Gun Control - Page 26

EisenKreutzer · 2012-12-21, 07:50 AM

Has anyone ever stopped and considered that a firearm is a tool whose only function is to kill human beings? Isn't that horrifying?

cBselfmonkey · 2012-12-21, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Has anyone ever stopped and considered that a firearm is a tool whose only function is to kill human beings? Isn't that horrifying?

I agree.

Thing is the world is kinda horrifying too. Until mankind gets it to the point where the world isn't some firearms being available to the public seems the best out of many bad options.

Crator · 2012-12-21, 11:47 PM

Just heard today that the NRA wants to put armed officers in all schools. Don't think it will happen though. Lot of talking going on about this subject now though.

Obama on gun control petition: 'We hear you'

Figment · 2012-12-22, 02:50 AM

Of course the NRA wants more guns. What did you expect?

They bloody sell the damn things. Leave it to the NRA to commercialy exploit the problems they have caused in the first place by creating even bigger problems.

You worry about turning into a police State or dictatorship? More police in every public place should help with that and having to be screened and pass customs gates and show ID and get a pat down every time you enter a school should be right up your alley then. Why not having to empty your bag and pockets every time you enter a library, public park, leave you house or visit the zoo?

And you know what? If a person that comes to school every day decides to cap the guard first, he will be able to do that by surprise, walk through security gates and rampage anyway.

If you give some teachers a gun, they will find another class or a moment that said teacher is distracted or unable to reach for a gun and even if it does get to a gun fight with the teacher, who is to say they would be able to fire first, more accurately or are prepared to kill?

If you want to find a weakspot to kill, you can always find a busy street, a busy market or whatever. More guns doesn't help that at all. It just creates more places for criminals and madmen to obtain guns.

And what is next? Give all the kids/students a gun so they can protect themselves from the teacher or school bullies? After all, who is to say that a teacher who is permitted to carry can't go fruitcake?

Baneblade · 2012-12-22, 07:49 AM

Bullet proof windows in the school would have stopped all of this in its tracks.

belch · 2012-12-22, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Not a big group to conduct some killings. That's not the point I was making. You said you feared oppression by a group with guns over a group without guns. How big a group with guns do you think is needed to gain control oppress millions of other people who have a national army of approximately 1/200?

I mean, the RAF (not the Royal Air Force) in Germany consisted of a few people. They were known as a terrorist group, but in the end would never have been able to achieve their ultimate goals.

The things you fear most is one of these groups taking control, but that's simply very unlikely if the fast majority disagrees with their principles. They would never get the army behind them. And because the army exists from people with all kinds of political backgrounds as it should in a democracy, like yours, you wouldn't see an army repress its own people.

That only happens if the army is of one group, repressive of its own troops and not bound by law. Typically one only needs to fear the generals that directly control their own armies and where the army's loyalty is not to the state, but that general. You often heard Malorn mention the Roman Republic as a model, but it's that model that allowed armies to be more loyal to a consul or general (they paid their wages and bonded during campaigns), than to the senate of Rome.

One should not expect no criminal or madman to ever acquire weapons. That's why one has (international) intelligence agencies: to try and track them down before they strike.

Yes, it takes only a few...or even just one. One person, with the will to use violence as a tool for whatever the reason. You keep wanting to defer to some larger threat, or reduce the impact any such group might have on the national level. Well, thats great...but....it does not answer the question at all. Or are you implying that any such group must oppress millions, or at the national level, in order to be considered a threat?

If you are walking to your car with your wife, when a couple of neo-nazi cretins decide to beat you and your wife to death for being the wrong skin color...it would be very good to have a firearm on your person to neutralize that threat. Civility is grand, and polite discourse is preferred, however...if it is me and mine, I am protecting them with the most powerful tool available.

Several have said that to think that is madness. Well, to pretend the world is some Romper-Room daydream is madness from my perspective.

As for your idea that governmental agencies should be your first line of defense: I already told you that I no longer believe in Santa Claus. You want to put your faith in large, unwieldy organisations for your safety. While my preference is to avoid violent confrontation altogether, to include allowing governmental organisations to do their job, I by no means am fool enough to believe they always get the bad guy before harm is done...and I am not ready or willing to be an unfortunate statistic.

WWII Japan. Though technically a combination of a bomber (delivery system) and an atomic bomb, so two weapon systems.

Which is why one doesn't want nukes to spread (non-proliferation treaty) either. Would you wish people to have their own nukes, just because your government has one?

Are you seriously discounting the efforts of the Marines, Army, Navy...so it wasn't the fact that we were isolating every gain they had made, it wasn't anything BUT the nuke...?

Yes, your view is simplistic, and incorrect. But I have to believe that even you don't believe that, and are surely joking.

If you think them responsible enough to handle them, then it shouldn't be a problem, right? Or is falling into the wrong hands suddenly a different argument?

It's the same argument, different scale.

And now...you're creating your own argument, and arguing with yourself I think...lol

Let's stay on topic, my friend. Nukes and such...that's a whole different can of worms.

Not saying that, but then your middle east strategy was crap. Who disbands the national army of a defeated nation instead of taking it over to ensure the men don't go awol, start rebel groups under new warlords and the munitions depots etc remain safely under governmental control?

The Iraqi national guard literally offered their allegiance to the US and offered to keep all weapon depots guarded and safe. The next day Bush and Cheney ordered the army disbanded because it contained loyalists to Saddam. They thought disbanding it and start a new army from scratch would be better than slowly weeding out the bad seeds. Putting the tens of thousands of predominantly Sunni men (that had to feed their families) out of a stable source of income. Humiliating their part of the population and creating anger, frustration and despair in one move.

That's the single most devastating thing the USA did to Iraq and the direct cause of the strength of the Iraqi insurgency.

Immediately chaos ensued, depots were plundered, many of which by the soldiers themselves, but also by other groups that saw an opportunity to create their own militias, like Al Sadr's.

It appears US supreme command (probably the administration in particular) didn't read Sun Tzu. Some quotes:

“In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.”

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”. If you distrust them, don't make them go into hiding. In the standing Iraqi army under new leadership, these elements would have been a lot easier to control.

