Gun politics

[Dwarden 1125]

just note,

only these countries with rights to own gun to protect self and own property / family

are considered as 'non-conquerable'

rest can be easily captured or take over by some crazy mofo ...

just IMHO

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

just note,

only these countries with rights to own gun to protect self and own property / family

are considered as 'non-conquerable'

rest can be easily captured or take over by some crazy mofo ...

just IMHO

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II

[Tonci87 163]

Valid Point. Even Hitler didn´t want to invade switzerland. Noone would dare to do this today, and noone would dare to invade the US, even if he had a powerfull enough military to perform something like this. The Resistance from militias would be too high

[st_dux 26]

That's the problem. An idiot cannot kill me with a cigarette.

The example in question is something that is exceedingly rare, and you cannot say with any certainty that the boy would not have found a gun by some other means had his father not left his police service weapon lying about.

The only statistically significant negative correlation you can draw with an increase in the availability of guns is an increase in gun-related accidents. But gun-related accidents are such a relatively rare occurrence anyway (you are more likely to die via accidental fall or lightning strike and orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash) that it's hardly worth considering as an argument for stricter gun laws.

The point is that when it's ridiculously easy to get a gun, more criminals have guns than when it isn't. And people with guns are more dangerous than people without.

That's the theory, but it just isn't true. The fact of the matter is that even in societies where it's relatively easy to legally obtain a firearm, the vast majority (85%+) of gun-related crime is committed with firearms that were obtained illegally. In truth, gun control has very little direct affect on the people it targets. Prohibition doesn't work in any market, and the firearms market is no exception. The only people who follow gun control laws are the kind of people who generally wouldn't commit violent crimes anyway, so instead of reducing violent crime, gun control has the unintentional effect of indirectly promoting it: Violent crime is much safer to commit when the general public is unarmed.

If there were a truly effective way to take guns out of the hands of known criminals, then I would be all for it. But there isn't; gun control just makes it impossible for people to legally defend themselves. The Virginia Tech Massacre could have been stopped a lot sooner -- and many lives could potentially have been saved -- if Virginia didn't have a law banning firearms from public school campuses. Likewise, the shooting on Utøya could have been stopped early had just a few of the people on that island been armed. In fact, Anders Breivik might not have even attempted such an audacious plot had he not been confident, given the draconian gun laws in Norway, that no one would be armed. In both of these cases, gun laws did nothing to stop the criminals from obtaining firearms but made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves. This isn't the exception to the rule; this is the rule, which is why strict gun control is a fundamentally flawed concept that has no place in any free society.

Edited September 23, 2011 by ST_Dux

[froggyluv 2136]

It comes down to more than just guns, you have to look at victims. My chances of being a gun homicide victim are astronomically small because I'm a white male, despite being surrounded by guns all my life. I know it's fun to be cliche and blame redneck culture but they don't do the killing. I think the same holds true for the knife crime in recent years in the UK.

That may be true but I hope your no insinutating that it is somehow a genetic prediposition as opposed to socio-economic factor.

Also, do you have a 300 year chart pre-1960's? I bet those numbers would flip-flop as inevitably they will once caucasions become minorities in the U.S. Thats life.

[HyperU2 11]

8% of our population is 50% of our homicide victims. That's no minority. It's not genetic or economic, it's a culture.

Edited September 23, 2011 by HyperU2

[froggyluv 2136]

True, and I'm no fan of the thug culture or gangbanging -used to work sport intervention program with young kids who had no dad or they were incarcerated -to try and keep them out of that lure. Was tough.

But culture's come and go, just like the southern Good Old Boy's culture of slinging people from trees and lighting crosses "In Jesus Name" - has mostly gone. Oh, and economics IS a factor, not the end all be all, but a factor nevertheless.

[HyperU2 11]

Ten times more blacks die at the hands of other blacks every year than were ever lynched in the US. And those are ACLU numbers.

