# Opinions on gun control



## Tsoman

Hello. I am curious about what people from around the world think about gun control. 

Here in the US, it is very easy to buy and use guns (I own several). Usually, depending on the state, you can buy a long gun (hunting rifles, shotguns, mauser, AK-47, M-16 etc etc) and take it home right away. Buying a pistol is more difficult. In some states,  people can even own machine guns.

What are the laws in your country?
What do you think of gun ownership in general?

In my opinion, I think people should have the right to own guns with basic restrictions (age, criminal record, mental health). I doubt that more gun control than we already have can significantly decrease gun related crimes, and even if it could, I still don't think the government has a right to restrict people in this way.


----------



## .   1

I can see absolutely no reason for provate citizens to own and or possess guns of any kind.
I do agree that some farmers and associated industries may need a gun but this should be strictly controlled and self loading weapons should be utterly banned.
What do you use your several guns for Tsoman?

.,,


----------



## beclija

Gun licenses are pretty hard to obtain over hear, usually, the only people who get one are hunters (and some obscure folklore sport shooting people).
What is the purpose of owning a gun if you are not going to shoot? And if you  are going to, there better be a ban. There a laws on all kind of stuff which don't even put other people in danger: drinking or smoking under-age, driving without a seat-belt... very reasonable to have bans on instruments designed for killing. Even if you are not going to use them that way - I happen to know a guy who shot his little sister as a child when they found his grandpa's gun and, like, thought it was a toy. 
As to decreasing deaths, I don't have the numbers at hand, but Switzerland has by far most gun-related deaths of all of Western Europe (while generally having a fairly low crime rate). As it happens, the Swiss also have the most private guns. (A large percentage of adult males are in the reserve for the army and have to store their equipment at home so that they would be "ready anytime", or so it used to be until a few years ago.)


----------



## Tsoman

I like to shoot them at the gun range recreationally. It's something that I was curious about and decided to try. I didn't grow up in a military or gun-ownign family -- I just decided for myself. It's fun to see how I can improve my marksmanship. I own a Yugoslavian mauser, a Soviet Mosin Nagant, and a shotgun. I also enjoy the historical aspect of the rifles. 

I can see absolutely no reason for the government to prohibit its citizens from owning guns (among other things). I guess you could say I am a libertarian.


----------



## cuchuflete

There is nothing particularly libertarian about wanting something essentially because you want it.  A basic mission of most governments, including your own, is public safety.

Lots of guns, legally acquired, are used in illegal ways.  That's a proper concern of all citizens, including elected and appointed public officials.

I have no objection to hunters owning guns for hunting.  Handguns are not generally effective for hunting.  They are bought for many reasons, and often used for illegal purposes.
Restricting handgun possession will have next to no effect on legitimate ownership of hunting arms.

For those who wish to practice with handguns at a shooting range, just for the fun of it, I propose that the ranges themselves be licensed to own and allow use of the weapons.

This would not eliminate misuse of guns against the population, but would probably reduce the problem considerably.

Claims that the constitutional provisions about the right "to bear arms" ignore the relevant history.  That provision was designed to support a people's militia, and not individual ownership for any reason at all.

Happy hunting!


----------



## danielfranco

I always wondered about handguns, and have thought about owning one. The thought that keeps me meditating further, is the fact that the only reason the gun has for its existence is to harm or kill somebody or something. We might rationalize the topic 'till kingdom come, but the fact remains that the gun itself will not realize it's full potential and true _raison d'être _until it has discharged a bullet and that bullet has penetrated some thing or person with the intent of killing it/he/she.
So, I mean to say, I don't know.