“Convince your enemy that he will gain very little by attacking you; this will diminish his enthusiasm”. If you retreat based on casualties or bomb threat, that'll just be used against you in next campaigns.

“In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.” and "There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited." Gee, wonder why. Costly toll maybe?

While there are some things in your above statement I agree with, and some I disagree with...you are talking about strategy. I brought up a simple fact, and one you cannot refute. You mentioned ETA being restricted to use of conventional explosives, and implying by inferrence, that it is a minor tool. I pointed out the fallacy in such thought, that in fact, it is proven an excellent weapon for inflicting casualties, for killing many with limited resources.

I am more than happy to debate strategy some other time.

I know what you mean, but it's not a safeguard from my perspective. In fact, from my perspective it's an increased risk that can lead to totalitarian regimes by minority groups. Look at how the Soviet Union came to be: miners were armed by the Tsar to fight for him, but later convinced by the bolsjeviks to revolt. It resulted in lengthy civil war and a totalitarian regime, as the old regime and any other opposition was wiped out by force and execution.

Something similar happened with Mao. The communist partizans posed great difficulties after the war, particularly in the east. French resistance groups each had their own allegiance and political doctrines. Without a strong army presence, it would have been possible for the communist resistance groups to try a revolution. In fact, in many countries back then the communist groups had already organised for revolution, they just didn't have the weapons to do it.

I understand you think one group can contain the other, but typically if two or more groups fight, one becomes victor and the other is removed anyway. It is better to offer them a political platform and allow new parties to have their say through existing governing bodies. Allowing them to participate and the presence of Labour parties has kept the communist parties in western Europe in check too. Marx' revolution never came to be in the nations he thought most prone to them, because those countries took steps towards more benevolent democracies with more freedoms for the people.

So from my perspective, the best safeguard is a way to democratically depose of a government and ensure no single group can come to power on their own. Keep everyone happy and there's little reason for armed revolt. And that's the one thing your founding fathers in all their wisdom were unable to do: create a true democracy. You've got a two party system that doesn't require compromise from the other side. Worse, those two parties are the largest minority opinions, so you have a minority rule (if both senate, parliament and therefore president is of one party, nobody can stop them from enacting laws that only that party likes) by giving them the majority vote out of fear of a majority rule.

In coalitions (especially ones that may change the next elections), you have to listen to opposition and coalition partners as you have to cooperate, if not now then probably in the future. That ensures minority groups are heard and protected, but the majority gets their way.

That's just a ridiculous notion. You could have settled with a veto for say a 40% opposition as well.

Alright, but understand...it is your opinion. In America, we have it as legislation...and whether you agree or not, many Americans believe the amendment remains valid.

Not you, but plenty of others in this thread.

Maybe so. Just keep in mind, I have made no such statement.

I never expected you to allow me to determine your laws. As you say, I don't vote on them. However, in a debate, the goal is to try and convince your opposition or at least understand one another better. Not?

Absolutely. You're not about to convince me that you know what the American people want though. I think I can gauge that better from where I am. Thanks for the effort though.

Most those weapons from the Warschau Pakt countries have found their way to Africa and the middle east and put in the hands of civilian rebels and warlords.

Let's see what happened next...

Ah yes... Huge instability, genocides, dictatorship after dictatorship, political oppression and more of that fun stuff. You think arming all the African villages would help against night attacks by larger, organised rebel groups? Or do you reckon it'd just create an extra source of conflict and escalation between tribes and a larger source of weapons for rebel groups taking advantage?

Having weapons readily available only strengthens a larger attacker when they manage to defeat you. I've heard some pro-gun ignorants here state that Luxembourg fell to nazi Germany because its citizens didn't have weapons. They never seem to consider the fact that 300.000 people (only half of which would be male and even less able bodied men) armed with guns and no discipline would have had to face off with millions of better armed, better trained, more disciplined, more battle hardened enemy soldiers.

These people would also point that Switzerland (more weapons per person than Luxembourg) didn't fall to the Germans. They forgot to mention it's a land with high mountain ranges, narrow passes and roads, high altitude fighting, a position of neutrality and small army (no direct threat), secret bank accounts for a lot of the nazi regime, was prepared to work with Germany in trade and resources and most importantly, wasn't of strategic important to tackle France. If Germany had wanted to take Switzerland, they would probably have done so once the UK was out of the war. And probably with limited resistance because Switzerland would be surrounded and isolated on all sides (fascist Italy, nazi Germany-Austria, Vichy-France).

The Maginot line was incomplete (didn't go all the way to the sea) and assumed the neutrality of our country to be respected. There were some British guarding the northern end, but not that many. The Maginot line itself was never tested really.

lol...you're actually defending the Maginot Line? Maybe you don't want to debate strategy, my friend.

First of all, the former 'Warsaw Pact' nations have been a source of weapons to many. It shouldn't have been even possible, what with all of 'Fortress Europa's hardcore monitoring, scanning, etc. And there in is where your faith in large organisations is...misguided and misplaced. You can't believe that just as they have failed to stop the sale of arms to foreign entities...they have also failed to stop proliferation within Europe itself. But if you must, keep believing in Santa Claus.

Most of which are not privately owned nor meant for the domestic market. Unlike the weapons produced in America. you forgot to mention the whole marketing model difference? Oh dear.

Yes, oh dear indeed. I actually met a man in the middle east with a glock. At a time when, really, it was unusual to see such a modern firearm in that spot. SO I had to ask...where did you get it. You'll never guess where he physically travelled to...

That's right. He went to Europe. Because, as he said, it was easier for him to get it there. You don't have to believe me. Your systems are hardly the reason for the trend in firearm violence. There are deeper social and economic issues that actually have a lot more impact on the 'why?' discussion than mere ownership.

You may want to note that Breivik is responsible for the equivalent of years of Norwegian murders in general, whereas Newtown isn't even noticable in your yearly murder rates.

If you look at the frequency of these murder sprees and their effectiveness, you'll note that in Europe as a whole, with a larger population, there are far less and the murders are far less effective and typically less in victim tally than in the USA (Breivik being an exception, mostly because of being on an island with no escape and lacking police response (they waited a long time and even went to the wrong island...)).

