as I'm concerned.It's the reality in Sweden, where some of my relatives live they never call the cops, because the nearest police station is located 200 miles away. There is a shortage of police men just about everywhere in Sweden.


If someone broke into your house and threatened you with a gun, or went to shoot you, do you really think that having a gun yourself would protect you? If a crim with a gun saw you going for it they would shoot you dead. There is greater risk if you have a gun in your house of it going off accidentally, especially if there are kids around.I would have a much better chance of survival for sure, and i would like my chances of survival to be the best possible.



The world is going nutty if everyone thinks that they need a weapon such as a gun to defend themselves. Regardless of whether or not you have a gun, violent crime will still happen.... having more guns knocking around the place can only exacerbate danger.It can increase the danger for criminals to get maimed and killed, yes. And that is a scenario which i would be keen to see.


All crims were "law abiding" at some stage. It would be VERY EASY for a mentally unstable or unwell person to feign mental stability or wellness for the sake of being issued a gun.The outmost majority of the criminal activity in a city/town is comitted by a rather small core of people who have joined the criminal way of life from early on in life, these would not be elegible to get a gun. And equally big/bigger (often overlapping with the previous group mentioned) group is the crack heads/junkies/drug users, and they sure as hell wouldn't be elegible for gun ownership. Then you have a very small group of individuals who fly under the radar untill adulthood when out of the blue they comitt a horrible crime. They are very few, although they get alot of attention in the media since they usually comitt rather spectacular crimes. I wouldn't want this small group of individuals, who cannot be stopped from comitting crimes before they snap, deny me from being allowed to own a gun to defend myself. The criminals should not be allowed to dictate the lives of the rest of us.


And then what happens when you get a mentally stable person (in ordinary circumstances) who's is crapping his dacks with fear because he's seen that someone has jumped his back fence at night and he thinks that perhaps the person might try to break in, so he shoots them in a panic?? What if it turns out that it was just a kid "sneaking out" at night crossing his yard? ---- my point is... even mentally stable people sometimes behave irrationally and impulsively out of fear, anger etc. Put a gun in the hands of someone in that state and we have a problem.....That might very well happen, but it's an extreme case. Normal, mentally stable individuals can cause the most horrendous accidents on the road, yet i don't want cars to be banned because you cannot let a tiny minority dictate the lives of an entire population when in fact cars, if handled properly, benefits us in many ways.




I believe that it should be legal to defend your home and family using violence as long as it's not with a gun, bomb, flame thrower ;) etc.But why should i have to settle for something less than a gun for protection? A burglar with a knife can be as deadly as a burglar with a machinegun. A gun would in many cases give the victim an important upper hand in terms of armament against attackers, and how are you as a victim supposed to know the intention of your attacker? Does he want to steal my tv? Or does he want to tie my whole family up, rape the women to death and behead the men? I'd prefer to shoot at sight with a gun in that situation and be assured that i wouldn't face charges for it, rather than engaging in hand to hand combat with him or some other more dangerous way of defending myself where i primarily have to rely on strenght and moves/fighting skills. And if the attacker is armed with a gun, anything less than a gun just wont do as a mean of protection.

Siegfried
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 10:13 AM
I don't have anything against guns for citizens, the problem nowadays is, that everyone can become a citizen

I couldn't agree more.


Allowing civilians, other than farmers, to have guns.

The Netherlands are so densely populated that it makes little sense to distinguish farmers like that.


Shooting as a sport should be banned.

I see no reason for that. In fact, I'm considering joining the local shooting range, if I can manage the cost. Do you think fancing and karate should also be banned?


It should be illegal to carry pepper spray in public.

I disagree strongly. Pepper spray is a great, non-lethal defense with particular appeal to women and the elderly. The grandmother of an acquaintance used to carry a brick around in her purse, and actually smashed a mugger with it once. Pepper spray is probably preferable ;)


That's a myth as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps in Australia, but not here.


If someone broke into your house and threatened you with a gun, or went to shoot you, do you really think that having a gun yourself would protect you?

Yes, at the very least it's a better defense than bare hands. What should one do then? Just let yourself be robbed blind and then fill in a report at the police station? Yeah, that'll teach them ;) The police are probably not even going to catch them.


If a crim with a gun saw you going for it they would shoot you dead.

Perhaps. So be more subtle about it.


There is greater risk if you have a gun in your house of it going off accidentally, especially if there are kids around.

Responsible gun owners would lock their weapons away, so children can't get to them. This greatly diminishes the risk.


The world is going nutty if everyone thinks that they need a weapon such as a gun to defend themselves.

How would you defend yourself? Do you have a training in some martial art? If so, do you think it would really do you much good when confronted with a stronger rapist/burglar, who is possibly armed with a knife or even a handgun?


Regardless of whether or not you have a gun, violent crime will still happen.... having more guns knocking around the place can only exacerbate danger.

I doubt that the crime statistics bear that out when you compare Switzerland with the Netherlands. There are other factors also involved.


All crims were "law abiding" at some stage. It would be VERY EASY for a mentally unstable or unwell person to feign mental stability or wellness for the sake of being issued a gun.

Anyone who really wants a gun, can get a gun, even here in the Netherlands.


And then what happens when you get a mentally stable person (in ordinary circumstances) who's is crapping his dacks with fear because he's seen that someone has jumped his back fence at night and he thinks that perhaps the person might try to break in, so he shoots them in a panic?? What if it turns out that it was just a kid "sneaking out" at night crossing his yard? ---- my point is... even mentally stable people sometimes behave irrationally and impulsively out of fear, anger etc. Put a gun in the hands of someone in that state and we have a problem....

Sure, but that's hardly an argument against looser gun laws. I'm not denying guns can be used inappropriately, I just don't think disarming the general population is a proper response.


Also, the more guns there are in a country the easier it is for the crims to get their hands on them. Sure there will always be a black market, but do we have to hand them the guns so readily???

Again, anyone who wants a gun can get a gun, even here in the Netherlands. I recently saw a report about youth criminality in one of our bigger cities. A social worker told the reporter that these children could get you a gun within two hours.


I believe that it should be legal to defend your home and family using violence as long as it's not with a gun, bomb, flame thrower ;) etc.

Handguns are a proper way of defending your home.

Just my opinion. :)

Bridie
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 01:47 PM
Geez, you boys are so paranoid!!:wsg What if someone attacks you or your family.... what if someone tries to shoot you... blah blah blah.... These things have always happened throughout human history and they will continue to happen, there is bugger-all you can do to stop it. Owning a gun, and then attempting to use it when feeling threatened, would only serve to inflame the situation and increase the likelihood of someone getting killed.

Farmers have legitimate reasons for using guns (that does not include shooting people if they get a bit scared).... namely, to put down livestock if need be, or to kill kangaroos, foxes, rabbits etc.



Honestly though, that kind of inequality will only end up with more people feeling justified in getting their guns on the black market, thus making the problem worse, not better.
I don't think it makes people feel that way here in Australia. Americans I suspect are just so used to having so many guns knocking about the joint that they couldn't imagine living without them. I personally don't know anyone, except a couple of farmers, who owns a gun. I've never even seen a gun in real life.



My appologies if I sound flippant, but it sounds as though you live in a place where there's not alot of crime and the police always do what is right and are on time. Nope, there's plenty of violent crime around here. Just 3 nights ago our next door neighbour was broken into and assaulted, along with 3 other houses in our street. We heard, what we now know, was the burgulars in our yard (nicking our clothes off the back line, if you can believe it! LOL :-O :D ) at about 5am. Doesn't bother me.... shit happens. :layingout We've been broken into before in the past. We still won't lock our doors at night. If someone wants to break in, they'll get in regardless of whether or not the doors are locked.



