Gun control discussion

[Tex]

I'm all for the right to bear arms. No one will take my guns from me!

 

[Ghostrider]

Defence? But isn't just this the consequence of allowing almost anyone owning a gun?

You tell that to the bozos 'round the streets after sundown. They don't have firearms, but long knives, machetes and rebar can ruin your day and I'm not about to ask them politely to wait until I have found a comparable implement to defend myself with.

 

[n0mad23]

I think the biggest problem with guns is they make cowards feel brave. It takes a lot more courage to look someone in the eyes and plunge the dagger than it does to walk into a classroom or a church and pull the trigger.

Yes, this did happen in Phoenix, AZ last week. The good news for me was it was in the class that I turned down for teaching this summer as I've moved out of the state. I dodged those particular bullets by some 1600 miles this time! Quite frankly, it's one of the motivating reasons for getting my family out of there. There's way too much routine gun violence in that part of the country.

If gun ownership leads to a safer society, then Phoenix should be heaven. Check the stats for weekly road rage shootings and it certainly looks otherwise.

I'm pretty conflicted by the subject here, as I really don't want to trust an armed state in which the citizens can't defend themselves against it. On the other hand, if you don't have guns, you also don't have gun violence.

I don't believe that our constitution was written to assure citizens' rights to shoot rabbits and deer, but the implications here could also mean we should have SAM's and anti-tank weapons in our personal arsenals.

Can't say I'm too comfortable with that scenario either.

 

[Moonwalker]

If anyone has a gun, then I have the same right to own one to protect myself and my property. Guns do not reduce freedom, they protect it. It's clear that since you live in a country with gun control that you obviously buy into the propaganda fed to you by those 'non common people' who control you. You want my guns? Fine, pry it from my dead hands... it's the only way you'll get it.

I feel sorry for the strange 'freedom' you seem to live in and that your life seems to depend on owning a gun :huh: That's a bad picture of the United States some Americans do deliver that way here and on other places...

Concerning the policeman discussion: I trust ANY German policeman much more than a few of my neighbours or some people you meet on some streets at night on the weekend...

 

[Ghostrider]

Concerning the policeman discussion: I trust ANY German policeman much more than a few of my neighbours or some people you meet on some streets at night on the weekend...

Your trust is misplaced then. You can only trust someone you really know, and blind trust in authority is not a good character trait. Not for a citizen, for a subject maybe. However, if you're happy with it, it's your problem and not mine.

 

[Urwumpe]

Concerning the policeman discussion: I trust ANY German policeman much more than a few of my neighbours or some people you meet on some streets at night on the weekend...

I trust most of them. Some are idiots. But most of them have gone through the right school.

I just think that gun control in Germany should be lessened a bit. Not to the extend of the USA, which is mostly protecting something they don't have. I like the model of Switzerland, which seems to work pretty good regarding the statistics.

I think that for each right you want to take, you need to also be able to take responsibility. You want the power of guns - take the responsibility for this right.

I have no problems with citizens owning shoulder-launched SAMs - if the responsibility that comes with this right keeps the balance.

 

[FordPrefect]

Well, I DO live in a society that has guns, and I believe in my right to own one.

Hmm... ever wondered why you live in that kind of society? You just gave yourself the answer:

Who are you to determine who should and should not have a gun? If anyone has a gun, then I have the same right to own one to protect myself and my property.

That's the way anyone else thinks, ergo: Firearms for everybody!

 

[Pilot7893]

Consider that Heinlein said "A pacifist male is a contradiction in terms."

Are you calling me a homo because I can't harm another human being?

 

[Ghostrider]

I think that for each right you want to take, you need to also be able to take responsibility. You want the power of guns - take the responsibility for this right.

Well, we're of the same mind here. Rights are power, power requires responsability. If one doesn't want them, he/she is free not to and those who want to saddle themselves with them must be aware of the stuff they're getting in.

 

[Moonwalker]

Your trust is misplaced then. You can only trust someone you really know, and blind trust in authority is not a good character trait. Not for a citizen, for a subject maybe. However, if you're happy with it, it's your problem and not mine.

I don't know the drug dealer or the skinhead around the corner and I also don't know the policeman who might protect me from such idiots. But guess whom I'll trust...