Fact is, that in the entirety of Europe, any violent murder is uncommon and murder sprees really rare and far and wide between. If you compare to the USA, you have several of these events a year. You can't deny that your record is simply worse at doing something about madmen. And that's with a much higher firearms possession rate for "defensive purposes". If anything, if your theory would be correct, there'd be fewer attacks or more attacks thwarted by gun carriers.

In reality, your domestic conflicts escalate sooner and result in a much higher death toll on a few year basis, than the entire war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ualties_of_war

2001-present: 40K casualties.

Assuming an average of 8000 pistol and 3000 other gun deaths a year, you've had around 12x11.000 ~ triple the Iraq/Afghan war casualties, domestically.

Even if you look at the suicide ratio (60ish%?), that suicide by gun ratio is relatively higher in countries with gun control (higher percentage of suicides than homicides), than those without where a firearm is relatively much more often used for homicide.

Please don't tell me that's supposed to make me feel saver. You are your own worst enemy. :/ And it's not the government that does the killing either. They just lock you all up for being violent maniacs.

I hope the day does not come where Breivik is not an oddity. If it makes you feel better to say 'only in America'...I only offered Breivik as an example. Your restrictive laws did not stop him. And, dare I say, any one currently planning similar types of attacks on the innocent.

Figment · 2012-12-22, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by belch

Yes, it takes only a few...or even just one. One person, with the will to use violence as a tool for whatever the reason. You keep wanting to defer to some larger threat, or reduce the impact any such group might have on the national level. Well, thats great...but....it does not answer the question at all. Or are you implying that any such group must oppress millions, or at the national level, in order to be considered a threat?

To be considered a threat to national security, it must be strong enough to be a guerilla. But to really get a dictatorship, it should have to take on or take control of the army. Even the FARC isn't strong enough for that and they've got a pretty damn big arsenal in comparison.

What they DO however, is terrorise the populace. Of course, they can retreat into the jungle. No group could do that in the USA. If their arms supply was cut off, they would not be able to do that. And that arms supply, of course, is Hugo Chavez and Cuba.

If you are walking to your car with your wife, when a couple of neo-nazi cretins decide to beat you and your wife to death for being the wrong skin color...it would be very good to have a firearm on your person to neutralize that threat. Civility is grand, and polite discourse is preferred, however...if it is me and mine, I am protecting them with the most powerful tool available.

Why would I want to have access to a gun, if that means THEY get access to a gun too? I'll take my chances against knives and clubs. And for the record, there aren't THAT many neo-nazi's and yes, there are occassional racist murders. Like any other homicide, they're tracked, tagged and thrown in jail. I rather have that than that everyone starts being police, judge, jury and executioner every time they feel threatened - or in a state of anger, frustration or even when held up by the police for speeding and drinking.

People in general aren't responsible enough to not even speed, what makes you so sure they should be allowed to have a gun?

Hint: you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, so don't give it to either.

Several have said that to think that is madness. Well, to pretend the world is some Romper-Room daydream is madness from my perspective.

Some people accept the world isn't pretty, but taking matters into your own hands doesn't make it prettier. That's the difference between you and me.

As for your idea that governmental agencies should be your first line of defense: I already told you that I no longer believe in Santa Claus. You want to put your faith in large, unwieldy organisations for your safety. While my preference is to avoid violent confrontation altogether, to include allowing governmental organisations to do their job, I by no means am fool enough to believe they always get the bad guy before harm is done...and I am not ready or willing to be an unfortunate statistic.

But you're willing to create masses more unfortunate statistics. More accidents. More violent crime. Nice.

Are you seriously discounting the efforts of the Marines, Army, Navy...so it wasn't the fact that we were isolating every gain they had made, it wasn't anything BUT the nuke...?

It won the war as it intimidated them into immediate surrender, instead of a dragged out island hopping war with massive casualties on both sides.

Do you reckon that if the USA had it earlier and had used it in response to Pearl Harbour, that Japan would not have reconsidered their position?

I asked you to name me one war that was one with IEDs alone. IEDs do not provide ground control. They just provide a threat. Nobody would relinquish control over an area over a couple of suicide or bombing attacks, unless they were already planning to - in which case they'd just hasten the process to get their own people out due to not being interested in a conflict.

And now...you're creating your own argument, and arguing with yourself I think...lol

Let's stay on topic, my friend. Nukes and such...that's a whole different can of worms.

Not really creating one, as it was created by others in this thread. "A weapon is a weapon" according to the people in this thread: they claim that if you take away guns, people would just use knifes and clubs and be equally effective (which, is statistically proven isn't true). By that same reasoning, a nuke or gas, or whatever, is also "just another weapon", but in the other direction (more powerful, even less melee and "bringing a gun to a gas fight doesn't help either", see WWI). And if your goal to have a gun is to protect yourself from the government which has a much bigger and more various arsenal, then shouldn't you have the same stuff to protect yourself from your government?

While there are some things in your above statement I agree with, and some I disagree with...you are talking about strategy. I brought up a simple fact, and one you cannot refute. You mentioned ETA being restricted to use of conventional explosives, and implying by inferrence, that it is a minor tool. I pointed out the fallacy in such thought, that in fact, it is proven an excellent weapon for inflicting casualties, for killing many with limited resources.

I am more than happy to debate strategy some other time.

The thing is, you're no more effective than the maffia. You kill one, someone takes their place. You do not gain control with bombs. You gain control by taking hold of institutions.

lol...you're actually defending the Maginot Line? Maybe you don't want to debate strategy, my friend.

Not really, it was a flawed, incomplete and completely bypassed design. Not to mention obsolete due to the use of paratroopers. Our own waterline would have held well in a WWI scenario, but as you may tell, we didn't expect Junkers to toss out para's, nor did we expect the nazi's to deliberately bomb dense residential areas in case of a war. The biggest error our country made then though was to let German spies in freely and have an outdated standing army. But our citizenry would never have been able to stand anyway. Regardless of how many weapons they'd have had. It would have resulted in absolute genocide and Germanification of the Netherlands: they'd probably have simply wiped our adults out and used the cities for "Lebensraum". It would have legitimised targeting civilians as combattants, after all.

