The following thing happened here, in Romania the other weeks, and it evolved into a big thing. A family returned from a holiday, and cuz it was very hot outside, on their way home, they stopped at a lake. The head of the family grew up near that place. They got in the lake, to have a swim. A young man came, and started to shout, saying, the lake is private proprety. Then he left, and called his father. The guy came with a shotgun, and started to shout at the swimming family, firing his gun. The swimers freaked out, and got out of the water, heading for their car. They got in, but the armed guy aproached to the car, and from 2 feet, he shot the guy in the head. He was 29 years old, had children and died on 09.07.

My question is this: do we need guns? Shure, we must protect our teritory, but by killing someone? (and not from self defence) . I know that in the US the 2nd amendment sais, that '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.'. But the world changed a lot since 1791...

I say that no, we really don't "need" guns. However, I've always said that so long as the government's military has guns, so should the citizens. To deny them such would likely be a breach in the Social Contract.

I can really only speak of the US (since I'm not too familiar with your nation's laws and gun-related issues, Damnated), to which the states really need to do a better job regulating their gun licenses and safety training standards. We don't have much of an issue in my state, Massachusetts, since assault rifles are banned in this state and you really do have to get proper training from accredited institutions or organizations. Some other states are a different matter, and, since gun regulations in the US greatly vary from state-to-state, you really have to break it down as such. When you look at gun-related statistics in the US, the South tends to throw off the whole average.

We really need the government to properly follow up on the sanity of some people who own firearms with safety testing over time and repealing the licenses and acquisitioning the firearms of those who fail. We also ought to take our budget from the bullshit "War on Drugs" and allocate some of that to help cull illegal gun trafficking in the cities while we're at it.

I agree that if the military has guns, then the civilians should bare, also, but there are several issues with these high trained military gunman: they tend to go mad. I mean there were several cases, when a guy like this left the army with a sniper riffle, and started to 'hunt'. In these cases, what can we do, if we own guns? Nothing.

Written by LethargyMan on 11.07.2006 at 00:52

I say that no, we really don't "need" guns. However, I've always said that so long as the government's military has guns, so should the citizens. To deny them such would likely be a breach in the Social Contract.

I can really only speak of the US (since I'm not too familiar with your nation's laws and gun-related issues, Damnated), to which the states really need to do a better job regulating their gun licenses and safety training standards. We don't have much of an issue in my state, Massachusetts, since assault rifles are banned in this state and you really do have to get proper training from accredited institutions or organizations. Some other states are a different matter, and, since gun regulations in the US greatly vary from state-to-state, you really have to break it down as such. When you look at gun-related statistics in the US, the South tends to throw off the whole average.

We really need the government to properly follow up on the sanity of some people who own firearms with safety testing over time and repealing the licenses and acquisitioning the firearms of those who fail. We also ought to take our budget from the bullshit "War on Drugs" and allocate some of that to help cull illegal gun trafficking in the cities while we're at it.

Well, here in America, the 2nd Amendment to our constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms. So, guns aren't going anywhere here. You're right though, the government does need to pay more attention to those who own firearms. Just look at the controversy over President Bush allowing the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Do you know if anything was ever done about that. I've tried looking it up but so far I've got nothing.

for me guns grants you protection. but here in my country there is this funny law: let's suppsose you are wearing a gun a you're walking down the street. then a bunch of thieves appear armed with knives. so you have your gun and can defend yourself, but before you use it you have to shoot three times to the sky warning them that you're armed. so having a pistol here is the same as having a water gun

here in the UK we do fine without guns, even if you can get a gun it's even more difficult to get ammo. A few farmers and huntsman have rifles and pistols for hobbies but that's about it. Round here, if people could get armed too easily it would get into gangs quick and people would just die. Now it's all about knives, and i prefer that.
as for the 2nd amendment, all that was straight after (during?) the war with Britian, it's basically allowing all citizens to act as a home guard in times of war.
i really can't see america getting invaded any time soon though

With respect to the United States, I believe guns, and the right to carry weapons in general, is important to the safety of the people. For two main reasons. First thing is, in a country where one cannot carry a weapon, he has to rely on his fists and feet for protection against any kind of criminal. And the average guy does not last long against an armed opponent. Having the ability to defend yourself with gun, means you can shoot any bastard who tries to mug/maim/murder/rape/etc you. And where I live, there is occasional violence of this sort. The second thing is, is that a gun is a deterant factor. Would you attempt to mug someone if their was a chance they could go shoot you in the face with a gun?