I also trust in my country which enables me a wealthy, healthy, secure and peaceful life. It's really bad if people can't trust in the system and its people they live in.

 

[Ghostrider]

Are you calling me a homo because I can't harm another human being?

Well, apart from the fact that there's nothing wrong in being gay and that sexuality has absolutely no relationship with one's capability of harming other people, I don't believe you cannot harm another human being. You don't want to and that's understandable - I don't want to harm anyone either and I'm far from a pacifist - but as a human you can and will harm someone if and when the time comes. If you have a family, believe me you will burn this planet in order to protect them.

And as for the human male being no pacifist... I would never ever come between the female and her offspring. In order to protect her kids a mother will rip you apart with her bare hands, strangle you with your own entrails and scoop your eyes out with the broken pieces of your skull. And THEN she will hurt you BAD.

 

[Interstella666]

I have great gun control, I always hit what I'm aiming for. :beach:

 

[Pilot7893]

The only REAL gun I've ever handled was a shotgun in boy scouts during a shooting range. The force of the backfire was too much for me (and I was 11) and I thought I could never fire a gun again

 

[n0mad23]

I'm curious, has anyone here actually ever been shot at?

I can't help think it changes personal perception a bit. Really, it's nothing like TV.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Has anyone ever considered that 90% of gun owners in the United States are the responsible citizens who can and have stopped tragic events from happening? Let's think about the Virginia Tech massacre. What if one of the students, or professors had had a handgun with them and had all the proper training ahead of time? That jerk could have been stopped, possibly after he fired the first few shots BEFORE they became fatal? Or even 9/11. If the tsa and our govt in general didn't have their heads so far up their butts...and a few or even one passenger had had a gun with them, the terrorists could have been stopped. Plane might have gone down, but I'd prefer a plane crash of 200 versus a building collapse of 3000 if no other options are available.
Point it, that regrettable events could be and have been stopped by responsible citizens with guns.

 

[Urwumpe]

I only fired the various army weapons as real firearms in my life. Patrolling through a forest at night with a loaded rifle is a good reminder what responsibility is...especially when you know that the kids in the village next door call fun.

n0mad23: Only accidentally and it was a blank at short distance. Did luckily not cause much more injury than a short shock. Somebody took the security protocols not serious... and did not enjoy the following consequences.

 

[Messierhunter]

MessierHunter: In a shorter summary as most of your stuff is pretty repetitive or based on argument from ignorance:

If a shooting range operated by professionals have weapons which are in a bad state, what about the state of those weapons kept at home? Are these in general better? I strongly doubt that.

You act like you know better than I do about the state of weapons kept at a gun range and the weapons I personally keep and you want to suggest I'm the one arguing from ignorance? Give it a rest. The people working at the gun range sit there and monitor everyone to make sure they're shooting safely. They either volunteering their time out of the goodness of their hearts (and to be range members in some cases) or they're not getting paid enough to clean up after everyone's filthy guns on a daily basis after everyone else goes home.

Also the difference between car deaths in the US and fire arm deaths is: A car is naturally used more often. But how many people died by the moment somebody took a firearm?

LMFAO! Right, I'm the ignorant one. Do you have any clue how many hundreds of thousands of rounds are shot each and every day safely and properly? Do you have any idea how many times a gun owner "takes a gun" without hurting ANYONE?

I would estimate around 90% of all firearms in the USA are just bought by people, who thought "I am weak, I need it to be able to defend myself." and leave it in the drawer next to their bed. Without proper maintenance, training and education. A weapon you can't use properly is a weapon against you.

You would estimate? Oh, and you're not biased at all, obviously. Yeah, I'll trust that estimation about as much as I trust a moon hoaxer saying he estimates 100% of astronauts are lying.

Also:
If you want to be left alone, why do you need a pistol? You don't need a pistol to be left alone. Except you want to shoot all who disturb you. Which is a good reason for a headshrinker to declare you unfit for a firearm.

I have a right to defend myself. I didn't say I'd shoot anyone who would disturb me, I said I'd use all possible force to defend myself, which isn't something I fancy having to do. I've had death threats made against me just as I've had people like you tell me I shouldn't have the freedoms that I have. But I wouldn't shoot either category of person unless they presented an immediate and real threat to life.