If a person can't tell the difference between a suspicious looking man (generally with odd body language and a means to conceal their face), and a kid "sneaking out," then they're an idiot and fall under Patriotpatrik's mantal stability clause.And how would you determine who's not prone to that sort of panic and who's not. Sorry, but from the sound of it Sciz, you sound like a bit of an over-reactor to me! ;) No gun for you then!! :D

You know, Americans have quite a reputation for being trigger happy.... thank God I don't live there with all those nutcases going around wanting to shoot everyone they feel vaguely threatened by! :-O :-O



Do you think fancing and karate should also be banned?
I don't know.... can you create as much carnage, with as much ease with a sword or a karate chop as you can with a gun? :nope



Yes, at the very least it's a better defense than bare hands. What should one do then? Just let yourself be robbed blind and then fill in a report at the police station? Yeah, that'll teach them ;) The police are probably not even going to catch them.
Shit happens. I'd get over it. :shrug



Responsible gun owners would lock their weapons away, so children can't get to them. This greatly diminishes the risk.
Again we're left with the question.... how are you going to determine who's responsible, honest, never forgetful, always on the ball?? Impossible. Fact is, the majority of people aren't all of these things all the time.


I'm not denying guns can be used inappropriately, I just don't think disarming the general population is a proper response.
So you think the proper response is arming them all?



Anyone who really wants a gun, can get a gun, even here in the Netherlands.
Anyone who really wants a powerful bomb could get one too I'm sure.... should we make it legal for anyone who fancies it to have bombs in their houses and handbags too?

I guess my opinion is greatly influenced by the fact that I live in a country with very strict gun control laws (I would be horrified to hear that someone I know owns a handgun for the purpose of self-defence!!! :-O Everyone over here would assume that such a person is a complete drama queen nutcase!!), and the fact that I don't really have any fear when it comes to crime. :)

Bridie
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 01:53 PM
The problem with gun control laws is that criminals would ignore the law. If America ever had gun control laws like those in the Netherlands or Canada most of us (Whites) would be at the mercy of the racially based criminal gangs.
.... there are plenty of darkies in Canada too (and I'd assume there are in the Netherlands also?).

Drama, drama, drama....

LOL

Patrioten
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 03:18 PM
Geez, you boys are so paranoid!!:wsg What if someone attacks you or your family.... what if someone tries to shoot you... blah blah blah.... These things have always happened throughout human history and they will continue to happen, there is bugger-all you can do to stop it. Owning a gun, and then attempting to use it when feeling threatened, would only serve to inflame the situation and increase the likelihood of someone getting killed.That's what men do, we are supposed to defend our families and therefor have to think about these things alot more than women have to. And you're wrong saying that one cannot do anything about it, one can be prepared (=armed). It's not about feeling scared, it's about protecting what is yours.

You in turn seem to be rather paranoid when it comes to putting guns in the hands of citizens, and seem to think that gun owners are a special breed of nutjobs. You seem to focus completely on a fear that they will handle them poorly them, accidentally fire one and kill a child, shoot kids out in their backyards etc. etc.


You know, Americans have quite a reputation for being trigger happy.... thank God I don't live there with all those nutcases going around wanting to shoot everyone they feel vaguely threatened by! :-O :-O Reputation does not equal reality. Your comment makes me think of the animated piece in Bowling for columbine, every white person with a gun is scared to death and shoots at anything that moves while the peaceful blacks don't need any guns and are calm as cows. It's bs propaganda.



I don't know.... can you create as much carnage, with as much ease with a sword or a karate chop as you can with a gun? :nope That's exactly why a gun is a better tool for self defence than a sword or a chop stick.


Again we're left with the question.... how are you going to determine who's responsible, honest, never forgetful, always on the ball?? Impossible. Fact is, the majority of people aren't all of these things all the time.But most people are not deranged lunatics either as you seem to want to portray them. Most people are responsible and can handle guns in a responsible way.


So you think the proper response is arming them all?He has not expressed such an opinion, we're saying that those that want to buy guns and pass the criterias should be allowed to buy guns for self defence purposes.

Æmeric
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 03:19 PM
.... there are plenty of darkies in Canada too (and I'd assume there are in the Netherlands also?).

Drama, drama, drama....

LOL It's only a matter of time before the racial gangs in Canada, the Netherlands & Australia obtain illegal firearms. Perhaps they already have them but your media chooses not to report this. I've never had a confrontation with armed gangsters but I have always avoided those areas controlled by criminal gangs such as the Crips (Negroes) & MS-13 (Salvadoran).

Siegfried
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 03:20 PM
Geez, you boys are so paranoid!! What if someone attacks you or your family.... what if someone tries to shoot you... blah blah blah.... These things have always happened throughout human history and they will continue to happen, there is bugger-all you can do to stop it. Owning a gun, and then attempting to use it when feeling threatened, would only serve to inflame the situation and increase the likelihood of someone getting killed. [...] Shit happens. I'd get over it.

You might want to tell that to the rape victim. "Shit happens. Get over it."

Bridie
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 03:54 PM
You might want to tell that to the rape victim. "Shit happens. Get over it."
What a ridiculously misleading and provocative thing to say. :thumbdown Is that how you try to score brownie points in an argument is it Siegfried? Try to put words into your "opponent's" mouth and demonise them by attempting to make it appear that they're saying something really awful? Very, very low.

I was clearly referring to MYSELF and how I personally would react to being a victim of ROBBERY when I said...


Quote:
Yes, at the very least it's a better defense than bare hands. What should one do then? Just let yourself be robbed blind and then fill in a report at the police station? Yeah, that'll teach them ;) The police are probably not even going to catch them.

Shit happens. I'd get over it. :shrug



In any case, most women who are raped, are raped by men that they know well (have an acknowledged relationship with) in a domestic setting. Not by some rapist on some dark, quiet city street somewhere, nor by a stranger breaking and entering into their homes. The figure is about 80% for most developed nations. So having a gun would most likely not do them too much good now would it??

Patrioten
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 04:04 PM
In any case, most women who are raped, are raped by men that they know well (have an acknowledged relationship with) in a domestic setting. Not by some rapist on some dark, quiet city street somewhere, nor by a stranger breaking and entering into their homes. The figure is about 80% for most developed nations. So having a gun would most likely not do them too much good now would it??Who are you to decide that for them? If women were allowed to carry mace/pepper spray when outdoors and guns in their homes some women could be saved from rape.

SubGnostic
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 05:28 PM
I'd like to be able to carry a firearm because I'm probably on a deathlist of some mtv-inspired wannabe-******* who have quite a widespread posse.:( And the worst thing is that the self defense laws here in Finland are really absurd:
A rather useless celebrity (musician, and a gypsy) was signing autographs, if I remember correctly. He was surrounded by a gang of which one of them grabbed either the celeb's wallet or some money. After that the group scattered and ran. The next day in the newspapers read that according to some witnesses the celeb had reached towards the guy who took his money, and during this, he might've flinged his arm so that one of the people in the group might've injured... He was held suspect of mild assault. Not that I'd feel for fim though.

A man tried to rob a gas station by threatening the man behind the register who unexpectedly grabbed a shotgun from under the desk and aimed at the robber. The robber fled. The robber went boo-hoo to some lawyer and made the gas station worker pay compensation. Why? It was "Exaggerated self-defence."

If someone threatens you with a knife yet doesn't harm you, you can't do anything. If you hit him and he runs away, sues you, you're paying. Why?
"Exaggerated self-defence."

It would probably be best to not loosen weapon laws, with the current condition of western societies. I think it would dangerous, because hey, we're all equal. So if one is allowed to get a gun, everybody will have the same right. Wiggers with their gangstalife-fantasies would actually start living them. Paranoid or fanatically devout village idiots would go postal.
And Finns get so drunk on weekends I can't even imagine the number of casualties we'd get.

Jäger
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 05:31 PM
While I am not against weapons, I too think that guns for self-defense are mostly worthless.
I support guns for country defense, like the Swiss, where every man has a rifle, in case Switzerland gets attacked.
I wouldn't mind them for going on a shooting range etc, and of course there are cases where it could be used for self defense.
I consider those cases seldom, and I would refrain from arguing with that as a main reason for gun ownership.

Furthermore, what's good for a wide country as Australia must not be good for a densly populatetd country as England etc.

We can clearly see that violence or "saved" lives don't correlate with guns, or gun laws.
Race and community is a higer factor for high or low gun crimes.