A new bill in Michigan, similar to the Make My Day law in Texas, drastically increases the rights of individuals in Michigan to use self defense.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billenrolled/House/htm/2005-HNB-5143.htm

Some of the lingo may be hard to navigate, but it's an interesting look at how this would increase the use of ballistic weapons as a defense mechanism.

@pox: Actually "invasion" wasn't the main reason why the 2nd Amendment exists. It was a reason, but not really the reason. The basis was, as the Founders often stated, that the people ought to be able to protect themselves from their own government, not outside governments. This was the case with Britain in the 18th Century. The Revolutionary War wasn't a war with Britain, it was a war of secession.

And of course, that's where I get my stance on the issue. If the government can have guns, then the people ought to as well - which I why I respect Britain for taking firearms away from the common police forces as well.

Of course, a program such Britain's could not be implemented very easily in America at all - if not for our generally strong belief in the 2nd Amendment, than just for the sheer vastness of the country. In the US, it would be a whole lot easier to simply be more strict on who gets the guns than rid the country of them.

well,i'd like to own a gun,but a non-lethal one.people say it's like a heavy-weight boxer hitting you.and that can't kill...

Written by [user id=14673] on 11.07.2006 at 09:23

With respect to the United States, I believe guns, and the right to carry weapons in general, is important to the safety of the people. For two main reasons. First thing is, in a country where one cannot carry a weapon, he has to rely on his fists and feet for protection against any kind of criminal. And the average guy does not last long against an armed opponent. Having the ability to defend yourself with gun, means you can shoot any bastard who tries to mug/maim/murder/rape/etc you. And where I live, there is occasional violence of this sort. The second thing is, is that a gun is a deterant factor. Would you attempt to mug someone if their was a chance they could go shoot you in the face with a gun?

A new bill in Michigan, similar to the Make My Day law in Texas, drastically increases the rights of individuals in Michigan to use self defense.

I don't understand this.

I live in the Netherlands, and I can tell that most of the dutchmen would be afraid to have a gun in their hands. These weapons don't exist in our daily life. Do we need them? no. I feel protected in my country, I don't expect someone will mug me or try to kill me. It can happen, but that also count for any other country. Robbery etc. exist, a gun cannot change that.

The United States should look at some of their European friends. I have seen the UK has already been mentioned, but also the Netherlands. These countries don't need guns to protect themself, because they know it is nonsense.

I wonder why so many people think they will be mugged, raped or whatever somewhere in their life. I never had any problems with unknown people who try to do something bads to me. I am pretty sure most of us never had any negative experience with criminals, thieves(etc.). It is mainly paranoia created by media and such(as another person stated in this topic). We are safe in our countries.

@Taka & Blackgir:

The problem that non-Americans have is perspective on the issue. Violence does exist in this country and is a staple of the American life. I would know, I've been mugged before. You say we are paranoid, and that may be so, I do not know, but if so, then I say we are justified in our paranoia. "Just because you are paranoid, doesn't me they aren't how to get you."

Of course, a foreigner could come and spend a few months at some hotel in a suburban part of Vermont, and never seen a single bit of crime in their time here. But two weeks in Vermont is nothing compared to living a lifetime in the ghettos of Detroit.

As the flip side to this, some Americans believe that it is the Europeans who are paranoid. The United States has secure borders, and relatively friendly neighbors. Europe however, has spent it's entire existance with fighting occuring amonst it's various peoples. The United States has never been ravanged by war in the way Europe has. We had one civil war, Pearl Harbor, and the trade center. Yay. Europe on the other hand, has been home to countless battles. And so I suggest the idea that it is the Europeans who are quaking in their boots, afraid of who will start the next war.

And granted, I am no expert in this subject matter. I could be way off. I am just expressing a few ideas, as well as my beliefs based on my personal experiances.