----------



## ireney

Getting a hunting gun is not extremely difficult around here but it's not easy either. Getting a handgun is almost improssible and I agree completely with this notion


----------



## don maico

Gun ownership in the UK is ilegal pure and simple. After two massacres, one involving children ,the laws were tightned so that only farmers under licence can own shotguns and maybe some Olympic sportsmen. Frankly I dont see the need to own a guns and find the notion repellant. I walked into a gun shop in the US once and found it a most uncomfortable experience


----------



## übermönch

Bombs, Guns, Artellery units and other tools of war should not be avaible to common citizens, who are all potential murderers. For the ones who like to shoot, there are softguns and paintball guns. Real weapons can be and are often used for murder - making guns avaible is comparable to an intentional massacre on the people. Governments commiting this crime, not restricting weapons, not only put their stability in risk, but also that of the neighbouring countries and therefore should be displaced .


----------



## don maico

übermönch said:


> Bombs, Guns, Artellery units and other tools of war should not be avaible to common citizens, who are all potential murderers. For the ones who like to shoot, there are softguns and paintball guns. Real weapons can be and are often used for murder - making guns avaible is comparable to an intentional massacre on the people. Governments commiting this crime, not restricting weapons, not only put their stability in risk, but also that of the neighbouring countries and therefore should be displaced .



agreed 100%!


----------



## djchak

I think the defend yourself in a reasonable way is a HUMAN right.

With that said, the requirements should be extremely restrictive, and it shouldn't be a "free for all".

It's hard to displace government where the average citizens have lots of guns. But go ahead and try.


----------



## moirag

Like most Europeans, I find the American attitude incomprehensible. You don't think gun ownership increases gun crime? So why does the USA have a much higher rate than European countries? Why are all American citizens so shit-scared of being shot that they have to go out and buy a gun for self-defence? As a Brit, I agree to feeling extremely uncomfortable when I see a gun - even a toy gun ( they're pretty rare, in my experience) - and I feel nervous around Spanish policeman, as they carry guns, whereas British ones don't. Some neighbours of mine have a rifle for hunting (yeh, well that's another thread...) and it scares me to think of it. I agree that we are all potential murderers and should not be trusted with guns.


----------



## Tsoman

I'm not afraid of being shot, and I don't plan on using my gun for self defense. I just like shooting it. It's really really fun. I don't care that some people will murder using guns.


----------



## GenJen54

Tsoman said:
			
		

> I don't care that some people will murder using guns.


Wow!  That's quite a statement.  In other words, because YOU enjoy the privilige of gun ownership, it's okay if other people use this same privilige irresponsibly, costing others their lives, so you can continue your hobby.


----------



## badgrammar

As a born and raised Texan, I grew up around guns (and hunters).  I learned to shoot when I was a kid too.  So I'm not shocked that people enjoy recreational shooting, I understand it.

I even understand that when you live somewhere where everyone else has guns, you often wonder if you, too, shouldn't have one?  To make the playing field a little more even.  

In the U.S. there is virtually no way to enforce gun control, it will always be as hot a topic as abortion, and laws will be created, applied, appealed, changed back again...

I personally think all guns should be banned, I think that their existence is one of the greatest banes of American life - yet another reason I won't ever live there again (yeah, I know, boo-hoo).  

Tsoman:





> I don't care that some people will murder using guns.



Wow, that's a really profound and well-thought out statement.  I sincerely hope it's a joke.


----------



## don maico

Tsoman said:


> I'm not afraid of being shot, and I don't plan on using my gun for self defense. I just like shooting it. It's really really fun. I don't care that some people will murder using guns.



Shooting WHAT, man?Sorry, but if find your attitude incomprehensible? You dont care????? Your attitude brings shame on your country


----------



## Tsoman

yea it was a joke. You guys take everything so seriously, sheesh


----------



## badgrammar

Tsoman said:


> yea it was a joke. You guys take everything so seriously, sheesh



Well, this really isn't a forum that's about outlandish debates and exagerated opinions meant to provoke reaction, not discussion.

And you're supposed to capitalize, please .


----------



## danielfranco

> Originally posted by badgrammar
> ... this really isn't a forum that's about outlandish debates and exagerated opinions meant to provoke reaction, not discussion...



In defense of Tsoman (but not of his comment/joke), maybe he's been reading about conspiracy theories and racism somewhere around here and thought this was actually the case...