First of all, the former 'Warsaw Pact' nations have been a source of weapons to many. It shouldn't have been even possible, what with all of 'Fortress Europa's hardcore monitoring, scanning, etc. And there in is where your faith in large organisations is...misguided and misplaced. You can't believe that just as they have failed to stop the sale of arms to foreign entities...they have also failed to stop proliferation within Europe itself. But if you must, keep believing in Santa Claus.

The Warsaw Pact nations are not part of Fortress Europe. They were part of failed states, with a bad economy and high on corruption, but most importantly a power vaccuum. Most of those weapons leaked after the fall of the regimes, where the regimes did not have the resources or interest in keeping good check on their equipment. Completely non-comparable with Western Europe in the same period as that had a thriving economy due to the Marshal Plan. And no, very few of those weapons made it into Europe and most of those were exported through weapon dealers.

Do note our crime statistics. Weapon crime is very low. In fact, it's even low in Eastern Europe compared to you. Up to Russia, where weapons are quite freely available.

Yes, oh dear indeed. I actually met a man in the middle east with a glock. At a time when, really, it was unusual to see such a modern firearm in that spot. SO I had to ask...where did you get it. You'll never guess where he physically travelled to...

That's right. He went to Europe. Because, as he said, it was easier for him to get it there. You don't have to believe me. Your systems are hardly the reason for the trend in firearm violence. There are deeper social and economic issues that actually have a lot more impact on the 'why?' discussion than mere ownership.

Social and economic issues are always a concern, but the mentality and culture is as well. Not sure why you'd want to protect a Wild West style of living or move to that by introducing even more guns to your society.

Sure, completely agree tht someone who's stable on all levels will have less need for violence. But someone who's instable, with a gun, is a damn lot harder to deal with.

But yeah, having social security would help a lot. But try to get that past the Republicans without being branded a commie.

I hope the day does not come where Breivik is not an oddity. If it makes you feel better to say 'only in America'...I only offered Breivik as an example. Your restrictive laws did not stop him. And, dare I say, any one currently planning similar types of attacks on the innocent.

Unfortunately, he was familiar to the powers that should have stopped him, but they didn't act in advance. :/ You don't want to read the report on Breivik, so many errors were made. Had the right moves been made, it indeed would not have happened. Hell, they didn't even follow a lead on his van. Apparently, they could have stopped him even exiting Oslo after the initial bomb strike if it hadn't been for bad police communication...

But the fact remains that you simply can never fully stop anything. You can make it extremely difficult. And that's the best defense you can have. Nothing is 100% water tight.

Crator · 2012-12-22, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Of course the NRA wants more guns. What did you expect?

Yeah, Bloomberg wants to get rid of them... Bloomberg, Christie oppose NRA call for police in every school

belch · 2012-12-22, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

To be considered a threat to national security, it must be strong enough to be a guerilla. But to really get a dictatorship, it should have to take on or take control of the army. Even the FARC isn't strong enough for that and they've got a pretty damn big arsenal in comparison.

What they DO however, is terrorise the populace. Of course, they can retreat into the jungle. No group could do that in the USA. If their arms supply was cut off, they would not be able to do that. And that arms supply, of course, is Hugo Chavez and Cuba.

The fact that you attribute a single gunman merely posessing a firearm to being an insurmountable law enorcement issue in dealing with any possible resulting mayhem, completely negates your argument here. So, a law abiding citizen, willing to protect himself or stand in a militia causes so many potential issues, where already existing armed groups are miniscule in their ability to affect anything?

As an aside, it is hardly just the Venezuelans or the Cubans that have supplied arms to the FARC. And I wouldn't write them off...not in the least.

Why would I want to have access to a gun, if that means THEY get access to a gun too? I'll take my chances against knives and clubs. And for the record, there aren't THAT many neo-nazi's and yes, there are occassional racist murders. Like any other homicide, they're tracked, tagged and thrown in jail. I rather have that than that everyone starts being police, judge, jury and executioner every time they feel threatened - or in a state of anger, frustration or even when held up by the police for speeding and drinking.

People in general aren't responsible enough to not even speed, what makes you so sure they should be allowed to have a gun?

Hint: you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, so don't give it to either.

As a response to an armed threat, you would prefer to remain unarmed? It may be that you have never seen skinheads. I have. It may be where you live, the area is so well policed that you don't worry about everything from the common criminal with a knife, or a car jacking, or a racially motivated hate crime. In America, these things happen. Restrictive gun laws haven't, and won't change that. Law enforcement will try to do all they can, but they cannot guarantee that they will arrive in time to be of much use to your bleeding corpse.

And who said anything about being judge and jury? That, my friend, is a perfect example of what you do not understand about America, and American gun owners. This is not the wild west, and gun owners do not see themselves as cowboys. I have a concealed handgun permit, but I do not look for possible bad gauys in some attempt to clean the streets. That is pure Hollywood/media drivel. I'm not saying that it has never happened. I am saying it is not anywhere near the norm. Any more than Breivik is.

Some people accept the world isn't pretty, but taking matters into your own hands doesn't make it prettier. That's the difference between you and me.

Again, the 'taking into your own hands'. If you are implying that taking my own safety into my own hands is a bad thing, then there is MUCH we differ on. And as far as making it prettier? Well, I don't intimidate, nor go out on killing sprees. And I am much like the vast majority of gun owners in that regards. But, I acknoledge the world is an ugly place. I acknowledge that criminals exist. If you want to rely on reason and faith in everything BUT yourself, be my guest. As for me, I prefer to use every tool available to ensure it.

But you're willing to create masses more unfortunate statistics. More accidents. More violent crime. Nice.

Exactly how am I creating 'masses more unfortuante statistics'? Because I can, and do, exercise my rights? Because I am a responsible gun owner? Nice attempt to guilt me into something I haven't done though.

It won the war as it intimidated them into immediate surrender, instead of a dragged out island hopping war with massive casualties on both sides.

Do you reckon that if the USA had it earlier and had used it in response to Pearl Harbour, that Japan would not have reconsidered their position?

