PDA

View Full Version : The Right to Bear Arms



anonymaus
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 05:09 PM
Up until a decade or so ago it made sense to allow the authorities to have a monopoly on the use of force.

I don't think that is - or ever was - sensible, sensical, or in any way justifiable. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Allowing ANY state to have that much an imbalance of power over the electorate which empowers it is the opposite of sanity--and freedom.


It's not possible to solve a problem that doesn't officially exist.

Can't argue with that! Every Western nation has this ethereal problem.

Heidenlord
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Sorry to hear about your situation, Eldritch, especially since you aren't allowed to have weapons of any sort. Pepper spray classed as a firearm? Good grief. :rolleyes:


Your right, and I thought England was bad with this crap.

Got to love America...I can go to a store less than 5km from my house and buy a semi-automatic Ak-47 for $400 and the government doesn't have to know anything about it (they only do checks on handguns here), and I think they still have too many firearm laws.

Arcturus
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Your right, and I though England was bad with this crap.
Personally I don't think there's a need for more. I am fully comfortable with the thought that if I want mace/pepper-spray (not sure about tazers) all I need to do is go get a permit.

Got to love America...I can go to a store less than 5km from my house and buy a semi-automatic Ak-47 for $400 and the government doesn't have to know anything about it (they only do checks on handguns here), and I think they still have too many firearm laws.
Yeah, knowing that anyone (http://fredmclain.com/~mclain/pics/104_0487.JPG) can do just that would make me feel really safe.
:coffee:
I don't even want to think what that would do to our murder/accidental death/suicide/injury statistics.

Heidenlord
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 06:50 PM
I don't even want to think what that would do to our murder/accidental death/suicide/injury statistics.

Well there are plenty of areas in america that are as european racially as anywhere in Finland where gun ownership is very high and I think you will find that there really isn't that much gun related death there; especially considering that europeans just do everything better to begin with, so they would have to kill themselves and each other less than americans, right?;)


Personally I don't think there's a need for more. I am fully comfortable with the thought that if I want mace/pepper-spray (not sure about tazers) all I need to do is go get a permit.

Do you also have to ask permission use the restroom because you might squirt someone with your firearm?

palesye
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 06:53 PM
Personally I don't think there's a need for more. I am fully comfortable with the thought that if I want mace/pepper-spray (not sure about tazers) all I need to do is go get a permit.

Yeah, knowing that anyone (http://fredmclain.com/~mclain/pics/104_0487.JPG) can do just that would make me feel really safe.
:coffee:
I don't even want to think what that would do to our murder/accidental death/suicide/injury statistics.

Hm, as far as I know, in Estonia it is legal to own weapons. Why not to look at their statistics and compare it with Finnish (if there is such statistics of course).

Arcturus
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Hm, as far as I know, in Estonia it is legal to own weapons. Why not to look at their statistics and compare it with Finnish (if there is such statistics of course).
I've never said it isn't legal to own firearms; it is illegal to own them without a permit.

palesye
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 06:56 PM
I've never said it isn't legal to own firearms; it is illegal to own them without a permit.

Ah, well, permission is necessary of course, in my opinion.

Heidenlord
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 06:58 PM
I apologize for my comment about buying guns to protect myself wasn't meant to derail Blutwölfin's thread.

---Edit though I would love to discuss gun rights in another thread.

anonymaus
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 07:16 PM
I would love to discuss gun rights in another thread.

HIM
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 08:45 PM
Yeah, knowing that anyone (http://fredmclain.com/~mclain/pics/104_0487.JPG) can do just that would make me feel really safe.
:coffee:


Wow, I wonder if that's the original artwork in that photo. I am a huge fan of Hieronymus Bosch! I especially like the far right panel of that particular piece. :)

perkele14
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 08:50 PM
1994, Finland, Firearms/ household: 23.2%
Firearm homicide 0.86 (per 100 000)
Non-gun homicide 2.38 (per 100 000)

(The United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation reports Finland's gun ownership rate at 50% of households)

source (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)

RedJack
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 09:07 PM
As far as I am concerned all registering your firearm (or getting a permit for it) does is let the gov't know where to find them when they come to confiscate them.

Heidenlord
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 11:24 PM
As far as I am concerned all registering your firearm (or getting a permit for it) does is let the gov't know where to find them when they come to confiscate them.

That is what they did in England isn't it?

Heidenlord
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 03:58 PM
1994, Finland, Firearms/ household: 23.2%
Firearm homicide 0.86 (per 100 000)
Non-gun homicide 2.38 (per 100 000)

(The United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation reports Finland's gun ownership rate at 50% of households)

source (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)


very interesting statistic...

America's murder rate would look a lot different if we could factor out gang and drug murders...


From interacting with Europeans on the internet and at school I have come to determine the two biggest cultural differences between them and me (remember I grew up in the conservative country surrounded by farmers and hicks) is gun-rights and socialism (actually the proper size of government and how much they should interfer with daily life).

I also have another reason for my solid belief in the right to posses instruments of deadly force, a reason that is based on history. I see the gun as a modern day sword, and I see the gun as a symbol of rank just like the sword was back in the ancient times. Just as my ancient ancestors believed a man without a sword is a slave (thrall), i also believe.

Now don't anyone give me this luddite, japanese-way-of-thinking-before-Perry-pulled-into-port crap about guns not being swords and that you own a sword. If you are foolish enough to believe that our ancestors didn't drop their stone axe for a copper one, and the for a iron one then I am not sure we can talk to each other. A fondness for technology has been one of our distinguishing traits.

I read somewhere that William the Conqueror issued an eddict which simply stated that if a man wanted to free his slave, all he had to do was give him a sword. No paper work, no ceremonies...just a sword.

I stand by my conviction that a gun is a modern day sword, and those who do not own one or cannot own one are 21st century thralls. In the ancient days it was weapons; the right to own them and the know how to use one that created the noble class. If you have to ask permission to own a modern day sword then you are not free, you are a slave who must seek protection from someone else.

I find it hard to believe that some people would espouse so much respect for the wisdom of the ancients while forgetting or even denigrating the thing they held the most reverence for...their weapon. I don't recall any sagas being written about thralls.

Heidenlord
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 04:07 PM
As far as I am concerned all registering your firearm (or getting a permit for it) does is let the gov't know where to find them when they come to confiscate them.

I don't know why Lei didn't post this but this is what he said to me about the effects of telling the government who own guns...


and australia destroyed (even!) antique non-operational guns, utilising the permits and registration system. some of those museum-quality pieces were priceless. that is correct - they were not allowed to ship them out of the country to preserve them.

Heidenlord
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Another reason I think that the whole belief that if society was totally armed that chaos would ensue is foolish especially in central to northern european societies.

Cars!

Just think about it...

Everyone has one, but I have never seen a fatal accident happen...How many cars have driven by me in my life? 10,000,000? I have driven by maybe 30 fatal accident scenes in my life... 30 out of 10,000,000+ isn't that bad of odds. It takes a lot more skill to handle a car safely than it does a gun. Also when one takes into account that one constantly uses a car and one doesn't constantly use a gun, it naturally lends itself to the logic than guns would produce even less accidental death than cars.

I mean Acturus's anecdotal evidence with photo of chain-mail dude in my mind is just as scarry if he had a steering wheel in his hand. In fact, it is more scarry. That gun isn't going to give him a ride to my house, but his car surely will.

I am just basically saying that I don't get the arugment that all people become crazed maniacs when given a gun. If that was true, I would think that it would be the same with cars, and last time I checked the highway system is able to ferry people from one end of this country to the other with relatively few hangups. I mean it isn't a jungle on the interstate, it might be a little hectic but it functions pretty damn well all things considered.

Arcturus
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 06:01 PM
Cars need to be registered in order for you to legally drive them, cars need to be insured for you to legally drive them, cars require you take a course and by passing are given a driver's license in order for you to legally drive them. Cars (here) need to pass a yearly inspection to make sure they're safe in order for you to legally drive them.

I won't even comment on the fact that you've driven past some 30 fatal car crashes.:speechles

Death and the Sun
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Also, a car's purpose is to get people from point A to point B. A gun's purpose is to kill or threaten someone. You can use a car to kill someone too, but that is not its intended purpose.

RedJack
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 08:50 PM
Heidenlord makes some excellent points. I've often wondered why people get so freaked out thinking about their neighbours having guns and think nothing of them driving a car. Arc, I don't agree with the government requiring the registration of cars, either. But, let's not forget that you only need to register it if you intend to drive it on a public road. You can own as many cars as you like and don't need to tell the gov't about them or ask anyone's permission. I won't get into my opinion of compulsory insurance.
It's not that difficult to learn to use a firearm safely. Learning to be a crack shot will take lots of time and practice but learning to operate the mechanism safely is rather easy. I don't see any need for a government test to prove your competence. It's too easy for them to make the test excessively stringent or expensive as a way of denying you the permit.
When i was a kid long guns were uncontrolled here. You could go into any of six stores on the main street of my home town and buy any rifle or shotgun you wanted (except so-called assault rifles) without even telling the store clerk your name. Most of the pick up trucks on main street had a gun rack in the back window and were unlocked. There were no shooting frenzies or shootouts in our town. I never saw anyone even hint that they were going to use a gun as a weapon except in the gravest emergency. But I'm willing to bet that any potential bank robbers would have thought twice about robbing a bank in any small town of that era. Nobody wants to get shot by Farmer Jones.

Arcturus
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 09:00 PM
Arc, I don't agree with the government requiring the registration of cars, either. But, let's not forget that you only need to register it if you intend to drive it on a public road. You can own as many cars as you like and don't need to tell the gov't about them or ask anyone's permission.
Sure, same here. If you want to drive back and forth on your own driveway or stretch of road on your land, go for it; have fun. Enjoy.

I won't get into my opinion of compulsory insurance.
So if you happen to lose control of your car (pick any reason) and skid into a family of five, injuring someone and demolishing their 2y/o sedan with your 2 ton pickup (or take any other cars if you wish) that's just too damn bad for them. Or I suppose you can just pop open a floorboard in your living room and take out the equivalent sum and all is well?

Atleast over here;the mandatory traffic insurance is mainly not for you, but for those you cause damage to.

Edit:This whole discussion is a bit off-topic.

RedJack
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 09:15 PM
Atleast over here;the mandatory traffic insurance is mainly not for you, but for those you cause damage to.

Edit:This whole discussion is a bit off-topic.

Why not insure yourself instead of the other guy? Then it can be voluntary and the insurance industry would have to be more realistic and competitive. This whole mandatory insurance lark was originally passed so some greedy bastards could sell insurance to people who didn't want it.

Heidenlord
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 08:18 PM
While you are right Arc about one needs to get permission from the government to drive but my basic point was that cars are weapons and take more skill to control than a gun and on America's highways the transit system more or less works. While that might not be proof in your mind, it is proof in my mind. The majority of people don't become crazed race drivers when they hop into a car, and I doubt the majority of people would become crazed killers if given a gun; in fact I know it because I have lived in South Carolina and Wyoming and non-gun owners are the minority there; the liberal anti-gunners are rare as unicorns there. In fact, In America the safest places are the red state gun zones, and the most dangerous are where liberal politicians hold sway and have instituted laws where people have to ask "permission" to own a gun.

Now as Lei.talk has already pointed out that "permission" to own guns was nothing but a trail to lead the government right to your guns much like "permission" to drive is a trail for bigbrother to follow your every movement (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=12180). These two examples should be enough to cure anyone of their trust of big government. But I think it boils down to trust... I trust my fellow citizens of European descent and not the government. What I hear from the other side is a distrust of fellow countrymen and a faith in the wisdom of the government. I feel safer knowing that people in my neighborhood are guns owners, and I am glad they didn't have to jump through some liberal's flaming hoop to get permission to own those guns especially since the damn liberal is more concerned with the person attacking me or my neighbors than they are with my safety. Of course I realize that preaching to europeans about the beauty of the 2nd amendment is probably the most sisyphean of tasks.

I believe that Europe, especially the member states of the EU, are the forefront of the NWO or JewWorldOrder as I like to call it. They can't defend their lives without permission, they can't speak their minds (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=12138) without permission, certain parties (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=131035#post131035) can't be voted for without permission. I've even read about preachers doing time in Sweden for saying that homosexualism is a sin! This is surprising to some americans who never thought about the lack of freedoms we take for granted over here (these same americans would be wise to observe politics in Europe to see what our elites have planned for us), but what is really surprising to me is how many Europeans actually defend it!

007 I commend you for seeing through the lies. I commend you for having the courage to say "the Emperor wears no clothes!" Our governments suck, but one doesn't have to like it and defend it.

Arcturus
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 09:47 PM
*sigh*

IMHO:

Cars are weapons as much as a toothbrush or a piece of rope is. Most anything CAN be a weapon if so wished.

Do guns automatically transform people into crazed killers? Of course not.

Do I feel people should be allowed to own weapons? Yes, why not.

Do I feel some people shouldn’t have the right (as you Americans so like to say) to own weapons? Yes, I do. A background check when purchasing firearms is something I agree with totally.

Could guns be made safer with e.g. a child-lock of some sort? Definetly, a child may have ‘right’ to open the rear door of a car in motion, but I’d much prefer there was a child-lock on it.

Should there be a limit to the amounts of guns and ammo in the possession of a person/group? Yes.

Fully-automatic weapons? Please… you don’t need them for hunting, and I sure as hell don’t want to live in a neighbourhood where someone has one of these in their possession. In the case of defending yourself you’re lucky to hit your assailant even once, and where do all the rest of those bullets end up? An assault rifle can fire a round through a moderate size tree-trunk; normal house walls aren’t going to be much of an obstacle.

I have made my points, and won’t go on with this pointless discussion. Luckily the second amendment doesn’t affect my life in the least, with the exception of adding to news bulletins.

anonymaus
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 09:59 PM
Simple background checks and a waiting period are nothing the NRA or any other pro-gun groups should fear. The leftists in the U.S. have been trying to push Americans down the slippery slope of outlawing guns for years, and have had no success. The U.S. constitution is there for a reason, and Americans should be glad there are some constitutionalist judges on the Supreme Court.

Automatic rifles should certainly require training and licensing, as any dangerous weapon should. That said there is no real need for citizens to own them. Any gun is very dangerous, even unintentionally, because bullets go through walls, metal, glass and people; often causing collateral damage and infringing on the rights of others to live happily and healthy.

Knives aren't as dangerous because as hard as you try, you can't stab someone who outruns you--and if you throw the knife, you can injure one person but leave yourself defenseless. Knives and swords have no ammunition.

I do feel strongly, however, that all legitimate citizens should own at least one gun for the protection of their home and property. The only bone of contention is keeping it loaded at all times, and trigger-locks, etc. Those issues will be debated forever, but being able to protect one's self and one's family should never be debated. It *should* be a right in any FREE country.

Heidenlord
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 10:07 PM
It *should* be a right in any FREE country.

Thankyou dear sir, the key word being Free.

Heidenlord
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 10:09 PM
I have made my points, and won’t go on with this pointless discussion.

You are right, except I liked the term sisyphean better. Europe would sooner find a way to reanimate Hitler, bring back the SS, and kick out the brown skinned immigrant before they every trusted their own people with powerful weapons.

Heidenlord
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 10:13 PM
An assault rifle can fire a round through a moderate size tree-trunk; normal house walls aren’t going to be much of an obstacle.

Any decent sized hunting rifle worth being called a rifle can do more. That is the problem with the whole liberal bs about "assualt rifles" versus "hunting rifles". Anyone who hunts knows that high powered hunting rifles have 2 to 3 times the power any assault rifle has, 2 to 3 times the range, and many times the accuracy.

Just for your information fully-auto is illegal here, much to my chagrin.

Just for your information I have used a mini-14 to hunt deer before. Don't tell me I can't hunt with an "assualt rifle".

http://www.gunlex.cz/semiauto_rifles/mini-14.jpg

That deer wasn't getting away...just glad I was in the middle of the boonnies in Texas, a long ways away from a game warden.

Arcturus
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 10:24 PM
Anyone who hunts knows that high powered hunting rifles have 2 to 3 times the power any assault rifle has, 2 to 3 times the range, and many times the accuracy.
See point 2.

Just for your information fully-auto is illegal here, much to my chagrin.
Just for your information I have used a mini-14 to hunt deer before. Don't tell me I can't hunt with an "assualt rifle".
I'm sure you would be fully capable of hunting deer with a bazooka, should one be handed to you. Or with a grenade launhcer. Or with a 1996 Chevy Lumina. As in point 1, that wasn't really the point, now was it. The point was a whole clip being emptied insead of 1-3 bullets being fired, and that you hardly need an automatic rifle for hunting.

RedJack
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005, 02:31 AM
You might not need them for hunting but one of them would sure come in handy if the uruks attacked in force. ;)

Heidenlord
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005, 04:30 AM
Well Arc I will agree with you in one case...I believe it is ok for communities to outlaw firearms or any other nuisance they deem necessary to outlaw, but only for communities. I believe it is wrong to deny this right at the national level.

Background checks if based on just a criminal record are something I can live with, but only for handguns like they do here in America. I don't feel that there is any extra gun violence which could be prevented because rifles and shotguns are not run through a background check.