----------



## Tsoman

Sorry guys, I won't do it again. I just wanted to provide you with someone to hate for a few minutes


----------



## Tao

The fact that there are many murders or deaths in general in the U.S.A. involving guns is not necessarily due to gun ownership, although it's a factor. The people of America have been fed with fear by media and their governments and within society they probably then feed eachother with fear in different ways - the cycle just goes on like cause and effect. So due to the fear they have they feel they should protect themselves. In the meanwhile privatized companies selling firearms make big bucks, ya know what I'm saying?
Simply put it's like this: put fear into people ---> they will consume ---> $$$. Even if firearms weren't allowed, the fear inside people's hearts would see to it that they would find some kind of solution to "protect" themselves with whatever means necessary(, including illegally acquiring firearms).

The crime there also has to do with poverty and especially the fact that the government isn't that "socialist" as in properly taking care of its people. Capitalism + (a form of) Socialism would POSSIBLY decrease crime.

Anyway, in the end restricting guns will only help just a little bit.


----------



## fenixpollo

Tsoman said:


> I'm not afraid of being shot, and I don't plan on using my gun for self defense. I just like shooting it. It's really really fun. I don't care that some people will murder using guns. [and later] yea it was a joke. You guys take everything so seriously, sheesh


 We have no other choice than to take your comments seriously.  Dry humor, sarcasm and irony are funny because your tone of voice and your attitude show us that you don't really mean what you say.  We can't see you, and we don't know you, therefore as far as we can tell, you are being serious.

Not that it matters, but in order to raise historical awareness, I'm adding three previous thread on this topic for your reading pleasure.  Enjoy. (that was a snide remark) 

Carrying weapons .......... Take the guns out of the hands of... ......... Armas de fuego.


----------



## maxiogee

Tsoman said:


> yea it was a joke. You guys take everything so seriously, sheesh



There are so many ways here to let people know when one is not being serious. The friendly neighbourhood smilies are always available to brighten up any posts… and then there's white text to hide little messages should you feel the need. 
…and there are things you can do with *colored* text 
…and various sizes of text to alter the mood.


----------



## djchak

Again, let's lighten up a bit and not take things to the 9th degree/

I hear from some people on this forum that they think the Americans in particular have guns becuase of "fear"...be it stoked by the media, the "government", and so on.

Could it be becuase of historical reasons, like the fact we were originally colonists, who rebellled?

Could it be becuase we believe defending yourself is a human right, and guns are truly practical and effective?

Could it be becuase of the legacy of the 2nd amendment, that we feel it's a natural part of life as a citizen?

Could it be that places like Switzerland (in Europe of all places) actually might have similar reasons?

Could it be, even if we banned guns, it would end up driving gun crime UP.... seen some stats for gun crime in the UK, anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm


----------



## don maico

Tsoman said:


> yea it was a joke. You guys take everything so seriously, sheesh


Ok mate sorry its not always easy to see what peeps mean


----------



## beclija

How do you expect people to know it's a joke? I mean, there _are _people around who might say this kinda stuff seriously. Anywhere, not trying to say something about your country, that is. 

Besides, statistics, for all they count, are pretty clear: 
The US have more gun-related deaths than any European country=the US have less restriction on gun owning than any European country. 
Switzerland has more gun-related deaths than any other (at least: Western) European country=Switzerland has less restriction on gun ownership than any other (at least: Western) European country.

Also, as it happens, there was a Civil war with hundeds of thousands of dead in what used to be my neighbouring country, that was largely fueled with private guns. Plus some personal stories that happened _even though_ my country is pretty restrictive about this matter.


----------



## Tao

djchak, some people not only think that; they know it to be true.





> Could it be becuase of historical reasons, like the fact we were originally colonists, who rebellled?


Almost every nation, people, country, has its share of bloody history and still gun crime isn't as mind-bogglingly high as in America.



> Could it be becuase we believe defending yourself is a human right, and guns are truly practical and effective?


Possibly. But if so on what is this based - solely the right to defend oneself and nothing else? If somebody wants to defend himself, there's a good reason for it, and fear is that reason that hits the spot quite well. Why would you defend yourself otherwise? It's based on an expectation which is based on fear.



