USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Every country is free to choose his own laws, and that's fine. But having almost free access to weapons is the exact contrary of freedom. That's where the flaw is.

What about Switzerland?

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with somewhere between 1.2 to 3 million guns in the private residences of its approximately 8 million citizens. In 2006 there were 34 recorded murders or attempted murders with a gun, representing a firearm homicide rate of 1 per 250,000 (or 0.25 per 100,000)

SOURCE:

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.html

Myke;2267955']Hmm...sports....i fail to see how pulling a trigger can be considered a sportive activity. Nor does it take strength to pull a trigger nor does it require a raised IQ (like in' date=' let's say chess).[/quote']

I fail to see how using a mouse or control pad can be seen as "competitive." See where I'm going with this?

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Edited December 24, 2012 by Hans Ludwig

[[frl]myke 14]

What about Switzerland?

Yes, what about it? Let me shed some light and put this number into a context. In Switzerland we do not have a professinal army but a militia. Means, every male is obligated to serve in the army. Of course there are reasons which frees someone to serve (medic reasons as example) or some might chose a non-armed service. But this is quite new, back in my days, the options were "serve or jail". So i didn't had much choice than to take this damn gun.

At the beginning you served for 21 weeks, so-called recruit school. After that, you annualy repetition courses which took 3 weeks everytime until you reached a certain age or you served 500 days, whatever happened first. Inbetween those courses, you had to take all your personal stuff with you to which belongs the Firearm. This way, i case of a mobilization, a "soldier" could defend himself when travelling to his meeting point. That was the idea behind. So we also have ammo at home for this case but this was sealed and breaking the seal would have been considered a crime, so this ammo couldn't be used "for fun" or other purposes (i admit that someone who planned a crime probably wouldn't care).

Long story short: it's not like we wanted to have this piece of crap in our houses, we were forced to. And on a sidenote, this will change soon as we (as in: our politicians) realized that having firearms at home is too dangerous.

I fail to see how using a mouse or control pad can be seen as "competitive." See where I'm going with this?

Nope, can't see. I consider Paintball being a sport, even deer hunting. But i guess actually a minority really goes hunting, the majority just meets at places to shoot some wrecked cars and cans.

[scrim 1]

I'd agree that shooting can be considered a sport, but I fail to see why you'd need anything like an AR-15 with 30 round magazines for it. That does seem like being unnessecary.

[spooky lynx 73]

Myke;2267955']

Hmm...sports....i fail to see how pulling a trigger can be considered a sportive activity. Nor does it take strength to pull a trigger nor does it require a raised IQ (like in' date=' let's say chess).[/quote']

Try to hit definite target part at given distance with one hit. It will take you some counting - ammo you use, wind, elevation, humidity, temperature, etc. (all that is counted by dedicated ballistic calculator). Does it really require no raised IQ?

I'd agree that shooting can be considered a sport, but I fail to see why you'd need anything like an AR-15 with 30 round magazines for it. That does seem like being unnessecary.

Well, it's the matter of taste and choice. Most of heavy SUVs or sportcars aren't used for driving in the countryside or racing during all their service life. But they are sold and bought despite of this fact. People buy 300-400 hp cars and then drive only at the cities or travel between them abiding speed limits and thus using barely 20-30% of their car potential. Frankly speaking every car that has more than 150 hp engine is just useless if you don't travel at long distances. The same goes to the guns.

Oh, and regarding recent debates about gun laws caused by that school shoot... Hey, people, you kill each other but not guns. Fight the will to kill itself but not the tools to do it. If a person wants to kill he won't stop because of the lack of legal gun. He will grab the axe, kitchen knife, or even pencil and go. Even my Parker, made of aluminium, may be used as weapon.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Spooky Lynx

[oxmox 73]

I read often about the country Switzerland, which you hear about in the media or in discussions here.

* USA: The right to own a gun and to defend onself

* Switzerland: No standing Army but just Militia

This is huge difference here if you use the available weapons for INTERN or EXTERN security threats. And this is the difference between the USA and Switzerland, in one country the gun politics are directed for individual defence and in the other one it is actually used to have a punchy Militia in case of a war/invention.