Sciz
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Nope, there's plenty of violent crime around here. Just 3 nights ago our next door neighbour was broken into and assaulted, along with 3 other houses in our street. We heard, what we now know, was the burgulars in our yard (nicking our clothes off the back line, if you can believe it! LOL ) at about 5am. Doesn't bother me.... shit happens. We've been broken into before in the past. We still won't lock our doors at night. If someone wants to break in, they'll get in regardless of whether or not the doors are locked. You know, perhaps if all of your neighbors openly possessed firearms, burglars would be less inclined to break in and assault them. Shit happens!?! Hmm, maybe it’s because I work sixteen-hour work days to have the things I need that I feel justified in protecting my possessions. But, as you said, I’m probably overreacting. Would it not be overreacting if, say, I worked seventeen hours instead?


No gun for you then!! Well, as I said before, I’m not a gun fan and don’t personally own one. I collect knives instead. If someone breaks into my house, they’ll have to contend with the pit bull first and then my monkey-ninja-pirate kung fu next :D.

Anyone who really wants a powerful bomb could get one too I'm sure.... should we make it legal for anyone who fancies it to have bombs in their houses and handbags too?
Any object can be used as a weapon if the person is creative enough. Should we ban guitar string because it can be used as a garrote wire or desk chairs because they can be used to bludgeon others?

You make a good point, Jäger. The right to bear arms is essential to the protection of a nation from both external enemies and, gods forbid, an overreaching tyrannical government from within. True, also, that more stringent gun control laws do not necessarily correlate with fewer violent or gun related crimes.

notyourtypicalstereotype
Saturday, August 26th, 2006, 04:03 AM
Well, I'll probably get banned on my first post here, but here goes.

I'm very passionate about this subject. It's very near and dear to my heart, as I'm a proud gun owner.

Not to sound like an ass, but it seems that most of the anti-gun people here are spouting filth out of their asses about something they don't know a thing about. This, in my opinion, is why non-gun owners need to STFU when it comes to the subject of owning guns.

So without further ado, I present to you, my refutation of the anti-gun bullshit that has been presented thus far in this "debate."


The weapon laws of the Netherlands are insane; even pepper spray is banned. The people shouldn't be dependent on a bureaucratic institution like the police for their self-defense, especially not when the police usually only show up once the crime is done.
Damn right. The cops here in the states typically couldn't give two shits less if you've been victimized. Hell, the cops here do a fair share of victimizing themselves, which is just one more reason the citizens should be able to defend themselves. The cop's job is typically to come by and take your report. Now, they MAY catch the criminal, if they really feel like putting in the effort, but they're likely either too busy to concentrate on your issue, or they just don't have the resources to catch the criminal and give you any justice.

It's also interesting to note that Bridie says rubbish to this comment by Siegfried. REALLY, Bridie? Have you had to deal with the cops lately? When's the last time you heard of a cop coming just in time to stop a crime? Incidentally, Bridie, how does that compare to crimes that they AREN'T able to stop before someone has been victimized, and how many times do they even catch the criminal? Any supposedly low crime rate (ANY crime is too much) would likely be related to the Netherlands' relative homogeneity relative to the rest of the White world.

However, Bridie goes on to say "Comparative to countries with looser weapons laws." Well, if you look at these countries, they're typically heavily infested with non-Whites or otherwise non homogenous. The only country in the White world that has any semblence of REAL freedom in this area is the US, and we certainly have our share of non-Whites, who, incidentally, just so happen to be responsible for most of the crime.


I'm for gun ownership for responsible law abiding and mentally healthy citizens. If you can show to the police (which i think should be the ones issuing licences) that you can handle the gun type you intend to buy you should be allowed to buy that type for home protection.
Oh, like the POLICE are really competent to determine who can and can't own a gun! What a joke! Recall that it is our own governments, people, who are hastening the decline of our people. I repeat, OUR OWN GOVERNMENTS ARE LARGELY TO BLAME FOR OUR DECLINE AS A PEOPLE!

The police cannot be trusted to be competent in determining who can and cannot own a weapon when some black DEA agent shoots his foot off in front of a classroom full of children. GREAT TRAINING THE POLICE GAVE HIM, HUH! The police cannot be trusted to assure our freedom when they themselves are the biggest denier to and block of our freedoms. I myself have been arrested for participating in a demonstration against illegal immigration which is a Constitutionally protected act of free speech. Yeah, I'm gonna trust them to ensure my freedom when they arrest me for excersizing something so harmless as free speech! You Europeans make me laugh, and I couldn't be more glad to be separated from you nanny-staters by a vast ocean!

Guns shouldn't be something the police, or ANY agent of government, can issue or deny on a whim! Government should have ZERO say in how people choose to defend themselves. And, as my country found out during it's revolution, the government is often the worst oppressor of them all.

Another gem from the same nanny-stater:
Regarding limitations on what you should be allowed to aquire weponswise i think they it is necessary with some limitations, semi automatic pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns are guns i think everyone that passes the criterias should be allowed to buy for home protection. A limit on the number of guns you can buy i think would be appropriate, you don't need 20 guns to defend your home. Perhaps a "weapon clauset" of 4 guns per elegible person would be enough, then you could get a weapon of every type, pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle and practise with them and find the weapon that suits you the best.
So I should only be able to have four? Why? If I can only have FOUR GUNS, why not mandate that women can only have FOUR pairs of shoes, or rich folks be limited to ONE house instead of their summer houses, ski shacks, and whatnot? Hell, why not just put limits on EVERYTHING, like you European nanny-staters love to do, and mandate that everyone live in a one bedroom shack and drive nothing but little Geo Metros or whatever is the smallest "economy car" available in your country, since you don't NEED anything more than that! Can you see the sheer lunacy in your words?

Then, Bridie chimes in, again, with this gem:
Shooting as a sport should be banned.
So should rugby, and cricket, and everything else you Australians play. Why, exactly, should shooting as a sport be banned? Because you don't like it? It's feminist control freaks like you who have helped lead the way in ensuring our people's demise as a people.

More from Bridie, in the same post:
It should be illegal to carry pepper spray in public.
Really? Try saying that when you get attacked by some miscreant and he rapes and nearly kills you. While I wouldn't wish this fate on my worst enemy, perhaps it could help to open your eyes as to why people should be free to decide how they will defend themselves.

More from the same ill informed halfwit who really has no clue what the hell she's talking about
If someone broke into your house and threatened you with a gun, or went to shoot you, do you really think that having a gun yourself would protect you? If a crim with a gun saw you going for it they would shoot you dead. There is greater risk if you have a gun in your house of it going off accidentally, especially if there are kids around.
So I wouldn't be able to reach over to my night stand and grab my pistol in the time it takes for some scumbag to break down my door and climb the stairs? While I don't yet own a pistol (funding issue as I just passed the legal age to get one and I'm a poor college student) I've actually timed myself for how long it would take to get out of bed, UNZIP MY RIFLE CASE, load a magazine into my evil, scarey looking AK47, load a round into the chamber, and be ready to go. Tops was ten seconds, in my cluttered bedroom, with the rifle case between my book case/entertainment center and dresser, in the dark, while still taking the time to put the rifle down and hit the stop button on my watch. Now, I'm a heavy sleeper, but for someone to make it into my room within even a minute, they'd have to be coming just for me, and know which room is mine, and be damn quiet in doing so.

As for that BS about it being more likely for the gun to go off and kill someone in the family, that's BS and anyone with an ounce of brain cells and some responsibility knows it. I've known people who've gunproofed their kids, not the other way around, and they've never had a mishap. When guns are a part of kids' lives, there is no more curiosity. It's when the little buggers are curious, such as daddy the policeman sheltering his kids from guns, that the truly horrific accidents happen. Good parenting can take care of a lot of problems before they even happen.