> Could it be becuase of the legacy of the 2nd amendment, that we feel it's a natural part of life as a citizen?


Possibly. The logic I see there is strange: so because of the 2nd Amendment, one should feel natural about owning a firearm? This shows that feeling isn't a very good thing to trust.



> Could it be that places like Switzerland (in Europe of all places) actually might have similar reasons?


We're talking about America here, and its gun problems. Unless you can properly connect Switzerland (or Europe) well within this topic/context, there's hardly relevance to your question and even less to answer it.



> Could it be, even if we banned guns, it would end up driving gun crime UP.... seen some stats for gun crime in the UK, anyone?


It could drive gun crime up, or it could not. The stats for the UK - which I haven't seen but I will have to assume you're right in saying they went up at some point not mentioned - have nothing to do with it, because we're talking about America and its gun problems.
What if alcoholic beverage consumption wasn't allowed? Could it drive gun crime up? Yes, it could. Many things could drive it up.




> Again, let's lighten up a bit and not take things to the 9th degree/


I - or anybody else doing so - am only stating how it is. If you perceive it as some kind of darkness that needs to be lightened up then that's equal to decreasing the search for truth, it is equal to making things look less worse than they are.


----------



## badgrammar

danielfranco said:


> In defense of Tsoman (but not of his comment/joke), maybe he's been reading about conspiracy theories and racism somewhere around here and thought this was actually the case...



Aaahhh, guess I've been away for a while and missed all that!  But I did read about concern from other foreros that the forum was having trouble maintaining its somewhat academic/non-sensationalist tone.  Which would be a shame.


----------



## GenJen54

Tao said:
			
		

> *We're talking about America here, and its gun problems*. Unless you can properly connect Switzerland (or Europe) well within this topic/context, there's hardly relevance to your question and even less to answer it.





> It could drive gun crime up, or it could not. The stats for the UK - which I haven't seen but I will have to assume you're right in saying they went up at some point not mentioned - *have nothing to do with it, because we're talking about America and its gun problems.*


_*Actually, Tao, we are not only talking about America and its gun problems. *_

The thread starter was asking about *gun control issues in all countries*. Please see his original questions:





> What are the laws in your country?
> What do you think of gun ownership in general?


Comparative analyses such as the kind provided by djchak are perfectly reasonable given the thread topic.


----------



## übermönch

> ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
> The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
> The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
> The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
> ``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
> The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.
> ``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
> The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.
> The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
> Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.
> The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
> *  Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.*



http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

From the called countries I only know for sure that, except USA, Estonia, Brazil and Switzerland have, more or less, have had easy access to guns by the time the statistic was done. Since then Estonia strongly enforced gun controll, though it has not banned them completely yet.


As to UK, according to wikipedia (in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom), Great Britain has the lowest murder rate per capita in the world. The possession of guns was strongly restricted and controlled even before the ban BBC is refering to, following the Hungerfold massace in 1987. For a proper comparisson we would have to get the criminal statistics preceding this year.


> Britain remains one of the countries with the lowest murder rate in the world per capita, accounting for 853 murders in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics, which at a population of more than 60 million that translates into less than 1.3 murders per 100,000 residents in the UK.[6] By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 population. In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms compared to 6% in the United Kingdom.[7] Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York suffering 537 murders in 2005 to London's 189 in 2003.[8]



I stumbled upon an interessting site with detailed statistics on crime rate and incidents with firearms in different countries. I hope it'll proove fruitful for further discussion.
http://www.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/


----------



## fenixpollo

Tao said:


> The logic I see there is strange: so because of the 2nd Amendment, one should feel natural about owning a firearm? This shows that feeling isn't a very good thing to trust.


 I can see how this can be hard to understand. Americans consider the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution as almost sacred articles that guarantee rights to the people. Americans cherish their right to say whatever we want. Many Americans cherish their right to have a gun as much, or more so, than their right to free speech.   It may seem strange, but 200+ years of tradition have cemented this idea in many peoples' minds.