Switzerland has one of the highest living standards in the world, it has one of the most advanced democracy and is actually a welfare state with a stabil social security system. There seems to be aswell a different kind of gun culture, you probably wont find many in Switzerland who will argue that a man is only a man with a weapon....some kind of gun macho fuss. And you wont probably find that many gun fanatics even most hold a weapon at home.

The press agency Reuters did release in 2007 an article, that U.S. citizen own 270million of the worlds known 870million firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828

This is actually a big business and a huge market for weapon companies and of course the weapon lobby wont get into any discussion to change it, because pure profit rules.

I understand that this old right to own a weapon means a lot for some, but when the NRA actually starts to argue that you need even more weapons to control the crimes you can only shake your head. There is something terrible wrong in the USA if this country could only solve the gun crimes with even more firearms, this sounds more like a treatmill.

Just imagine 30.000 people are dying each year from firearms, thats the amount of victims we hear about the war in Syria within a year.

Edited December 24, 2012 by oxmox

[GRS 10]

So did nobody read the info I posted on the last page? of those 30k deaths, ~19k are suicides... as in... not homicides.

And there are sporting purposes for those guns. Many types of competition require them. Not to mention, during the LA riots, people were defending themselves from entire crowds by presenting an AR15. Plus, the reason 2A exists is to allow the people to defend themselves from tyranny. It has nothing to do with sport. The very fact that the government want to take away gun is reason for we the people to have them. Obama and the gun grabbers are, by constitutional law, committing crimes and technically even treason.

And all this "Americans think they are macho for having guns" fuss is BS. Maybe the gang bangers and criminals... you know... the people who ARE the problem as opposed to the normal people who own guns.

I understand that this old right to own a weapon means a lot for some, but when the NRA actually starts to argue that you need even more weapons to control the crimes you can only shake your head. There is something terrible wrong in the USA if this country could only solve the gun crimes with even more firearms, this sounds more like a treatmill.

If you can "only shake your head" then you must not have thought it through. If a guy walks into a mall with a gun and starts shooting people, what is going to stop him? The answer: Another gun. Or we could just wait and hope he kills himself or that the almighty police arrive before too many people die. Personally, I say screw that; hope isn't a plan. Even the constantly underestimating NCVS estimated 10X more defensive gun uses per year than gun homicides.

[froggyluv 2136]

Plus, the reason 2A exists is to allow the people to defend themselves from tyranny. It has nothing to do with sport. The very fact that the government want to take away gun is reason for we the people to have them. Obama and the gun grabbers are, by constitutional law, committing crimes and technically even treason.

Amendments are not absolutes in a vaccum. They are adjusted and regulated depending on the will of the people. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is proof of this. The 1st Amendement or Feedom of Speech is not an absolute -you cannot say whatever you want as certain statements will carry consequences. To say Obama is a "gun grabber" and "treasonous" because the people have spoken in that they want certain guns regulated is absurd. Some people will drop the accusation of "treason" because they don't want to pay sales tax or their choice for President lost -who will protect us from those well armed folk?

And all this "Americans think they are macho for having guns" fuss is BS

Guess you've never heard of Ted Nugent or been to an NRA ralley eh? ;)

Edited December 24, 2012 by froggyluv

[oxmox 73]

So did nobody read the info I posted on the last page? of those 30k deaths, ~19k are suicides... as in... not homicides.

And there are sporting purposes for those guns. Many types of competition require them. Not to mention, during the LA riots, people were defending themselves from entire crowds by presenting an AR15. Plus, the reason 2A exists is to allow the people to defend themselves from tyranny. It has nothing to do with sport. The very fact that the government want to take away gun is reason for we the people to have them. Obama and the gun grabbers are, by constitutional law, committing crimes and technically even treason.

And all this "Americans think they are macho for having guns" fuss is BS. Maybe the gang bangers and criminals... you know... the people who ARE the problem as opposed to the normal people who own guns.