Heidenlord
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005, 04:39 AM
You might not need them for hunting but one of them would sure come in handy if the uruks attacked in force. ;)


Yeah that is a good point...what would the riots across France been like if the citizens had been armed and ready to use them against the scum? They might of found their 2nd Charles Martel, rather than look like all the frenchmen who have existed after the ones that served Napoleon.

DreamWalker
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005, 04:56 AM
Yeah that is a good point...what would the riots across France been like if the citizens had been armed and ready to use them against the scum? They might of found their 2nd Charles Martel, rather than look like all the frenchmen who have existed after the ones that served Napoleon.
Yes, during the 90's riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict, the police mostly sat around on their thumbs, the rioting was stopped by Asian merchants defending their stores in the black areas by shooting looters, and WN's who were shooting blacks for sport:D

Heidenlord
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005, 05:02 AM
Yes, during the 90's riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict, the police mostly sat around on their thumbs, the rioting was stopped by Asian merchants defending their stores in the black areas by shooting looters, and WN's who were shooting blacks for sport:D


Ahh yes... I had forgotten temporarily about that...I think it was effective enough to illicit a response from Ice-Cube...just did a little searching and found it
Every time I want to go get a fucking brew
I gotta go down to the store with the two
Oriental one-penny-counting motherfuckers;
They make a nigger mad enough to cause a little ruckus.
Thinking every brother in the world�s out to take,
So they watch every damn move that I make.
They hope I don�t pull out a Gat, try to rob
Their funky little store but, bitch, I got a job.

So don�t follow me up and down your market
Or your little chop suey ass will be a target
Of a nationwide boycott.
Juice with the people, that�s what the boy got.
So pay respect to the black fist
Or we�ll burn your store right down to a crisp.
And then we�ll see ya�
�Cause you can�t turn the ghetto into black Korea.
----"Black Korea" by Ice Cube, from the 1991 album, Death Certificate.

Not bad little yellow dudes...you have done what American or Europe hasn't done for awhile...

RedJack
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005, 08:25 PM
Yes, I remember seeing some news clips of those little blokes shooting looters. Hehe, they all have military training from their national service.

Nightmare_Gbg
Wednesday, November 23rd, 2005, 11:40 AM
Yes, I remember seeing some news clips of those little blokes shooting looters. Hehe, they all have military training from their national service.

I saw that too.it was on a U.S news broadcast.A korean on the roof of his liqour-store with a mini-14.This whole controvercy about guns and violence is too centred on the U.S.There are contrys with more liberal gun-laws then the states but without the gun violence.If i remember correctly you can own assult-weapons in Switzerland and there are plenty of guns there but almost no gun related murders.The problem with gun violence in the U.S is more about their society than about their gun-laws,there seems to be an aura of fear running right thru it.I'm all for gun ownership but i do want the authoritys to make a background checks before issuing a permit for them.

candiate
Wednesday, November 23rd, 2005, 12:56 PM
I don't think that is - or ever was - sensible, sensical, or in any way justifiable. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Allowing ANY state to have that much an imbalance of power over the electorate which empowers it is the opposite of sanity--and freedom.



Can't argue with that! Every Western nation has this ethereal problem.

That makes real sense and is why I own three legally held guns:animal-sm

anonymaus
Thursday, December 8th, 2005, 09:00 PM
Firearms and freedom are the hot topic this week, as the incumbent Liberal party here in Soviet Canuckistan pledged to "Ban handguns" in order to stop gun crime. Brilliant plan! No, really! :rolleyes:


The Liberal government is addressing the escalation of gun violence in Canadian cities by proposing an immediate ban on handguns as part of a five-part strategy to make our communities safer, Prime Minister Paul Martin announced in Toronto today.

First off I would like to point out that we are in an election right now. Parliament is dissolved. The arrogance of these Liberal criminals to presume to call themselves the gov't during an election is astounding. Next I will point out the obvious: this isn't going to help anything. 84% of gun crimes in Canada are committed with illegal and unregistered firearms.

In response to this ridiculous attempt at snatching away our ability to defend ourselves, our families and our property the Conservative Party has released the following Q&A:


How much have firearm offences decreased in the UK since handguns were banned?

They didn't. They almost doubled. (National Post, October 28, 2005)

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by lawful registered handguns in Canada?

Where police have detailed firearm information, 84% of homicides were committed with unregistered firearms and four of every five (79%) accused persons did not possess a valid firearms license. (Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statisics)

How much has Canada's homicide rate risen in the past year?

12% (Statistics Canada)

What are the sentences for the trafficking in illegal firearms, including assault rifles?

Minimum sentence of only one year

How many unfilled RCMP positions are there currently in Canada?

1,059 (Tabled in Parliament on November 14, 2005 by Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan)

What happened to Canada's Ports Police, which once patrolled and protected against gun smuggling?

Dismantled in 1997 by the Liberal government

What powers do Customs officials have to fight gun smuggling at our borders?

No powers of arrest

Did Mr. Martin's Bill C-82, introduced on November 25, 2005, propose to toughen violent gun crime penalties?

No

Did Mr. Martin's Bill C-82, introduced on November 25, 2005, propose to toughen penalties for serious drug offences?

No

How many illegal firearms are there in Canada, according to federal government agencies?

They have no idea

This is merely a rung on the ladder of socialist tyranny which the Lie-berals have been climbing steadily over the past dozen years. Over the past half decade the Liberals instituted and enforced a CDN$2B Long-Gun Registry "to help curb gun violence"; you heard right. More than 5 years and two billion dollars to, at best, stop less than 15% of gun crime in the country. I think I needn't inform you that the registry was ineffectual. Crime has increased steadily since its inception. It is a $2B boondoggle and served no obvious purpose--but it was the first step towards taking guns away from the public entirely.

To the credit of the majority of Canadians who have spoken up about this, they are wholly against this policy of gun-bans and invasive registries. Some issues seem to bring out the raw engrained conservatism in this country more than others, and this is one such issue. If only there were more.

anonymaus
Thursday, December 8th, 2005, 09:23 PM
Important reading on this subject:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=135379#post135379

newenstad
Friday, December 9th, 2005, 01:01 AM
If i remember correctly you can own assult-weapons in Switzerland and there are plenty of guns there but almost no gun related murders.

If you had spent a certain time in the army and in the reserve you were allowed to take "your" weapon home. I don´t know if the changed the law. Maybe I´ll check it...

newenstad
Friday, December 9th, 2005, 01:07 AM
They got their assault rifle for free after their army-retirement ...:O
324'484 assault rifles and other weapons being held from former soldiers...

And it was legal to sell the weapons (but the wanted to change that law last year...)

Deary
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 03:17 AM
A staple of any debate of American law; do you oppose or support the right to own a firearm? Is the law unshakable? Should it be abolished or have more restrictions placed on it? To Europeans on the forum, how do you perceive America's gun laws?

Please share your opinions.

Freydis
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 04:00 AM
I don't see it as a necessary right. Maybe it's to do with living in Canada, but we are fine killing each other without guns. Or with illegal guns imported from the US.

Abolishment won't help. Restrictions might. Gun amnesty day works pretty well too.

I perceive the laws as conduisive to a lot of idiocy.

Galloglaich
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 04:06 AM
I'm an American and I unequivocally support the right to keep and bear arms. Not only do I feel that it is an American right and tradition (guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution), but that we inherited this right from our Germanic ancestors; to whom it was not only a right, but often a duty. I don't really understand why the Europeans in general have failed to uphold their cultural birthright in this regard. I don't trust any institution (local, state, or federal) to protect my personal well-being or my possessions better than I do. Owning (and knowing how to use) a weapon makes me an asset to not only my family and other loved ones, but also to the upkeep of our national security as well. I have already used a firearm in the defense of my property. I am unshakeable in the importance of this liberty. Go ahead, call me a "barbarian", I don't care. When someone is attempting to break into your house at 3:00 a.m. it is a lot more reassuring to know that you can protect yourself and your loved ones.

I don't believe in restrictions either. Anyone willing to commit a crime against me isn't going to be concerned about capacity limits or any other inane law.

Freydis
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 04:32 AM
Because you can totally protect yourself with it locked in a safe.

A gun is something to be earned, a privlege, in my opinion. If every idiot can own one, I don't think it is really safe.

And when that guy comes in at 3am here, where we can't exactly own firearms? Improvisation. Hey, that heavy bottle that I keep flowers in could probably do some damage if I smashed that guy in the face with it... etc. etc.

It isn't "un-Germanic" to not have a right to bear arms. It's common sense. Not everyone has the right temperment to own something that can kill someone in less than a second.

I think it's Germanic ingenuity to improvise one's belongings into weapons when needed. :D

Galloglaich
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 05:24 AM
Because you can totally protect yourself with it locked in a safe.

A gun is something to be earned, a privlege, in my opinion. If every idiot can own one, I don't think it is really safe.

I understand your sentiment, but who has the right to distinguish who can and can't own one? The State? It's a slippery slope and poor precident to begin justifying the existence of natural rights as being endowed by the State. Those that giveth can also taketh away. I believe the right to defend yourself exists w/ or w/o the endorsement of the State. The fact that any "idiot" can obtain (if not necessarily "own") one only necessitates my need to maintain parity.


And when that guy comes in at 3am here, where we can't exactly own firearms? Improvisation. Hey, that heavy bottle that I keep flowers in could probably do some damage if I smashed that guy in the face with it... etc. etc.

I am all for conflict resolution on the least violent level. If hitting an assailant on the head w/ a vase would end the conflict and result in less injury to either party while still insuring personal security, then all the better. But what happens when that guy has had the foresight to equip himself w/ a superior weapon? I'm a physically fit, well-versed in a few martial arts, "can take care of myself", kind of guy; but the prospect of potentially wrestling around w/ some lowlife who may or may not have a communicable disease is distateful to me and dangerous to boot. One thing my martial arts training has taught me is that the Bruce Lee "vanquish your opponent w/o taking a scratch" scenario rarely if ever plays itself out like that in the real world. Another thing is that the mere presence of a gun is often enough of a threat to end the conflict before any altercation actually takes place. No one says that you actually have to shoot anyone if they run away. In any self-defense scenario where I can choose between a gun and a flower pot, I'll take the gun.


It isn't "un-Germanic" to not have a right to bear arms. It's common sense. Not everyone has the right temperment to own something that can kill someone in less than a second.

I agree that not everyone has the right temperment. In a free society people have to bear a greater burden of responsibility. If you are not one of those people that can handle it, then don't take on that mantle. It's not a requirement here, you are free to not own a gun if you so choose. In any society worth living in you have to assume that the rational & responsible members significantly outnumber those who are not. Otherwise, what's the point?


I think it's Germanic ingenuity to improvise one's belongings into weapons when needed. :D

I agree 100%.:)

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 05:25 AM
I am an American, and this is one of the reasons, I don’t see Europeans as real Allies to the US.

The right to bare arms is the right to fight the Government not a right to “Self Defense”.

Personally I am willing to accept the loss of a few citizens to crime if the right remains.

That is the price of freedom.

Galloglaich
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 05:36 AM
...The right to bare arms is the right to fight the Government not a right to “Self Defense”.

I see this as being essentially the same thing.


Personally I am willing to accept the loss of a few citizens to crime if the right remains.

That is the price of freedom.

That is the price of freedom. I agree w/ this...
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
(I've been getting a lot of mileage from this quote recently:rolleyes:)

Besides, far more people are killed every year in automobile accidents than from all firearms related deaths every year. The ability to legaly drive isn't a right, and it's also available only to those that have already passed some sort of governmental scrutiny; yet no one is actually proposing that we eliminate the sale of automobiles on the grounds of public safety.

Freydis
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 05:37 AM
I understand your sentiment, but who has the right to distinguish who can and can't own one? The State? It's a slippery slope and poor precident to begin justifying the existence of natural rights as being endowed by the State.

I doubt it is one of our "natural rights" to own a piece of modern technology like a firearm.


Those that giveth can also taketh away. I believe the right to defend yourself exists w/ or w/o the endorsement of the State.

One doesn't need a gun to defend oneself. I think I established that earlier.


The fact that any "idiot" can obtain (if not necessarily "own") one only necessitates my need to maintain parity.

How about if no one could obtain one? Or if it was extremely difficult? :D


I am all for conflict resolution on the least violent level. If hitting an assailant on the head w/ a vase would end the conflict and result in less injury to either party while still insuring personal security, then all the better.

You see, here in Canada, you'd probably still be convicted for Assault with a weapon... *negative face*.


But what happens when that guy has had the foresight to equip himself w/ a superior weapon?

Superior weapon such as what? If you sneak up behind someone and smash something over their head, I don't think a superior weapon is going to help.

Superior strategy>superior weaponry


I'm a physically fit, well-versed in a few martial arts, "can take care of myself", kind of guy; but the prospect of potentially wrestling around w/ some lowlife who may or may not have a communicable disease is distateful to me and dangerous to boot.

That's why you end it as soon as possible. Smashing something on someone's head or pushing them to the ground or knocking them out in some way will probably give you enough time to get the police to your house. Of course, living in the area of a city that got amalgamated (woo middle of nowhere) doesn't help, espcially when there's like 2 cops for a huge area...

It is better not to get convicted of manslaughter... ,_,


One thing my martial arts training has taught me is that the Bruce Lee "vanquish your opponent w/o taking a scratch" scenario rarely if ever plays itself out like that in the real world. Another thing is that the mere presence of a gun is often enough of a threat to end the conflict before any altercation actually takes place.

What if they have a "superior weapon" as you said?


No one says that you actually have to shoot anyone if they run away. In any self-defense scenario where I can choose between a gun and a flower pot, I'll take the gun.

*pouts at*

It wasn't a flowerpot, it's a huge 750mL glass bottle that once housed delicious French lemonade and now is holding a cornflower. It's really heavy.


I agree that not everyone has the right temperment. In a free society people have to bear a greater burden of responsibility. If you are not one of those people that can handle it, then don't take on that mantle.

But most people, in my observations, probably couldn't handle this kind of burden. But they probably still would.


It's not a requirement here, you are free to not own a gun if you so choose.

You make it sound like a requirement with all your AIDS bearing thieves and crazy gun wielding idiots running around.. :D


In any society worth living in you have to assume that the rational & responsible members significantly outnumber those who are not. Otherwise, what's the point?

Humans are social creatures. What is one's definition of "rational" is different to another.



I agree 100%.:)

Then you'll buy my patented Germanic bedside thief response device? :D




I am an American, and this is one of the reasons, I don’t see Europeans as real Allies to the US.

I don't see Americans as allies because they can sometimes be ridiculously arrogant. Why don't you have an entire continent as your enemies? Good call, America!


The right to bare arms is the right to fight the Government not a right to “Self Defense”.

You know those naked arms, very good for self defense. :D I'm only joking.

Why would you fight your own government? It seems rather pointless.. And besides, why would they grant you the right to fight them? Most rebellions/revolutions find their own ways of acquiring weaponry anyway..


Personally I am willing to accept the loss of a few citizens to crime if the right remains.

So long as you don't know them, right?

It's ridiculous to say "I care more about my right to own a firearm than my fellow countrymen". It's better to care about people than it is about weapons.


That is the price of freedom.

What is this "freedom" exactly?

Freydis
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 05:39 AM
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
(I've been getting a lot of mileage from this quote recently:rolleyes:)

The important thing about quotes is to not misinterpret them. Notice that Franklin said "essential" liberty, rather than explicitly saying "owning firearms". I doubt that owning a firearm is "essential" to one's liberty.


Besides, far more people are killed every year in automobile accidents than from all firearms related deaths every year. The ability to legaly drive isn't a right, and it's also available only to those that have already passed some sort of governmental scrutiny; yet no one is actually proposing that we eliminate the sale of automobiles on the grounds of public safety.

See bolded text.

Deary
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 05:40 AM
And when that guy comes in at 3am here, where we can't exactly own firearms? Improvisation. Hey, that heavy bottle that I keep flowers in could probably do some damage if I smashed that guy in the face with it... etc. etc.

Chances are the potential intruder, being the unlawful person that he is, will have a firearm. Household improvisions, if used as weapons, have to be done so in close range. Contrarily, a firearm is quick, certain to disable the enemy, and can be used at long distances. A civilian with a flower vase is going to be disadvantaged by anyone with a gun.

Ah, basically what Galloglaich just stated before I could post :)

Galloglaich
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 06:04 AM
I doubt it is one of our "natural rights" to own a piece of modern technology like a firearm.

Natural rights have expiration dates?



One doesn't need a gun to defend oneself. I think I established that earlier.

No, but it sure helps.


How about if no one could obtain one? Or if it was extremely difficult? :D

Criminals, like most revolutions/rebellions "find their own way of acquiring them anyway".


You see, here in Canada, you'd probably still be convicted for Assault with a weapon... *negative face*.

Unfortunately true, and here in the U.S. as well. Still, I'd rather face a jury of 12 than by laid in a hole by 6.


Superior weapon such as what? If you sneak up behind someone and smash something over their head, I don't think a superior weapon is going to help.

Superior strategy>superior weaponry...

That's why you end it as soon as possible. Smashing something on someone's head or pushing them to the ground or knocking them out in some way will probably give you enough time to get the police to your house. Of course, living in the area of a city that got amalgamated (woo middle of nowhere) doesn't help, espcially when there's like 2 cops for a huge area...

Superior strategy is the best, but we are not all super ninjas/magicians that can control every aspect of a possible encounter.