----------



## ireney

I am not an expert of course, but I always read the 2nd Amendment as meaning that the right to bear arms was justified by the fact that a well regulated (I think that's the expression) militia was necessary.


----------



## djchak

Which is why an extemely small minority actually form militias.

Tao: what GenJen said.

Fenix: you got it right. The truth is, unless a sizable percentage died, we wouldn't be motivated to change the "sacred rights".

And instead of just looking at guns..why don't we look at all murders for a start.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


----------



## fenixpollo

ireney said:


> I am not an expert of course, but I always read the 2nd Amendment as meaning that the right to bear arms was justified by the fact that a well regulated (I think that's the expression) militia was necessary.


That's right, ireney. In this case, "militia" is a home-made army (not necessarily a "radical militia", like the Viper Miliita or the Minutemen).  

The justification for the 2nd amendment was that the British colonies had no army of their own, so the soldiers that fought for independence were ordinary citizens who brought their own guns to the battlefield. The writers of the Constitution thought that if the citizens were allowed to have guns, then they would be in less danger of domination by the army and/or the government; and they would be able to defend the country in the event of foreign invasion.  Plus, guns were considered a necessity for a largely rural population, so that people could defend themselves from everyday threats, such as Indians; and so that they could hunt for food.


----------



## Victoria32

Tsoman said:


> Hello. I am curious about what people from around the world think about gun control.
> 
> Here in the US, it is very easy to buy and use guns (I own several). Usually, depending on the state, you can buy a long gun (hunting rifles, shotguns, mauser, AK-47, M-16 etc etc) and take it home right away. Buying a pistol is more difficult. In some states, people can even own machine guns.
> 
> What are the laws in your country?
> What do you think of gun ownership in general?
> 
> In my opinion, I think people should have the right to own guns with basic restrictions (age, criminal record, mental health). I doubt that more gun control than we already have can significantly decrease gun related crimes, and even if it could, I still don't think the government has a right to restrict people in this way.


I could not agree less! In around 1994, a man called David Gray ran amok in a town called Aramoana and wiped out dozens of people (he had quite a collection of guns.) He was eventually shot himself, so there's no way of knowing why he did what he did, but if he had 'gone postal' as I believe the expression is, and had only knives, he couldn't have done anywhere near the same amount iof damage... 
Our gun laws have got stricter since then, and rightly so!


übermönch said:


> http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
> http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
> 
> From the called countries I only know for sure that, except USA, Estonia, Brazil and Switzerland have, more or less, have had easy access to guns by the time the statistic was done. Since then Estonia strongly enforced gun controll, though it has not banned them completely yet.
> 
> 
> As to UK, according to wikipedia (in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom), Great Britain has the lowest murder rate per capita in the world. The possession of guns was strongly restricted and controlled even before the ban BBC is refering to, following the Hungerfold massace in 1987. For a proper comparisson we would have to get the criminal statistics preceding this year.
> 
> 
> I stumbled upon an interessting site with detailed statistics on crime rate and incidents with firearms in different countries. I hope it'll proove fruitful for further discussion.
> http://www.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/


Thank you for the links, especially the last... very informative.


----------



## Sallyb36

I see no reason for anyone to own a gun unless they are a member of an armed force.  It's asking for trouble to allow the population of any country to bear arms.  I think one only has to look at the figures for gun crime in America to know this to be true.


----------



## ireney

fenixpollo said:


> That's right, ireney. In this case, "militia" is a home-made army (not necessarily a "radical militia", like the Viper Miliita or the Minutemen).
> 
> The justification for the 2nd amendment was that the British colonies had no army of their own, so the soldiers that fought for independence were ordinary citizens who brought their own guns to the battlefield. The writers of the Constitution thought that if the citizens were allowed to have guns, then they would be in less danger of domination by the army and/or the government; and they would be able to defend the country in the event of foreign invasion.  Plus, guns were considered a necessity for a largely rural population, so that people could defend themselves from everyday threats, such as Indians; and so that they could hunt for food.