Taka and Blackgir, I wouldn't be too quick to generalize with gun laws and the United States. Many of our states have just as little a rate of gun violence as any other European country (my state actually has a lower per capita rate than many European nations) without banning them all together. We are still a union of soverign states who actually have competent gun laws.

That's not to say we're perfect, though. Many of our states really do have to shape up their gun laws. Hell, many states out west don't even require gun registration and licenses. THIS is where the problem is - guns are too easy to legally get in America, not simply the fact that we have guns. I would even say that there are so many guns in the US, and the country is so vast, that to adopt a European style of gun laws is simply improbable (I don't know how strong your arms trade is in Europe, but it is VERY prevalent and VERY strong in our cities to support various drug rings). However, taking steps in the right direction - getting these guns registered and ensuring proper training and safety - can go such a long way in the US, it could be just as good.

-- --

Nycrophobia, you make a few good points. It's actually very true that an American city has more murders than a Western European one - New York has always had something like... five times as much as London. However, when I say "always" I do mean "always" - as in before Britain's strict gun laws were enacted.

The problem is a gun won't really help you in a mugging. It's been said someone with a knife at the ready 20 feet away will win over someone with a gun that hasn't been unholstered. So yes, there are large degrees of paranoia... though paranoia is much too strong of a word. It's more like overprecaution. However, you can certainly read of cases where armed criminals could have been deterred if civilians had been carrying guns.

I do agree, it really is a difference in perception. We Americans really seem to follow the addage "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" whereas Europe would see it as "No guns = no gun violence." Both are valid in my eyes, however, the former must take heed to following strict requirements to purchase and training, while the latter must be sure that the government also loses many of its own guns to keep in line with the social contract and fairness.

I really like your point that Americans do believe that Europe is paranoid, because that is... well... accurate to say - many in our country do feel that way. However, what you used to support that point wasn't too relevant. It would have been more simply put that "Europe is so afraid of guns that they banned the law abiding citizen from owning them."

I'm pretty sure there was something else I wanted to say, but I think I forgot... I'm sure I'll remember what it was later on.

@taka: Actually, that's not really true at all. Canada has the same system I proposed, which was proper licensing and registration of all firearms - laws which are actually followed quite strictly. Most of the states in the US are much dangerously lax. Add in our bullshit War on Drugs being "fought" in our urban areas and it just spells high murder rates.

And unfortunately, I feel as if you're making a something of a leap of logic, or a "MichaelMooreism" as I often call it, with your assertion that it is our nation's state of fear that causes our higher firearm death rate. Unfortunately, firearm murder rates, as far as I've heard, have been going down in the past 20 years in the US, not up - this while we have 24-hour-jerkoff-news stations that selling more fear than ever before.

Until someone makes a substancial connection between public fear and firearm deaths, aside from simply pointing out the shittiness of our news stations, then I'll give the argument more weight.

Written by akatana on 12.07.2006 at 10:00

well .. i thought it was obvious due to the fact that americans feel a much stronger need to "protect" themselves .. and while some may argue that this fear is caused by a high crime rate I think that is one part the media and the other part the government that are the root cause. America has been taught to fear comunists, terrorist, desease, the neighbour , the arabs and the blacks , the future .. etc ... correct me if I am wrong but the logical argument is that when you have such a legislation of firearms and you are afraid of everything you get a gun and well if you have such large amount of guns you will have a high firearm death toll.

This same fear is widespread in Europe. After what Eastern Europe has been through, you cannot tell me the people over there do not fear Communism. The USSR only collapsed two decades ago, people still remember what life was like under the Reds. And still yet your EU is cracking down on immigrants, particularly from what I have read, Germany, now that Merkel and the CDU/CSU is in power. The nation wide civil unrest in France, the Birmingham riots in the UK...these speak volumes about the racial tension that exists in Europe.

The EU bans radical parties, throws holocaust deniers in jail, and in some instances, and prohibits the individuals in public schools from wearing articles that express their religious faith. And you question America's intolerance?