If you can "only shake your head" then you must not have thought it through. If a guy walks into a mall with a gun and starts shooting people, what is going to stop him? The answer: Another gun. Or we could just wait and hope he kills himself or that the almighty police arrive before too many people die. Personally, I say screw that; hope isn't a plan. Even the constantly underestimating NCVS estimated 10X more defensive gun uses per year than gun homicides.

Well if you think that you will solve the problems in the USA with more weapons go ahead, the weapon industry will appreciate it. It seems there is a security problem if you need civil persons for it and probably the reasons are a lot deeper than just the question about having guns or not. Just look around, there are multiple role models in Europe for example, how they solve the issues. If the US government aswell the society over there thinks that everything is alright, well go ahead and do business like usual.

By the way, Merry Christmas to all =)

Edited December 24, 2012 by oxmox

[froggyluv 2136]

@oxmox: Yup. When "kindergartner teachers need to carry AR-15 rifles to class" is the solution -something is very, very wrong....

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Amendments are not absolutes in a vaccum. They are adjusted and regulated depending on the will of the people.

Actually they aren't. That's why the original founders created the "Senate." Often times referred to as a place were bills go to die, the founders created it as compromise, a body that wouldn't pressured to pass legislation, a cooling off system if you will. Both the big government founders (Hamilton) and the small government founders (Jefferson) agreed that this was a necessary to prevent a majority from infringing on the minority, which was often the case in the old world.

[froggyluv 2136]

Actually they aren't. That's why the original founders created the "Senate." Often times referred to as a place were bills go to die, the founders created it as compromise, a body that wouldn't pressured to pass legislation, a cooling off system if you will. Both the big government founders (Hamilton) and the small government founders (Jefferson) agreed that this was a necessary to prevent a majority from infringing on the minority, which was often the case in the old world.

The point being they are malleable and not absolute.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

The point being they are malleable and not absolute.

No, you clearly said the following:

They are adjusted and regulated depending on the will of the people.

You are half correct if you were only referring to the U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate, however, wasn't designed to be "malleable" or pass legislation because of "the will of the people."

[froggyluv 2136]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 which regulated machine guns, grenades and destructive devices was an act of congress.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 which regulated machine guns, grenades and destructive devices was an act of congress.

Which was a law passed by "progressives" in response to a growing criminal activity that sprang up during Prohibition. They also controlled both the House and the Senate.

[froggyluv 2136]

Which was a law passed by "progressives" in response to a growing criminal activity that sprang up during Prohibition. They also controlled both the House and the Senate.

And your point being...? Mine is adding AR-15 and similar assault rifles to the list which is prohibited by this act is hardly treasonous unless you consider those Progressives treasonous for making posession of machine guns and cannons illegal.

[GRS 10]

People seem to forget that the amendments within the BoR are different...

And I just don't get it. You guys wanted facts, and I provided them. Now people are choosing to ignore the facts that they asked for. You can THINK that guns for defensive purposes don't work, but research done even by offices of the very government that wants bans has proven that they are more used for defense than offense, by a large margin too. Face it, I've provided logical reason and statistical reason. By continuing to argue against or ignore those two things combined, all you are doing is displaying willful and desperate ignorance because you have some form of unfounded anti-gun viewpoint that you refuse to let go of even in the face of the very evidence you asked for as though it would sway you...

Edited December 24, 2012 by GRS

[[frl]myke 14]

People seem to forget that the amendments within the BoR are different...

And I just don't get it. You guys wanted facts, and I provided them. Now people are choosing to ignore the facts that they asked for. You can THINK that guns for defensive purposes don't work, but research done even by offices of the very government that wants bans has proven that they are more used for defense than offense, by a large margin too. Face it, I've provided logical reason and statistical reason. By continuing to argue against those two things combined, all you are doing is displaying willful and desperate ignorance.

You have to understand us aswell. For us, the USA isn't considered a third world country, we see it on the same level as europe. From this point of view, europe with it's general stricter laws regarding firearms and the by far lower criminal rate, it is hard to follow the general US argumentation. We see it works this way and that's why we have problems to understand your POV. Mainly you say "it doesn't work" while we live in a world where it does work.