I asked you to name me one war that was one with IEDs alone. IEDs do not provide ground control. They just provide a threat. Nobody would relinquish control over an area over a couple of suicide or bombing attacks, unless they were already planning to - in which case they'd just hasten the process to get their own people out due to not being interested in a conflict.

I'm not suggesting that nukes had no bearing on the outcome, but you have a penchant for oversimplification to prove your point.

And no...it was not anywhere close to being that simple. Anymore than fire bombing civilians was succesful.

Not really creating one, as it was created by others in this thread. "A weapon is a weapon" according to the people in this thread: they claim that if you take away guns, people would just use knifes and clubs and be equally effective (which, is statistically proven isn't true). By that same reasoning, a nuke or gas, or whatever, is also "just another weapon", but in the other direction (more powerful, even less melee and "bringing a gun to a gas fight doesn't help either", see WWI). And if your goal to have a gun is to protect yourself from the government which has a much bigger and more various arsenal, then shouldn't you have the same stuff to protect yourself from your government?

There is a reason that no country has nuked their own people. Not saying some wouldn't have, if given the chance. And I wonder what the global response would be?

But governments have routinely executed civilians that disagreed with them.

The thing is, you're no more effective than the maffia. You kill one, someone takes their place. You do not gain control with bombs. You gain control by taking hold of institutions.

Who said I needed to be effective individually?

Not really, it was a flawed, incomplete and completely bypassed design. Not to mention obsolete due to the use of paratroopers. Our own waterline would have held well in a WWI scenario, but as you may tell, we didn't expect Junkers to toss out para's, nor did we expect the nazi's to deliberately bomb dense residential areas in case of a war. The biggest error our country made then though was to let German spies in freely and have an outdated standing army. But our citizenry would never have been able to stand anyway. Regardless of how many weapons they'd have had. It would have resulted in absolute genocide and Germanification of the Netherlands: they'd probably have simply wiped our adults out and used the cities for "Lebensraum". It would have legitimised targeting civilians as combattants, after all.

I watched an interesting Ted talk from a guy in your neck of the woods. The basis of his speech flies completely in the face of what you suggest. But at least you recognize that the Maginot Line (brought up only as demonstration of how physical 'iron clad' systems can be outmanuevered) was a dismal failure.

The Warsaw Pact nations are not part of Fortress Europe. They were part of failed states, with a bad economy and high on corruption, but most importantly a power vaccuum. Most of those weapons leaked after the fall of the regimes, where the regimes did not have the resources or interest in keeping good check on their equipment. Completely non-comparable with Western Europe in the same period as that had a thriving economy due to the Marshal Plan. And no, very few of those weapons made it into Europe and most of those were exported through weapon dealers.

Do note our crime statistics. Weapon crime is very low. In fact, it's even low in Eastern Europe compared to you. Up to Russia, where weapons are quite freely available.

East Germany? I like how 'Western Europeans' like to separate themselves from their cousins when it is convenient.

Social and economic issues are always a concern, but the mentality and culture is as well. Not sure why you'd want to protect a Wild West style of living or move to that by introducing even more guns to your society.

Sure, completely agree tht someone who's stable on all levels will have less need for violence. But someone who's instable, with a gun, is a damn lot harder to deal with.

But yeah, having social security would help a lot. But try to get that past the Republicans without being branded a commie.

While you have undoubtedly learned about the American Republican Party from your media, and forum members...you should take it all with a grain of salt. While I am a registered Libertarian, those are just names...labels. I know Republicans that are awesome people, intelligent and reasonable. I know Libertarians that are not any of those things. Choosing to identify yourself with some large group, and taking all your cues from them...is...not ideal.

Unfortunately, he was familiar to the powers that should have stopped him, but they didn't act in advance. :/ You don't want to read the report on Breivik, so many errors were made. Had the right moves been made, it indeed would not have happened. Hell, they didn't even follow a lead on his van. Apparently, they could have stopped him even exiting Oslo after the initial bomb strike if it hadn't been for bad police communication...

But the fact remains that you simply can never fully stop anything. You can make it extremely difficult. And that's the best defense you can have. Nothing is 100% water tight.

You are right...you cannot stop every bad thing from happening. Not with the best of systems, the most highly trained and well equipped police force...those with bad intent will likely find a way. You have decided to leave your personal safety in the hands of others. I am not going to try and dissuade you. I choose to take a much more active role in my own safety. Why are you trying to change my mind?

Figment · 2012-12-22, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by belch

The fact that you attribute a single gunman merely posessing a firearm to being an insurmountable law enorcement issue in dealing with any possible resulting mayhem, completely negates your argument here. So, a law abiding citizen, willing to protect himself or stand in a militia causes so many potential issues, where already existing armed groups are miniscule in their ability to affect anything?

If you hand out weapons to everyone, it's not a single gunman. It's millions of "single gunmen". I find that far more threatening than the occasional one.

You do realise that I make a difference between a state militia and a private militia? You do NOT have any state militias anymore. Certainly not well regulated ones (Yes, it did say well-regulated - it did not say what regulation means, that's what the other bit is for).

As an aside, it is hardly just the Venezuelans or the Cubans that have supplied arms to the FARC. And I wouldn't write them off...not in the least.

FARC is just going into peace talks because they realised the futility of continueing to fight.

As a response to an armed threat, you would prefer to remain unarmed? It may be that you have never seen skinheads. I have. It may be where you live, the area is so well policed that you don't worry about everything from the common criminal with a knife, or a car jacking, or a racially motivated hate crime. In America, these things happen. Restrictive gun laws haven't, and won't change that. Law enforcement will try to do all they can, but they cannot guarantee that they will arrive in time to be of much use to your bleeding corpse.

You don't seem to understand that it's a matter of chance. There's always a chance of getting assaulted or robbed. The chances of being assaulted in your situation are significantly greater, simply because they feel more powerful as they have guns and they'll more quickly let violence escalate.

Hooligans in Brazil have guns. Hooligans in Europe do not. Do you see the death count difference?

I consider the risk of getting mugged in the first place, particularly with bad ending rather than surviving, much smaller if they're more likely to use a knife or blunt object.