Written by [user id=14673] on 12.07.2006 at 02:19

As the flip side to this, some Americans believe that it is the Europeans who are paranoid. The United States has secure borders, and relatively friendly neighbors. Europe however, has spent it's entire existance with fighting occuring amonst it's various peoples. The United States has never been ravanged by war in the way Europe has. We had one civil war, Pearl Harbor, and the trade center. Yay. Europe on the other hand, has been home to countless battles. And so I suggest the idea that it is the Europeans who are quaking in their boots, afraid of who will start the next war.

Well, taka already partly said it, but the past wars in Europe were unavoidable. The US, and entire America, are just a few countries/states, when Europe exists of many countries. The wars were needed so the countries could be formed. Also, Europe have learned after the second world war that these kind of wars should be avoided at all costs. Since then we didn't have any serious war in Europe. Europe lives in peace now, so I don't really understand that we are suffering paranoia. Maybe 60 years ago, but not nowadays.

Also, what I find an important difference is that the US start wars because of so-called theories. The sad thing is that these theories always lack facts, but still the US start a war. I am not only pointing at the war of Iraq, but most of the wars involving US the last -let's say- 30 years.

The US act this way because they feel fear, fear that some country will take over their position in the world. Or even worse, that someone will destroy them. This fear is also reflected on the people of the US. They get the idea a lot of people have bad intentions, or are planning to do awful things. That's why they needed something to feel safe. For the US people guns give them a safe feeling.

Written by akatana on 12.07.2006 at 10:00

America has been taught to fear comunists, terrorist, desease, the neighbour , the arabs and the blacks , the future .. etc ... correct me if I am wrong but the logical argument is that when you have such a legislation of firearms and you are afraid of everything you get a gun and well if you have such large amount of guns you will have a high firearm death toll.

Exactly. The connection between firearms and this fear is that people faster use their gun. They think different than European people. They see their gun as the only way to protect themself, even when it isn't necessary in most of the situations.

Well, in Israel it depends on your situation to where you are able to have a gun.
If you are a settler and live in a dangerous area you can carry up to an M-16 or an Uzi, if you are a contractor or any kind of businessman working in dangerous areas you can get permission to carry a pistol. But everyone is Israel has a gun, at least the people who need it. (which is all the soldiers, off duty personnel, settlers, etc.).

In Israel, there really isnt a problem with people misusing their weapons...I dont know why, maybe its because of the responsibility to protect yourself and your family is more of a virtue than having a gun for hunting or collecting.

I didn´t vote because I´m in neither side. I mean, it is true that in some plces and a t certain times a gun might come in handy, say when you´re about to be robbed, or attacked or something similar. The problem is that maybe a lot of people at the moment of truth may hesitate on pulling the trigger, and that´s bad becuase you either shoot, or you get shot with you´re own gun, the guy that´s attacking you doesn´t give a damn about you so he won´t hesitate to shoot and/or kill you.
So, I would say that it may be nesessary, but only by people that do have the guts to use it.

Hasitations is just one thing, but would you be able to shoot another man? Even if his muging you. And I ment in a general way, when I asked about guns: what if the muggler is unarmed?

Taka, I apologize for my delay in responding to your post - you sent me back to the drawing board with a few of these ideas.

Anyway, to begin.

It is my belief that the Cold War resulted from, as you said fear. The idea being that if my stick is bigger than yours, you'll leave me alone. Or in the case of the Cold War, I have have the bigger bomb, leave me alone. Once both countries gained the capability to blow up the world a dozen times over it became rather silly, yes, but what it all boils down to is the logic behind it. It becomes a matter of whether or not you agree with the "my stick is bigger than yours" concept. I think America's fear was created by seeing what war had done to Europe, and what it would do to us if it ever happened on American soil. So using the "my stick is bigger than yours" concept, Americans set out to deter the Soviets from considering an attack option.

I don't believe America is the number one target for attacks. America is never attacked at home (save Pearl Harbor and the Trade Center), rather we are attacked when we go around poking our noses into other peoples business.