[froggyluv 2136]

Lynching was an example -lets say killed..? The point was there used to be an extremely violent, aggressive action and attitude towards blacks in the south, often without any legal repercusion -a culture that was accepted. Cultures can change.

Violent behaviour is the natural born child of years of oppression -that goes for people everywhere. I'm not exempting anyone for there behaviour now -but the fact remains.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Last week!? Where have you been!?

Besides, that isn't really a good example. The riots could easily have been put down if the police force could've done something other than stand in a line and watch. The police were not inept - the powers that be were too soft.

You're also looking at a minority of people who don't have the support of the public and live in an area where crime is rife in itself. You're basing your opinion upon an insignificant sample.

My opinion?

[daman3 19]

Hyper, what are you implying? To ban weapons for certain people of certain heritage?

And I don't know what's worse, 33 dead civilians at Virginia Tech because of no armed pupils or 300 because everybody

would just start shooting, not knowing who is friend or foe (how to know who is the shooter, when everybody draws a weapon)

Edited September 23, 2011 by DaMan3

[Hans Ludwig 0]

The point is that when it's ridiculously easy to get a gun, more criminals have guns than when it isn't. And people with guns are more dangerous than people without.

It's ridiculously easy to get pot, and it's against the law.

[GRS 10]

Smoking kills more people than guns and many smokers are assholes that blow that shit all over the place with no regard for others. Yet smoking is legal and I'm the "crazy guy" with guns.

Food for thought.

[HyperU2 11]

Hyper, what are you implying? To ban weapons for certain people of certain heritage?

And I don't know what's worse, 33 dead civilians at Virginia Tech because of no armed pupils or 300 because everybody

would just start shooting, not knowing who is friend or foe (how to know who is the shooter, when everybody draws a weapon)

No just don't lump me in with the homicidal thugs who don't care about legality or responsibility, and don't blame the object.

You don't need everyone with a gun but one could have made the difference.

[froggyluv 2136]

Personally I see no reason why people can't own guns (pistols, hunting rifles...), the only thing I find disturbing are laws or attempts at laws to allow people to carry them anywhere ie.. a Bar.

Thats a horrendous idea. I used to bounce at a huge nightclub back East that sometimes (Double fisted Tuesdays) would cater up to 1600 people -we had 21 bouncers strong. Fights were nightly and so bad that we had a mobile mini-police station that parked out front. Hospitlized bouncers, patrons and lawsuits were commonplace.

If you had people armed in there, it would have been massacres - I couldn't even imagine. But those young drunken idiots would have surely used them.

[GRS 10]

They also said that everyone would start shooting up everything they see when the US assault weapons ban ended. That never happened. We'll have to see over time. That one is a bit sketchy. Bar owners can just put up the no-gun sign. We all know that's just as effective as bans. :rolleyes:

Edited September 24, 2011 by GRS

[dysta 10]

Nobody mention about the "gun-ban" country like Japan, and "airsoft-ban" country like China?

[HyperU2 11]

I don't think Japan would have a problem if they had guns, that comes down to culture again. Their homicide rate is half of what other "gun ban" countries have anyway.

[dysta 10]

I don't think Japan would have a problem if they had guns, that comes down to culture again. Their homicide rate is half of what other "gun ban" countries have anyway.

Except more and more teens gone crazy with airsoft toys (especially airsoft drive-by on the street), that cause the ASGK to limit these power not over 0.98 Joles. Hope these young players don't get their hands crazy with a real steel.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Personally I see no reason why people can't own guns (pistols, hunting rifles...), the only thing I find disturbing are laws or attempts at laws to allow people to carry them anywhere ie.. a Bar.

Thats a horrendous idea. I used to bounce at a huge nightclub back East that sometimes (Double fisted Tuesdays) would cater up to 1600 people -we had 21 bouncers strong. Fights were nightly and so bad that we had a mobile mini-police station that parked out front. Hospitlized bouncers, patrons and lawsuits were commonplace.