What if they have a "superior weapon" as you said?

Then superior tactics/ improvisation becomes even more crucial. I'd still rather put myself at the least possible disadvantage.


It wasn't a flowerpot, it's a huge 750mL glass bottle that once housed delicious French lemonade and now is holding a cornflower. It's really heavy.

I wouldn't want to get hit w/ it.


But most people, in my observations, probably couldn't handle this kind of burden. But they probably still would.

Yes, I can't even begin to tell you the number of legal gun owners here that are running amok waving guns and killing people. :)


You make it sound like a requirement with all your AIDS bearing thieves and crazy gun wielding idiots running around.. :D

:D


Humans are social creatures. What is one's definition of "rational" is different to another.

True.


Then you'll buy my patented Germanic bedside thief response device? :D

Definitely.

Oski
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 06:04 AM
I'm an American and I unequivocally support the right to keep and bear arms. Not only do I feel that it is an American right and tradition (guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution), but that we inherited this right from our Germanic ancestors; to whom it was not only a right, but often a duty. I don't really understand why the Europeans in general have failed to uphold their cultural birthright in this regard. I don't trust any institution (local, state, or federal) to protect my personal well-being or my possessions better than I do. Owning (and knowing how to use) a weapon makes me an asset to not only my family and other loved ones, but also to the upkeep of our national security as well. I have already used a firearm in the defense of my property. I am unshakeable in the importance of this liberty. Go ahead, call me a "barbarian", I don't care. When someone is attempting to break into your house at 3:00 a.m. it is a lot more reassuring to know that you can protect yourself and your loved ones.

I don't believe in restrictions either. Anyone willing to commit a crime against me isn't going to be concerned about capacity limits or any other inane law.

My feelings exactly, in fact I think there are already too many restrictions.

OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 06:12 AM
1) Rights don't exist.

2) I don't really need a gun if I live in an all-white area.

3) I don't mind if my responsible family-man neighbour has a gun. I wouldn't trust myself to own one.

Oski
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 06:14 AM
1. In the USA, rights do exist.

2. You might need a gun to keep your area all-white.

Galloglaich
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 06:20 AM
The important thing about quotes is to not misinterpret them. Notice that Franklin said "essential" liberty, rather than explicitly saying "owning firearms". I doubt that owning a firearm is "essential" to one's liberty.

Yes, I'm certain that Ben would have preferred we defend our liberty w/ flowerpots/lemonade dispensers.:)




See bolded text.

Accidents happen. It makes no difference to the victim of a car crash if it was intentional or not. Dead is dead.

SineNomine
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 11:53 AM
I am fully behind the right to bear arms (as it is nothing more than the right to self-defence.) There is logic in limiting which weapons can be possessed based on whether they are a threat ready to go off (nuclear weapons, for instance, pose a massive danger to nearby neighbours because of their volatile, imprecise nature.) Guns, on the other hand, are directly controlled by their users. It is entirely their responsibility to see they are used properly. The gun cannot kill on its own.


1) Rights don't exist.
A right is nothing more than the permission to use an ability/perform an activity - in denying its existence, you deny that you are permitted to use the ability or perform the activity.


One doesn't need a gun to defend oneself. I think I established that earlier.
I'd prefer the option remained open. If and only if I overtly threaten someone do they have the right to disarm me.


Humans are social creatures. What is one's definition of "rational" is different to another.
The word you are thinking of is "reasonable". "Rational" has a very specific definition in philosophy.


Why would you fight your own government? It seems rather pointless.. And besides, why would they grant you the right to fight them? Most rebellions/revolutions find their own ways of acquiring weaponry anyway..
If it tried to oppress me, absolutely.

Freydis
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Chances are the potential intruder, being the unlawful person that he is, will have a firearm. Household improvisions, if used as weapons, have to be done so in close range. Contrarily, a firearm is quick, certain to disable the enemy, and can be used at long distances. A civilian with a flower vase is going to be disadvantaged by anyone with a gun.

You forget that guns are rarer in my place of residence, especially in smaller towns.

And this is assuming the person with the firearm knows how to use it... or it is real.


Natural rights have expiration dates?

You misinterpreted what I said.

I meant that "natural rights" have been around for ages, so why do firearms get included in them? It seems ridiculous to do so.


Criminals, like most revolutions/rebellions "find their own way of acquiring them anyway".

Yes, but with improved policing, they will find it more difficult, or get caught.


Unfortunately true, and here in the U.S. as well. Still, I'd rather face a jury of 12 than by laid in a hole by 6.

I'd rather not think so negatively. :D


Superior strategy is the best, but we are not all super ninjas/magicians that can control every aspect of a possible encounter.

I can. ._.


Then superior tactics/ improvisation becomes even more crucial. I'd still rather put myself at the least possible disadvantage.

Where's the fun in that? :D

Either way, if he gets so close to you and holds your arms, preventing you from firing the gun, what are you going to do?


I wouldn't want to get hit w/ it.

:D


Yes, I can't even begin to tell you the number of legal gun owners here that are running amok waving guns and killing people. :)

What is this sarcasm you speak of so highly?


Yes, I'm certain that Ben would have preferred we defend our liberty w/ flowerpots/lemonade dispensers.:)

Or perhaps defend our liberty with... WORDS. I don't know. Honestly, I just mean to say that "arms" doesn't always mean "firearms"...


Accidents happen. It makes no difference to the victim of a car crash if it was intentional or not. Dead is dead.

Accident implies that no one is at fault.


1. In the USA, rights do exist.

Which is why you have the right to bear arms, right?


2. You might need a gun to keep your area all-white.

... How is escalating violence going to help?


I am fully behind the right to bear arms (as it is nothing more than the right to self-defence.) There is logic in limiting which weapons can be possessed based on whether they are a threat ready to go off (nuclear weapons, for instance, pose a massive danger to nearby neighbours because of their volatile, imprecise nature.)

But my missile silo! I have the right to bear arms in America, and it doesn't say what kind! :D


Guns, on the other hand, are directly controlled by their users. It is entirely their responsibility to see they are used properly. The gun cannot kill on its own.

That's what I'm afraid of... I wouldn't say the majority of the population is responsible enough to bear a firearm.


A right is nothing more than the permission to use an ability/perform an activity - in denying its existence, you deny that you are permitted to use the ability or perform the activity.

Rights can be then loosely defined. How about the right to rape, the right to murder, the right to steal?

Not all activities are good.. Maybe it's a little extreme to compare these to owning a firearm, but I think to have one, for most people, is irresponsible.


I'd prefer the option remained open. If and only if I overtly threaten someone do they have the right to disarm me.

So if you subtly threaten them, it's okay?


The word you are thinking of is "reasonable". "Rational" has a very specific definition in philosophy.

I was using the colloquial definition of rational, not the philosophical definition. I thought it was obvious from context.


If it tried to oppress me, absolutely.

What would you do then? What is "oppression"?

Þórir
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Criminals will always be able to get what they want off the black market, and this includes firearms. This puts the average law abiding citizen at a disadvantage. The right to bear arms is one of the first things to go under a totalitarian system.

Allenson
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Basically, I don't consider the ability to own a firearm some natural right that humans are born into--simply for the fact that in nature, in its purest state and in our purest, primeval condition, guns do not exist.

I do however consider it, as it currently is written, as a legal ability here in the US. Frankly put, under current US law, I can own a firearm and I respect this ability. So, with this in mind and while I do not consider it a right, per say, I do agree with the legal ability to own a firearm for purposes of self-defence and even the acquisition of food through hunting should the need arise.

What I do believe to be a natural human right is the notion of self-defence--and currently, one of the most effective methods of defending one's self and property is the pocession of a firearm.

Not that this is necessarily any kind or prerequisite--but growing up in a rather rural, white area, guns are common and many people like them. Hunting is popular and the police presence is light so guns can be found in many-to-most households. Luckily, crime isn't much of an issue here, but I suppose folks like to be ready in the case that something happens.

I have two firearms at-the-ready and I would be very unwilling to give them up to the state for the simple fact already mentioned several times: criminals will get their hands on guns whether they are banned or accessible. Should guns be outlawed, this puts the common, law-abiding (not that I always am ;) ) citizen at a serious disadvantage. Certainly not a spot that I would wish to find myself in.

It's a tough debate though. As we all know, there are millions of retards out there without the self-regulative abilities and the personal responsibilities that should go hand-in-hand with ownership of a gun....

Deary
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Gun control is counterproductive and essentially useless. To the law-abiding population it is unnecessary; to the non-law abiding population, it is irrelevant. It makes no sense to criminalize a neutral tool used to commit an already illegal act. That is, if one was intent on murdering despite its being illegal, how would making the gun illegal serve as a deterrent? It not not only (as has been stated) disarms law-abiding citizens (who would likely not use them to break the law) but alerts criminals who would abuse guns to the fact that they and only they are armed. In other words, the law-abiding population would be vulnerable and those that seek to harm them are well aware of that. An armed citizenry is safer even if only because of this fact.

Any outright ban of guns creates a black market where anyone with sufficient funds, regardless of background, can purchase them and use as they wish. Insuring guns remain legal, at the very least, insures that there is a minimum degree of discretion in their sales. To make guns an illegal commodity will also only strengthen illegal gun trafficking in the United States as well as the already growing grasp they have in the criminal world. Unnecessary restrictions will disempower legitimate gun owners and give the edge to illicit gun operators.

In America, the right to bear arms was not something that one day was arbitrarily protected by "some law." It was deliberately put into the Constitution along with other rights Americans would never cede such as freedom of speech. It was not given; it is a right that is wholly ours and is merely protected and to ban guns is a violation of this right. An armed population is one that has the ability to resist tyranny of government, even by force if necessary.

What I feel is very important to mention here is that it would do very little within the American social structure. Freedom, etc. is very much valued and idealized in America. To amend the right to bear arms sets an uneasy precedent, making other "controversial" rights that are supposed to be iron-clad, become far more vulnerable.

I also feel that linking gun violence statistics and comparing between the U.S. and other nations shows very little because those statistics often a) are not per capita studies and b) other comparison of crime rates within Europe shows no correlation between the access to guns and crime. There are counter-indicative proofs such as Switzerland, which has low homicide rates despite levels of firearm ownership at least as high as that in the United States. This again demonstrates how everything from location to social values can have an effect on the relevance of gun control. Not only is Switzerland fairly isolated, but despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

Æmeric
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 08:58 PM
I support the right of free citizens to own firearms & I own them myself. If the government did outlaw private gun ownership, only the police, the military & criminals would own guns. I suppose illegal firearms would become as uncommon as illegal drugs :rolleyes:. Which brings me back to criminals, as the reason for taking away our right to bear arms is suppose to take firearms out of the hands of criminals - it wouldn't. What it will do is drive of the price of illegal weapons.

@ Sinenomine: Just what are the gun laws in South Africa? I imagine all Whites in South Africa are armed regardless of the gun laws there.

Freydis
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 12:35 AM
Criminals will always be able to get what they want off the black market, and this includes firearms. This puts the average law abiding citizen at a disadvantage. The right to bear arms is one of the first things to go under a totalitarian system.

What's so wrong with a totalitarian system?


Gun control is counterproductive and essentially useless. To the law-abiding population it is unnecessary; to the non-law abiding population, it is irrelevant. It makes no sense to criminalize a neutral tool used to commit an already illegal act.

"Neutral tool" you say... A "neutral tool" would be something like a screwdriver. When do you go, when fixing something, "pass me the 9 millimetre, will you?".


That is, if one was intent on murdering despite its being illegal, how would making the gun illegal serve as a deterrent?

They just wouldn't use a gun, so the victim would have a better chance of survival.


It not not only (as has been stated) disarms law-abiding citizens (who would likely not use them to break the law)

Like those normal, "law-abiding" citizens that go on gun rampages every now and then?


In other words, the law-abiding population would be vulnerable and those that seek to harm them are well aware of that. An armed citizenry is safer even if only because of this fact.

This strikes me as paranoid..

Unnecessary restrictions will disempower legitimate gun owners and give the edge to illicit gun operators.

How are there illicit gun operators to begin with if firearms are legal in America?


It was deliberately put into the Constitution along with other rights Americans would never cede such as freedom of speech.

Yeah, yeah... "Freedom of speech" has its restrictions, just as I assume owning firearms does. Not exactly "wholly yours", is it?


An armed population is one that has the ability to resist tyranny of government, even by force if necessary.

And if that government has a nuclear bomb it drops into your compound? :D I don't see many Americans resisting the tyranny of their government, even though many complain about it.


Freedom, etc. is very much valued and idealized in America.

I asked before, perhaps in another thread.

"What is this freedom?"


To amend the right to bear arms sets an uneasy precedent, making other "controversial" rights that are supposed to be iron-clad, become far more vulnerable.

Like freedom of speech? :D


I also feel that linking gun violence statistics and comparing between the U.S. and other nations shows very little because those statistics often a) are not per capita studies and b) other comparison of crime rates within Europe shows no correlation between the access to guns and crime.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/miller-table.jpg

As you can see, areas with less gun control have a higher incidence of gunshot death. The source (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html)though, is bias, but the graph is from an academic study called "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons.".


EDIT: In regards to Yukon Territory/NWT, it is because there is a high aboriginal population there who own many hunting rifles... and aboriginal reserves tend to have higher murder rates.

More interesting stats on this site... comparing two very similar nations and using per capita and per 100,000 statistics.


There are counter-indicative proofs such as Switzerland, which has low homicide rates despite levels of firearm ownership at least as high as that in the United States.

Many of the firearms in homes in Switzerland are kept by militia personnel.


Not only is Switzerland fairly isolated, but despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

Because most are owned by the army? :D


I suppose illegal firearms would become as uncommon as illegal drugs :rolleyes:.

Like when they have gun amnesty day here and we get 5000 illegal firearms all turned in, in a city of 500,000? Also to mention one of them was a WWII German machine gun. :D

SineNomine
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 12:55 AM
But my missile silo! I have the right to bear arms in America, and it doesn't say what kind! :D
The context of the right is to wield it in self-defence.


That's what I'm afraid of... I wouldn't say the majority of the population is responsible enough to bear a firearm.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is so: then they'll suffer the consequences for it. Note that State banning of gun ownership is not the only way to prevent irresponsible individuals from bearing arms. Ostracism, voluntary disassociation, terms of ownership in property (to the effect that resale may not occur to such dangerous individuals) and so on are all excellent disincentives in their own right.


Rights can be then loosely defined. How about the right to rape, the right to murder, the right to steal?
They have to pass the universalization test - it is arbitrary to claim that I have a right, and that you do not (so long as we are both moral agents, in the philosophical sense.) If I add on to this the Kantian notion of a contradiction in conception, such rights are ruled out completely.


So if you subtly threaten them, it's okay?
The phraseology is merely a reference to situations in which you cannot know the intentions of the person bearing a firearm. If, say, the person were carrying themselves in a non-threatening way and you simply attacked them because they posed some sort of (perceived) risk, when in fact they had no intention of wielding the weapon against you at all, you'd end up being the aggressor. If the condition is changed to "overt threat", this is avoided.


What would you do then? What is "oppression"?
If the State ever really decided to use force against me and others in a community I should like the chance to fight it back. State rule depends on obedience on the one hand (thus, a lack of desire to fight back) and a continual stream of income, on the other (the fact that States are permanently in debt does not help.) States are rarely faced with the possibility of actual armed insurgency. In such a case the State is faced with the very real possibility that it is trying to crush individuals which have done nothing wrong other than disobey its decrees; it faces the very real threats of losing its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens, of recalcitrant soldiers refusing to fight their fellowmen and of killing the goose that lays its golden eggs. That a State prefers an unarmed to an armed citizenry is not coincidental.

I consider nearly everything a State does oppression, but what I mean here is specifically harmful species of oppression (e.g. forcing me to surrender a hypothetical child of mine to it so that it may rear it in my stead.)


@ Sinenomine: Just what are the gun laws in South Africa? I imagine all Whites in South Africa are armed regardless of the gun laws there.
That is correct. As a note, many whites live in private development sites, which are policed by security companies, so it's not entirely necessary to own a gun, but most do anyway. The companies, however efficient they may be, cannot follow their clients around all the time and are not responsible for what goes on outside these development sites.

Æmeric
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 01:00 AM
Like when they have gun amnesty day here and we get 5000 illegal firearms all turned in, in a city of 500,000? Also to mention one of them was a WWII German machine gun. :D
The 5,000 illegal firearms could have been abtained legally & not disposed of when the ownership of those weapons became illegal - some of those weapons may have been inherited. The WWII German machine gun was probably some old soldier's war souvenir. The truly dangerous criminals are not going to take advantage of a gun amnesty to get rid of their illegally obtained guns.

Freydis
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 01:07 AM
The context of the right is to wield it in self-defence.

Yeah, self-defence against the state! The state has nuclear weapons, why can't I? I need to defend myself against their tyranny!!!


Ostracism, voluntary disassociation, terms of ownership in property (to the effect that resale may not occur to such dangerous individuals) and so on are all excellent disincentives in their own right.

You know what they did here when they had "gun amnesty day"? They took all the guns to the steelworks and melted them down. Easy. Resale is not necessary.


The phraseology is merely a reference to situations in which you cannot know the intentions of the person bearing a firearm. If, say, the person were carrying themselves in a non-threatening way and you simply attacked them because they posed some sort of (perceived) risk, when in fact they had no intention of wielding the weapon against you at all, you'd end up being the aggressor. If the condition is changed to "overt threat", this is avoided.

