Gun Control/Gun Ownership

That's a great question, what exactly do the police do in such a situation?

The police tell them both to put down their weapons or force will be used against them. If one of the two is good, they always listen. Atleast so far anyways, haven't heard a story of otherwise yet.

Pikeshot. thank you for your reflections of thoughts and answer to my post.

Northman,
 
I don't know what threads you read, but in just about anything to do with current affairs, or, as an example, this discussion, the comments are replete with criticism and indeed scorn for America.  And there are many forumers who revel in it.  A good number of those are in leadership here...moderators.  It was one reason I resigned that lofty position.
 
I don't lose sleep over that, but it does annoy me. 

I don't see that much criticizim towards american people and I find no reason that there should be. That said, its no secret that I'm no fan of the current administration. Not only due to its foreign policy, but primarily because what its doing towards the american people (but I guess thats a total different discussion.)

It took little time for a thread in support of the kids at VPI, and for Jim Dorman to slide into snide and critical comments about how the American "gun culture" is reflective of our paranoid, psychopathic nature, and that we are "cowboys" and we all think our neighbors or the government is going to axe murder us in our sleep.
 
I guess that is why people want to come here to live, right?
 
Nobody I know walks around armed and looking over his shoulder expecting an attack.  Certainly not in Blacksburg, VA or State College, PA or Lawrence KS or Missoula, MT or any of the other 1,000 college towns around.

I know - I never felt an urge to look over my shoulder while visiting the US - but....
I have been teaching for 32 years on a technical college here in Denmark, and been a guest teacher in more countries, including the US on more occasations.
The remarks from Genghis and Adalwolf made my blood freeze. How can anyone think it is ok or even should be necessary for kids to arm themselves in a school?  Is this really what you want? - I refuse to believe that.  

Thats why I reacted - and wrote like I did. 

OK, I am ranting here.  But, those comments are idiotic.  You really don't know us very well.  You may think you do, but you don't.

Edited by Northman - 21-Apr-2007 at 18:11

Imagine for one second that one of those kids in the university had a gun with them and was trained to use it? Maybe instead of 32 innocents dying only 15 died. Its not perfect but its better.
Yes and if one of the 2000 infants in Beslan had been carrying an automatic rifle she could have avoided a massacre and successfully defend her school against the Chechen terrorist� Would you feel good if the class bully was allowed to carry a gun at school?

This is especially true in the United States. If you live in a peaceful law abiding country, you don't need to carry firearms, but in a crazy bloodthirsty jungle like the United States where everybody is mentally unstable, a '38 snubnose in the glove compartment would make me feel a whole lot better.
You got yourself an official warning for this comment. Show me than the Americans are more "mentally unstable" than the Swedes, the Italian or the Koreans and you'll get my excuses, so far you've broken the CoC:

  5. Rude insults, defamatory remarks, offensive images, cursing, profanity intended as an insult towards another member, personal attacks, words of hate. Any remarks that stirs up anger. In dealing with flame wars, comments that started the flame war will have more weight in terms of violation.

     6. Nationalism, derogatory remarks to national or ethnic groups, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda. (see appendix below)

     7. Derogatory remarks to individual members or social groups on grounds of their age, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

     8. Negative attitude; tone of confrontation, annoyance, or contempt; disrespectful toward other members.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Didn't even notice that Duke. Point is, criminals will hurt you if they want. The law is inadequate in dealing with these kinds of threats. This is especially true in the United States. If you live in a peaceful law abiding country, you don't need to carry firearms, but in a crazy bloodthirsty jungle like the United States where everybody is mentally unstable, a '38 snubnose in the glove compartment would make me feel a whole lot better. And people call Americans ignorant, this shows you know nothing about the US. Bloodthirty Jungle? WTH are you talking about?  Our population isn't out to get each other, don't try to portray us as barbaric.

Aydin wrote- If you live in a peaceful law abiding country, you don't need to carry firearms, but in a crazy bloodthirsty jungle like the United States where everybody is mentally unstable.

Originally posted by red clay Aydin wrote- If you live in a peaceful law abiding country, you don't need to carry firearms, but in a crazy bloodthirsty jungle like the United States where everybody is mentally unstable.     A statement as deluded and empty headed as this doesn't deserve a response.

Well, you just gave one.

I meant that one would not compare the ratio of gun deaths to living Americans in the way you did. I would think one should compare the gun deaths to the amount of US deaths rather than in comparison to people living in the US  each year otherwise the statistic does not make sense (in my opinion however)

Edited by DukeC - 23-Apr-2007 at 01:54

Chances? Injuries? I was merely listing what I had facts for and that was gun related deaths. I will give you that there are more gun related woundings, but I don't see how anyone can base a solid arguement on conjectures and guesses instead of facts. You can't supppose that people will have the oppurtunity to die from firearms and use that to show how dangerous guns are.
Ok ok little mistake on the wording. I didn't mean chance I meant risk. This was just a rapid extrapolation to show you that (in my opinion) your figure was grossly underestimated.

Easy: outlaw cancer�

Then the solution to gun control is outlawing gunshot wounds by that logic.
No there is no logic here it was a joke� humour. You know a bit like when you say to your wife who's about to undergo a dangerous surgical brain operation: "If you die, I kill you".

I am sure that the police force will tell you guns save peoples lives everyday. Of course that too is conjecture since you can't quantify how many times something didn't happen.
Well I guess you can quantify two things: the costs and benefices of fire weapons (how much money did the insurance companies saved and lost last year due to guns?) or a rough estimate on how many lives have been saved by guns (it would an approximation at 10% but it would give an idea).