If you had people armed in there, it would have been massacres - I couldn't even imagine. But those young drunken idiots would have surely used them.

Almost every State in the US disallows bar carry or carrying while intoxicated. And just to totally blow your theory to pieces; I carry every time I put on my pants. Including many bars. And I've even been involved in a few bar fights in my days. Many others do the very same thing. And our streets aren't running red with blood yet. There are no bar-side massacres.

The fact of the matter is that my right to own and bear arms sure as hell doesn't end at the doorway of a bar. In fact, there are some bars that I just flat wouldn't walk into without knowing that I'm protected.

Responsible law abiding citizens don't suddenly get the itch to start popping caps in all the asses just because they've had a few shots of whiskey.

---------- Post added at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:59 PM ----------

They also said that everyone would start shooting up everything they see when the US assault weapons ban ended. That never happened. We'll have to see over time. That one is a bit sketchy. Bar owners can just put up the no-gun sign. We all know that's just as effective as bans. :rolleyes:

That's one thing I love about my state. ;) No-gun signs mean someone wasted their time to tell the world, that doesn't care, about their opinion. They hold absolutely no weight outside of federal buildings and city/county courthouses or prisons.

[froggyluv 2136]

Almost every State in the US disallows bar carry or carrying while intoxicated

Good. Lets hope it stays that way.

And just to totally blow your theory to pieces; I carry every time I put on my pants. Including many bars. And I've even been involved in a few bar fights in my days. Many others do the very same thing. And our streets aren't running red with blood yet. There are no bar-side massacres.

Because you and your homies carry guns into you bar without incident proves nothing. Trust me I bounced for years, don't want to see that legal.

The fact of the matter is that my right to own and bear arms sure as hell doesn't end at the doorway of a bar. In fact, there are some bars that I just flat wouldn't walk into without knowing that I'm protected.

It sure does. Well maybe not country bars in wherever you live -but it's not your right to carry your gun wherever you like.

Responsible law abiding citizens don't suddenly get the itch to start popping caps in all the asses just because they've had a few shots of whiskey.

Drunk 21 year olds will do alot to win a fight when their smashed. If guns were allowed, that would mean everyone would eventually start packing "just in case".

Do you know how many times I've seen:

Guy accidently bumps another guy's girl or drink

Boyfriend throws hard push or sucker punch

Somebody smashed in face with bottle

More jump in

Bouncers break it up

Now add everybody's packin to that situation. Little drunk guy gets pushed down or sucker punched - on the street it'd be self defense to pull your weapon if someone did that to you - in a club thats nightly.

Sorry, no thanks.

[krzychuzokecia 719]

The point is that when it's ridiculously easy to get a gun, more criminals have guns than when it isn't.

I have to disagree with you on that matter.

Here, in Poland 1991, you could join any sports or shooting club, and you had the right to go to the shop and buy .22LR pistol or rifle. Many people acquired their weapons then, and crime-rate was pretty low. Not to mention that these people were first gun owners since WWII (communists banned guns here).

But in 1997 PZL (Polish Hunters Society), which was formed mainly by former communist party members (they were only owners of legal weapons in communist Poland), successfully passed their project of new Gun and Ammunition Act. I'll describe it in one word: BAN. We were back in 1970s when only members of party could have gun, but in 1997 we had PZL instead of party.

And then it all started: criminals, who had 'friends' inside of police, were crossing borders with Czech Republic and Germany, in cars full of CZ or HK machine pistols and even vz.58 and G3 rifles! Many law-abiding citizens were dying in their shops or factories, because they didn't wanted to pay bribes or tributes to local mafia. Mafia was also strong thanks to their contacts in police and government (some of mafia leaders were officers of communist militia or secret service).