And yes, I know (I cannot speak for other Americans) of my country's ability to put up corrupt governments in other countries and the like. Of course Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind, but also other countries like Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, and Haiti. I don't have an inkling as to how much blood has been spilled in the name of freedom and democracy, but I imagine it's quite a lot. I cannot, and will not, attempt to justify my country's meddling in other countries, as I believe it to be wrong. But do not forget that America does not stand alone in this. Germany, Belgium, France, England, Italy...raped the whole of Africa. Apartheid died out only in the last ten years or so. Officially anyway. And of course, French Indochina. France's role in Vietnam. The USSR in the Middle East in 80's...America hasn't spilled nearly the blood Europe has, we have not been around that long. You can of course argue that it is all old news, but the fact still remains that Europe is not innocent, no matter how much she tries to hide her past.

I am kind of amused that we would waive such an agreement - we have biological weapons and we admit it, what have we to hide? This is news to me that this agreement was waived, and I find it amusing because we do have such weapons. The military is interested in their use against highly populated countries, like China. I would have thought this to be common knowledge to the rest of the world though.

"... Dugway Proving Ground is a military testing facility located approximately 80 miles from Salt Lake City. For several decades, Dugway has been the site of testing for various chemical and biological agents. From 1951 through 1969, hundreds, perhaps thousands of open-air tests using bacteria and viruses that cause disease in human, animals, and plants were conducted at Dugway... It is unknown how many people in the surrounding vicinity were also exposed to potentially harmful agents used in open-air tests at Dugway."

From <http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/rockrep.cfm>

The United States is arrogant. This country knows it can boss everyone else around and so it does. The current adminstration thinks the UN is nothing but something to be trampled upon. Perhaps the 2008 elections will help change this.

Yes, I know, Bush is terrible. Right up there with Hirohito, Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. Oil is always seen as the number one reason for going into Iraq. Americans get more oil from Mexico than they do Iraq. As of 2005, Iraq was not even one of the top five countries on the US oil import list.Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venzuela and Nigeria have that honor. Nigeria alone exports twice as many barrels of oil to American than Iraq on a daily basis.

From <http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html>

You sound like America is only the country who supplies weapons to other countries. Germany, France and Russia supplied Iraq during 2003. Lots of Soviet stuff floating around in the Middle East in general.

Eh, SUV's suck, give me a DeLorean instead.

America's morality (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with firearm casualties. Otherwise, the Netherlands and their Pedophile party would have American totally beat in that department.

Fear is used to control the people granted, but we are not so paranoid as you make us out to be. I admit my personal paranoia is a tad extreme, but I have bad experiances in the past. I used to live in a bad neighborhood. But America is not on it's knees praying to a God for safety from the criminal elements in the country. If you ever get a chance to visit the country, do try to find one of the more saner places in the country, and get to know those people, You cannot judge all Americans based on Queens or Hollywood.

There. I am done here. My fingers hurt.

Written by akatana on 16.07.2006 at 09:33

my argument is that if 51% of americans support bush it is not a country i would like to live in despite the fact that the other 49% are good decent people.

Heh... that's hardly true anymore. Bush dreams of having 51% now.

Theres one thing I like about Bush, he is one of the only leaders that supports Israel....I hate EU leaders, frikkin liberalist pro palestinean schmucks...

There are reasons people voted for Bush. Just because his foreign policy was hurting the country's image, does not mean he was a bad leader. He has done some decent things for the country, enough to outweigh the bad, in the minds of some Americans. Our relationship with the world is but one important item. There are other bits of policy that are important to America, and Bush's stance in those areas has helped him to win his second election. Social conservatives, for example, find a few good things about Bush, as well as business leaders and people who take a liking to neo-conservative economic policy.

That said, the two party system does leave the Americans who vote little choice in the manner. And the restructuring of our two-party system is not likely to happen soon.

The quip at The Netherlands was not intended to bring the topic of the Pedophile Party into play, but only to point out that some countries have citizens of little to no morality, yet do not have high handgun rates.

Media does play a role in fear, as does the government. It is a method of control. I do not dispute that. But I do think that you are being rather extreme in concluding your observations. America is not yet an Orwellian dystopia with people who vocalize their distate in government policy disappearing over night. Anybody can run around and criticize the government, and not worry about it. Otherwise, somebody would have gotten rid of Michael Moore and all of his followers already.