The world is going nutty if everyone thinks that they need a weapon such as a gun to defend themselves. Regardless of whether or not you have a gun, violent crime will still happen....
Yeah, the world is going pretty fucking loopy when governments take an active role in killing off the people that made those governments possible to begin with, but it happens. It's a pretty fucking insane world when White people actually allow themselves to be subjugated by a tribe of coniving middle-easterners hellbent on sucking them dry, but they do it, and in most cases, they love it. Yes, crime WILL HAPPEN, so why not be ready for it? You may be happy to become nothing more than a statistic, but I'll fight tooth and nail and go down kicking and screaming to keep myself from being one. I'm more than willing to stand aside and let you become a statistic, so please, don't get in my way to defend myself.


And then what happens when you get a mentally stable person (in ordinary circumstances) who's is crapping his dacks with fear because he's seen that someone has jumped his back fence at night and he thinks that perhaps the person might try to break in, so he shoots them in a panic??
One more reason not to tresspass then, ain't it? In reality, and this is backed up by years of chit chat with gun owners on various forums who own property, most property owners would prefer to investigate a little before pulling the trigger. They also prefer to identify their targets before they'd go about shooting, as most have kids who they admit like to sneak in and out.


I think some form of safety and usage class should be standard. In stressful situations, people become idiots. A class that helps them gain at least some short range proficiency will reduce the likelihood of accidentally damaging their property or, gods forbid, killing a loved one.
And who gives this class? The GOVERNMENT??? They've tried roundabout ways to get guns out of people's hands in the past. It works quite well. The 1934 National Firearms Act in the US was only allowed because it was (and still is) a TAX measure, not an outright prohibition on any class of arms. However, the tax is, and was then, $200. Now, today, it doesn't seem like much, but in 1934, $200 was about five times the cost of many of the guns it was meant to restrict. It was also about 20 times the cost of the silencers it was taxing. Oh, and Treasury refused to issue the tax stamps. Ain't that a bitch? Then, take into account that most "law enforcement" types are LOUSY shots and typically not as skilled as the average private citizen gun enthusiast, and we begin to see problems develop. I've had countless chats with fellow gunnies who go to competitions and have stories of cops having their asses handed to them by private citizens. Most cops only go to the range to qualify, and that's it.

Most responsible gun owners take safety and profinciency education upon themselves, as well they ought to. But I'd be opposed to ANY government interferance in MY NATURAL RIGHT to obtain and use a weapon in my NATURAL RIGHT to self defense.


Weapons which have a military purpose, such as assault rifles, should be banned. This is more out of common sense than anything else. I know, they're lovely and I would really like to own one, but it's trusting too much firepower to a civilian. You can overpower a police unit with one of those! Not to mention machine guns, and other weapons such as sneaky SMGs...There's where I think American legislation is too loose (if it's true that in some states you can get an assault rifle). There should also be restriction based on caliber, for example, you shouldn't be able to purchase a .50 cal bolt action rifle -it's unnecessarily powerful for civilian purposes.
Really? Well, in America, that was the whole POINT of our Founders including the right to keep and bear arms in our new Constitution once they'd figured out the Articles of Confederation weren't going to work. The whole point of the citizenry having guns was SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE TO OVERPOWER A CORRUPT AND DESPOTIC GOVERNMENT! People should only accept policing because they WANT it, not because "the cops have guns and you don't, neener neener neener!" People should only accept governance because they consent to it based on the fact that such governance furthers their individual liberties and interests, not because the Army has guns and the citizens don't.


For the record, I've read that here in Argentina less than 1% of legal owners have been charged with some gun related crime. I don't know why, but I feel that many of those fellows would have committed such crime (say, murder) with or without the gun. Seeing the horrific crime rates in Argentina, it's obvious that the overwhelming majority of these felonies are committed with unregistered, illegal weapons. It would make sense if the same thing applied to developed countries.
Yep, it does make sense. At least you somewhat saved yourself with this comment. When states in the US began issuing concealed carry permits, many were simply astounded to see the extremely low crime rates associated with permit holders. I did a section of a paper on this subject in a class, and it worked out to something in 1 in some huge number of people in the pool of permit holders in Texas, I think 100,000 or so, had committed a "crime", and even then, it wasn't even gun related. The author of the piece I cited went on to say that if there was a similar rate of non-criminality in the general population, we'd be home free.


I don't have anything against guns for citizens, the problem nowadays is, that everyone can become a citizen
DING DING DING!!! Finally, some sense! I WOULD limit citizenship in my imaginary utopian republic that seemingly can only exist in my head! To Whites, and Whites only. Nobody else gets citizenship, and non-citizens don't get rights. But to the Citizens of my only-in-my-head republic would be free to do more or less whatever the hell they wanted as far as guns go, so long as they don't infringe on other people's liberties and/or property (commit crimes against them). But from there, you go back to the typical nanny-state love that I see from most Europeans.


But I am for gun control, which means that it is not unregulated, and it should at least kept track on who owns a gun etc.
So the government has a nice, neat list of doors to go knocking on when they decide to implement more harmful, self destructive policies. Don't think governments do that? Why don't you share some details about your country's immigration policies, and tell me if you like them, or if you think they're beneficial to ordinary people in your country.


A gun for self-defense is a two-sided sword, I doubt one can get his gun ready in time in most of the cases, but I don't have anything against gun ownership, I am for strict hunting laws, and against concealed carrying though.
Concealed carry has saved lives time and time again, which is evidenced by reading stories of folks who have done just that: saved their lives with a concealed gun. Besides, criminals have no problem with hiding theirs. As for hunting, the only reason I favor bag limits is cause there's just too damn many people and because I favor conservation. If I had my way, there'd be way less people.


Yes i am for a gun registry, i'm not paranoid as some americans seem to be regarding a registry. If a gun owner is convicted of a crime or gets a mental disorder it should be reported and his/her guns taken away asap. Also if a person is brought to trial for a serious enough crime but not convicted i think it should be considered if the guns needs to be taken away.
Again, government would NEVER abuse their power, and then commence a door to door confiscation plan. No, government is ALWAYS benevolent, and beneficial to it's people! Again, tell me about your country's immigration policies, and tell me if you like it. Tell me if you like the fact that government has put an outright ban on debating the holocaust subject in many European countries. No, government would never try to harm it's people.


In a State that can't protect its own defenseless (natives) citizens against armed outlaws (natives or not), it's about time that citizens should care of their security by themselves against aggressions since the rotten State's official institutions are literally unable to do so and accomplice of criminality.
Whether the state can deal with crime effectively or not is moot. Even in the safest countries, the cops typically only roll by once the harm is done. I'd rather have to hire a cleaner to come by and get those pesky blood stains out of my carpet than have my loved ones paying the undertaker! The police are there to DOCUMENT AND INVESTIGATE CRIME! They usually aren't there 24/7 to protect you at your house, or when you're out on the town, nor would I want them there!


The problem with gun control laws is that criminals would ignore the law. If America ever had gun control laws like those in the Netherlands or Canada most of us (Whites) would be at the mercy of the racially based criminal gangs.
Finally, an American weighs in with some common sense. Oh, and you mean to tell me we're NOT subject to the whim of the gangs?


So how often have you had shoot outs with ****** gangs?
Again, this is a moot point. the essence of Liberty is having the ABILITY to defend yourself, be it from criminals or government (is there REALLY a difference between the two?) and should not be subject to the unfortunate amount of times one must do so.


It's the reality in Sweden, where some of my relatives live they never call the cops, because the nearest police station is located 200 miles away. There is a shortage of police men just about everywhere in Sweden.

I live a half mile, and about a 30 second car ride from the station, in a relatively small town where the cops are well manned and usually REALLY bored, and yet they STILL took ten minutes to show up the one time I called them. Then, the bastards threatenned to arrest ME because of what my step-dad had to say (I called the cops because he assaulted me and I was a dumbass kid at the time), which was a total lie. I learned that night that you should NEVER call the cops if you expect any degree of safety. I learned later on that MEN fight it out when it comes down to blows, and then shake hands once it's done, thankfully.


Geez, you boys are so paranoid!! What if someone attacks you or your family.... what if someone tries to shoot you... blah blah blah.... These things have always happened throughout human history and they will continue to happen, there is bugger-all you can do to stop it. Owning a gun, and then attempting to use it when feeling threatened, would only serve to inflame the situation and increase the likelihood of someone getting killed.