Yes because a proper militia consists of 'peasants from the hills' who haphazardly throw weapons of destruction and mayhem as a form of antagonism. Uh, no, I want everyman to be able to become like a trained soldier, that is you don't target civilians, something that guerrila bombers don't do.
You didn't get it I meant against a modern army simple guns have no chances to win, resistance would be a waste of lives (for your information in places like the Low Countries or France during WWII most of the Resistance groups used bombs more than guns, guns were for the hitmen and the parades). You could tell me that a few guns is better than nothing and that they'd allow a well trained milicia to get other types of weapons from the enemies killed with these guns. But this reasoning would be flawed:
1) Why not give more to that militia (RPG, C4, whatever goes boom!)?
2) Why not consider that they could also do just as good with kitchen knives and bows and arrows?
(I know I've begged for the question, sorry)

Then penalize the use of weapons outside of their proper uses, if you kill someone in a gang war add another twenty years to the sentence.
During civil wars, that's very sensible�

You don't believe when people can't rely on the government, they won't need to hunt or protect themselves?
Hoy! that's far fetched: I have a gun because if the government goes down I will need to hunt. C'mon but if you live in a city that means gunfights for the last bags of rice and finally cannibal hunts. Future sounds fun.

And if either the black panthers or the KKK get enough power behind them then they will have earned the right to rule the US and as long as the Constitutional rights are guarenteed and enforced then there will be no reason to revolt against them.
It is not what I meant. I meant that so far in the US and in Europe those using  (not owning) guns in organized groups were whereas gangsters, lunatics or terrorists (Rotte Armee Fraktion, Brigate Rossa, Lotta Continua, BBB, Action Directe, IRA, ETA, FLNC in Europe). At the end of the day guns may be used by a freedom fighter against a tyranic government as well as by a wanna-be tyran against a free government� Guns have no ideology.

The crazy thing about the constitution is that the rules are very very simple and succinct. 90% of it details procedures and very few portions deal with individual rights. But those that do are considered unalterable in the US, or would you feel it's okay for the government to close down newspapers like in Zimbabwe, since the government can provide all the news.
A very very simple rule can be very very bad.

I said homes not property. You should not shoot someone just because they are stealing your TV, but if while caught stealing your TV they pull a weapon on you or threaten your well-being or that of anyone else, you are well within your rights to shoot them.
I'm not calling anybody a fascist here but let me make my point clearly: ten years ago I've read a letter of a young Italian fascist to his mother comparing his believes with the ones of the resistants he was fighting and at the end he said something like: the difference between them and us is that they are ready to die for their cause and we are ready to kill for our. And killing is the suprem way for you to impose your will on others.
Of course neither of us would like to have to choose between being killed and killing. It doesn't mean either that any person owning a gun is a potential fascist. I know that in some situations I'd be eager to kill but let say that I'd like to make it as difficult as possible.

Exactly but guns are a tool useful in defense. You split a log without an axe but an axe does a better job.
I just don't understand your point.

Yes, because Canada will always be the nation it is today. And there's no way that Mexico could ever fall into a military coup. And in a few years when China overtakes America, there's no way an international incident could lead to an American invasion....
Shall we bet? Are you saying seriously that you are in favour of guns because the Canadians may attack the US one day????

No I'm preaching a country of educated, prepared individuals. I learned many things that dealt with similar issues when I was in the boy scouts, and that was an hour of training every week, remember a militia doesn't have to learn everything in a day. It's a lifetime commitment.
Lets be serious two seconds. My mother's country (France) has been invaded 3 times in 70 years by Germany� I can guarantee you that nobody ever needed a gun for at least the last 130 years.
There is even a very simple case: have you seen the battle of Algier about the Algerian Indepedence War? One of the technics of the moujahdeen was to abduct and/or kill French civil servants, businessmen etc� most of the French were armed to the teeth, had military experience and were constantly on the watch but this did not really avoid tens of them to be killed.
The problem here is not who was right who wasn't but to realize that even when people are aware of an iminent danger and armed they can rarely defeat the people attacking them.

In fact, on second thought all the legal stuff should be required learning in schools, this would open up more time for practical training.
Do you have any idea of how much this could cost (military training)? If we are optimistic cumulating all the costs lets say $1000 per year and person and considering that a third of the Americans of both sexes would be concerned, that is 1000x90,000,000= $90,000,000,000. 90 billion dollars and I'm concervative� it represents just a little bit less than the federal budget for education in 2005!!! (that's something arounf 1% of the US GDP).

You do understand that people travel to rural and wilderness areas to hunt right?
How many? Anyway if all you want to do is to have hunting guns with hunting permits, I'm 100% but it has nothing to do with a militia or personal security.

I didn't realize that Somali's were wild animals? And I think that would violate other rights held by the Danish courts.
(bad) Joke

Eventually there are a few things you don't adress:
1) That there is very very few examples of guerillas succeding without external support. So in case of invasion you can count on the EU to send you 25 stone throwers (respecting the ISO 9000 norms).
2) The principle of any good head of household is a) don't do yourself what others can do better and cheaper than you b) don't allow a single provider to monopolise a product he may abuse the power he acquiered like that. So, don't buy guns for yourself but pay mercenaries� (I'm dead serious)
3) The real problem is not gun or no gun it is gun control or guns our of control? I find it amazing that people fearing so much the "big government" are so docile when it come to the big lobby ie NRA.


Edited by Maharbbal - 23-Apr-2007 at 08:18