Thank you for the explanation fenixpollo although I should have made it clear that I understand what militia means  . The point I was trying (clumsily) to make was that, since the 2nd amendment names the formation of militia and the conditions you so eloquently described as the reason for the right to own guns, I can't see how one can "invoke" the 2nd Amendment for owning a gun today.


----------



## djchak

So in this case, all you have to do is prove that the US might possibly be under threat from an army or a government....

With that said...owning a gun is still a RIGHT in the U.S. That's the big difference. It is considered a "human right" to defend yourself in this country.

So it's the culture, not the guns themselves.


----------



## fenixpollo

djchak said:


> So it's the culture, not the guns themselves.


 _Guns_ don't kill people.... culture does.

What a strange concept.


----------



## Sallyb36

djchak said:


> So in this case, all you have to do is prove that the US might possibly be under threat from an army or a government....
> 
> With that said...owning a gun is still a RIGHT in the U.S. That's the big difference. It is considered a "human right" to defend yourself in this country.
> 
> So it's the culture, not the guns themselves.



no, it's a mixture of both, you cannot say that guns are not to blame for shootings!  It is a human right to defend oneself, but not to own a gun.


----------



## Tao

Alright, it's noted: it's gun control in general this topc. Let's just say I got carried away. No hard feelings, djchak 

Still the point I was making in my post was about America specifically. In djchak's argument which was about America most likely in response to my post, he mentioned things not having to do with America. With my saying that we were talking about America I meant the fact that my words were regarding that and his too - not the entire topic.


----------



## djchak

But the culture of the host country does more then influence gun control, the level of violence within that culture determines the murder rate itself...as in , certain aspects of it, not the whole culture (as fenix implied). 

So in this case, our laws on guns, and thier use in our culture influence the murder rate. That's why I posted that chart.

But it was also posted to show that just having guns around isn't the MAIN factor...otherwise the US would always be number one for the last 50 years. Let's see...

#1           *Colombia*                  0.617847  per 1,000 people                               
                            #2           *South Africa*                  0.496008  per 1,000 people                               
                            #3           *Jamaica*                  0.324196  per 1,000 people                               
                            #4           *Venezuela*                  0.316138  per 1,000 people                               
                            #5           *Russia*                  0.201534  per 1,000 people                               
                            #6           *Mexico*                  0.130213  per 1,000 people                               
                            #7           *Estonia*                  0.107277  per 1,000 people                               
                            #8           *Latvia*                  0.10393  per 1,000 people                               
                            #9           *Lithuania*                  0.102863  per 1,000 people                               
                            #10           *Belarus*                  0.0983495  per 1,000 people                      
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


----------



## ireney

djchak said:


> So in this case, all you have to do is prove that the US might possibly be under threat from an army or a government....
> 
> With that said...owning a gun is still a RIGHT in the U.S. That's the big difference. It is considered a "human right" to defend yourself in this country.
> 
> So it's the culture, not the guns themselves.




You have to prove that there's a reason for a militia to form. That's a different thing

Believe it or not defending yourself is considered a "human right" around here too. Somehow no one has gotten away with that excuse when accused of owning a gun without permit. 

So, what exactly do you propose should be done in the US so that there are considerably less deaths caused by privately owned guns? I mean apart from changing the cultural belief of a fair amount of US citizens that having a gun is your "human right"?


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:


> But the culture of the host country does more then influence gun control, the level of violence within that culture determines the murder rate itself...as in , certain aspects of it, not the whole culture (as fenix implied).
> 
> So in this case, our laws on guns, and thier use in our culture influence the murder rate. That's why I posted that chart.
> 
> But it was also posted to show that just having guns around isn't the MAIN factor...otherwise the US would always be number one for the last 50 years. Let's see...



Let's not stop there though. Let's do two things. Firstly let's see where the United States is on that list of yours.