Typical ramblings of an overly emotional woman who has no clue as to what she's talking about. Yes, these things HAVE always happenned throughout history, and WILL continue on. But as I said, why not let people decide for themselves how they'd like to defend themselves, should they elect not to just submit to becoming a grim statistic, and if LUCKY, a gruesome headline in the morning paper. And yes, introducing a gun definitely increases the likelihood of someone getting killed. The scumbag deserves to die if he breaks into your house or threatens you on the street!


I personally don't know anyone, except a couple of farmers, who owns a gun. I've never even seen a gun in real life.

Which is EXACTLY why you, and people like you, SHOULD NOT be making policy on the subject, to include VOTING on it. This is why I'm so glad the Founders of my country made this one nearly untouchable in our Constitution. Unfortunately, they made some wording mistakes, and the anti-gun crowd is ALL OVER those wording mistakes. There are certain rights that should not even be up for debate, no matter WHAT the "majority" has to say about it. This is what truly distinguishes LIBERTY, and a Constitutional Republic, from a mobocratic "democracy" of bleeting, idiotic sheep.


Nope, there's plenty of violent crime around here. Just 3 nights ago our next door neighbour was broken into and assaulted, along with 3 other houses in our street. We heard, what we now know, was the burgulars in our yard (nicking our clothes off the back line, if you can believe it! LOL ) at about 5am. Doesn't bother me.... shit happens. We've been broken into before in the past. We still won't lock our doors at night. If someone wants to break in, they'll get in regardless of whether or not the doors are locked.

Proof in the pudding that you have the typical female victim's ideology. Why your husband doesn't man up and do something to protect his family and property is beyond me. I'd at least invest in a good door and lock.

While it's true that if they really want to, they will, having good doors, locks, and maybe even an alarm, serves as a deterrent. It tells the scum "Hey asshole, move on to an easier target!"


You know, Americans have quite a reputation for being trigger happy.... thank God I don't live there with all those nutcases going around wanting to shoot everyone they feel vaguely threatened by!
Here, you betray your sheer arrogance. We simply tend to prefer LIBERTY over slavery, which sadly can't be said even of racially conscious Whites elsewhere. Perhaps this has something to do with our decline as a people all across the globe?


Again we're left with the question.... how are you going to determine who's responsible, honest, never forgetful, always on the ball?? Impossible. Fact is, the majority of people aren't all of these things all the time.

One more reason to let the private sector figure this one out! Government should have ZERO ROLE in determining who amongst the citizens gets a gun and who doesn't. In my view, the only thing up for grabs as far as government is concerned is "Are they White?" which would determine merely who gets a gun, but who is a CITIZEN. This would be written into my Constitution...


So you think the proper response is arming them all?
Well, the government sure wouldn't be so quick to jump into bed with those who destroy us, would they? They sure wouldn't be too keen to pass new tax measures without your approval, now would they?


and the fact that I don't really have any fear when it comes to crime.
You might think differently when Tyrone is making you his bitch. Again, while I wouldn't wish this fate upon anyone, it illustrates the importance of LIBERTY over government "assurances" of "security."

It will probably shock and appall some of you to know that I'm a racialist, with guns! I will proudly tell you that I own a variant of the AK47, as well as a shotgun (my step dad's technically, but I'm really the only one that uses it), a .22, and a used and abused .38 Special (again, my step dad's, but it seems I'm the only one who ever blows off the dust and takes it out for some plinking) revolver.

For those racialists who are pissed off about the decay of their societies, do you honestly think that VOTING is going to solve the problem? DEMONSTRATING! Denying the holocaust myth is ILLEGAL in many European countries!!! Saying anything that the GOVERNMENT deems "hateful" can land you in JAIL in many countries!!!

Pro-Alpine
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 04:39 PM
Should firearms be allowed or not?

Slå ring om Norge
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 04:55 PM
My opinion on gun control?

" ...your hands up in the air where I can see them, and dont make any strange movements, I have a hangover and got nothing to lose..." :fool

The threshold for giving such licenses should be higher in some countries. Not that it helps, criminals gets unregistered guns anyway.

It would also contribute to avoid some of the shooting done in affect.

I also know too many that ended their days by turning a shootgun against themselves, drunken and depressed. Much unnescessary. Some would probably not have taken that choice, sober, the day after.

One I knew, did it however with some style.

In a cabin on the mountain, they were drunk, and arguing on reincarnation. The gay, a welltrained wu-shu philosopher, strongly convinced on reincarnation, but also with a drug addiction or three, then took the shootgun, " I`ll show you reincarnation!", then blow his head off before his shocked friends.

Not recommendable, reincarnation or not. But anyway with deep, but sad, literary qualities. Suicide does never help. One will have to rise by the same three as one fell.:(

Rest in Peace,***.

Siegfried
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 12:25 AM
Should firearms be allowed or not?

Mature, mentally well-developed citizens should be allowed to own firearms.

Istigkeit
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 12:33 AM
I wouldn't be outraged if guns were banned. I don't own or use any. I have no need for them.

Mac Seafraidh
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 12:45 AM
Ok, as a lacto-ovo vegetarian, I am against hunting of animals. I am pro-gun all the way though as far as protection and shooting practice and what not. The chances of needing a gun in defence of a predatory animal are slim. Guns will be needed in the future for the fight against the Zionist regime is what I am predicting, so being anti-gun against a ruthless warmongering state will have you "at the wrong end of a gun" eventually. If guns were banned then many minorities who are usally the killers can obtain them illegally and then who becomes the victim? Guns don't kill. It is the less civilized that do.

Immortal Warrior
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 05:16 AM
Mature, mentally well-developed citizens should be allowed to own firearms.

Definately.Quoted for truth.

Berliners Remember
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 08:39 AM
...not to mention they are extremely usefull to combat home invasion.

Erzherzog_Bernd
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 09:10 AM
Stalin, Josef (Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili) (1879-1953), Soviet statesman: "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let people have guns; why should we let them have ideas?" (Scriptorium comments: Food for thought for those who advocate stricter gun control nowadays?)

Personally, I'm against gun control.

OneEnglishNorman
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 09:17 AM
If I had a gun there's a chance that I would have shot someone in an argument, or at least held it to their head to provoke change. And I'm outwardly stable enough to pass any ownership test.

But I would be happy with a responsible neighbour owning a gun to protect myself and my family.

Home invasions are simply very rare in the UK.

I'm undecided on where to draw the line; shotguns OK, atomic weapons not OK..... so it's somewhere between those two. An assault rifle restricted to semi-auto seems totally unnecessary for defending a home.

Bridie
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 11:44 AM
Should firearms be allowed or not?
Not.

Pro-Alpine
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 01:35 PM
"Burglary" and other possible "Self-Defense" cases, aren't good enough to make guns available to the public, it would bring about dangers since you don't know the intents of others. But I doubt that this applies to other countries/reigons/cities, crime is quite rare where i live.

Slå ring om Norge
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 02:13 PM
My most constructive answer on this: Link (http://forums.skadi.net/personal_generalprotective_precautions-t88379.html)

Boche
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 02:23 PM
Mature, mentally well-developed citizens should be allowed to own firearms.


I agree on that. But how do you know who's mature and mentally well-developed?
Tests are easy to be tricked. :)




Gruß,
Svartr

OneEnglishNorman
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 02:27 PM
Not.

Typical female reflex towards safety :shadesdip


:)

Flag-Soil
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Saying guns should be banned is like blaming drink driving on the car. I don't think only crooks and the government should be allowed to have guns.

I'd like to see concealed carry permits in Britain.

Æmeric
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 03:45 PM
If you outlawed guns, only criminals & the state would have guns. Criminals would not obey the law, so gun controls laws are useless in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Those citizens that obey the laws would be at the mercy of criminals. And a state that imposes gun control can impose police state upon its citizens. In the US we already have many restrictions on our personal freedoms, if we could not own guns we would lose what little we have left & George bush would become President-for-life.