But who is to say who is the more aggressive if it isn't obvious?


If the State ever really decided to use force against me and others in a community I should like the chance to fight it back.

It's not necessary to shoot people to "fight back" against the state.


State rule depends on obedience on the one hand (thus, a lack of desire to fight back) and a continual stream of income, on the other (the fact that States are permanently in debt does not help.)

By "States" I assume you mean "The United States", as Canada has turned out a surplus practically every year for the past 10. (By the way, your country owes this country money.. :D)


States are rarely faced with the possibility of actual armed insurgency.

What about the IRA? It was hardly effective in gaining back N. Ireland before it was disarmed.


In such a case the State is faced with the very real possibility that it is trying to crush individuals which have done nothing wrong other than disobey its decrees;

And what if they are reasonable decrees? You need to specify what these horrible "oppressions" are...


it faces the very real threats of losing its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens, of recalcitrant soldiers refusing to fight their fellowmen

People are remarkably adept at following orders.


That a State prefers an unarmed to an armed citizenry is not coincidental.

You make "the State" sound ominous. Need I remind you that America is a democracy, where the government is elected by the people?


I consider nearly everything a State does oppression, but what I mean here is specifically harmful species of oppression (e.g. forcing me to surrender a hypothetical child of mine to it so that it may rear it in my stead.)

I find your opposition to adoption offensive. It isn't harmful when a social worker takes a child away from an alcoholic because they keep beating it. It isn't harmful when a social worker takes away a child because their parents kept it in a cage... but when they do not do their job properly, as agents of oppression (apparently), there is public uproar about how bad the social workers are at finding out problems and taking children out of bad homes.

Maybe you hit a nerve on that one. My mother is a social worker. She doesn't take children away; she finds homes for them. Is that so bad?

SineNomine
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 01:20 AM
You know what they did here when they had "gun amnesty day"? They took all the guns to the steelworks and melted them down. Easy. Resale is not necessary.
Property as in housing, land etc. Not in guns.


But who is to say who is the more aggressive if it isn't obvious?
I suppose you mean this in the case of third parties deciding the matter? Then it is their job to investigate it. I merely provide a condition of when it is legitimate to disarm someone. Procedural affairs are for courts.


It's not necessary to shoot people to "fight back" against the state.
Yes, throwing rocks at State agents is remarkably effective too - though why not go for the most efficient means? By the way, throwing rocks is also a good means of killing someone, and there are so many irresponsibles that might do so. Should people be banned from picking up stones?


By "States" I assume you mean "The United States", as Canada has turned out a surplus practically every year for the past 10. (By the way, your country owes this country money.. :D)
No, I mean states in general. Though Canada qualifies too (http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/public_debt.html).


What about the IRA? It was hardly effective in gaining back N. Ireland before it was disarmed.
The IRA is a terrorist group.


And what if they are reasonable decrees? You need to specify what these horrible "oppressions" are...
What exactly is a reasonable decree?


People are remarkably adept at following orders.
Only when they feel these orders have a degree of validity to them. Oppressive governments are rarely seen as saintly.


You make "the State" sound ominous. Need I remind you that America is a democracy, where the government is elected by the people?
Need I remind you that this is an illusion? The USA is nothing remotely approaching a democracy. It isn't even one officially - it's a republic.


I find your opposition to adoption offensive. them. Is that so bad.
I find your use of strawmen offensive. I never even said adoption is bad. I referred to the State seizing a hypothetical child - I never stated why.

Freydis
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 01:47 AM
The 5,000 illegal firearms could have been abtained legally & not disposed of when the ownership of those weapons became illegal - some of those weapons may have been inherited. The WWII German machine gun was probably some old soldier's war souvenir. The truly dangerous criminals are not going to take advantage of a gun amnesty to get rid of their illegally obtained guns.

Not necessarily. Canada has always had restrictive gun laws. And what about the kalashnikovs? Were those ever obtained legally here? No.


I suppose you mean this in the case of third parties deciding the matter? Then it is their job to investigate it. I merely provide a condition of when it is legitimate to disarm someone. Procedural affairs are for courts.

And courts don't always get it right..


Yes, throwing rocks at State agents is remarkably effective too - though why not go for the most efficient means?

It's so effective to make police officers hate you, isn't it? Like that police officer who had his back broken and his face smashed in because he was guarding a political conference. He didn't support the politics necessarily, he was just doing his job.

Violence against another person isn't going to make that person see your way more easily. It's just going to threaten and coerce them into adopting it, grudgingly. Wouldn't it be better to have them adopt your view genuinely, rather than because you threatened them (much like an oppressive government would ;)) with force?


By the way, throwing rocks is also a good means of killing someone, and there are so many irresponsibles that might do so. Should people be banned from picking up stones?

Your reducto ad absurdum is ineffective here. We are talking about firearms, not stones. And they are in certain parts of Greece (;)). Not to mention it is much more difficult to kill someone with a stone than a gun.



Though Canada qualifies too (http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/public_debt.html).

Sorry, I should have been specific. A yearly surplus in the budget, rather than a continual surplus.



The IRA is a terrorist group.

By who's definition? To certain Irish people they are liberators from the oppression of the Union.


What exactly is a reasonable decree?

Please don't respond to my question with a question..

But to answer your question: laws against theft, rape, murder, basically all types of crime. Laws against violating constitutional rights, et cetera.

But answer my question before asking another: How do governmental decrees cause oppression?

And a second question: Are you a believer in anarchism?


Only when they feel these orders have a degree of validity to them. Oppressive governments are rarely seen as saintly.

People aren't as intelligent as you may think... </misanthrope>

Which is why some people idiolise Castro... wouldn't he qualify as "oppressive" in your opinion?


Need I remind you that this is an illusion? The USA is nothing remotely approaching a democracy. It isn't even one officially - it's a republic.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a republic by definition is a country run by the people. A citizen is given the right to vote, usually for a representative, who will exercise their wishes through democratic means.


I find your use of strawmen offensive. I never even said adoption is bad. I referred to the State seizing a hypothetical child - I never stated why.

Yes, but it seemed that you implied that adoption was oppressive because the State was behind it and they were seizing children willy nilly. There is a reason, you know.

If you read what you wrote one more time, you may understand why I thought that you said it was bad:


I mean here is specifically harmful species of oppression (e.g. forcing me to surrender a hypothetical child of mine to it so that it may rear it in my stead.)

Your example of a "harmful species of oppression" is adoption. How can that be interpreted as anything other than saying "adoption is oppressive"?

SineNomine
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 03:42 AM
And courts don't always get it right..
Such is the nature of human uncertainty, yes.


It's so effective to make police officers hate you, isn't it? Like that police officer who had his back broken and his face smashed in because he was guarding a political conference. He didn't support the politics necessarily, he was just doing his job.
I agree - but let's say, instead, he was trying to kill me because the State took a dislike toward me (for no good reason) - in this case "just doing his job" doesn't cut it. He is perpetrating murder.


Violence against another person isn't going to make that person see your way more easily. It's just going to threaten and coerce them into adopting it, grudgingly. Wouldn't it be better to have them adopt your view genuinely, rather than because you threatened them (much like an oppressive government would ;)) with force?
I don't see why this would be mutually exclusive with having a weapon in case persuasion doesn't work its way.


Your reducto ad absurdum is ineffective here. We are talking about firearms, not stones. And they are in certain parts of Greece (;)). Not to mention it is much more difficult to kill someone with a stone than a gun.
Why is it ineffective? Both can be used to kill. A gun is simply the more precise of the two, as well as harder to acquire.


By who's definition? To certain Irish people they are liberators from the oppression of the Union.
The fact that they had no compunction in harming innocents to advance their cause puts them neatly in the category of terrorists.


But to answer your question: laws against theft, rape, murder, basically all types of crime. Laws against violating constitutional rights, et cetera.
Insofar as government laws protect person and property from harm and fraud they are tolerable. Anything beyond this is oppression.


But answer my question before asking another: How do governmental decrees cause oppression?
If they violate the condition I set above they do so by overstepping their boundaries and demanding more of me than they may legitimately ask.


And a second question: Are you a believer in anarchism?
I won't go into any detail on this, but yes - as long as you mean against the State in its particular form. I am not a left-anarchist who is against authority in general, though, and I would tolerate the minimal sort of state I described above.


Which is why some people idiolise Castro... wouldn't he qualify as "oppressive" in your opinion?
Castro rules both by means of intimidation and by means of propaganda. He cloaks his oppressive tendencies well. If, however, the Cubans grew tired of him, he'd lose any legitimacy he has left, unless he were willing to emerge as a tyrant.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but a republic by definition is a country run by the people. A citizen is given the right to vote, usually for a representative, who will exercise their wishes through democratic means.
But it isn't a democracy then, which is what you claimed. And what is of relevance here is how the US actually functions. It is essentially a plutocratic two-party system, in which representation is merely a rubber stamp for governmental authority. It's claim to being democratic is dubious, at best. I am not a proponent of democracy, but it's useful to point out that the US isn't one.


Yes, but it seemed that you implied that adoption was oppressive because the State was behind it and they were seizing children willy nilly. There is a reason, you know.
Seizing the child to raise it to be some sort of super-soldier, for instance. Adoption need not even enter the picture, though yes I can see why you'd think that is what I meant.


Your example of a "harmful species of oppression" is adoption. How can that be interpreted as anything other than saying "adoption is oppressive"?
Read above.

Freydis
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 04:55 AM
I agree - but let's say, instead, he was trying to kill me because the State took a dislike toward me (for no good reason) - in this case "just doing his job" doesn't cut it. He is perpetrating murder.

I don't think they'd get a regular police officer to do such a job; but if you think that the people have such good moral standards, perhaps he will change his mind.


I don't see why this would be mutually exclusive with having a weapon in case persuasion doesn't work its way.

Weapons are used to "persuade"... but they cause grudges. That's what I mean.


Why is it ineffective? Both can be used to kill. A gun is simply the more precise of the two, as well as harder to acquire.

If I threw a thousand rocks at you, how many times do you think that they would strike a killing blow? Very unlikely. If I shot a thousand guns at you, how many times do you think they would strike a killing blow? Lots.


The fact that they had no compunction in harming innocents to advance their cause puts them neatly in the category of terrorists.

Like you don't care about throwing rocks at "state agents" because they are just robots of the machine, right? Civilians and innocents do get killed in violence.


Insofar as government laws protect person and property from harm and fraud they are tolerable. Anything beyond this is oppression.

There are always the creative who find their way around the laws. That is why we need more laws. :D

Plus public healthcare kicks butt! I like being able to see a doctor!


If they violate the condition I set above they do so by overstepping their boundaries and demanding more of me than they may legitimately ask.

I should have been clearer. I want examples, not vague definitions.


Castro rules both by means of intimidation and by means of propaganda. He cloaks his oppressive tendencies well. If, however, the Cubans grew tired of him, he'd lose any legitimacy he has left, unless he were willing to emerge as a tyrant.

Well isn't he already a dictator?

What about Tito? Let's talk about dictators all day, it'll be fun. :D


But it isn't a democracy then, which is what you claimed. And what is of relevance here is how the US actually functions. It is essentially a plutocratic two-party system, in which representation is merely a rubber stamp for governmental authority. It's claim to being democratic is dubious, at best. I am not a proponent of democracy, but it's useful to point out that the US isn't one.

Like how Canada isn't one and a constitutional monarchy? :D

The point of the matter is, there is still "democracy" because there is a choice..

If you say "The US isn't one because it is a republic"... it just is wrong. A republic is always a democracy...


Seizing the child to raise it to be some sort of super-soldier, for instance. Adoption need not even enter the picture, though yes I can see why you'd think that is what I meant.

See, if you'd said "Seizing the child to raise it to be some sort of super-soldier" in the first place, I totally would have understood. :D

Okay, I understand you now. :)

But I think we will argue forever if we keep this up.. heh


Read above.[/QUOTE]

Æmeric
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 05:05 AM
If you say "The US isn't one because it is a republic"... it just is wrong. A republic is always a democracy...

Not true. A Republic was traditionally a nation govern by the rule of law. Throughout history most of them had a very limited electorate. Ancient Athens for example or the Republic of Venice. Democracy means "rule by the people" and is generally associated with a state that has a universal franchise. The US was originally a federal republic but has been drifting towards a unitary democracy since the Civil War. The UK & Canada are essentially democracies even though the head of state is the Queen, but she is only symbolic & does not exercise real powers. Democracies are a relatively recent developement.

Freydis
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 01:27 PM
Not true. A Republic was traditionally a nation govern by the rule of law.

Then who leads the country...? A democratically elected leader, perhaps?

A republic only can exist with the consent of the governed


Throughout history most of them had a very limited electorate. Ancient Athens for example or the Republic of Venice.

Limited because of slavery (slaves can't vote) and backwards views on women (women can't vote).


Democracy means "rule by the people" and is generally associated with a state that has a universal franchise.

Can't any adult vote in the United States?


The US was originally a federal republic but has been drifting towards a unitary democracy since the Civil War. The UK & Canada are essentially democracies even though the head of state is the Queen, but she is only symbolic & does not exercise real powers.

A republic and a constitutional monarchy are different. We can't get rid of the queen. she is still the "head of state" even if she is a figurehead.


Democracies are a relatively recent developement.

Wasn't it the ancient Greeks who invented democracy?

Æmeric
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 02:12 PM
Can't any adult vote in the United States?
Just about. But it was not always that way.




Wasn't it the ancient Greeks who invented democracy?

They came up with the concept, it doesn't mean they practiced it.


As for the US being a democracy or a republic; The Republicans & Democratics do their best to insure we (the American people) have limited choices when we go to the polls. There are rarely more then two choices & because of gerrymandering many districts are heavily favored by one party. Many members of congress run for reelection unopposed or against token opposition. US elections are not much more democratic then those in North Korea or in the old DDR. Democracy has been a cover for rule by an oligarchy.

Freydis
Thursday, August 9th, 2007, 03:33 PM
Just about. But it was not always that way.

And which way do you prefer?


They came up with the concept, it doesn't mean they practiced it.

Didn't you just say that the ancient Athenians practised a form of limited democracy?


As for the US being a democracy or a republic; The Republicans & Democratics do their best to insure we (the American people) have limited choices when we go to the polls. There are rarely more then two choices & because of gerrymandering many districts are heavily favored by one party. Many members of congress run for reelection unopposed or against token opposition. US elections are not much more democratic then those in North Korea or in the old DDR. Democracy has been a cover for rule by an oligarchy.

At least you have a choice.. don't go comparing your nation of "freedom" to one that is heavily oppressed. You'll find that your hyperboles will get the better of you.

Þórir
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 12:16 AM
What's so wrong with a totalitarian system?

I guess its boils down to personal taste. You would rather live under a dictatorship I would not. But I think Germanic history points mostly to representative government in which the people participate and totalitarianism has no part of this. See AlThings-Past, Present and Future (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=32). It was not until after the spread of Christianity that the concept of "Divine Right of Kings" came into play. Before this, kingships were elected and not based on hereditary, and kings were subject to the will of the people, not the other way around. The same concept applies today.

Freydis
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 12:27 AM
I would rather be the dictator. :D

I find that totalitarianism is a means to an end... it is easier to effect great change with it.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 12:29 AM
I would rather be the dictator. :D

I find that totalitarianism is a means to an end... it is easier to effect great change with it.

Yeah, but if it goes the wrong way (which it usually does) there's not much you can do about it

Freydis
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 12:30 AM
When it goes the wrong way, it usually ends up being overthrown.

SineNomine
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 01:11 AM
Weapons are used to "persuade"... but they cause grudges. That's what I mean.
I am not here referring to day-to-day relationships, of the sort you have with your neighbour. More precisely, I am referring to life-or-death situations.


If I threw a thousand rocks at you, how many times do you think that they would strike a killing blow? Very unlikely. If I shot a thousand guns at you, how many times do you think they would strike a killing blow? Lots.
Very easily, in fact, depending on the size of the rock and how well you throw it. Nearly anything can be a murder weapon - especially powertools.


Like you don't care about throwing rocks at "state agents" because they are just robots of the machine, right?
Were I to believe this, I would not have made my earlier statement that policemen are responsible for their moral decisions. Robots are not moral agents.


There are always the creative who find their way around the laws. That is why we need more laws. :D
Why? This is anything but clear.


I should have been clearer. I want examples, not vague definitions.
A simple one - the State telling me who I may hire or not. This is between me and my potential employee. If I want to hire only whites, that is between me and them.


Well isn't he already a dictator?
Pretty much - but if people were to grow fed up of him, he'd grow powerless.


The point of the matter is, there is still "democracy" because there is a choice..

If you say "The US isn't one because it is a republic"... it just is wrong. A republic is always a democracy...
Americ has dealt with this.


I would rather be the dictator. :D

I find that totalitarianism is a means to an end... it is easier to effect great change with it.
What makes you think you get a choice in the matter? And yes, it can effect great change - change of the sort that the dictator desires.

Outdoorsman
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 01:41 AM
A co-worker once found out that I supported the Second Amendment (Right to bear arms). He was shocked and couldn't understand it. So I put it as simply as I could. "It is hard to credibly defend our rights if we have no teeth and claws." I'm quite certain that if it weren't for the Second Amendment, the powers-that-be would have been much more daring in their corruption already.