Situation calmed after election in 2005 when left-wing party, direct descendant of communist PZPR, lost. Criminals lost their connections and gun-ban was raised. But still you can't be sure if you'll get your gun license - one experienced shooting instructor (over 20 years of work) was trying to get one, but he was rejected because "he can still use weapons at sports club". And criminals seem to have regain their strength...

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Good. Lets hope it stays that way.

Actually, US law trends are going the opposite direction. Many states are getting rid of quite a few old gun control laws.

Because you and your homies carry guns into you bar without incident proves nothing. Trust me I bounced for years, don't want to see that legal.

It proves that you're not absolutely 100% right in this case.

It sure does. Well maybe not country bars in wherever you live -but it's not your right to carry your gun wherever you like.

Actually, I do, outside of airports, and federal buildings. Any time I'm in a courthouse, I'm exempt, since I'm considered law enforcement as a correctional officer.

Drunk 21 year olds will do alot to win a fight when their smashed. If guns were allowed, that would mean everyone would eventually start packing "just in case".

Do you know how many times I've seen:

Guy accidently bumps another guy's girl or drink

Boyfriend throws hard push or sucker punch

Somebody smashed in face with bottle

More jump in

Bouncers break it up

Now add everybody's packin to that situation. Little drunk guy gets pushed down or sucker punched - on the street it'd be self defense to pull your weapon if someone did that to you - in a club thats nightly.

Sorry, no thanks.

To be completely honest, I've never been to a club. But I imagine they're about like any country bar in terms of fights. And whether I've been in a country bar full of drunk dudes, a resturaunt, a park, or really... anywhere, here is one quote that explains all of my experience wrapped into two sentences.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein

Do you think whether I'm walking through a county bar, a club, or just down the street that, with a gun on my hip, someone is really going to pick a fight with me? Someone might be drunk, but that doesn't mean they lose all sense of self preservation.

And btw: If someone takes a swing at me in a bar, I legally have a right to draw my weapon on them. (And not because I'm a cop) Personally, I wont, because I like the integrity of a good 'ole fashioned bar fight. But whether I might or not, and whether you think so or not, a man has a right to defend himself no matter what setting he's in.

Edited September 24, 2011 by TheCapulet

[ProfTournesol 956]

@krzychuzokecia : well, if the police is corrupted and unable to get rid of the gun traffic, you may be right, but it's the same as everyting you try to ban but fail to. The law isn't faulty, but the society itself. Some may prefer Far West laws, but i vastly prefer to live in a country where guns and death penalty are banned. I guess it's a matter of society choice.

[froggyluv 2136]

It proves that you're not absolutely 100% right in this case.

Now your just being silly. I never said citizens carrying guns to bars will always lead to fatal shootings 100% of the time. I said the likelihood would go way up and it's a very bad idea.

Actually, I do, outside of airports, and federal buildings. Any time I'm in a courthouse, I'm exempt, since I'm considered law enforcement as a correctional officer.

Well in your case, I'd agree that as a peace officer, you should have that right. Most cops I know don't want everyone packing.

To be completely honest, I've never been to a club. But I imagine they're about like any country bar in terms of fights

City clubs have much thicker density of people that are pretty much all strangers as opposed to local watering holes -totally different animal.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein

We already had that -it was called the Wild West and we evolved from that.

Do you think whether I'm walking through a county bar, a club, or just down the street that, with a gun on my hip, someone is really going to pick a fight with me?

Not now as most people aren't walking around packing. If all were packing then yes and simple assault fights would be a thing of the past.

And btw: If someone takes a swing at me in a bar, I legally have a right to draw my weapon on them.

Case in point of why it's a bad idea to make it legal. Like I said, at clubs someone gets punched nightly -if you're saying the "punched" would always have the legal right to then shoot him in the face and carry on about his business -thats a scary society your looking at.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure stating a man has the right to defend himself with lethal force from a "bar punch" -exceeds reasonable response.

Anyways, it's sad that you feel the need to arm yourself at all times. I've lived in some of the shittyest neighborhoods known to man and never felt the need.