Below is a link comparing Swiss handgun deaths to that of the United States.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

It is from 1992 I believe.

The patriot act bothers me. But that is a discussion for another thread (I'll work on that after about seventy more posts, lol)

It is my oppinion however, that the US will not be an Orwellian society, but rather one as described in Huxley's Brave New World. That is, Americans won't be under some evil and tyranical government, they will just be conditioned to not care.

Now, the issue of the right to own firearms is one I have delt with for a long time. In my two years as a talk radio host, "Gun Control" was our #1 topic.

Let me state a few things on how I feel about this issue.

I support gun control.
I do not support gub ban.
There is a huge difference.

I own a S&W .38 Special. It is a beautiful gun. I use it for target practice.
I used to own a shotgun and a rifle. I used them for target practice and hunting.
I NEVER pointed my firearm at anyone. Be it loaded or unloaded.
I took extream messures to insure saftly with my fire arms.
My firearms were a tool. They were part of my families life.
We hunted. We ate what we hunted.
Almost everyone in our community owned firearms and hunted and/or shot for target.
We have never had a single fire arm related crime in our 200+ years of community history.
No one has ever died from a firearm insident.
Yes, it can be dangerous. But the most dangerous part about me hunting, was getting in the truck and driving.


Now with that said, it is clear that we should be allowed to own and use our firearms.
Where the problem lies is that here in the USA about 98% of all gun related crimes are an illegal firearm.
Meaning: the gun is an illegal weapon. Being automatic, asault, etc.
Or: The guns are stolen and not licened to that person.
So: 2% of the crimes are comminted with a legal firearm by the legal owner.

People say we should ban guns. I fail to see where that will help.
The government made weed illegal. And now no one ever uses weed.
Making guns illegal won't stop crime, if the crimes are already being commited with illegal weapons.

Now, I do agree that rocket launchers, MP5s, etc. should be illegal.
I really can't think of any reason I would ever need something like that.
Except when zombies attack!
But I have plenty of good, healthy, legal uses for a simple hunting rifle.

Well, time to head out and feed the goats. Later people

I feel that We should be allowed to own guns, and to a degree, we do need them. The way I see it, a weapon is a weapon, they're all capable of killing, and it simply depends on the person wielding it. So, that being said, I even believe people should be allowed to own fully automatic assult rifles. Now, I know what your thinking, "Arian you fucking hick, why the HELL do we need that!?!?!" Well, what if someone is a gun collector?, weather it be for historical, or simply apreciative value. Remember, guns don't kill people, people do. It simply depends on the responsibility of the user. If someone is Scitzophrinic, Of course they shouldn't have a Gun! But if they're just someone who wants to have it for the sake of collection, and they have been properly educated, then there isn't a problem. Now I know I'm gonna take some heat for this, so go ahead people, fire away, But quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with my beliefs.

Homer Simpson: "Why should I be careful??? I have a gun!"

everyone is talking about protection from gettin mugged, raped killed...
in most cases a gunn is useless in those situations, people who want to rob u offten dont just stand in the middle of the street, 50 feet away and give you time to get ready, unholster your gun and start shooting...
i dont have much experience of this, i only got mugged once, but that was someone poking a knife at me from behind and took my wallet, even if i had a gun i wouldnt even have time to think before he was gone. and in raping and similar cases you are probably to scared to even remember you have it...
and, maybe someone wrote this earlyer and i missed it, but most people killed by guns is killed by a family member and a friend who are just to paranoid to recognize his own mother.
by the way, amerikans. you get attaked by al quaida, who has nothing to do with iraq, and then yougo there and kill hundreds of inocents, where is the logic in that. and the real reason people attack you is that you attack them, opress or just sit there threatening them with your nukes, your un veto and allow a texan psycho to sit in power for eight years. and you are the greatest threat to personal fredom in the world today!

btw why did you re-elect him? he fucked away billions of dollars, got you into a war and made thousands of people lose their jobs!