Firearms are just another weapon, like knives, clubs, vehicles. If you have a crime problem, don't blame guns or other weapons. Blame people or the environment they have created for themselves.

I know a black woman who tells me stories of how violent things are in Washington DC and in the ghettos of Maryland. She has a hard time getting around the fact that in the Dakotas, virtually every household has a gun (or two or three) and yet we have so little crime. Guns are not the problem - there's something else causing crime waves.

Freydis
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 02:06 AM
I am not here referring to day-to-day relationships, of the sort you have with your neighbour. More precisely, I am referring to life-or-death situations.

Which happen how often?


Very easily, in fact, depending on the size of the rock and how well you throw it. Nearly anything can be a murder weapon - especially powertools.

Okay, hands off of the boulder.

Have you had rocks thrown at you before? I must say, it's a decidedly unpleasant experience, but nothing that would kill one.

There is a vast difference between a firearm and a powertool or a rock, for that matter. Some of them have practical purposes. Some of them are just part of the earth. Neither of them is made for the sole purpose of causing bodily harm to another human being.


Why? This is anything but clear.

Sorry, I have no idea what I meant there. ><


A simple one - the State telling me who I may hire or not. This is between me and my potential employee. If I want to hire only whites, that is between me and them.

Hire people based on merit rather than anything else, despite what the State says; doesn't this legislated hiring pracitce go against your beloved constitution?


Pretty much - but if people were to grow fed up of him, he'd grow powerless.

How quickly would he grow powerless?


Americ has dealt with this.

And I am quite sure I responded to him..

What am I, some kind of vile presence to be "dealt" with?


What makes you think you get a choice in the matter? And yes, it can effect great change - change of the sort that the dictator desires.

Because I'm young, intelligent, and I'm sure I could do a bang-up job. :D

And what about the dictators that care for their people? If his desires run with those of the people? Is that then so bad?


A co-worker once found out that I supported the Second Amendment (Right to bear arms). He was shocked and couldn't understand it. So I put it as simply as I could. "It is hard to credibly defend our rights if we have no teeth and claws." I'm quite certain that if it weren't for the Second Amendment, the powers-that-be would have been much more daring in their corruption already.

Because the people with the "military might" of the country would be afraid of a few million people wielding hand guns versus highly trained soldiers...

Teeth and claws don't have to be a handgun.


Firearms are just another weapon, like knives, clubs, vehicles. If you have a crime problem, don't blame guns or other weapons. Blame people or the environment they have created for themselves.

So what if the crime problem is created by an upsurge in the illicit gun market, causing vast profits for the people running these things? Or something of this nature?

The environment one is in is to blame for many things, yes. (One can learn more about this if one looks at something like medical geography...)

The point of the matter is that there will be less death if there are no guns.


I know a black woman who tells me stories of how violent things are in Washington DC and in the ghettos of Maryland. She has a hard time getting around the fact that in the Dakotas, virtually every household has a gun (or two or three) and yet we have so little crime. Guns are not the problem - there's something else causing crime waves.

And if you'd make a viable suggestion as to the cause; I will be more convinced.

It is not "legal" gun owners that are the problem (most of the time)... it is when the legal guns are stolen...

SineNomine
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 03:45 AM
Which happen how often?
If and when it does, I want the means to fight back.


There is a vast difference between a firearm and a powertool or a rock, for that matter. Some of them have practical purposes. Some of them are just part of the earth. Neither of them is made for the sole purpose of causing bodily harm to another human being.
And yet any of them are as good a weapon should one desire to use them in that way. That a gun can only be used in one way is irrelevant - what is the issue at hand is that it can kill; so can other common objects, if wielded effectively.


Hire people based on merit rather than anything else, despite what the State says; doesn't this legislated hiring pracitce go against your beloved constitution?
Anti-discrimination laws would prohibit me from doing so. I am not an American, BTW, so the Constitution is irrelevant to me.


How quickly would he grow powerless?
It would depend on how much of the populace shirked off his rule.


And I am quite sure I responded to him..
Not to my satisfaction.


Because I'm young, intelligent, and I'm sure I could do a bang-up job. :D

And what about the dictators that care for their people? If his desires run with those of the people? Is that then so bad?
Dictators that care for their people are a rarity indeed; besides, good intentions pave the road to Hell. There is no worse conceivable situation than giving an absolute monopoly over force to a single person. And why, anyway, should I accept the moral authority of some usurper of my autonomy? For my "own good"? That is something I alone decide upon. Do you have any real concept of what it is to live under a dictatorship, other than it sounding cool (for who knows what reason)?


Because the people with the "military might" of the country would be afraid of a few million people wielding hand guns versus highly trained soldiers...
As I stated earlier, things change when the military is called to act against the very individuals it is meant to protect. It is also trained to expect a disarmed, complacent populace.



Didn't you just say that the ancient Athenians practised a form of limited democracy?
The ancient Athenians practised a democracy of privileged few. The term becomes meaningless if we consider how few actually participated in the process (I believe somewhere around 10%.)


At least you have a choice.. don't go comparing your nation of "freedom" to one that is heavily oppressed. You'll find that your hyperboles will get the better of you.
His comparison is to show that the US does not fare much better than a system with totalitarian control, at least in the choice one is given in representatives in the US system. It offers choice, yes, but between rulers, who themselves decide upon most matters. The US "democracy" pretty much begins and ends at the election ballot.

Erhard
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 04:03 AM
A staple of any debate of American law; do you oppose or support the right to own a firearm? Is the law unshakable? Should it be abolished or have more restrictions placed on it? To Europeans on the forum, how do you perceive America's gun laws?

Please share your opinions.
Every Swiss male who served in the military and who is on the reserve list (basically everyone, as we have compulsory military service), has the right and duty to store his full-automatic gun and sufficient ammo at home. The purpose is that in case of a surprise attack the citizenry is armed within minutes to defend the country, its sovereignty and its neutrality.

So there are state-provided automatic weapons in basically every household what is a very good thing. It's also very easy to buy long rifles, shotguns and handguns. Many shop owners have one to protect themselves. Because of this, Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of burglaries, robberies, violent crimes and murders in Europe.

The suicide rate is not higher than in the rest of Europe, but many people make use of their guns instead of hanging themselves, swallowing pills, slashing their wrists or jumping from buildings. Sometimes there are also family dramas settled with guns instead of with knives. The socialists are recently taking this as an argument to demand the disarmament of the Swiss citizens or to make gun ownership at least much more difficult.

I don't think they will have success, however. In practice, they would need a majority in a secret public referendum voting for its own disarmament and the overwhelming majority of the Swiss people (in particular the Germans) are staunch supporters of private gun ownership. It has a century long tradition in Switzerland. The right to possess arms is seen as a guarantee that the Swiss people are and will remain free.

Deary
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 04:07 AM
Freydis:

By stating that guns are not neutral, you've managed to imply that objects are capable of having a bias. A flower vase as opposed to a screwdriver as opposed to a gun are tools that differ only in level of effectivity for whichever purpose the user of the tool is intent on wielding to their advantage. Those who seek to cause harm will find means to do so regardless of any eradication of guns. People have been murdering each other prior to the invention of firearms, and enacting a prohibition on guns wouldn't stamp out deaths, or for that matter, gun related deaths.

Citizens of 21 years or older with no felonies are permitted to own guns, as well as police, military and government security, etc. Nearly everyone else owning a gun while failing to meet these conditions are doing so illegally, so yes, there is such a thing as illicit gun ownership in the U.S.

As for the chart you provided, I'll have to finish reading the rest of it later.

edit: Thus far, the study states nothing unexpected. If there are more guns there will be more deaths involving a gun. Just as if a town is bereft of tall buildings, deaths or injuries from long falls will be a small percentage. Concerning suicide statistics, it seems only natural that when a gun is available there's a decent chance the victim would employ it for the task. That doesn't suggest he/she wouldn't have used a rope, razor, drugs, carbon monoxide and other numerous means to commit suicide had a gun not been present.


Have you had rocks thrown at you before? I must say, it's a decidedly unpleasant experience, but nothing that would kill one.

Lapidation/stoning is a very old and effective measure of execution.

OneEnglishNorman
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 01:03 PM
SineNomine, should citizens have the right to own atomic weapons?

Your answer had better be good, I'm the foremost libertarian on this forum :P

SineNomine
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 01:09 PM
SineNomine, should citizens have the right to own atomic weapons?

Your answer had better be good, I'm the foremost libertarian on this forum :P
How about you try reading my posts, since I had already addressed this? In short: no. They are imprecise in the extreme (unlike guns, these weapons involve substantial destruction of innocent life and property), and pose an overt, direct threat to anyone near to whom they are stored. Weapons that involve significant degrees of collateral damage are not good for self-defence. I do not believe in a right to bear arms - I believe in a right to self-defence; nuclear weapons do not qualify.

OneEnglishNorman
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 02:22 PM
How about you try reading my posts, since I had already addressed this? In short: no. They are imprecise in the extreme (unlike guns, these weapons involve substantial destruction of innocent life and property), and pose an overt, direct threat to anyone near to whom they are stored. Weapons that involve significant degrees of collateral damage are not good for self-defence. I do not believe in a right to bear arms - I believe in a right to self-defence; nuclear weapons do not qualify.

OK. I knew you would give that answer. That's what I would have said. BTW I only ever read the posts on the last page of a thread :p

So on your criterion, the gun laws in the US have some merit (auto vs semi-auto etc).

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 07:37 PM
So on your criterion, the gun laws in the US have some merit (auto vs semi-auto etc).

Full auto would still be ideal for situations such as mob attacks and home invasions by multiple people. There's not much chance of collateral damage to innocents from full auto weapons because you are extremely unlikely to be attacked when there are other innocent people around to get hit by your gunfire (they would be potential witnesses)

This guy here could certainly have used a fully automatic weapon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkJJpgeLTBU&mode=related&search=

Allenson
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 08:02 PM
And let us never forget the right to arm bears.


http://www.cowswithguns.com/images_store/bear_arms.jpg


Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

Erhard
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 10:27 PM
SineNomine, should citizens have the right to own atomic weapons? The Second Amendment was passed in order to prevent arbitrary use of power against the U.S. citizens. It should protect the citizen against the establishment of a tyranny, a dictatorship, or a totalitarian or Stalinist system.

I think it is quite clear that this right does not extent to weapons of mass destruction which cannot be used in a conflict between civilians and US bureaucrats who try to disarm the people and extend their power beyond what is granted to them by the constitution.

Just imagine if every American lunatic could possess nuclear arms and the damage that is caused to millions of innocents (civilians for the most part) and the environment if he should run amok and uses them. The government has at least many safeguards in place to prevent the abuse of such weapons and also needs them for domestic defense against foreign aggressors. In general, nuclear arms cannot be effectively and purposefully used by either the government or the civilian resistance in a civil war to reach their desired aims.

It is the intent of the Second Amendment to create at least an equilibrium between the strength of the reasonably usable governmental weaponry and the weapons available to civilians. This surely would include the right of law-abiding citizens to possess automatic guns but also grenades and other weapons that fulfill a strategic or tactical purpose being able to be used to target specifically governmental institutions, military bases and the seats of its federal executive forces.

I think that in the form of a well-organized militia (under command of experienced generals and officers of states that enjoy the trust of the populace) also tanks, bazookas, anti-ballistic missiles and similar conventional weaponry would be imaginable. The spirit of the 2nd amendment would in my view extend to them, as civilians can no longer protect their liberty successfully with front loaders or colts against the ever more sophisticated arms and weapons of the government. The criterion will always be whether a weapon targets a specific governmental base or site (i.e. a concrete target) or whether it is a weapon of mass destruction that causes (besides destroying the target) overwhelmingly and predominantly extreme "collateral" damage amongst innocent civilians in the site's proximity and surroundings. Detonating a nuclear bomb in a federal building in a densely populated area would be such an example; or the use of biological weaponry.

Freydis
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 11:06 PM
By stating that guns are not neutral, you've managed to imply that objects are capable of having a bias.

And why aren't objects capable of having a bias? :D Wouldn't a regular spiral notebook have a "bias" towards the right handed, for example?


A flower vase as opposed to a screwdriver as opposed to a gun are tools that differ only in level of effectivity for whichever purpose the user of the tool is intent on wielding to their advantage.

"Tool" this, "tool" that. What I've been saying is that a flower vase and a screwdriver actually have useful purposes other than using to murder someone (like a gun).


Those who seek to cause harm will find means to do so regardless of any eradication of guns. People have been murdering each other prior to the invention of firearms, and enacting a prohibition on guns wouldn't stamp out deaths, or for that matter, gun related deaths.

Remember that graph I posted? You know the regions with less gun restriction having higher incidences of gun crime?

Prohibiting certain types of guns (more powerful like assault rifles, shotguns, etc.) usually comes with a drop in crime. Why? Because there are less legal owners to steal these weapons from. It won't stamp out all deaths, but it will stamp out some.


Citizens of 21 years or older with no felonies are permitted to own guns, as well as police, military and government security, etc. Nearly everyone else owning a gun while failing to meet these conditions are doing so illegally, so yes, there is such a thing as illicit gun ownership in the U.S.

I was aware that there is illegal gun ownership everywhere.

Do they have to take a mental test?


Thus far, the study states nothing unexpected. If there are more guns there will be more deaths involving a gun. Just as if a town is bereft of tall buildings, deaths or injuries from long falls will be a small percentage.

Exactly what I've been saying. So why can't we have less guns?


Concerning suicide statistics, it seems only natural that when a gun is available there's a decent chance the victim would employ it for the task. That doesn't suggest he/she wouldn't have used a rope, razor, drugs, carbon monoxide and other numerous means to commit suicide had a gun not been present.

Many people who commit suicide only do so so that they are found by others and gain sympathy and attention.


Lapidation/stoning is a very old and effective measure of execution.

Yes, case in point? A stoning is a hail of stones, rather than the rock or two that we were discussing.

mischak
Friday, August 10th, 2007, 11:56 PM
Many people who commit suicide only do so so that they are found by others and gain sympathy and attention.



How are they going to benefit from the supposed sympathy and attention they want to gain if they're dead

Freydis
Saturday, August 11th, 2007, 01:07 AM
Because they make sure that they will survive. They do not stab deep enough, tie the rope tight enough, shoot in the right place... usw.

mischak
Saturday, August 11th, 2007, 01:51 AM
Because they make sure that they will survive. They do not stab deep enough, tie the rope tight enough, shoot in the right place... usw.


That's attempting suicide, not committing it. Your statement seems pretty uninformed either way. There are people who attempt suicide solely for attention, but they are in the minority.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, August 11th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Freydis

Why would you fight your own government? It seems rather pointless.. And besides, why would they grant you the right to fight them? Most rebellions/revolutions find their own ways of acquiring weaponry anyway..

Because long ago in a deferent time, when the previous “Government of America” attempted to pull some Shit.

The founders of the current Government wrote a little Document called the “Declaration of Independence”
Which says this


WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

Any way the local peasantry decided to tell that government to cram it up their ass and institute a new Government.


WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness— That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Thomas Jefferson

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.


I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

Freydis

It's ridiculous to say "I care more about my right to own a firearm than my fellow countrymen".

Maybe so but that is what im saying.
I care upmost about my freedom, and I don’t have a problem killing those who would try and take it away from me. This could be an Intruder, but most likely it would be someone who is part of an Elitist organization.

IE A Government.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, August 11th, 2007, 02:54 AM
Erhard said

I don't think they will have success, however. In practice, they would need a majority in a secret public referendum voting for its own disarmament and the overwhelming majority of the Swiss people (in particular the Germans) are staunch supporters of private gun ownership. It has a century long tradition in Switzerland. The right to possess arms is seen as a guarantee that the Swiss people are and will remain free.

Dam!
The Swiss Rock!

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, August 11th, 2007, 08:42 AM
Generally the places with more restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates

Deary
Saturday, August 11th, 2007, 04:53 PM
Freydis:

It is impossible for an object to have a bias. They cannot think and therefore cannot be predisposed or inclined. Companies are obliged to market to the right-handed majority as well as the minority of left-handers. The logic that objects are to blame is backwards.


What I've been saying is that a flower vase and a screwdriver actually have useful purposes other than using to murder someone (like a gun).

Actually, what you've been saying is that improvision of objects is more effective than a firearm, then contradicting yourself by saying only certain objects are capable of being used as weapons (untrue) which unwittingly gives the edge to those against any forbiddance of firearms for the sake that a gun is a more effective tool than other objects which cannot kill as adequately in self-defense. Your "point" flies all over the place, and to state that objects can be used for the purpose they were intended is redundant and considerably obvious.


Many people who commit suicide only do so so that they are found by others and gain sympathy and attention.

Please stay on topic.

Tyr
Saturday, August 11th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Gun control is counterproductive and essentially useless. To the law-abiding population it is unnecessary; to the non-law abiding population, it is irrelevant. It makes no sense to criminalize a neutral tool used to commit an already illegal act. That is, if one was intent on murdering despite its being illegal, how would making the gun illegal serve as a deterrent? It not not only (as has been stated) disarms law-abiding citizens (who would likely not use them to break the law) but alerts criminals who would abuse guns to the fact that they and only they are armed. In other words, the law-abiding population would be vulnerable and those that seek to harm them are well aware of that. An armed citizenry is safer even if only because of this fact.