Imagine what would happen to South African Whites, if the ANC banned gun ownership & the Whites complied?

Boche
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 03:49 PM
If you outlawed guns, only criminals & the state would have guns. Criminals would not obey the law, so gun controls laws are useless in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Those citizens that obey the laws would be at the mercy of criminals. And a state that imposes gun control can impose police state upon its citizens. In the US we already have many restrictions on our personal freedoms, if we could not own guns we would lose what little we have left & George bush would become President-for-life.

Imagine what would happen to South African Whites, if the ANC banned gun ownership & the Whites complied?


In germany guns are banned. Not many criminals got them either or maybe don't use them someday. And if you compare germany now with the USA concerning the murder-rate or husbands shooting their wife. In germany we don't have that at all. In the USA it happens alot. ;)

But i understand that it's hard for you to imagine since you grew up in the USA.


Gruß,
Svartr

Janus
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 03:59 PM
In germany guns are banned.

They aren't. They are just regimented here and everybody who fulfills the relatively strict criteria (no violent crimes committed, having a certain age and most importantly having a reason to own a gun) can own one here like for example my grandfather does.

Boche
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 04:03 PM
They aren't. They are just regimented here and everybody who fulfills the relatively strict criteria (no violent crimes committed, having a certain age and most importantly having a reason to own a gun) can own one here like for example my grandfather does.

You may not carry firearms outside of your home. You may also own only a Pistol or Revolver when you have a weapon-license which is not easy to get at all.
If you're a hunter you may own rifles, but also only for hunting and at home.

Now compare that with the USA.

Compared to the USA, weapons are banned here. And not many people have a weapon-license.



Gruß,
Svartr

Bridie
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 04:11 PM
Typical female reflex towards safety :shadesdip


:)


:chickkick :fduck: <--------- typical male reflex towards safety. ;)

Janus
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 04:19 PM
You may not carry firearms outside of your home. You may also own only a Pistol or Revolver when you have a weapon-license which is not easy to get at all.
If you're a hunter you may own rifles, but also only for hunting and at home.

Now compare that with the USA.

Compared to the USA, weapons are banned here. And not many people have a weapon-license.


You may also own a rifle as somebody who doesn't hunt as the many local rifle clubs existing in any bigger village prove. It's also not really hard to get a weapon licence although it's time consuming. Guns are not banned here but they are just much more strictly regimented in Germany.

Boche
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 04:24 PM
You may also own a rifle as somebody who doesn't hunt as the many local rifle clubs existing in any bigger village prove. It's also not really hard to get a weapon licence although it's time consuming. Guns are not banned here but they are just much more strictly regimented in Germany.

They're at least banned to carry in public. And we don't have so many rifle clubs.
Just in Comparance with the United States weapons are rare stuff here.
In the USA if somebody pulls a weapon in public every 2nd person around him pulls his/her one out aiming at eachother. ;)
In germany weapons are banned in public.
Also weapons is a part of the US-Americans neo-culture.


Gruß,
Svartr

Aistulf
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 04:25 PM
Should firearms be allowed or not?
If multi-culturalism/multi-racialism is, they certainly should be!

Horagalles
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 04:43 PM
Should firearms be allowed or not?Your initial question for the poll was:


Your opinion on gun control?
Should be allowed
Should be disallowed
Uncertain
Don't care

That sounds like you asking, whether gun control should be allowed. But actually you want to know whether firearms should be allowed.

My answer: Yes, private answer of firearms should be allowed.

Rather remove individuals from society that "are likely to abuse firearms, or for that reason anything else".

Jäger
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 05:52 PM
...not to mention they are extremely usefull to combat home invasion.
I contest, I don't know how it is in the USA, but in Germany 90% of all housbreakings are commited wihtout the owners present. People who raid houses with the owners present enter under false allegations and trick the residents, it is actually highly unlikely that one will be able to defend his home with guns to such criminals.

The only convincing reason to me is for organized defense of an invasion of the country.

Guns are best to attack, so I also would think that the governmental overthrow thingy of the US constituion is a very good reason too, and thus I am pro gun. I voted Yes.

Erzherzog_Bernd
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 05:59 PM
The only convincing reason to me is for organized defense of an invasion of the country.

That is exactly why they WILL NOT allow it, especially when it comes to Europe or Germany.

ladybright
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 09:07 PM
I do not support expanding gun regulations in the US. I think that enforcing the laws that are already there might help but we do not need more hot air. I have only been to Ireland and England once as a teenager and could not give an informed opinion on what is best for european countries. European law systems are different than US law so I cannot see what the affects would be on allowing more guns. I support people's right to self defence but more guns is not nessasarily the answer.



They're at least banned to carry in public. And we don't have so many rifle clubs.
Just in Comparance with the United States weapons are rare stuff here.
In the USA if somebody pulls a weapon in public every 2nd person around him pulls his/her one out aiming at eachother. ;)
In germany weapons are banned in public.
Also weapons is a part of the US-Americans neo-culture.


Gruß,
Svartr

Guns are not that common here in my experience. Ihave only seen a gun being used irrisponibly on one occasion. The store I was working at got robbed.:| I am friends with several hunters and my father, brother and sister all shoot recreationally. I know several of my father's friends who collect guns as a hobby.My sister-in-law is president of the local SAS.:thumbup http://www.2asisters.org/ But then I do not go to the scary parts of Toledo or Detroit or Cleveland. Guns culture is exagerated in the media.

Berliners Remember
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 10:03 PM
I contest, I don't know how it is in the USA, but in Germany 90% of all housbreakings are commited wihtout the owners present. People who raid houses with the owners present enter under false allegations and trick the residents, it is actually highly unlikely that one will be able to defend his home with guns to such criminals.

The only convincing reason to me is for organized defense of an invasion of the country.

Guns are best to attack, so I also would think that the governmental overthrow thingy of the US constituion is a very good reason too, and thus I am pro gun. I voted Yes.


My father had to resort to this twice; once before I was born when a man trying to get into the house thankfully gave up (mabye because he was making too much noise trying to gain entry), but my dad stood in the hallway with the handgun.
Another time when I was much younger my dad chased away a potential burglar lurking around in a similar manner (get this, he actually arrested the man in the past for theft).

Around here, home invasions are not that common either. It's more often than not that the burglar will look into the kitchen window or backdoor looking to spot a purse, medication, or anything valuable laying out... somthing that would make for a quick grab and getaway, regardless of if the owner is home or away(although there have been attacks in and around my own neighborhood). So it is rare that they would want to stick around and harm you of your family, however, I would not want to take that chance -especially if I have a family of my own.

Allenson
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Well, I think I voted the wrong way due to a little confusion on my part with regards to the wording of the poll...

Anyway, being a rural white American, my answer should be quite obvious. ;)

I support the right to arm bears. ;)

http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/1038pArmBearsGray.jpg


"Rifle on my shoulder, six-shooter in my hand, Lord knows I've been all around this world..."

Jäger
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 02:14 PM
So it is rare that they would want to stick around and harm you of your family, however, I would not want to take that chance -especially if I have a family of my own.
Chances that you are the one actually hurting a family member, or family members hurting themselves with the gun, or even you, are not that low either.
It would be interesting to see statistics on that, although, who likes statistics ? :D

As I said, I am not against guns, and support the right to arm bears :) Yet, I simply think that this is not a good pro-argument, and that they are not "incredibly usefull" to do so.

Horagalles
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 03:48 PM
I contest, I don't know how it is in the USA, but in Germany 90% of all housbreakings are commited wihtout the owners present. People who raid houses with the owners present enter under false allegations and trick the residents, it is actually highly unlikely that one will be able to defend his home with guns to such criminals.
What gives you the idea that this percentage you gave is actually correct?! In South Africa we get a growing number of house-breakings/raids that are committed by gangs, when the residents are present.

The only convincing reason to me is for organized defense of an invasion of the country.... or against treason, tyranny etc. That is btw. the only plausible reason I can see, why rational thinking lobby groups would support more gun control. The Anti-Gun lobby inside the South African government even admitted this. They said openly that the FCA is aiming to get legally owned firearms out of the hands of lawabiding citizens. The act won't disarm criminals at all.