Actually, where i live, we don't lock our cars and main doors. If this doesn't work in US, then the question must be "why not" and how to achieve that owning a gun isn't considered necessary.

[GRS 10]

That's just the thing. It's a culture issue, not a gun issue. If we can get to the point where a gun is not necessary, then fantastic. But we'll still have them because we can and if it doesn't matter one way or the other, then there is no reason to say we shouldn't. If we had the lowest crime rate in the world, I'd still carry daily.

[[frl]myke 14]

That's just the thing. It's a culture issue, not a gun issue. If we can get to the point where a gun is not necessary, then fantastic. But we'll still have them because we can and if it doesn't matter one way or the other, then there is no reason to say we shouldn't. If we had the lowest crime rate in the world, I'd still carry daily.

Now you dropped your pants. Basically you don't want a gun to protect yourself, you want one (ore several) just because you want them, even if there is no need for it. But still, weapons are dangerous. Accidents can happen and do happen. Removing guns removes one possible source of deadly accidents. Safety first, isn't it?

[GRS 10]

I have and want them for the same reason I have and want a nice gaming PC. As a free man I can do as I wish and enjoy what I do. We should ban guns because people might hurt themselves? Must I present the statistics that are far, far less than even homicide by gun?

And no, I do want some for protection. The "utopia" I alluded to is nonexistent and impossible.

[[frl]myke 14]

As a free man I can do as I wish and enjoy what I do.

No. As a free man you can do as you wish and enjoy as long other people don't get endangered by what you do. As the free man you are, please get in your car and drive with 100mph through the town. As the responsible driver you i know you wouldn't do that. As the resposible driver you know you would other peoples life into danger. You accept the limits given to you as they make sense. But we're talking about machines that are designed for transportation, to carry people from point A to point B. They aren't designed to end lifes, they're even designed to protect lives but still, their use is limited, you aren't allowed to drive as fast as you want. Why do you, you free man, accept limits here but wont accept it on things that only purpose is to end lives?

:EDITH:

The "utopia" I alluded to is nonexistent and impossible.

My car is unlocked and unprotected in front of my house, my front door is unlocked and i feel perfectly comfortable and safe. Utopia exists...if you want to.

[GRS 10]

I'm not putting anyone in danger by owning or carrying a gun, only by deciding to use it for wrong, which is already illegal. I don't speed because I want to avoid the consequences, just like how I don't kill people with my guns because of the consequences (and because I believe it to be wrong unless they intend to harm me).

Why are people so afraid of metal, wood, and plastic objects?

And I'm happy that you feel so safe. I've faced home invasion before, I know first hand that the threat is real. And I live in a nice area too. I can feel safe all I want, that doesn't mean I AM safe and I don't take chances when it comes to my safety or the safety of those I care about.

Seems to me like this has degraded into people who don't like guns and therefore think nobody should have them despite statistical and logical reasons why there is no reason to ban them, and people who do like them and want the other people to back off.

[froggyluv 2136]

Not really GRS - I don't think guns should be banned -just a much stronger vetting process to get one. Anyways, I also agree everyone's opinion here are firmly slated and even tho I disagree with some - I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas!

:811:

:xmas_o::xmas_o::xmas_o:

[[frl]myke 14]

I'm not putting anyone in danger by owning or carrying a gun, only by deciding to use it for wrong, which is already illegal.

Accidents happen, always will.

Why are people so afraid of metal, wood, and plastic objects?

Don't know, maybe because the solely purpose of these pieces of metal, wood and plastic is to kill?

I've faced home invasion before, I know first hand that the threat is real. And I live in a nice area too.

Obviously the place isn't that nice but i see your point.

Seems to me like this has degraded into people who don't like guns and therefore think nobody should have them despite statistical and logical reasons why there is no reason to ban them, and people who do like them and want the other people to back off.

I admit that i don't like guns and i clearly think nobody should have them. But i also see that there are places where it make sense to have one. One. One Handgun. Not a armory with rifles of all sorts.

[GRS 10]

Accidents happen everywhere. Gun accidents are among the most rare.

And again, as a free being, I can have as big an armory as I want.