Yes, I'd rather risk getting stabbed, than getting shot. I'll take my chances and chances are much, MUCH better here to not die from mugging than over there with you.

And who said anything about being judge and jury? That, my friend, is a perfect example of what you do not understand about America, and American gun owners. This is not the wild west, and gun owners do not see themselves as cowboys. I have a concealed handgun permit, but I do not look for possible bad gauys in some attempt to clean the streets. That is pure Hollywood/media drivel. I'm not saying that it has never happened. I am saying it is not anywhere near the norm. Any more than Breivik is.

That's not what I said either. :/ The Wild West reference is to a situation in which lots of people have guns. It tends to lead to a more anarchic situation.

Again, the 'taking into your own hands'. If you are implying that taking my own safety into my own hands is a bad thing, then there is MUCH we differ on. And as far as making it prettier? Well, I don't intimidate, nor go out on killing sprees. And I am much like the vast majority of gun owners in that regards. But, I acknoledge the world is an ugly place. I acknowledge that criminals exist. If you want to rely on reason and faith in everything BUT yourself, be my guest. As for me, I prefer to use every tool available to ensure it.

I too acknowledge the world's a pretty bad place. However, I'm not willing to make it a worse place.

Exactly how am I creating 'masses more unfortuante statistics'? Because I can, and do, exercise my rights? Because I am a responsible gun owner? Nice attempt to guilt me into something I haven't done though.

Ugh. Dude. It doesn't matter if YOU are responsible or not. You ensure that others WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBILE also get hold of guns. And you can't guarantee by a longshot (as in not at all, not in your wildest dreams) that all people with guns are as responsible as you are. That means that the amount of unsafely possessed guns increases. Thus the number of accidents increases, even if the ratio per gun owner remains the same.

There is a reason that no country has nuked their own people. Not saying some wouldn't have, if given the chance. And I wonder what the global response would be?

Whatever it would be, it wouldn't be: "Let's all get more nukes, just in case". >____> Not anymore anyway, cause people realised there were just a few too many triggers to be potentially pulled.

But governments have routinely executed civilians that disagreed with them.

Sigh. Democratic governments? If you complain about simplifications on my part, don't go and try to paint every government as the same thing.

I watched an interesting Ted talk from a guy in your neck of the woods. The basis of his speech flies completely in the face of what you suggest. But at least you recognize that the Maginot Line (brought up only as demonstration of how physical 'iron clad' systems can be outmanuevered) was a dismal failure.

Obviously. It was designed for WWI type warfare. Just like how the battleship fleets were quickly becoming obsolete due to aircraft carriers.

East Germany? I like how 'Western Europeans' like to separate themselves from their cousins when it is convenient.

East Germany does not exist anymore, its contents were quickly asserted by the then BRD. If you're looking for leaky weapon depots, you should try the Black Sea area and further east really (Russia, Belarus, Moldavia, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, Kazkhstan, Turkmenistan. Not so much the Baltic states, Czech Republic or Poland. Different cultural mentality).

While you have undoubtedly learned about the American Republican Party from your media, and forum members...you should take it all with a grain of salt. While I am a registered Libertarian, those are just names...labels. I know Republicans that are awesome people, intelligent and reasonable. I know Libertarians that are not any of those things. Choosing to identify yourself with some large group, and taking all your cues from them...is...not ideal.

Unfortunately one now and then has to generalise to get a point across.

You are right...you cannot stop every bad thing from happening. Not with the best of systems, the most highly trained and well equipped police force...those with bad intent will likely find a way. You have decided to leave your personal safety in the hands of others. I am not going to try and dissuade you. I choose to take a much more active role in my own safety. Why are you trying to change my mind?

1. Debating is fun. Why does one debate religion?
2. Anthropologically, US Gun Owners are a "special breed".

3. I hope you do completely realise that you're also making that decision for your countrymen that don't want others to have guns. I'm also representing their pov since you clearly do not.

It's like being smokers in a public place where one has no choice but be in the same room as the smokers since there's only one room and you've been assigned a spot. As smoke spreads evenly, those people that want/need a smoke free place can't be there, even if it used to be their favourite place. They will face the bad side-effects and consequences of the smokers smoking.

belch · 2012-12-22, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

If you hand out weapons to everyone, it's not a single gunman. It's millions of "single gunmen". I find that far more threatening than the occasional one.

You do realise that I make a difference between a state militia and a private militia? You do NOT have any state militias anymore. Certainly not well regulated ones (Yes, it did say well-regulated - it did not say what regulation means, that's what the other bit is for).

Handing out weapons? Are you serious? Again, a ridiculous assumption. And as for millions of single gun men...consider that. Millions, and you cite the anomoly, the abherrations, and try to portray them as the norm. If American gun owners were the threat that you would portray, we would have wiped ourselves out by now, no?

As for militia...those within the United States argue over what constitutes a legal militia. You, my friend, with absolutely no context as to what daily life in America consists of...you are not about to lend clarity. But I will humor you none the less.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That a well regulated militia (regualted thru training, and discipline) is necessary to ensure the security of a free State...outside of any federal provisioning and in fact, in the event that none such is possible or in existence, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

We have the right to stand up a militia as we the people deem necessary, and our government does not have the right to prevent that. You can argue how arcane you believe it to be, you can argue about what you think a legal militia is...that is the verbiage in our 2nd amendment.

FARC is just going into peace talks because they realised the futility of continueing to fight.

Oh,wars and rumors of war. I am beginning to get the impression that much surprises you when looking at war. You speak as if mankind is living by your gentle, civilized ideals. I hope that someone maintains that for you, I truly do.

You don't seem to understand that it's a matter of chance. There's always a chance of getting assaulted or robbed. The chances of being assaulted in your situation are significantly greater, simply because they feel more powerful as they have guns and they'll more quickly let violence escalate.

Then you must find it odd that in areas where American citizens are allowed to go armed, concealed or openly, crime rates are lower. Or have you not researched that, and simply assume that all of America is the wild west? In fact, do us both a favor and research which states and cities in America have the most gun crime, then research which states and cities have the worst gun crimes.