Guns are best to attack, so I also would think that the governmental overthrow thingy of the US constituion is a very good reason too, and thus I am pro gun. I voted Yes.And attack is the best defense;).

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Im staunchly against gun control. The notion of an armed citizenry, and it being the best guardians of liberty, is a notion that has a long tradition within our heritage: from the Greek hoplites, to the citizen-soldier of the Roman Republic, to the Fyrd and communal armies of the Medieval period, to colonial militias here in America.

It's a concept commonly called "civic militarism".


Anyways....here's food for thought LOL! :P

"Guns don't kill people. The government does."
-- Dale Gribble

fonze
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 06:59 PM
Yes, gun control should definetly be allowed. Proper aim is a must.

ipswich
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 12:04 AM
"The government has decided you are a social degenerate. Get your hands up. We have a shoot to kill policy. The adults are to leave the house first, then the children. You will march to the railway station, where you will embark for the 're-education camp'."

The Bolsheviks, Chairman Mao and Fidel all love gun control. Gun Control is dictatorship.

Siegfried
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 01:34 AM
The Bolsheviks, Chairman Mao and Fidel all love gun control. Gun Control is dictatorship.

If I'm not mistaken, Lenin argued in The State and Revolution in favour of the general armament of the people and the abolition of standing armies.

Leofric
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 06:27 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Lenin argued in The State and Revolution in favour of the general armament of the people and the abolition of standing armies.
Do you mean in this section?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s2

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 07:30 AM
In the USA there are really two gun issues. First, we fear our own government and always have so we reserve the right to "bear arms" --not just guns but "arms" as the army bears arms and the same weapons (this is exactly what our Constitution says). Second, we live in a multi-racial, multi-cultural society in which members of one group view the lives of non-members as being worth very little. Remarks about young black males being redundant are an example. For this reason, we fear criminal action being taken against us by non-whites and want to be able to defend ourselves with deadly force.

Hunting is a seperate issue in my mind. The right to bear arms concerns our rights to defend ourselves from other people.

Siegfried
Sunday, February 11th, 2007, 10:15 PM
Do you mean in this section?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s2

Hmm, perhaps. I thought it was more explicit than that, but it's been a long time since I read the book.

Papa Koos
Sunday, February 11th, 2007, 11:20 PM
I cannot imagine living in a society in which I'm not "allowed" to defend my kith & kin & property. I trust no man to do a better job than I.

I am armed and will always be. My firearms are not for hunting (unless I need food) or just for target practice (although if a person isn't willing to practice he has no business with a gun). The sole reason I am armed is for self defence, and I pray I'll never have to use my weapon for that serious purpose.

Enlil
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 12:19 AM
I do not think everyone in a society belong to the "warrior caste". Some people are fit to belong to the military and police forces, and they are the ones who should carry the guns. More guns in a society equals more risk for them falling in the wrong hands. I understand that you want to own a gun in America, since the risk of meeting someone with a gun is higher, but here it's not very common, so less gun control would first and foremost benefit the criminals, since stolen weapons etc would become much more common.

Horagalles
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 01:00 PM
I do not think everyone in a society belong to the "warrior caste". Some people are fit to belong to the military and police forces, and they are the ones who should carry the guns. More guns in a society equals more risk for them falling in the wrong hands. I understand that you want to own a gun in America, since the risk of meeting someone with a gun is higher, but here it's not very common, so less gun control would first and foremost benefit the criminals, since stolen weapons etc would become much more common.... Free people should be allowed to own firearms. Gun Control does actually harm the victims and is a benefit for criminals, since it lowers their risk of getting shot.
The reason for less violent crime in Sveden is not "Gun Control".

As I understand it your country is a socalled "welfare state". What this means in practice, is that predation on taxpayers is made even made easier for those who want. Some people call this "social rights".

Any free person should know how to use firearms and at least own one. That is the only feasible way of controlling social predators be it criminals or be it "government".

Enlil
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 04:19 PM
... Free people should be allowed to own firearms. Gun Control does actually harm the victims and is a benefit for criminals, since it lowers their risk of getting shot.
Less guns in a society also lowers the risk of anyone getting shot.



The reason for less violent crime in Sveden is not "Gun Control".

Of course not only, but it is a fact that with more guns violence increases. Until recently Police in Norway didn't even carry guns, they had it in the trunk of the car until they had to do something really dangerous. The morals most thieves actually had back then prevented them from getting shot anyway. However, with increased immigration the new citizens don't have this respect for authority and the society, or for human life, as even our own criminals often have.



As I understand it your country is a socalled "welfare state". What this means in practice, is that predation on taxpayers is made even made easier for those who want. Some people call this "social rights".

Any free person should know how to use firearms and at least own one. That is the only feasible way of controlling social predators be it criminals or be it "government".
This is your way of viewing the society. I understand that you get shaped from living in an extremely violent enviroment, and that you feel the need to protect yourself when everyone else has guns. However, this is not the case where I'm from. At least not yet, but we're getting our share of Africans and Arabs here too now so soon maybe I'll have to join your crowd of pro-gun policies.. :-(

Papa Koos
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 04:53 PM
Enlil,
You said (paraphrased) where there are more guns there's more gun violence. Could it be that societies in which there is much violence more guns are needed?
I grew up in a Southern community back in the 50s. All males always carried knifes in their pockets (to school and church and everywhere else). Most men kept rifles or shotguns in their trucks, and often the ladies kept pistols in the glove compartment of their cars (especially when travelling.

We had very little crime...I wonder why.

Papa Koos
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Of course, that was a gentler, saner, more moral era. Now guns or not we cannot leave our homes or cars unlocked, we cannot let our children run free in the neighbourhood, we cannot walk unarmed in our towns and cities at night.

I''m describing 21st century life in America (the Great Melting Pot!) I hope life in Sweden is and remains safe.

Prost!
Klaus

Horagalles
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 07:04 AM
Less guns in a society also lowers the risk of anyone getting shot. Of course not only, but it is a fact that with more guns violence increases. .... If this would be true more people should get shot in Switzerland and there should be more violence in Switzerland then anywhere else. Remember every citizen in Switzerland is required to have at least one automatic gun in his home.

I repeat: There is no positive correlation between gun ownership by citizens in a society and the levels of violence. We already had this debate in South Africa. Virtually no violent crimes are committed with legally owned firearms. If criminals want guns, they'll get them anyway. Depending on how timid the population is, they actually don't even need them....

You pointed out one important thing here. (Illegal) immigrants do not respect the established authority.

Jäger
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 08:38 AM
Remember every citizen in Switzerland is required to have at least one automatic gun in his home.
Only the men who served as conscripts. And the guns are sealed, with random sampling occuring to control the seal. Just for the record.


I repeat: There is no positive correlation between gun ownership by citizens in a society and the levels of violence.
This is true.


If criminals want guns, they'll get them anyway.
With strict gun controls it will be a lot harder for them though, and more risk involved, thus deter some not so convinced criminals from that. A criminal who has to reckon with a law abinding citizen to have a gun, will get one too, if not then maybe not. What actually correlates is the usage of guns in relation to gun laws (or better put its enforcment), the die hard criminals who want to kill, pillage and rape, certainly have other factors than "gun laws".

But yeah, I reapeat, I am for guns :) Actually, I would do it like Switzerland, maybe without the sealing.

Huzar
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 08:53 AM
I'm substantially against the guns diffusion in the civil population. The only people allowed to have guns, are the members of military and police forces, with few exceptions.


Guys, i understand the reasons of the "pro-guns" of you ; i understand the cultural tie between fire weapons and particular nations (U.S., f ex.), and i respect it, but personally, i read too many tragic stories and cases on the subject to be favourable about the freedom of having guns.