Again: I don't treat you as criminals. I treat you as people who want the right to place themselves above executive and justice. Ever heard of responsibility?

You haven't been paying attention. The vast majority of gun owners are extremely responsible. Where did I say I wanted to shrug off responsibility? NO, I said I take full responsibility for my own defense.

You sound like a immature kid which fears that somebody will take his toy away

You sound like a paranoid biggot who fears a gun owner is going to accidently shoot him. Want to start with personal insults? I can oblige.

- what do you have to fear when your right to own a firearm would be no less limited as the right to drive a car? It is still a great bargain, compared to the power it gives you.

I don't bargain away freedom I already have. Those who would trade a little freedom for security deserve neither.

Also who are people like me? Militarist Germans?

No, gun grabbers.

All I show you is, that all your reasons (it already happened, blaaaaa)

Thanks for showing you don't give a damn about my life or the lives of my family. That's why I take responsibility for my own defense.

are based on your not even being able in a slow forum discussion to estimate a situation in a reasonable way. How can you estimate threats to your life correctly when the clock ticks faster? You are not trained for it.

Oh, you know what I have been trained for or not? You obviously haven't. I have undergone self defense training in all aspects ranging from non-lethal unarmed to lethal armed.

You believe the power of a weapon solves your problems, but this is a false promise you give to you.

You believe you can put words in my mouth. You also seem to believe you know what training I've undergone. Oh I forgot, you don't, you just stereotype gun owners.

But let me tell you my personal, subjective and likely very generalistic opinion why people in the USA prefer buying guns over unarmed combat: Unarmed combat training requires you to invest effort, discipline and dedication. That's what you are fighting against. With effort, discipline and dedication, you could master a pistol and it's use and learn using it for the good of the community. But that is against your childish definition of freedom (without responsibility)

You have NO IDEAD the effort I've put in for self defense with any weapon or no weapon at all, but in all cases it requires effort. Buying a gun does not negate the effort required, it only increases it. People with concealed weapons know this across the board.

 

[Urwumpe]

Messierhunter: No further questions :lol:

 

[Linguofreak]

Well, a soldier or a policeman in the line of duty is not a common person I think

I can't see any reason why non-soldiers and non-policemen should be armed too.

PS: I think my place here in the German democracy is rather valid. But in my point of view democracy also does not mean that people can do what they want, especially own guns just for fun. This might be the case in a banana republic.

@Moonwalker, in English "common person" carries the connotation of "Herdenmensch" as opposed to "Adel"


@Nomad, I've not been shot at, but I have been robbed by someone who either had a gun or a finger under his shirt, and I agree, nothing like the movies.

@Gun training, licensing, and insurance:

Messierhunter objected to being classified as a potential criminal, but the thing is that *everybody* is a potential criminal. This includes the gun-owner, the government, and the guy that wants to rob the gun owner. That's what makes the entire debate even an issue.

The fact that the gunowner is a potential criminal argues for registration. The fact that the government is potentially criminal argues against it, as the government can use regulation to keep weapons in the hands of its friends and out of the hands of its opponents. The fact that the guy that wants to rob the gunowner is a potential criminal (in fact, he's thinking fairly seriously about becoming one) argues both for and against regulation, for on the one hand it could keep a gun out of his hands (but it may not, he still can get one illegaly), but on the other hand, it also could keep a gun out of the hands of his target, who would then find himself unable to defend himself.

I'm in favor of training and licensing (as long as the process isn't too burdensome), and *definitely* liability insurance requirements. I've heard too many stories of people who shot criminals in self-defense only to have the criminal sue them for everything they were worth for "pain and suffering." The insurance requirement is to protect the gunowner from a different type of criminal, the ambulance-chasing lawyer.

I am not, however, in favor of requiring gunowner to be part of militias or gun clubs.

As to the debate as to whether cars or guns are more deadly, both sides are comparing apples and oranges. The car carries more kinetic energy and momentum than a bullet (unless you count artillery shells), and thus is potentially much more deadly, but its primary purpose is not that of a weapon, nor is it designed to be used as one. The primary puropse of a gun is to wound or kill (even if only for hunting), and all other uses are secondary.

 

[Ghostrider]

I'm curious, has anyone here actually ever been shot at?

Yes, and twice with 81mm mortars!