Generally I don`t think that it's useless or counterproductive. That the countrys in Europe,where it is really difficult to obtain firearms, have a FAR lower murderrate than the US, is a fact. It's just a lot easier to take someones life with a gun than with a knife,a baseballbat or whatever. There are some reasons for this,the most important is the (sorry i dont know the english word for this,since it's not my mothertongue but you know, the thing that prevent humans to kill other humans) is disabled because the target is in some distance and you dont have to come close to kill but that's not so important in this debate.

Anyway,you have to agree that living in europe is much more safer than in the States,simply because not every jerk/nigger can get firearms that easy BUT and this is the whole point of my argument structure:

Europe is not the US.

You cant just forbid guns for the people and say that the problem isnt there anymore because there are more than 500 millions firearms in the hands of them and they will not just disappear if you say so. That's why the european and better solution isnt possible,so you have to think again.
For gods sake I'm not a supporter of NRA but i'm afraid that they are right. If its a Duty to bear a gun for every individual it would be much safer,it's not a good way to deal with this issue but it's the only.

Æmeric
Saturday, August 11th, 2007, 07:39 PM
Generally I don`t think that it's useless or counterproductive. That the countrys in Europe,where it is really difficult to obtain firearms, have a FAR lower murderrate than the US, is a fact.

What is also a fact is that Europeans countries do not have as much ethnic diversity as the US. None of them have a Negro population approaching 13% like the US. A very disproportionate amount of crime in the US is committed by non-Whites, especially Negroes (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=468).The greatest mass murder in US history took place on September 11, 2001 when nearly 3,000 were killed. No guns were used in the hijackings of the four aircraft involved. The second worst mass murder was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. That involved a Ryder truck loaded with fertilizer (ammonium nitrate) mixed with gasoline, killing 168. Not one of the dead was killed by a firearm.

Banning guns will not prevent violent crime, but it is know that homogeneous societies have much less crime then heterogeneous societies.

Freydis
Sunday, August 12th, 2007, 12:53 AM
That's attempting suicide, not committing it. Your statement seems pretty uninformed either way. There are people who attempt suicide solely for attention, but they are in the minority.

Why are there so many "attempted" suicides then? And why, if someone is committing suicide, do they do it in a place they will easily be found?


Because long ago in a deferent time, when the previous “Government of America” attempted to pull some Shit. The founders of the current Government wrote a little Document called the “Declaration of Independence”

But the "right to bear arms" didn't exist before your current government...?


Any way the local peasantry decided to tell that government to cram it up their ass and institute a new Government.

Ah yes, the noble peasantry, fighting off those evil British bourgeoisie.


Maybe so but that is what im saying.
I care upmost about my freedom, and I don’t have a problem killing those who would try and take it away from me.

So basically to have your own freedom, you rob someone else of their freedom?

Take what away? Your ability to shoot whoever you want?


This could be an Intruder, but most likely it would be someone who is part of an Elitist organization.

IE A Government.

Because governments go around killing their citizenry. This is sheer paranoia.


Generally the places with more restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates

And where did you get this little gem?

Of course, the US, with its high prison populations and less restrictive gun laws doesn't suffer from a higher crime rate...


It is impossible for an object to have a bias. They cannot think and therefore cannot be predisposed or inclined. Companies are obliged to market to the right-handed majority as well as the minority of left-handers. The logic that objects are to blame is backwards.

The makers of the object can think.. so they can put their own bias into the manufactured product.

I was giving the spiral notebook as an example... and no, they are not obliged to market to right and left handed people. That is why left handed people die earlier than their right handed counterparts.


Actually, what you've been saying is that improvision of objects is more effective than a firearm, then contradicting yourself by saying only certain objects are capable of being used as weapons (untrue)

Actually, I haven't been contradicting myself. I was saying that certain objects are made to be weapons, others are not. Not saying that only certain objects can be weapons.


which unwittingly gives the edge to those against any forbiddance of firearms for the sake that a gun is a more effective tool than other objects which cannot kill as adequately in self-defense.

Why do you need to kill someone in self-defense?


Your "point" flies all over the place, and to state that objects can be used for the purpose they were intended is redundant and considerably obvious.

It doesn't appear that my "point" is completely obvious to everyone.

Everything can be used as a weapon, but they are not necessarily effective. That is the point. A weapon-- oh sorry, "tool"-- that is effective in the majority of cases with an intended purpose (as is revealed through many of your post) to murder another human being is unnecessary, if we have all these household objects we can use... or are you afraid of a little mess? :D


Please stay on topic.

I was responding to someone else's post about suicide, who was responding to my point about suicide, which responded to someone making a note about suicide statistics. So it was on topic. ;)

OneEnglishNorman
Sunday, August 12th, 2007, 04:55 AM
How bad are America's shooting statistics considering whites only compared to Europe?? Be interesting to know. Because including blacks & hispanics makes the USA look inordinately worse in that respect to the outside world.

SineNomine
Sunday, August 12th, 2007, 10:21 AM
So basically to have your own freedom, you rob someone else of their freedom?

Take what away? Your ability to shoot whoever you want?
Whence did you acquire this condition whereby you cannot be intellectually honest? From the minute that someone tries to aggress against you, they have forfeit any rights they have to the extent that they have violated yours (if they overtly threaten your life and you have cause to believe they'll act on it, killing them is justifiable, if necessary - with or without a gun.) No loss of freedom on their part occurs. And since when is shooting in self-defence "shooting whoever you want"?


Because governments go around killing their citizenry. This is sheer paranoia.
And it is sheer imbecility to think that governments never have and never will act against their citizens. History, if anything, confirms this.


Of course, the US, with its high prison populations and less restrictive gun laws doesn't suffer from a higher crime rate...
Again, ask why these facts are such as they are.


The makers of the object can think.. so they can put their own bias into the manufactured product.
Are you serious? Objects are inanimate. Bias (of the nonstatistical sort) can only be possessed by intelligent, self-conscious beings; it is a preference. Inanimate objects cannot act, hence cannot prefer.


Actually, I haven't been contradicting myself. I was saying that certain objects are made to be weapons, others are not. Not saying that only certain objects can be weapons.
Then what is your point?


Why do you need to kill someone in self-defense?
Guns can also be used to immobilise, and if killing another is the only way to secure one's life, then it is justified.


Everything can be used as a weapon, but they are not necessarily effective. That is the point. A weapon-- oh sorry, "tool"-- that is effective in the majority of cases with an intended purpose (as is revealed through many of your post) to murder another human being is unnecessary, if we have all these household objects we can use... or are you afraid of a little mess? :D
And so the circle closes. It's alright to use household utensils to kill, but not guns, simply because they're more effective. I'd like someone to pinpoint to me where the logic in this is, because it's lost on me.

Tyr
Sunday, August 12th, 2007, 12:57 PM
What is also a fact is that Europeans countries do not have as much ethnic diversity as the US. None of them have a Negro population approaching 13% like the US. A very disproportionate amount of crime in the US is committed by non-Whites, especially Negroes (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=468).The greatest mass murder in US history took place on September 11, 2001 when nearly 3,000 were killed. No guns were used in the hijackings of the four aircraft involved. The second worst mass murder was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. That involved a Ryder truck loaded with fertilizer (ammonium nitrate) mixed with gasoline, killing 168. Not one of the dead was killed by a firearm.

Banning guns will not prevent violent crime, but it is know that homogeneous societies have much less crime then heterogeneous societies.

Fortunately,these tragedys aren't common,that's why i think that they don't really belong to this debate ;)

Ethnic diversity..
I live in Austria, actually a really nice little country but today there are more than 15 % muslims and they breed like rats,so it's just a matter of time they get 20% or more. You see,it's rather similar to the States.-

The question at this issue, are my beloved ones safer if there are no restrictive gun laws?

I don't think so and i'm glad that we have this laws. Simply because i don't want a gun in everys turkish juveniles hands,this would be a nightmare but how would you prevent this? Guns only for germanics? :rolleyes:

Not possible in this leftist goverment.

(Apart from it,that there would be germanics who sell guns to these bastards)

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 05:14 AM
Extensive study on the subject from the recent issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Freydis
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 03:30 PM
Whence did you acquire this condition whereby you cannot be intellectually honest?

I dislike ad hominems.


And it is sheer imbecility to think that governments never have and never will act against their citizens. History, if anything, confirms this.

I dislike ad hominems.

Some governments will not act against their citizenry; history, if anything, confirms this.

It is "sheer imbecility" to assume that all governments are evil and do not act for their people.


Are you serious? Objects are inanimate. Bias (of the nonstatistical sort) can only be possessed by intelligent, self-conscious beings; it is a preference. Inanimate objects cannot act, hence cannot prefer.

I dislike ad hominems.

Inanimate objects can have the bias of their maker; what I meant by this is that the maker may have a certain bias that is put into the design of the object.


And so the circle closes. It's alright to use household utensils to kill, but not guns, simply because they're more effective. I'd like someone to pinpoint to me where the logic in this is, because it's lost on me.

I dislike ad hominems.

I am not being illogical.

I am tired of saying things over and over and being insulted because I am so obviously "intellectually dishonest", so I think this will be my last point:

Household utensils have a myriad of other purposes and one rarely uses them to kill.

Guns have one purpose: to kill. Or to be generous, to injure.

Æmeric
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 03:38 PM
Guns have one purpose: to kill. Or to be generous, to injure.

Most guns in the United States have never wounded, let alone been used to kill someone.


I dislike ad hominems

That goes for the rest of us also.

Galloglaich
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 03:40 PM
I dislike ad hominems....I dislike ad hominems...

Some governments will not act against their citizenry; history, if anything, confirms this.

It is "sheer imbecility" to assume that all governments are evil and do not act for their people.

ad hominem tu quoque?

Vingolf
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 04:02 PM
The question at this issue, are my beloved ones safer if there are no restrictive gun laws? I don't think so and i'm glad that we have this laws. Simply because i don't want a gun in everys turkish juveniles hands,this would be a nightmare but how would you prevent this? Guns only for germanics? Not possible in this leftist goverment. (Apart from it,that there would be germanics who sell guns to these bastards)
First of all: non-Germanics already have all the guns they need. And if some of them don't, they can easily get one illegally. Second, the state monopoly of violence is rapidly breaking down. Since the state cannot guarantee our safety anymore, we'll have to rely on ourselves, our families and friends... and our guns...

Siegfried
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 04:20 PM
How bad are America's shooting statistics considering whites only compared to Europe?? Be interesting to know. Because including blacks & hispanics makes the USA look inordinately worse in that respect to the outside world.

A recent Dutch newspaper article claimed shooting incidents among Euro-Americans are comparable to those among Europeans; it's the Afro-Americans and faux Hispanics who are pushing up America's rates. The article did not cite official statistics to support the claim, however.


Rights don't exist.

Of course they do. Don't be such a materialist.

Tyr
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 05:30 PM
First of all: non-Germanics already have all the guns they need. And if some of them don't, they can easily get one illegally. Second, the state monopoly of violence is rapidly breaking down. Since the state cannot guarantee our safety anymore, we'll have to rely on ourselves, our families and friends... and our guns...

Sorry,but that's simply wrong.

If it's that easy to get a gun in Austria, why is gun related violence so rare?

The only people in Austria, which have guns at home, are hunters, policemen and some farmers and they are certainly germanic.

Even if i have to admit, i dont really care about the nationality,i simply want no guns for private individuals.

And as a result of this, Austria is a lot safer than the States,even with a 15 % ratio of muslims. (in some Districts more than 50%)

Vingolf
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 05:52 PM
If it's that easy to get a gun in Austria, why is gun related violence so rare?
I don't know the crime rates in Austria, but guns and other weapons are quite wide spread among non-Western immigrants in other European countries (at least in Scandinavia). Austria is also very close to Eastern Europe - the main source of illegal hand guns in Western Europe.


The only people in Austria, which have guns at home, are hunters, policemen and some farmers and they are certainly germanic.
That's the problem, you see. There's no balance between the immigrant population and the Germanic native population. While only few Germanics have guns, many immigrants have (at least access to) illegal guns (at least in Scandinavia).


Even if i have to admit, i dont really care about the nationality,i simply want no guns for private individuals.
Then you're living in Utopia, man. Wake up and get back on planet earth. The immigrant population we have in Western Europe comes from primitive, violent societies. Where you have large concentrations of non-Western immigrants (ghettos), you'll also have guns. Lots of violence and guns. Last time I was in Vienna, I noticed that Austria is no exception to the rule.


And as a result of this, Austria is a lot safer than the States,even with a 15 % ratio of muslims. (in some Districts more than 50%)
Statistics, please?

Æmeric
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 06:05 PM
And as a result of this, Austria is a lot safer than the States,even with a 15 % ratio of muslims. (in some Districts more than 50%)
How many of the Muslims in Austria are Negro or Amerindian by race? I don't think you comprehend just how much more Negroes are inclined to commit crime & especially violent crime. Most of them have IQs below the European norm - I believe the average is 85. Fortunately for us Euro-Americans most of their victims are other Negroes. The faux-Hispanic Mestizos are also a violent race. One of the things discussed on forums such as this one are the obvious differences between different racial groups. If Austria had a 15% population of Negroes from the US or the Caribbean, or of New World Mestizos, there would be as much gun violence in Austria as there is in the US.

SineNomine
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 11:25 PM
I dislike ad hominems.
I dislike intellectual dishonesty.


Some governments will not act against their citizenry; history, if anything, confirms this.
Good, and if and when they do, I want the means to protect myself.


It is "sheer imbecility" to assume that all governments are evil and do not act for their people.
Governments are always an evil - violations of rights are inherent in their structure. They always must rely on fictional social contracts to establish their legitimacy, contracts which barely resemble the meaning of the word.


Inanimate objects can have the bias of their maker; what I meant by this is that the maker may have a certain bias that is put into the design of the object.
The object still has no bias of its own though. And I fail to see why this should even matter.


I am not being illogical.
But you are.


Household utensils have a myriad of other purposes and one rarely uses them to kill.

Guns have one purpose: to kill. Or to be generous, to injure.
Again, so what? They cannot kill without a finger behind the trigger. A murderous agent is required. Same with any other object.

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 12:03 AM
Governments are always an evil - violations of rights are inherent in their structure. They always must rely on fictional social contracts to establish their legitimacy, contracts which barely resemble the meaning of the word.

What if 20 citizens on a remote island initiate a government which they all explicitly consent to?



Again, so what? They cannot kill without a finger behind the trigger. A murderous agent is required. Same with any other object.

So atomic weapons are OK again? Because they're inanimate unless activated.

Problem with these libertarian rights/ethics arguments is that everything is reduced to the point of nonsense. These arguments are supposedly watertight, but only on their own warped terms.

SineNomine
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 12:11 AM
What if 20 citizens on a remote island initiate a government which they all explicitly consent to?
Then it is a voluntary government. Your point?


So atomic weapons are OK again? Because they're inanimate unless activated.
I do not recall arguing for the prohibition of nuclear weapons based on the fact that they're a weapon - rather, based on the fact that they are impossible to use in self-defence without causing significant collateral damage. If they can be stored in an entirely risk-free manner, that at least would not be objectionable.


Problem with these libertarian rights/ethics arguments is that everything is reduced to the point of nonsense. These arguments are supposedly watertight, but only on their own warped terms.
No, the "problem" with them is that they require careful deliberation in being applied to specific cases. This is the fault of any moral system though. And it has no bearing whatsoever on its validity.

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Then it is a voluntary government. Your point?

The point is that governments are not always evil and do not always violate rights. Governments are no more fictional than family units.

SineNomine
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 12:18 AM
The point is that governments are not always evil and do not always violate rights. Governments are no more fictional than family units.
Please read my posts more carefully in future - social contracts are fictional. The sort of government you referenced is entirely voluntary because it was agreed to voluntarily (and in that regard, is not a State, unlike every modern government.) For it to remain voluntary, it would have to follow all the steps Nozick outlined in his Anarchy, State and Utopia.

Tyr
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 03:23 PM
I don't know the crime rates in Austria, but guns and other weapons are quite wide spread among non-Western immigrants in other European countries (at least in Scandinavia). Austria is also very close to Eastern Europe - the main source of illegal hand guns in Western Europe.


I don't doubt that there are possibilities to get a illegal gun but i don't know if they are just too expensive for the common immigrant or if there is a another reason but it's a fact that gun related violence is rare in Austria.

Statistic (http://www.protell.ch/Aktivbereich/19Archiv/de/2002/03.115d.htm)


That's the problem, you see. There's no balance between the immigrant population and the Germanic native population. While only few Germanics have guns, many immigrants have (at least access to) illegal guns (at least in Scandinavia). As i said, maybe a few of them has access to, but it's still rare.



Then you're living in Utopia, man. Wake up and get back on planet earth. The immigrant population we have in Western Europe comes from primitive, violent societies. Where you have large concentrations of non-Western immigrants (ghettos), you'll also have guns. Lots of violence and guns. Last time I was in Vienna, I noticed that Austria is no exception to the rule.

I live in Vienna,i know what it means to be surrounded by immigrants..And i also completly agree with you that most of them are worthless violent scum,especially the turkish ones.But it would be in the news if there is gun related violence,but no newspaper says something like this. Of course,there is violence,but the weapons that are used are mainly knifes or bats,but not guns. Maybe it's because weapons are not necessary,since they haven't a single bit of honor and only attack if there is a ratio of at least 3:1 (my own experience..)