Hooligans in Brazil have guns. Hooligans in Europe do not. Do you see the death count difference?

Are you suggesting that Europe is free of murder?

I consider the risk of getting mugged in the first place, particularly with bad ending rather than surviving, much smaller if they're more likely to use a knife or blunt object.

Yes, I'd rather risk getting stabbed, than getting shot. I'll take my chances and chances are much, MUCH better here to not die from mugging than over there with you.

Laughable. I'd rather have neither, personally...but reality being what it is, I am completely capable of producing the means to defend myself and my family. It's sad that you would rather I take my stabbing, take my beating...for the greater good. Especially when facts do not show your ideas are actually good at all.

That's not what I said either. :/ The Wild West reference is to a situation in which lots of people have guns. It tends to lead to a more anarchic situation.

Then it must terribly disappoint you that in America, we do not actually live in anarchy. If you think such references to the 'wild west' are soley in reference to the presence of guns, then you are being naive. It is hardly a new reference, and it is meant to convey a specific image. That it is completely false does not have any impact on those using it...as there is a reason that they do.

I too acknowledge the world's a pretty bad place. However, I'm not willing to make it a worse place.

You're not? Well good, neither am I. And I own a gun. How about that, sports fans?

Ugh. Dude. It doesn't matter if YOU are responsible or not. You ensure that others WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBILE also get hold of guns. And you can't guarantee by a longshot (as in not at all, not in your wildest dreams) that all people with guns are as responsible as you are. That means that the amount of unsafely possessed guns increases. Thus the number of accidents increases, even if the ratio per gun owner remains the same.

And unsafely possesed automobiles. And yet you don't clamor for there to be a ban on automobiles. In fact, I imagine that, just like the US, there are far more automobile related deaths than there are firearm related deaths. But, because you do not want to lose your pollution-mobile death machine, you would rather continue to subject every innocent in the world to drunken, murderous drivers.

Yeah, makes about as much sense as what you're saying.

Whatever it would be, it wouldn't be: "Let's all get more nukes, just in case". >____> Not anymore anyway, cause people realised there were just a few too many triggers to be potentially pulled.

And it had nothing to do with the ability to produce such weapons, or very specific control measures being put in place as to the manufacturing of the capability...no you're right, totally the same thing as firearms. O.o

(No, it's not. And thats why your analogy is ridiculous. Reference my automobile rant above as a comparison.)

Sigh. Democratic governments? If you complain about simplifications on my part, don't go and try to paint every government as the same thing.

And what, my friend, do you think separates the unfriendly, murderous "Democratic" governments, from the more peaceful, friendly types?

East Germany does not exist anymore, its contents were quickly asserted by the then BRD. If you're looking for leaky weapon depots, you should try the Black Sea area and further east really (Russia, Belarus, Moldavia, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, Kazkhstan, Turkmenistan. Not so much the Baltic states, Czech Republic or Poland. Different cultural mentality).

Of course it does not exist. But, why did you suddenly exclude them from your 'Fortress Europe' club? Why do you exclude so many that share your continent? Is it inconvenient to explain the actions of your "crazy, scarey" cousins? Yes, if only everyone would play by the same rules....lol

Unfortunately one now and then has to generalise to get a point across.

At times, yes, it may be useful to generalise. I think it's ironic and hilarious that people equate gun owner with Republican. Or Republican with...I dunno...anything negative anymore. The punk rocker in me wants to be a Republican, as they are deemed the underdog these days.

1. Debating is fun. Why does one debate religion?
2. Anthropologically, US Gun Owners are a "special breed".

3. I hope you do completely realise that you're also making that decision for your countrymen that don't want others to have guns. I'm also representing their pov since you clearly do not.

It's like being smokers in a public place where one has no choice but be in the same room as the smokers since there's only one room and you've been assigned a spot. As smoke spreads evenly, those people that want/need a smoke free place can't be there, even if it used to be their favourite place. They will face the bad side-effects and consequences of the smokers smoking.

Fine and good...this debate business. But, you should understand that while it is academics for you...in my country, it is what saved this woman:

Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot

...and this boy:

14-Year Old Phoenix Boy Shoots Home Invader

You say that if we remove the guns, the crime will stop. I know that if we remove the guns, you create even more victims.

Crator · 2012-12-23, 08:27 AM

Interesting short read and provides links to statistics - More Guns Have Not Produced More Killings, But We Still Need Gun Control

Figment · 2012-12-23, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Interesting short read and provides links to statistics - More Guns Have Not Produced More Killings, But We Still Need Gun Control

He also links to some interesting other articles:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...mass-shootings

Harvard study linking guns to deaths:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

And Belch, nice that a 14 y/o gets to have a trauma of killing a person, but uhm... You do know of 14 year olds that actually go on killing sprees too? Right?

With those same guns their parents own. And I do love that that article that you mentioned has this:

"Soon after, the teen heard a loud bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom."

Parents wern't at home.

Gun is laying somewhere for grabs in the bedroom for any of their children to grab.

Responsible... gun owners... and parents? Yeah, right.

And regardless of whether the guy pulled a gun on him - you honestly think that if they're burglers, they'd injure or murder kids rather than thinking threatening them would be enough to get what they want and move on? Interesting fact though - where do you reckon that burgler got his gun and how can you be sure they got it (il)legally? ;p

How often do you hear about children being shot by burglers? Here? Never. If you even hear of it where you are once, you're already over the amount of times it happens here. Think about it.

As for the rest, you should read carefully what I said, not rephrase what was said and respond to strawmen you put in my mouth.

belch · 2012-12-23, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

...And Belch, nice that a 14 y/o gets to have a trauma of killing a person, but uhm... You do know of 14 year olds that actually go on killing sprees too? Right?

With those same guns their parents own. And I do love that that article that you mentioned has this:

"Soon after, the teen heard a loud bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom."

Parents wern't at home.

Gun is laying somewhere for grabs in the bedroom for any of their children to grab.

Responsible... gun owners... and parents? Yeah, right.