(anyone here not voting for gun laws, bush or oppression, this bitching is not against you, and if you are pissed, good luck with shooting me, im in fucking sweden! fuck US, viva la revulotion!)




most of this message was about as serious as a pile of toenail clippings, so dont start crying like bitchy little emo kids,

peace out

Written by akatana on 06.10.2006 at 08:56

Written by Arian Totalis on 06.10.2006 at 05:10

I feel that We should be allowed to own guns, and to a degree, we do need them. The way I see it, a weapon is a weapon, they're all capable of killing, and it simply depends on the person wielding it. So, that being said, I even believe people should be allowed to own fully automatic assult rifles. Now, I know what your thinking, "Arian you fucking hick, why the HELL do we need that!?!?!" Well, what if someone is a gun collector?, weather it be for historical, or simply apreciative value. Remember, guns don't kill people, people do. It simply depends on the responsibility of the user. If someone is Scitzophrinic, Of course they shouldn't have a Gun! But if they're just someone who wants to have it for the sake of collection, and they have been properly educated, then there isn't a problem. Now I know I'm gonna take some heat for this, so go ahead people, fire away, But quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with my beliefs.

49% of households own a gun .. wow .. a lot of collectors, and usually collectible weapons have been disabled , they cannot fire anymore.
Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 2000 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. Obviously, there are different types of gun murder. There is 1st degree, premeditated murder, in which case the gun just made it easier, but the killer probably would have killed anyway, given that he had time to premeditate. But after that, there is murder in course of other crime, acquaintance murders in the heat of passion, and criminal negligence.
In short, people are not always thinking rationally, and when there is a gun around, it is easier for an person in a moment of irrationality to do greater damage, even if he is in fact a good person.
Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns.
Self-defence? research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.

Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.
A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry,.

The "collective self-defense" argument is that if many Americans own guns, it is better for the general welfare of the country in case we are invaded by a foreign power. This is silly given the strength of the American military.

An offshoot of this argument is the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill.


As an example just look at a country like romania .. there is crime but because it is almost impossible for people to get a gun and therefore very few guns are on the black market. People don't feel the need for guns and they are less scared, not to say that almost nobody dies of firearms.

But I think in america it is more a question like in the wild west .. if 51% percent of the people are gun loving rednecks .. why should guns be forbidden? it is democracy, right? WRONG.

Yes, people think Irrationally, it happens. But someone who kills in the heat of passion will be just as likely to grab a knife or a lamppost or whatever they can grab to do it, so don't try to make firearms look any worse than any other weapon. If guns are Banned, then criminals will still find a way to get them. You can construct them out of easily obtainable supplies for fucks sake. And even then, criminals who couldn't get a hold of guns, would simply turn to other weapons, Such as shanks and knives.
It's obvious to me that your mind is befuddled by statistics, which are quite frankly, just Propaganda driven tools used to control peoples minds. Yeah it's true to some degree, but with my experience, statistics are just straight bullshit, where you find one statistical argument, you find another, and you can't trust ANY of it.
And who sais Just because you love a gun it makes you a redneck? Man I love weapons of all kinds, knives, swords, Nunchuku, all of it. The notion that 51% of our nation is "Gun toting rednecks" is just more propaganda bullshit your country or the internet probably hand fed you. Well anyway, I hope you have a nice day.

Written by [user id=5080] on 06.10.2006 at 07:02

Homer Simpson: "Why should I be careful??? I have a gun!"

Man, I love the simpsons, But that episode gives gun owners a bad name, I assure you, we don't act like that, only the asswholes who give us a bad name/steryotype do.

Written by akatana on 06.10.2006 at 16:25

Written by Arian Totalis on 06.10.2006 at 16:10

Written by akatana on 06.10.2006 at 08:56

Written by Arian Totalis on 06.10.2006 at 05:10

Yes, people think Irrationally, it happens. But someone who kills in the heat of passion will be just as likely to grab a knife or a lamppost or whatever they can grab to do it, so don't try to make firearms look any worse than any other weapon. If guns are Banned, then criminals will still find a way to get them. You can construct them out of easily obtainable supplies for fucks sake. And even then, criminals who couldn't get a hold of guns, would simply turn to other weapons, Such as shanks and knives.
It's obvious to me that your mind is befuddled by statistics, which are quite frankly, just Propaganda driven tools used to control peoples minds. Yeah it's true to some degree, but with my experience, statistics are just straight bullshit, where you find one statistical argument, you find another, and you can't trust ANY of it.
And who sais Just because you love a gun it makes you a redneck? Man I love weapons of all kinds, knives, swords, Nunchuku, all of it. The notion that 51% of our nation is "Gun toting rednecks" is just more propaganda bullshit your country or the internet probably hand fed you. Well anyway, I hope you have a nice day.