Austria is not Utopia ;)


Statistics, please?

As an example (http://www.migranten.at/verteilung.html)

I'm sorry,i didnt find an english source,so i hope you understand german,otherwise you can use google translation tools if you want.

It says for example in the 15th district 35% of the people are not born in Austria.The immigrants which are born in Austria but of turkish,african,.. parents and automaticially have the austrian citizenship are not counted, take both together and you reach more than 50 %.

Of course,not all of them are muslimes (but most of them),my mistake.

additional sources: crime statistic (http://www.bmi.gv.at/downloadarea/daten_fakten/Fakten2005.pdf),which says that Austria is quite safe.

govermental statistics (http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/bevoelkerung/index.html) of religion,immigrants,... (Sorry,i cannot give you the exact link,cause my acrobat reader has some problems)






How many of the Muslims in Austria are Negro or Amerindian by race? I don't think you comprehend just how much more Negroes are inclined to commit crime & especially violent crime. Most of them have IQs below the European norm - I believe the average is 85. Fortunately for us Euro-Americans most of their victims are other Negroes. The faux-Hispanic Mestizos are also a violent race. One of the things discussed on forums such as this one are the obvious differences between different racial groups. If Austria had a 15% population of Negroes from the US or the Caribbean, or of New World Mestizos, there would be as much gun violence in Austria as there is in the US.

Most of them are turkish and plain-spoken, if i would be able to choose,i would take the niggers instead of these islamistic lowlifes. Everytime when i think about the fact,that my own girlfriend cannot go to public outdoor swimming pools without my escort,because this scum molests her and even say that this is okay,since she is just a "western whore" which doesnt wear a headscarf, i wish we would reactivate our beloved old death camps..

Allenson
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 03:38 PM
Governments are no more fictional than family units.

Eh? Governments are arbitrary and artificially constructed. While I suppose a "family" can be arbitrary if everyone is adopted, a true, genetically linked family is bound and linked to one another indelibly.

Not a husband and wife per say (or one would hope, anyway ;) ) but siblings to one another and to their cousins, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. Nothing fictional, or rather, nothing that one can change about the genetic, familial relationships.

In short, a government can be changed, altered, constructed and taken down. You can't change who your (biological) family is.

Oh wait, off topic....:rolleyes:

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, August 15th, 2007, 01:07 AM
Of course,there is violence,but the weapons that are used are mainly knifes or bats,but not guns. Maybe it's because weapons are not necessary,since they haven't a single bit of honor and only attack if there is a ratio of at least 3:1

Does it really matter then how you die? If the unavailability of guns just means you get gang-beaten or stabbed instead of shot is that really an improvement?

Freydis
Wednesday, August 15th, 2007, 05:01 AM
Does it really matter then how you die? If the unavailability of guns just means you get gang-beaten or stabbed instead of shot is that really an improvement?

Yes, it does matter how you die-- or how someone attempts to murder you.

It is more difficult to die from a stab wound than a gun shot, and it is more difficult to die from a beating than a stab wound, usw.

Tyr
Wednesday, August 15th, 2007, 12:07 PM
Does it really matter then how you die? If the unavailability of guns just means you get gang-beaten or stabbed instead of shot is that really an improvement?

As Freydis already said, the chance to survive is much higher.

Aside from this,you can run away from a knife or thugs with bats, but did you ever manage to run away from a bullet? ;)

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, August 15th, 2007, 09:30 PM
Yes, it does matter how you die-- or how someone attempts to murder you.

It is more difficult to die from a stab wound than a gun shot, and it is more difficult to die from a beating than a stab wound, usw.


As Freydis already said, the chance to survive is much higher.

Aside from this,you can run away from a knife or thugs with bats, but did you ever manage to run away from a bullet? ;)

Extremely few people are murdered by long range snipers, most people who die of gunshot wounds are shot at close range. Whether you die or not from an attack depends more on the time and quality of emergency medical response than anything else. In England, they banned guns, and now they are having an epidemic of knife murders (their solution: try to ban knives as well)

Freydis
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 01:23 AM
Extremely few people are murdered by long range snipers, most people who die of gunshot wounds are shot at close range. Whether you die or not from an attack depends more on the time and quality of emergency medical response than anything else.

I, at least, was not talking about "long range snipers". I was talking about people who are shot at close range.

Think of this: Shoot someone in the abdomen. Stab someone else in the abdomen. Who will have more of a chance of living?

The bullet will do more damage than the knife. This is common sense. Of course the quality of medical care factors into survival, but also the method of the attack does much more.


In England, they banned guns, and now they are having an epidemic of knife murders (their solution: try to ban knives as well)

In England, there is no ban on knives; nor, as I recall, has there been legislation put forth to ban them. One merely has to be an adult to purchase one.

Godiva
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 02:38 AM
A staple of any debate of American law; do you oppose or support the right to own a firearm? Is the law unshakable? Should it be abolished or have more restrictions placed on it? To Europeans on the forum, how do you perceive America's gun laws?

Please share your opinions.

I experienced shooting a gun for the first time today. I never realized how fun and how focused it would be, I really enjoyed it. This morning at work I was talking with some girls and we discussed rape. The three of us agreed that being raped is probably the average woman's greatest fear. As I put it, "Yes, I would much rather be cut open and have people feed on my intestines while I was still alive than be raped." I think that the right to own and bear arms is a good one. I think that, if exercised, that right allows people to be more equal in their ability to defend themselves, something that I greatly appreciate. I think that America ought to pay more attention to it's constitution with regards to viewing proposed laws for gun control correctly.

Ægir
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 02:51 AM
The bullet will do more damage than the knife. This is common sense.

But a case where common sense is not quite correct…it really depends on the type of blade and where it cut, as well as type of bullet and where it hit. Both can be equally deadly.

AlbionMP
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 04:22 AM
I think every Citizen should own a rifle!

The only question is - who are Citizens ?

Freydis
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 04:28 AM
But a case where common sense is not quite correct…it really depends on the type of blade and where it cut, as well as type of bullet and where it hit. Both can be equally deadly.

The most commonly used knife in a stabbing is likely a common kitchen knife...

I was saying to compare in the same place (the abdomen).

Yes, there are many variables (types of both) but I would say on the whole, a gun is much more deadly.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 05:40 AM
Yes, there are many variables (types of both) but I would say on the whole, a gun is much more deadly.

Assuming this is even true, wouldn't you much rather own a gun than a knife?

Ægir
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 06:06 AM
The most commonly used knife in a stabbing is likely a common kitchen knife...
Common kitchen knives come in many forms…but if you use the big sharp knives that I use I would probably say that in that case you have proven my point…the knife is deadlier.:D


I was saying to compare in the same place (the abdomen).
Well let’s take the stomach if I had the choice to be shot with a 9mm or smaller or get stabbed with one of those kitchen knives you mentioned I would take the gun shot any day of the week. The abdomen is an area filled with many many feet of intestines all wrapped around each other. With the gun shot you will have an entry wound and possibly an exit wound but the bullet will produce a much smaller and more precise wound than the kitchen knife would. As well with the knife wound you have the added damage of the movement of the blade in the abdomen during the act of stabbing. As well with the stabbing you have to get the knife out the same way it went in which surely will carry with it the added ripping and tearing of the flesh in the abdomen. This makes the knife wound a far nastier wound which will need much more acute medical attention.


but I would say on the whole, a gun is much more deadly.

I disagree. Granted I think a gun is a better weapon for self defense as you have much grater range than you have with a melee weapon like a knife. However if I really wanted to kill someone and make it nasty then I would use the knife. Both can be deadly, both can easily kill. And a law abiding citizen should have the right to carry either…for self defense and security.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 06:21 AM
Granted I think a gun is a better weapon for self defense as you have much grater range than you have with a melee weapon like a knife. However if I really wanted to kill someone and make it nasty then I would use the knife. Both can be deadly, both can easily kill. And a law abiding citizen should have the right to carry either…for self defense and security.

The strength required to effectively wield a melee weapon is the main differential in terms of self defense. Most perpetrators of violent crimes and burglaries are males in the 16-25 age range, and often they target females and the elderly because they perceive them to be weaker targets.

Freydis
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 03:42 PM
Assuming this is even true, wouldn't you much rather own a gun than a knife?

No, because I have no desire to murder anyone.


Common kitchen knives come in many forms…but if you use the big sharp knives that I use I would probably say that in that case you have proven my point…the knife is deadlier.:D

What would the "big sharp knives" be, exactly? Specify length and width, please (in metric if you can, please).

Many kitchen knives are not made for stabbing. They are an impractical weapon. Most people don't even sharpen them...


This makes the knife wound a far nastier wound which will need much more acute medical attention.

You didn't specify the type of knife.


I disagree. Granted I think a gun is a better weapon for self defense as you have much grater range than you have with a melee weapon like a knife.

And it takes less skill, I guess, to wield a gun. But I don't see how it is necessary, still.


However if I really wanted to kill someone and make it nasty then I would use the knife. Both can be deadly, both can easily kill. And a law abiding citizen should have the right to carry either…for self defense and security.

In most countries, adults have the right to carry a knife.


The strength required to effectively wield a melee weapon is the main differential in terms of self defense. Most perpetrators of violent crimes and burglaries are males in the 16-25 age range, and often they target females and the elderly because they perceive them to be weaker targets.

It isn't strength, in most cases, it is skill. Wielding a knife isn't stabbing and slashing all the time, same with other "melee" weapons. It takes a certain amount of skill to use a knife.

Flash Voyager
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 03:50 PM
For some reason I read this as "The Right to Arm Bears" :D

Anyway, It should be legal in countries were tension is high like the US. But allowing citizens to own guns also has it's disadvantages, gun owners can kill for reasons other than defense. Nations that prohibit gun ownership(much of Europe) have far less murders per capita.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 10:19 PM
No, because I have no desire to murder anyone.


Neither do 99.9% of the people who own guns. Most people own guns for the same reason they put locks on their doors.


Nations that prohibit gun ownership(much of Europe) have far less murders per capita.

Most Eastern European countries have higher rates of murder than the US, these countries also had the strictest gun control laws:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Additionally, only 47% of murders in the US are committed by whites&hispanics (non-blacks), which drops the combined white&hispanic american murder rate below that of Portugal, Finland and most of the rest of the former communist countries

Hispanics are 3.3 times more likely to commit murder than whites, and the hispanic population is a little more 1/6 of the white population, so that makes about a 2-1 white-hispanic ratio for murders, combined with the other statistic that makes about 30% of the US murder rate attributable to people of in the US of European ancestry.

This makes the white murder rate in the US 0.0128406 per thousand, putting it at the same level as Italy, below all of the former communist countries, and about in the middle of western Europe.

Assuming Americans of Germanic ancestry murder at the same rate as others of European ancestry (my guess is it is less, but no statistics are available on the matter), the murder rate ranking for Germanic countries is thus:

#42 Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#47 White America 0.0128406 per 1,000 people
#49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
#52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
#54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people

Note that in addition to the white American murder rate being not any worse than other countries, the country with the best murder rate of all is Switzerland, which has even less restrictive gun laws than the US.

Ægir
Friday, August 17th, 2007, 12:32 AM
What would the "big sharp knives" be, exactly? Specify length and width, please (in metric if you can, please).

There is no need to measure all of my kitchen knives. You should know what kitchen knives look like they come in a variety of forms for different uses…most of which are very sharp.


Many kitchen knives are not made for stabbing. They are an impractical weapon.

Yes the intended use of a kitchen knife is not stabbing or slicing some one. However the function of most kitchen knives is for cutting and slicing other thinks like plant matter and animal flesh. In addition they are often used for the breaking of shells and animal bones. All of these functions can carry over nicely to being used against a person.


Most people don't even sharpen them...

You don’t cook much do you?;) Most people who use their cutlery sets keep the blades that are supposed to be as sharp as necessary. And don’t try to tell me it is different because I am in the states because most cutlery sets are similar throughout the civilized world. Btw Germany makes some of the best!




In most countries, adults have the right to carry a knife.

Yes and no. It really depends on the particular country and or State/Provence. There are many types of blades that are outright illegal, in addition to pretty standard restrictions based on size of blade and number of edges it has. But if you were talking of something like a Swiss Army pocket knife…yes pretty much universally you can carry one.;)

Freydis
Friday, August 17th, 2007, 04:47 AM
Neither do 99.9% of the people who own guns. Most people own guns for the same reason they put locks on their doors.

99.9% is a bit of a generalisation.

Why not just stick with locks?


Most Eastern European countries have higher rates of murder than the US, these countries also had the strictest gun control laws:

Have you noticed something about the most Eastern European Nations at the top of the graph (of course you forgot about many, many other nations on this "most"...)?

They're all former Soviet states. Of course, there was no political turmoil and upheaval after the Soviets, right? :rolleyes:

Let's take the top nation on the list (in Eastern Europe), #5, Russia.

Here are a few articles on gun control in Russia and some relevant quotations to prove against "strictest" gun control:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9283-10.cfm


According to the current version of the Russian law on weapons, citizens have a right to purchase either smooth-bore guns or self-defense weapons, which include gas pistols and revolvers. If a person buys and uses a smooth-bore gun for five years, he or she will have a right to acquire semi-automatic arms.

Despite the article discussing the legalisation of short-barelled firearms in Russia, it goes on to say:


A lot of Russian people cannot handle weapons. They think that it will be extremely dangerous to go out at night in the event the legalization of weapons is allowed.


According to US researcher Dr. Arthur Kellerman, keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder

That article, I think, was fairly balanced for both sides, though I believe it was bias towards the "pro gun" side. However, we can use the information from it to infer that Russia does not have the strictest of gun control laws. Continuing onto popular opinion on the matter:

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7265-5.cfm


Poll Shows Majority of Russians Oppose Sale of Firearms for Self-Defense

Sixty percent of Russians oppose the sale of firearms for self-defense purposes, and only 18%, mainly young people aged 18 to 24, favor this idea.


Only a quarter of the respondents (26%) believe that easier access to weapons would make Russia more safe. An estimated 43% of the respondents believe that this would make Russia less safe, 19% said it would have no effect and 12% were undecided.

Moving on from Russia..


Additionally, only 47% of murders in the US are committed by whites&hispanics (non-blacks), which drops the combined white&hispanic american murder rate below that of Portugal, Finland and most of the rest of the former communist countries

Please show me the math?

And of course, Portugal and Finland were communist countries. :rolleyes: Do you not think that Europe has a problem with "immigrant" crime as well? Or do you think that all European countries are homogeneous?


Hispanics are 3.3 times more likely to commit murder than whites, and the hispanic population is a little more 1/6 of the white population, so that makes about a 2-1 white-hispanic ratio for murders, combined with the other statistic that makes about 30% of the US murder rate attributable to people of in the US of European ancestry.

How do you figure?


This makes the white murder rate in the US 0.0128406 per thousand, putting it at the same level as Italy, below all of the former communist countries, and about in the middle of western Europe.

It's just too bad you don't account for immigration in the other countries' murder rates


Assuming Americans of Germanic ancestry murder at the same rate as others of European ancestry (my guess is it is less, but no statistics are available on the matter)

Why would it be less?


Note that in addition to the white American murder rate being not any worse than other countries, the country with the best murder rate of all is Switzerland, which has even less restrictive gun laws than the US.

"Best murder rate"...

The laws are being restricted in 2008.


There is no need to measure all of my kitchen knives. You should know what kitchen knives look like they come in a variety of forms for different uses…most of which are very sharp.

Some of which don't have a pointed end.

A paring knife is hardly an effective weapon. A carving or a butcher knife is too big and unwieldy to really be effective either.

The most effective type of knife is one made for combat.


You don’t cook much do you?;)

Actually I cook supper every night. See my thread "Post your favourite recipe" for a lovely Yorkshire Pudding. :D


Most people who use their cutlery sets keep the blades that are supposed to be as sharp as necessary. And don’t try to tell me it is different because I am in the states because most cutlery sets are similar throughout the civilized world. Btw Germany makes some of the best!

Yes, I would agree German knives are excellent.

But it is rare for people here to sharpen their knives, it seems. Maybe it is more common in the states.


But if you were talking of something like a Swiss Army pocket knife…yes pretty much universally you can carry one.;)

A pocket knife? Don't make me laugh...

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, August 17th, 2007, 05:58 AM
99.9% is a bit of a generalisation.

Why not just stick with locks?

Fine, you can stick with locks, just don't force the rest of us to be left at the mercy of anyone able to break into a house.






How do you figure?

Oh yeah, here is the site I got the figures on racial crime stats from:

http://amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/HispanicsReport.pdf
http://amren.com/colorofcrime/color.pdf

Freydis
Friday, August 17th, 2007, 12:48 PM
There's other things too such as dogs and fences and alarms.

Thank you for the source but I would have liked to see your calculations... no matter.

Ægir
Friday, August 17th, 2007, 02:15 PM
But it is rare for people here to sharpen their knives, it seems. Maybe it is more common in the states.