And regardless of whether the guy pulled a gun on him - you honestly think that if they're burglers, they'd injure or murder kids rather than thinking threatening them would be enough to get what they want and move on? Interesting fact though - where do you reckon that burgler got his gun and how can you be sure they got it (il)legally? ;p

How often do you hear about children being shot by burglers? Here? Never. If you even hear of it where you are once, you're already over the amount of times it happens here. Think about it.

As for the rest, you should read carefully what I said, not rephrase what was said and respond to strawmen you put in my mouth.

Talk about strawmen..you are one to talk. So, rather than acknowledge that a responsible 14 year old defended his siblings, and acknowledge that he and his siblings were fortunate that he was able to defend them...you find fault by 'supposing' what might have happened if the kid was irresponsible. The fact that the door was kicked in, and an intruder with a weapon was entering, has no apparent bearing on you...you again choose to believe some fairey tale where there was no chance that the kids would have been hurt. I'm sure he was there to deliver milk and cookies.

In some ways, I am glad that you have been able to maintain such a gentle and optimistic outlook on life. But, having been to Europe and winessed grown men knifing each other in broad daylight...I am taking most of your soft soap rhetoric with a grain of salt. Word of advice though...if you ever see an assailant with a weapon, you had better run. You have left me with no doubt that you do not possess the mind set, much less the tools, to adequately deal with a real physical threat.

Or wait...are you now going to convince me that European criminals are also of a more sophisticated class, and never use physical violence...

Figment · 2012-12-23, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by belch

Talk about strawmen..you are one to talk. So, rather than acknowledge that a responsible 14 year old defended his siblings, and acknowledge that he and his siblings were fortunate that he was able to defend them...you find fault by 'supposing' what might have happened if the kid was irresponsible. The fact that the door was kicked in, and an intruder with a weapon was entering, has no apparent bearing on you...you again choose to believe some fairey tale where there was no chance that the kids would have been hurt. I'm sure he was there to deliver milk and cookies.

Yeah, so? Chances are no intruder kicks in the door, besides, such intruders are out for material things, not being pursued for child murder. So for starters, he wasn't protecting himself nor his siblings, but his home and his parent's belongings.

Is that worth risking a shoot-out over in which it is normally more likely that the assailant fires first, or the kid misses and the intruder "fires in self-defense" (after being responsible for creating a conflict in the first place, of course)?

You completely ignore that the kid (and his siblings) had access to a weapon at that age and regardless if the kid needed it then and there, could have taken it elsewhere and used it on someone else, or hurt himself or his siblings by accident. That's exactly what happens in a whole lot of domestic shootings.

It's baffling that all you can think off is there being an attacker without considering what else could have happened in another situation without an attacker.

But let's see why you even brought it up? Are you suggesting that since this kid was able to fend of an attacker, we should give all 14 year olds (access to their parent's) guns? Is that it?

So they can go out and shoot their school bullies? Oh right "that never happened before in the USA". Gee, wonder why so many shootings happen at schools by underage teens. Ehr... they bought a gun themselves? >.> You think? Good thing teens aren't ever in an emotionally unstable state of mind or submitted to stressful situations where they might overreact, right?

In some ways, I am glad that you have been able to maintain such a gentle and optimistic outlook on life. But, having been to Europe and winessed grown men knifing each other in broad daylight...I am taking most of your soft soap rhetoric with a grain of salt.

Consider that I'm 28 always lived in Europe and never witnesssed an assault with weaponry, at all.

Why are you pretending I pretend there's no crime? Why can't you see your crime is that more violent? Why do you think that witnessing one knife fight (which isn't a gun fight, which is what you might witness in say New York), is so much worse?

A knife can be dealt with with basic self-defense lessons and martial arts like jiu-jitsu, judo or karate. A gun on the other hand, cannot. Again, you don't understand I prefer a knife fight over a gun fight. The second part is incredibly important there.

And no, it's not likely to be attacked with a gun, as our crime statistics clearly show. Which you for some reason keep ignoring. Why do you keep ignoring facts over your hypothetical theories and fairy tales? There is no significant gun crime here to the point one can expect it to happen. IF it happens, which is always an option, it's not even likely to end in violence. You do realise that most criminals use a weapon to assert authority in a situation? They have no interest in being persecuted for a capital offense, if they can get away with their primary purpose: obtaining money.

You may want to make a stand, but that's just going to put yourself at a bigger risk. Sure, it's not macho. But then, it's not death either. It's only a material thing you might lose. And no, guns aren't typically used by rapists either.

Word of advice though...if you ever see an assailant with a weapon, you had better run. You have left me with no doubt that you do not possess the mind set, much less the tools, to adequately deal with a real physical threat.

In principle, running is always the best recourse. Getting people out of danger is better than putting them IN danger by seeking confrontations.

Read both the articles of that second link in the previous post. Read them completely.

Or wait...are you now going to convince me that European criminals are also of a more sophisticated class, and never use physical violence...

I didn't say that, nor implied that anywhere.

I did say Western European criminals don't use guns as often and they're therefore far less lethal. The hooligan example for instance. People have died by being kicked to death in violent confrontations (typically fight events they organised themselves), or blunt instruments like a lead pipe in an attack from behind. The criminals that use guns the most in Western Europe are Eastern European criminals, with guns originating from their civil wars and revolutions, which wern't taken away from them. Something that did happen in Western Europe after the liberation.

Note that I'm not against mobilisation of a populace. I am against portions of a populace arming themselves for their own ends. I simply don't trust people with a tool of significant killing power. You don't either, but your solution is to make sure you can't trust anyone so M.A.D. protocol enters into the equation.

But I asked you to compare it to Brazilian football, where you basically have gang wars over football matches between hooligans, where frequent gun fights result in a high death toll. Those may go as far as to kill if you wear the wrong colours of pants in their neighbourhood, because they take you for a supporter of a different club.

We don't have that. At all. Despite of the deep rivalries and hooligan / police clashes. Would you as a riot police cop rather face drunk hooligans with access to pistols, rifles and machine guns, or drunk hooligans with stones, boxing thingies, knives and sticks? Perhaps the occasional molotov cocktail?

Big, BIG difference. I've nowhere said there's no violence in Europe. However, I HAVE stated it is nowhere NEAR as violent as with you barbarious lot. ;p