Thread: guns

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Guns don't help you get around.

They help you protect yourself without having to be a kickass movie star Kung-Fu expert.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Guns don't help you get around.



I would be a strong supporter of totalitarian society, so obviously our fundamental beliefs clash spectacularily here. It would be pointless to continue an argument.

and i think what serkat was sayin is like take skydivin as an example, it's dangerous and it kills people at times(must suck) yet its cool? or like kids die in bathtubs, get rid of 'em right? that's wat serkat is sayin.

wouldn't guns kinda make everyone equal, kind of. like if we didn't have that the bigger musclier people would run the show...

TAKE MY FUCKING GUN! TRY IT!

;=-'

BANG!

I think guns should be outlawed, but in a slow manner... First you ban some guns, then more guns and so on, until you've banned them all.
In Norway, only the military have guns. The police doesn't have guns unless the situation requires it (which is VERY rare). No guns, allmost no armed robberies, virtually no accidental deaths by firearms... We have hunting rifles though, but still, the most used weapon is a knife here.

Originally Posted by Sound

I think guns should be outlawed, but in a slow manner... First you ban some guns, then more guns and so on, until you've banned them all.
In Norway, only the military have guns. The police doesn't have guns unless the situation requires it (which is VERY rare). No guns, allmost no armed robberies, virtually no accidental deaths by firearms... We have hunting rifles though, but still, the most used weapon is a knife here.

Good luck if your government becomes tyrannical.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Good luck if your government becomes tyrannical.

That is hard to do with our government. No one in the government has enough power to overthrow the constitution, it takes 12+ years to change a paragraph in the constitution, our military is way too weak to overthrow anything and we have a king who have the right to veto. Its just bloody hard to gain that much control. Last time our country was tyrannical was in the middle ages.

Sounds like you are due.

lol america.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Good luck if your government becomes tyrannical.

And if yours became (moreso) tyrannical, do you really think a nation of mostly poverty stricken illiterates with handguns and rifles is going to be a match for a military that has over 45% of the worlds defense spending being pumped into it?

Your first claim: "Most Americans are poverty stricken and illiterate"

Simply wrong. Second, wealth and illiteracy have nothing at all to do with firearms and experience in self defense, war, etc.

Then you suggest that a population of millions has no chance. Even if that were so, which it is not, are you suggesting that submission is a better answer? Would you give up all your principles because someone told you to? Do you believe you will live forever?

The outcome of a battle is not even really the point. The fact is there will be no battle if the people do not allow their rights to be taken away, and if they do, there will be no battle because there will be no tools. The gun is a symbol of a balance of power more than anything in this regard.

That was more of a dig at the gaffes of McCain and Obama from the last 12 months than my own views and/or opinion of America ("people cling to their religion and their guns", and "the fundamentals of our economy are working").

Sorry, my humor doesn't translate well, clearly.

The more laws there are, the less law abiding the people will be

The more controls there are, the less people will control themselves

The fewer guns there are, the more people will need them

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

The more laws there are, the less law abiding the people will be

The more controls there are, the less people will control themselves

The fewer guns there are, the more people will need them

That just isn't true. Have you ever been to Europe? People don't need guns at all. If I lived in America, I might have to buy a gun, because every fucking criminal has one, and because your crime-rates are so high.

Anyhow, just reflect on how wrong that statement of you was. Look up the statistics. You can look up how many attempts there were made to legalize guns in European countries. How can you live with yourself if you make giant mistakes in even such simple claims that you could avoid if you look up some statistics?

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

And if yours became (moreso) tyrannical, do you really think a nation of mostly poverty stricken illiterates with handguns and rifles is going to be a match for a military that has over 45% of the worlds defense spending being pumped into it?

Haha, awesome. That is pretty ironic in a way.

Originally Posted by Neruo

That just isn't true. Have you ever been to Europe? People don't need guns at all. If I lived in America, I might have to buy a gun, because every fucking criminal has one, and because your crime-rates are so high.

Yeah, those Europeans didn't need guns at all from 1932-1945. It's not like a socialist dictator tried to take over or anything.

The US will have their chance as well, even if they're historically 70 years out of phase with Europe.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Yeah, those Europeans didn't need guns at all from 1932-1945. It's not like a socialist dictator tried to take over or anything.

lol. I hope you do know the difference between national-socialism as in the NSDAP, and 'real' socialism, especially in it's 21th century quite-liberal incarnations. Socialism can be silly, but certainly isn't comparable to Nazis. (Also, Stalin wasn't a socialist.) Actually, I might be wrong on this, but it is simply not the case that Hitler is referred to a socialist by historians today.

Okay, now once we got the meaning of that 'complicated' and very 'dirty' and 'scary' word clear.

I highly doubt that the European citizens would have enough guns to really change the outcome of the war. Also, the second world was was one of the last war that was based on the, then already expired, conviction that a great nation needs and benefits of more land for resources and as lebensraum. As a lot of European countries found out, great recourse and slave sources such as Surinam and The Antilles for the Netherlands, in the 20th century became an economical burden.