Well let me rephrase it you must not cook much variety of meat…yes people in the United Kingdom like everywhere else sharpen their knives. You may not but I know many who do. How do I know this you may ask? Well I lived in Scotland for six years. As a matter of fact the very sharp cutlery set that I have was purchased there!;) One reason that they may not be sharpened is that many blades these days remain sharp…and as well many no longer know how to sharpen them so when they become dull then they just buy new ones. I can truly see here that you are either a very naive person or a very argumentative one. To think that you would try to argue that kitchen knives are not sharp knives and that they could not be used for other purposes…come on I know you cannot be that daft…this conversation with you is giving me a headache so I will just stop because either
a. you are not willing to listen.
b. you are not able to listen.
c. you are just an argumentative person…I think this is the one.:rolleyes:

I could address what you said in regards to the murder rate post but I think the author of it can respond…if not their original numbers are fairly accurate…you could not understand not dealing with the colored population that we have in the States. A population that skews all statistics of crime (which their presence increases) and education (which their presences decreases).

Galloglaich
Friday, August 17th, 2007, 03:49 PM
...A paring knife is hardly an effective weapon. A carving or a butcher knife is too big and unwieldy to really be effective either.

The most effective type of knife is one made for combat...

A stout butcher knife makes one hell of a weapon, somewhat akin to the Northern European saxe (for which the Saxons were named). I suppose by your definition a sword would be most unefficient as well?

Sigurd
Friday, August 17th, 2007, 05:22 PM
A staple of any debate of American law; do you oppose or support the right to own a firearm? Is the law unshakable? Should it be abolished or have more restrictions placed on it? To Europeans on the forum, how do you perceive America's gun laws?

I support the right to bear arms. I know this sounds very unintelligent, but mainly for the reason that should an intruder come to my house armed, I would want to be able to defend myself and my (future) family. I would never use it in an aggressive manner, only in a defensive manner.

Obviously there's going to be misuse of gun ownage, but making laws forbidding the bearing of firearms is useless. If people really want to get one, they'll do so regardless of the laws, so all it really does is banning those people who would use them honestly from having one whilst the "bad guys" still have one.

On a more cynical note: Look at Dunblaine. One man makes an awful massacre, and millions of Brits who used their firearms sensibly had to give them up. The IRA were allowed to keep theirs, I presume they must have obviously been sensible with them, aye? :D

SineNomine
Saturday, August 18th, 2007, 12:24 AM
One reason that they may not be sharpened is that many blades these days remain sharp…and as well many no longer know how to sharpen them so when they become dull then they just buy new ones. I can truly see here that you are either a very naive person or a very argumentative one. To think that you would try to argue that kitchen knives are not sharp knives and that they could not be used for other purposes…
Indeed. Also, it is hardly true that knives simply go blunt. Their points remain sharp as ever, and they do not lose much of their sharpness over time. They make for horifically lethal weapons if used properly. And messy. Not that I'd know. :D

Freydis
Saturday, August 18th, 2007, 01:18 AM
A stout butcher knife makes one hell of a weapon, somewhat akin to the Northern European saxe (for which the Saxons were named). I suppose by your definition a sword would be most unefficient as well?

A sword is weighted for combat. A stout butcher knife isn't.

Try fighting with a butcher knife and then try with something that is balanced (i.e. a saxe). You'll see the difference. :)

Galloglaich
Saturday, August 18th, 2007, 01:29 AM
A sword is weighted for combat. A stout butcher knife isn't.

Try fighting with a butcher knife and then try with something that is balanced (i.e. a saxe). You'll see the difference. :)

I'll bet I've done more martial training and historical reenactment than you have.
I'm quite aware of the balance of not only swords, but saxes of all variety (and axes, and spears, and polearms, and all kinds of sharp pointy things). I own a decently sized, quality collection. I still maintain that a stout butcher knife is a dangerous weapon. I can't believe you'd even argue this point after making such an impassioned argument for the defensive effectiveness of a lemonade dispenser. Surely you could manage to improvise a decent weapon from a butcher knife.

Freydis
Saturday, August 18th, 2007, 02:48 AM
I'll bet I've done more martial training and historical reenactment than you have.

How do you figure? Cause I'm a girl? :D


I can't believe you'd even argue this point after making such an impassioned argument for the defensive effectiveness of a lemonade dispenser. Surely you could manage to improvise a decent weapon from a butcher knife.

Well we were talking about guns in the first place... :\

And it wasn't a lemonade "dispenser". It was a bottle. :)

I think we are just arguing in circles now. I will cease to post here, because neither of us will give any ground and I don't want to waste all the bandwith arguing forever and ever about firearms. :D

Galloglaich
Saturday, August 18th, 2007, 07:32 AM
How do you figure? Cause I'm a girl? :D

No, I'd never underestimate a Germanic female. Just the fact that I've been doing that stuff almost as long as you've been alive :)


And it wasn't a lemonade "dispenser". It was a bottle. :)

I know, I was just busting your chops ;).

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007, 07:06 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070822/D8R5QR1G1.html

GIG HARBOR, Wash. (AP) - Two pit bull terriers broke into a house through a pet door Tuesday and attacked a woman in her bed, mauling her badly, a Pierce County sheriff's spokesman said.

The woman was able to grab a gun and try to shoot the dogs, then break away from the attack and lock herself in her car, where she called 911, sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

The woman, who was not immediately identified, was taken to a hospital in Tacoma, where she was listed in serious condition.

Officers planned to talk to the dogs' owner.

The pit bulls also killed a neighbor's Jack Russell terrier, which entered the house during the attack, Troyer said.

"The thought is that the Jack Russell heard noise in the neighbor's house, came in and was attacked by the dogs," Troyer said.

Firefighters responded first, locking the dogs in the house, treating the woman and calling for an ambulance.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, August 29th, 2007, 04:50 AM
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-08-28T174254Z_01_L28348938_RTRUKOC_0_US-WORLD-FIREARMS.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.

"Firearms are very unevenly distributed around the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being awash with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.

"Weapons ownership may be correlated with rising levels of wealth

EQ Fighter
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 08:09 AM
Wow Freydis
You have rehashed this over and over again, so let me make it simple for you.
The right to bear arms IS THE LAW IN THE USA, and that is it.

Also it is going to remain the LAW as long as real Americans have anything to do with it.

Those who don’t like it should move out of the USA to a Socialist haven where they can obey the laws.

stormlord
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 10:30 PM
I think a lot of the posturing and condescending from my fellow Englishmen is just to cover up the feeling that we gave up without a fight something that is truly important, and that we'll never get back. If more English people knew their history then they'd know that the "crazy" American right to bear arms was based on the English Bill of Rights.

EQ Fighter
Monday, September 3rd, 2007, 08:52 PM
AK-47 Top world Assault Rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvrG4T2K4sE

EQ Fighter
Monday, September 3rd, 2007, 09:17 PM
Oh BTW for those of you who need replacement Parts that the Filth in the Government are not to enthused with you getting your hands on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDppu3Mcj6E

If there is a will there is always a way.

theTasmanian
Thursday, September 13th, 2007, 12:18 PM
we here in Australia have been getting some annoying hard firearms laws

i have been hunting and target shooting for close to 20 years now i have never shot or even threatened someone with a firearm....but I'm now told that your not to be trusted.......why because we have a media and prime minister that hates guns

now IMHO a firearm is a tool we use for hunting and fun(target shooting)

ANY RESPONCABLE person should be able to have a firearm......with some rules and regulations.

now here they banned semi-auto rifles and shotguns and then banned lots of pistol types......this has only affected one type of person in australia the RESPONCABLE licenced firearms owner

as the crims still have them....and more it seems some army types sold the bikie gangs anti-tank weapons!!!!!

now i know IF i wanted a full-auto firearm i know how and were to get one!...say an AVT40:rolleyes:

the laws have done sweet FA in Australia......

i do think that the Americans need SOME rules but NEVER EVER BAN THEM ALL:mad:

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, September 13th, 2007, 11:13 PM
i do think that the Americans need SOME rules

We do have SOME rules. Full auto has been banned for decades by federal law, also there are many restrictions at state and local level. Some places such as Massachusetts, New York City, and Washington DC have laws as strict as European laws. Generally you have to be 18 to buy rifles and 21 to buy pistols, in about 1/3 of the states you are not allowed to carry guns around on your person, in the others you can but need a special permit, the difficulty of obtaining this license varies by state. Such a license obtained in one state may or may not be honored in another.

theTasmanian
Friday, September 14th, 2007, 12:31 AM
i had noticed that some state are almost as draconian as here:(

but was the last nutter shooting a Korean? without US citizenship?! i may be wrong

i don't like how in some states you can just rock up(no licence etc) and buy a hand gun....

full auto was banned here since the 1950's......but you could(up until 1996) get a collector's permit for a full-auto;)

i do like lots of the Americans laws regarding firearms and i think its more a case of responsible ownership.....if the gumberment bans all guns here then i will be looking VERY hard at NZ USA and Finland and Norway.....but i will just have to wait and see;)

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, September 14th, 2007, 12:52 AM
but was the last nutter shooting a Korean? without US citizenship?!

Yeah, the real problem in that case was that because of strict medical privacy laws, mental heath records are kept secret, and thus mentally ill people are able to purchase guns (we wouldn't want to discriminate against them on the basis of their disability, would we :rolleyes:)

Also the campus (as do most University campuses here) had a strict all-encompassing gun ban, so he was able to just keep shooting people and noone could shoot back

theTasmanian
Friday, September 14th, 2007, 01:01 AM
here if you have a mental problem then its no licence for YOU and if you have a accident with head injury's then you cant have one ether and the police take your firearms away:rolleyes:

its even getting that way that if you "associate" with the wrong type they can take your licence away( mainly for the firearms dealers..but it wont stop there)

i do think if the uni's security had hand guns it would have been over faster!

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, September 14th, 2007, 03:50 AM
here if you have a mental problem then its no licence for YOU and if you have a accident with head injury's then you cant have one ether and the police take your firearms away:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's the way it should be for the most part, if you have mental probs, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


i do think if the uni's security had hand guns it would have been over faster!

Yeah, even a lot of mall cops here have guns, I don't know what is wrong with the campus police there

TeutonicMensch
Friday, September 14th, 2007, 04:28 AM
In this situation, though being Canadian, I agree with the Americans.

The American Forefathers saw owning a Firearm as an essential right, and the only way of keeping one's liberty, were it threatened by one's own government. Tell me, in this day and age of Modern Warfare and Technology, with what else but guns would a people overthrow their Government?

As for gun restriction such as we have it here in Canada, it seems that the only people without guns, are the people who truely need them. Anyone who would seek to misuses firearms is quite willing, and in all likelyhood quite able to circumvent whatever laws and restrictions there are, to then obtain and use said firearm(s).

I'm sorry, but being Germanic is about being practical, though honourable, and though the Firearm has made War a very Faceless endevour, it is the only practical weapon for use in any Armed Struggle.

That being said, I myself do not own a gun, though I do believe that the only people who are prevented by such rules from owning the means by which to protect themselves are the people who are willing to follow those laws, and those people aren't the ones who will be robbing or attack eachother.

In Germanic society owning a weapon was not open for debate, and still today it shouldn't be. Better to teach people the responsability they carry with that weapon, and to properly reason as to the need to use force, and when not to.

Can the old ones yet be awakened?
Once so valorous and true...
-James

Loftor
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 05:59 PM
The problem of shooting incidents is the problem of the education system, of the immigration system, of the legal system and of the welfare system.

Law abiding gun owners who go about their business and who are no bother to anyone are not the ones to blame.

Soten
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 06:05 AM
I think liberals don't understand the average gun-owning American. In my family, where we have been hunting for generations, a gun is a common-place thing -- in the sense that it isn't something that is regarded as murderous or criminal in any way.

There is a great deal of respect that goes into handling a gun with most people. When I reached the age of 12, the legal hunting age, my grandfather and also my own father and uncle taught me how to properly use a gun. The mere suggestion of aiming a gun at a person would have gotten me slapped over the head. Gun-owners are not murderers. My grandfather would yell at me if I even aimed a toy gun at a living creature. He would tell me not to ever aim a gun at anything unless I planned on killing it. It was a serious affair in my family. So much that my grandparents frowned upon me and my cousins having toy guns to play around with.

Guns as well as hunting were not taken very lightly in my family. It was a privilege and an honour to own a gun. To abuse that power was unthinkable and obscene. The entire culture of my family (who lived in a very rural mountainous area) was based very much on Nature and hunting. People who acted foolishly with guns were seen as stupid and undeserving of respect.

Loftor
Sunday, September 30th, 2007, 10:02 PM
The entertainment industry has a lot to answer for in glorifying gun violence. There are few hollywood movies where someone is not shot with a gun. Also the only experience most liberals have of guns is from the entertainment industry, like when people think of Great White Sharks they think of 'Jaws'.

United Faith
Monday, October 1st, 2007, 12:10 AM
Also, massacres are orchestrated by totalitarian governments to justify gun grabs.

You sound like the Black gangsters who blame the government for "giving" them guns and drugs.

Loftor
Monday, October 1st, 2007, 01:11 AM
Here is a video about one suspicious massacre followed by a government gun grab, this time in australia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGRCH1LVa2c

theTasmanian
Friday, October 5th, 2007, 10:44 AM
the Australian gun grabs have done very little to stop crime....gun laws mostly affect the lawabiding;)

SlíNanGael
Monday, August 11th, 2008, 04:08 AM
I guess I'm another one of the people who find threads after they're already dead.


When I reached the age of 12, the legal hunting age, my grandfather and also my own father and uncle taught me how to properly use a gun.

It makes me glad when I hear that American families still practice this rite of passage! :) I think a .22 in the early teens is a great way of helping sons develop a sense of responsibility.

Octothorpe
Monday, August 11th, 2008, 08:30 PM
Goodness, I hope not. I just found it after being off a couple of days.

Without question, the people have a right, and a duty, to arm themselves. Not because of criminals (although that's a good reason), nor twaddle about militias (this was beaten to death in another thread), but to put fear in the hearts of politicians. We need arms, not just popguns, so as to be able to overthrow bad regimes. Jefferson himself thought that revolutions and new constitutions would occur every other generation.

Moreover, for our foreign friends who might not understand, in the U.S. the Constitution guarantees rigths, but does not grant them. Only divine power gives rights to humans, and only divine power can take it away. That's what makes us different, over here. I've read the French Constitution, and others, where the government gives the rights, and the citizens must obey. Here, the people have given government duties, and some powers in order to carry out the will of the people. What the government gives, it can take away.

Now, I firmly believe that many, if not most, of the rights of the people have been trampled upon since Wilson was president, and that the people should shake off their slumber and remind the twits in office that the people, and not the politicians, are sovereign. We might not need guns for that, but, then again, we might. As Al Capone once said, it's easier to get what you want with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.

SlíNanGael
Tuesday, August 12th, 2008, 12:52 AM
Jefferson himself thought that revolutions and new constitutions would occur every other generation.

Actually it was less :D:


Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.


Only divine power gives rights to humans, and only divine power can take it away.

I am not sure that the divinity of the origin of rights was as important (at least to Jefferson) as was the simple fact that he wanted to be left alone:


The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

CrystalRose
Tuesday, August 19th, 2008, 06:08 AM
I believe in the right to bear arms. What if our government can't protect us because they're too busy over seas? Or, if we need to protect ourselves against bad government? However, i'm not pro retards owning them :D how do you regulate the thoughts of a sick mind? You can’t and those few idiots shouldn’t ruin it for the rest of us. So let us protect ourselves from those idiots who wil get them illeagally.
I'm happy to say that I expressed my right to bear arms yesterday at the gun range.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/rdtracing/P1010165.jpg

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll175/fallongreg/Abolt1.jpg

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/Handguns/album_pic26.jpg

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Ashar18/Guns/06.jpg

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj115/serpico11/med.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i268/CKAYMAN-MAN/is.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa169/killian45/Glock30.gif

Fenris
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 07:32 AM
I unequivocally and wholeheartedly support the right to bear arms. I also own 2 rifles and plan on expanding my collection considerably as and when funds permit. As an English born-and-raised man now living in a country a little less Orwellian in nature, I am thankful that thus far, America has not seen fit to exercise such draconian measures as to punish the many for the crimes of the few.

I feel that the right to defend oneself, ones family and ones folk is an inalienable, individual right, conferred upon us by birth. I also believe that any law restricting the ownership, operation and carrying of firearms for protection is in and of itself a violation of our right to exist and defend us and ours. Sad then, that I live in Illinois, a state that believes it is not the right of the common, law abiding man to carry a pistol with which to defend himself and his family. This right is, in Illinois, reserved (outside of military personnel) solely for politicians and police.

What galls me about this arbitary decision to defang us is that those who do NOT abide by the law pay no heed to the FOID card system, to firearm registration or to the lack of a CCW permit program in Illinois. Criminals and undesirables are thus empowered by the government to hold more power over their surroundings and the around them than those of us who abide by the law.

Having seen just how effective (note the sarcasm) disarming the English populace was in the UK, I find it insulting to be told by another person that I do not have the right to protect myself by any means necessary. This sort of restriction leads to a gross imbalance of power favouring lawbreakers, and as multiple studies and censuses have shown, an armed society is a polite society. The three states with the most drastic firearms restrictions (IL, CA, NY) also happen to have the highest rates of violent crime, while states with more sensible firearms policies have less murders.

In closing, they can take my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

Jäger
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 08:15 AM
Or, if we need to protect ourselves against bad government?
Do it now!