Veritas Æquitas
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 09:01 AM
A truly free person is an armed person. Every weapon (Firearm) the government is allowed to have should be obtainable reasonably easy and legally sanctioned by those in power. Tyrants are forever in fear of an armed people. If you're not allowed to have a firearm, then you're being deprived of your right to live without fear of anybody and are forcefully being denied your right to defend you and yours from a potentially armed intruder. Just because you don't have a gun, doesn't mean you can't be killed by one. I wonder how many of our folk who were murdered in cold blood thought to themselves, "gee whiz, I wish I wasn't such a liberal hippy" while laying prostrate and helpless tied up, gaged, watching their wife and daughter being savagely raped and slowly beaten to death by armed thugs who wouldn't take two breaths before they stop you walking down the street and snatch your watch from you at gunpoint. Quite a percentage I'd wager. This stuff happens often in America, and I'm sure it happens even more often in South Africa.

Wake up people, we're in new worlds now. Me having a gun ensures that I will never live to see that brought to my doorstep and forced on my family - Not while I still breathe. Plain and simple. And no one will rob me of that right.

Seriously, gun control I agree with .. aim is very important ;)

Jäger
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 09:15 PM
Tyrants are forever in fear of an armed people.
Well, yes, but why would they rely on gun control? We just learned that every "criminal" can get guns easily, didn't we?


Me having a gun ensures that I will never live to see that brought to my doorstep and forced on my family - Not while I still breathe. Plain and simple.
Maybe they will honorably challenge you to a duell, but more likely is that they just try to trick you, and overwhlem you , if they really wanted to, or are you more talking about a "Night of the Living Dead" scenario, just with Crack-Niggers instead of Zombies? I would by that from Horagalles, but in Canada?
Do you always pull a gun when someone knocks at your door?

Sorry but that is just too much of an exaggeration.

Guns are tools, and dagerous ones, so it should be licenesed (like cars), I really like the model of Switzerland, every military man gets one, to defend country, not home.
He might be lucky if he can defend his home with it, but it is just to unliekely to be a major arguemnt in the sake of free guns for everyone.

For defense and fights I would recommend batons and thrustings :) They do have honor, ah good old times when the crossbow was outlawed and only for the despicable.

Veritas Æquitas
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 10:04 AM
Well for starters I am not a criminal So where else would you go to aquire adequate protection without breaking the law? And besides your average gang-banging criminal isn't much interested in who's in power, therefore those in power aren't that much interested in them when looking at the security of their own office. They say gun control is part of fighting crime on the streets but rather it's to further manipulate power for themselves (or rather the for interest of Zionism) while keeping guns out of the hands of those who could possibly threaten their control. The best way to protect their power is to keep the weapons for themselves and out of the hands of law-biding (although dissident) people. Now if our government is suppose to be acting for our interests, and acting on our demands, don't you think there should be some way of reminding them of that fact? I mean, no offense, but I don't think your retractable baton is going to do much good for you in that respect. In your country you may or may not agree with the fact that your government can drag you away in chains for being dissident, but I certainly don't, and I wouldn't stand around and wait for a Hitler in my country to come and take away my right of self determination, tell me how I should act, and what to say and where.

Jäger
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 10:42 AM
Well for starters I am not a criminal So where else would you go to aquire adequate protection without breaking the law?
If you were under a tyrant ruler, he wouldn't mind "law abiding" citizens, since these would be the guys who follow his law, logically the ones he would fear are the criminals, the ones who don't do what his law says, and they are the ones who always can get guns, don't they?


Now if our government is suppose to be acting for our interests, and acting on our demands, don't you think there should be some way of reminding them of that fact?
Yes, the leader's principle works good in this regard. Parliamentarism doesn't, even coupled with lax gun control, as we can see in Canada and the USA.


In your country you may or may not agree with the fact that your government can drag you away in chains for being dissident, but I certainly don't ...
You are telling me, that if the police knocks at your door, and asks you to follow them, because you are under suspicion to have done some things, let's say being part of a terrorist organization, you would start a shoot out with them?


I wouldn't stand around and wait for a Hitler in my country to come and take away my right of self determination, tell me how I should act, and what to say and where.
Although, Hitler brought self determination back to the German people, and to the individual, I won't argue with you here on this thread, you just wait on your guns, untill someone knocks at your door.
Anyway, you do know that Hitler wanted every man over 17 to have a gun? Seems these kind of things don't correlate, as was my case from the beginning.

Horagalles
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 01:53 PM
[/size]
If you were under a tyrant ruler, he wouldn't mind "law abiding" citizens, since these would be the guys who follow his law, logically the ones he would fear are the criminals, the ones who don't do what his law says, and they are the ones who always can get guns, don't they?.....I think he might have meant something else by law in this case. Something more in the line of common laws. Common laws originate from the customs of a people. Those laws were the way people were expected to ruled by... A tyrant can actually be derscribed as someone exercising power against this kind of laws.

Jäger
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 03:14 PM
I think he might have meant something else by law in this case. Something more in the line of common laws.
This is not important for my point, or can you tell me how "common law" is enforced? If common law gives me the right to bear arms, and a leader would change that, then what? Then I will be an law abinding citizen by still having guns? Why is there then a difference between law abinding citizens with guns and with no guns, since law abinding citizen always would have guns then. So no worries either ;)
Or how is common law changed?
The whole point of this is that "law abinding" citizens would refrain from aquireing guns because it is against the law, thus he can't have meant what you said :)

Leofric
Sunday, February 25th, 2007, 04:54 PM
This is not important for my point, or can you tell me how "common law" is enforced? If common law gives me the right to bear arms, and a leader would change that, then what? Then I will be an law abinding citizen by still having guns? Why is there then a difference between law abinding citizens with guns and with no guns, since law abinding citizen always would have guns then. So no worries either ;)
Or how is common law changed?
The whole point of this is that "law abinding" citizens would refrain from aquireing guns because it is against the law, thus he can't have meant what you said :)
Common law is traditionally enforced against tyranical encroachment by juries. It was once common for juries to rule not only on guilt (or proving of guilt) or innocence, but also on the validity of the law. They could decide that even though the defendant unquestionably violated a given statute, the statute itself was what was criminal in the case and so overturn the statute in favor of the man.

The full-fledged jury is an integral part of Anglo-Saxon common law, and without it, it's difficult to keep the common law alive. The best hope their is that some ivory-tower judge will actually care about the common law.

In the United States, the loss of the juries' traditional power has been replaced with encoding of the old common law, which is patently silly, since the common law is specifically the law that we all know but that's not codified. Nevertheless, each state writes up statutes to explain what the common law is in that state. The whole thing is hogwash, but without real juries, it's tough to do anything about it.

Theudanaz
Sunday, February 25th, 2007, 08:50 PM
Woops I thought the poll meant "should gun control... be allowed" etc. i.e. should we be allowed to regulate firearms. i think homemade firearms should not be regulated but manufactured firearms and ammunition should be.

Oblomov
Tuesday, February 27th, 2007, 03:50 PM
I'm in favour of gun control, but that doesn't mean I am against gun ownership.

Gun control does not equal the banning of gun ownership.

Unrestricted gun ownership seems like a recipe for disaster to me. It may feel safer to be able to carry a gun around with you, but the fact is 'the other guy' will also be much more likely to be carrying a gun. That kind of 'ups the stakes' of a violent conflict.

SmokyGod
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 06:53 AM
Should firearms be allowed or not?

Hell yes!

People who comply with gun laws are law-abiding citizens. As such, they are not apt to commit murder. The type of people who are likely to rape, rob, and kill are most likely going to ignore gun laws, don't you think? Thus, gun laws only serve to limit the liberties of those who wouldn't have used them to commit a crime anyway!

torlundy
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 10:45 AM
Should firearms be allowed or not?

We should all have the right to be armed - or rather, it is up to us, as individuals, to decide whether we want to be armed. It should not be up to any supra personal "authority" such as a government, elected, or not. Governments treat us more and more like children - deciding what we can and can't do.

The choice should be ours - not something imposed upon us. We should know how to use them, and be prepared to use them, if necessary, in self defense.

True justice, IMHO, resides in individuals who are fair; it does not reside in some law or some Court, and can't be imposed by some "authority".