Simply said, if someone wanted to become economically more powerful or even 'defeat' Europe, they would never march in with armies. Occupation and conquering countries simply has no benefit in the 21th century (a few oil-rich countries aside). Basically, Europe will get nuked into oblivion far before being invaded. Thus, citizens carrying guns do not help at all against fascist forces in the 21th century. At least not as far as Europe is concerned.

Originally Posted by Neruo

lol. I hope you do know the difference between national-socialism as in the NSDAP, and 'real' socialism, especially in it's 21th century quite-liberal incarnations. Socialism can be silly, but certainly isn't comparable to Nazis. (Also, Stalin wasn't a socialist.) Actually, I might be wrong on this, but it is simply not the case that Hitler is referred to a socialist by historians today.

Socialism is socialism.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I highly doubt that the European citizens would have enough guns to really change the outcome of the war.

I guess you've never heard of the Maquis?

Originally Posted by Neruo

Also, the second world was was one of the last war that was based on the, then already expired, conviction that a great nation needs and benefits of more land for resources and as lebensraum. As a lot of European countries found out, great recourse and slave sources such as Surinam and The Antilles for the Netherlands, in the 20th century became an economical burden.

Simply said, if someone wanted to become economically more powerful or even 'defeat' Europe, they would never march in with armies. Occupation and conquering countries simply has no benefit in the 21th century (a few oil-rich countries aside). Basically, Europe will get nuked into oblivion far before being invaded. Thus, citizens carrying guns do not help at all against fascist forces in the 21th century. At least not as far as Europe is concerned.

I'm not talking about outside invasion; I'm talking about the existing governments becoming even more tyrannical than they are now.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Socialism is socialism.

Then you are an idiot. The NSDAP is about as far from 21th century socialistic parties as possible.

I guess you've never heard of the Maquis?

The French army probably was properly armed in all the wars against England too. They lost all or almost all of them. I don't think a few more armed peasants would help against the Wehrmacht.

I'm not talking about outside invasion; I'm talking about the existing governments becoming even more tyrannical than they are now.

Well, then you shouldn't have mentioned Hitler's invasion.

As far as tyrannical governments, it's probably America, not Europe, that is growing close to that. As I told before in this topic, armed populous doesn't prevent a government tyranny in the 21th century.

Some people need to watch V for Vendetta.

I say good to a point...

Originally Posted by Neruo

That just isn't true. Have you ever been to Europe? People don't need guns at all. If I lived in America, I might have to buy a gun, because every fucking criminal has one, and because your crime-rates are so high.

Anyhow, just reflect on how wrong that statement of you was. Look up the statistics. You can look up how many attempts there were made to legalize guns in European countries. How can you live with yourself if you make giant mistakes in even such simple claims that you could avoid if you look up some statistics?

---



Haha, awesome. That is pretty ironic in a way.

YEs, do look at the statistics....


The media blows firearm violence way out of proprtion in the US. The fact of the matter is that violence in TH US is not a matter of firearms being available, it is a matter of the failure of the system of justice to enact adequate punishments for the crimes committed.
Right nowm the law abiding gun owner has more to fear from law enforcement than the criminal that illegally owns and uses the gun in a crime.

Everything is a matter of perspective.

Its difficult to make an adequate judgement of the going ons in another persons back yard, unless you live in that back yard yourself.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

YEs, do look at the statistics....


The media blows firearm violence way out of proprtion in the US. The fact of the matter is that violence in TH US is not a matter of firearms being available, it is a matter of the failure of the system of justice to enact adequate punishments for the crimes committed.
Right nowm the law abiding gun owner has more to fear from law enforcement than the criminal that illegally owns and uses the gun in a crime.

Everything is a matter of perspective.

Its difficult to make an adequate judgement of the going ons in another persons back yard, unless you live in that back yard yourself.

Map is probably murder rate per 100.000 citizens. Note how the Netherlands, pretty much as gun-free as possible, is a nice, light-blue. While America is a pretty hard gun-to-the-face blue.

Note how the only countries that have it worse or equal are shit-poor crap countries. Other crime-rates are shit-hilariously high in America too. Despite the fact that America has about a three times more people per citizen in prison than civilized countries.

Anyhow. Go get shot at a 7-11, silly hippy.

You should expand your awareness of the issue...


You are being quite naive

While the map is compelling, it is important to understand that guns are not the only possible explanation for these statistics.

Where I live (Vermont), we have the most lax gun laws in the country. One can go right into a store, buy a handgun, and conceal it. No permit required. You can walk right into any non-state building with it. Vermont has the second lowest crime rate in the nation. Again though, I must admit that there may be another reason besides gun laws for these statistics. Things are just not so simple to evaluate without controls.

It saddens me to see the way our latest generations are being raised. (In America) It is no fault of their own. I don't know if you can really call it anybody's fault. It is a product of the environment that people grow up in. They are not brought up to understand fire arms in the same light as was the case generations ago. Much less respect them. Guns are not part of families heritages any more. A pastime? Respect for, or an understanding of firearms is not taught down from generation to generation any more. They are seen as weapons of violence and destruction in video games, television and in the news. This in turn will eventually lead to the demise of our second amendment.

I don't see how anybody who was raised with firearms and the many traditions that accompany them could truly ever convey what it is like to have honor for our gun rights. Not to a person that has never been around guns.