I did not expect a nice reply .. but I only used statistics to show that all the resons why people advocate gun possesion are false, there is no propaganda in there , I could also speak to you about the moral point of view why guns should be banned .

I lived in romania , as I said it is almost impossible to get a gun, people don't even think of guns. Yes there is crime and people behave irrationally but most of the times in the worst case it ends in a beating. Think about it .. it is much more difficult for the human mind to cope with stabbing or stomping someone to death than shooting him. I think if you would live for a while in a country where there are no weapons you will soon get the idea that even the criminals don't think of guns. The general atmosphere is quieter and people are less afraid.

Perhaps if I would have ever been able to buy a gun I would have liked it too but I don't see a point in owning one , in my experience people with guns just have them because it gives them a feeling of manliness , a superior attitude (which is totaly stupid) .
You must think for yourself, see the greater picture. Take this scenario. I am a criminal and want to rob something , in america I just buy a weapon from the street and go and rob the damn place, in other countries I would have to go to another country to get one , smuggle it over the border or as you say build my own but considering that there are also no bullets or gunpowder it is pretty difficult and criminals are not the smartest So if I really wanted to rob a place I would go by night when nobody was there, nobody gets hurt. Of course I would never rob anything

And I was in many situations , in a bar for axample , where people were drunk and behaved irrationally , now if one of them had a gun he would have surely shot the other .. the worst I have seen was a chair being broken in somebodys head, but the guy recovered pretty quick.

You understand what I am saying, lay aside your stupid patriotism, it is a fact that on a psychological level people are more detached when shooting someone, it takes some cruel mind to stab a person or beat him to death.


Or think about it this way .. if nuclear bombs were available to buy in the store like candy and 50% of americans would own one , do you think that nobody would use them? But , nuclear arms are not available and you have to go trough a lot of trouble finding one so nobody is getting nuked.

And about the redneck thing , of course not all that like guns are like that but considering that the majority of americans take pride in woning a gun and defending the christian way , also reelecting bush .. I would say that america is pretty fucked .. nothing against the other 49% .. I know a lot of really smart and cool americans

Well, I don't use a gun to feel superior, I like training with it because me being martial artist most of my life, like the feeling you get when you progress to another stage of skill. I also like to be out in nature and commune with it, to me hunting is not about the killing, but about being deep out in the woods.

As far as my patriotism goes, I do have it, but I also frequently question it. I love my country, My country's history, and my country's freedom. But by that same notion, I am mainly a social Studies/ Musical student,
so I really like almost ANY contry's history.

It does piss me off how the whole Christian conservative branch is, because me being a pagan, I feel oppressed, and they are normally just middle aged rich white men, but you can't really trust either wing, they all go to extremes to make the other side look bad, which is why I remain in the torso.

I understand what you say when you say that people feel more detached when they shoot someone, but here in the U.S., when someone pulls a gun on you, unless it's L.A., they're more than Likely bluffing. More often than not, the gun isn't even loaded, they're just punks trying to scare you into giving them money.

But as far as experience in other country's, I guess your right, I've never been over seas before, which is a dream of mine, But I guess that untill I see other people's conditions and atmosphere's I can't speak for them. I just don't see a problem with someone with a proper background and education buying a firearm, it's simply paranoia to ban guns alltogether. The way I see it, why not just forbid people to move around outside their homes if your gonna ban weapons. In any dictatorship, citizens arn't allowed to own weapons, and that's how their controled. I wouldn't put it passed our Courupt government (The left side of Couruption)
to try to take our weapons away and rule over us either. But this whole thing is Tiring, I see what your saying, I agree with some of it, disagre with others, In any case, I can respect your beliefs