 
01 Colombia..................0.617847 
02 South Africa..............0.496008 
03 Jamaica...................0.324196 
04 Venezuela.................0.316138 
05 Russia....................0.201534 
06 Mexico....................0.130213 
07 Estonia...................0.107277 
08 Latvia....................0.10393 
09 Lithuania.................0.102863 
10 Belarus...................0.0983495 
11 Ukraine...................0.094006 
12 Papua New Guinea..........0.0838593  
13 Kyrgyzstan................0.0802565  
14 Thailand..................0.0800798  
15 Moldova...................0.0781145 
16 Zimbabwe..................0.0749938  
17 Seychelles................0.0739025  
18 Zambia....................0.070769 
19 Costa Rica................0.061006 
20 Poland....................0.0562789 
21 Georgia...................0.0511011 
22 Uruguay...................0.045082 
23 Bulgaria..................0.0445638 
24 United States.............0.042802  
25 Armenia...................0.0425746
26 India.....................0.0344083  	
27 Yemen.....................0.0336276
28 Dominica..................0.0289733	
29 Azerbaijan................0.0285642  	
30 Finland...................0.0283362 

So, twenty-fourth, not too bad looking

But when we look at murders where *firearms* are involved we see a very different picture

01 South Africa..............0.719782 
02 Colombia..................0.509801 
03 Thailand..................0.312093 
04 Zimbabwe..................0.0491736 
05 Mexico....................0.0337938 
06 Belarus...................0.0321359 
07 Costa Rica................0.0313745 
08 United States.............0.0279271 
09 Uruguay...................0.0245902 
10 Lithuania.................0.0230748 
11 Slovakia..................0.021543 
12 Czech Republic............0.0207988 
13 Estonia...................0.0157539 
14 Latvia....................0.0131004 
15 Macedonia, TFYRO..........0.0127139 
16 Bulgaria..................0.00845638 
17 Portugal..................0.00795003 
18 Slovenia..................0.00596718 
19 Switzerland...............0.00534117 
20 Canada....................0.00502972 
21 Germany...................0.00465844 
22 Moldova...................0.00448934 
23 Hungary...................0.00439692 
24 Poland....................0.0043052 
25 Ukraine...................0.00368109 
26 Ireland...................0.00298805 
27 Australia.................0.00293678 
28 Denmark...................0.00257732 
29 Spain.....................0.0024045 
30 Azerbaijan................0.00227503 
31 New Zealand...............0.00173482 
32 United Kingdom............0.00102579  

When you jump from 24th for murder to 8th for murder with a firearm then there is something going on which is more than about how violent a country you are. Looking at this second table puts the US into the same league as some places experiencing great social strife and upheaval.

As you say, "our laws on guns, and thier use in our culture influence the murder rate" - they certainly influence it for the worse. The other countries which lead the US in the 'with firearms' table are all places with serious crime problems generally, and many of them have gun issues due to internal military and paramilitary issues.

NB. There appears to be something seriously wrong with the figures that site quotes for South Africa - it has more murders with firearms (31,918) than it has all murders (21,995) which indicates that someone isn't checking the veracity of their figures. In view of that I advise caution in dealing with these figures.


----------



## fenixpollo

ireney said:


> You have to prove that there's a reason for a militia to form. That's a different thing


 So, in order to own a gun for "homeland defense" reasons, you have to prove that a reason exists? By the time that you prove that a nefarious power is threatening your safety, it's too late to go out and buy a gun (presuming that the nefarious power that is threatening your safety isn't preventing you from buying one). I'm not arguing in favor of more guns, but your logic seems.... problematic. 


maxiogee said:


> So, twenty-fourth, not too bad looking.


 Twenty-fourth and eighth out of nearly 200 countries? I'd say that's pretty bad, indeed!





djchak said:


> But the culture of the host country does more then influence gun control, the level of violence within that culture determines the murder rate itself...as in , certain aspects of it, not the whole culture (as fenix implied).


 In my last post, I implied (with sarcasm) that blaming the culture for gun deaths is not productive and sounds silly. People kill other people with guns. If you address the reasons why they kill people, then they won't kill as many people. "It's the culture" is not a reason why people kill people. Culture change is the _result_ of the actions we take to reduce gun deaths. 





ireney said:


> So, what exactly do you propose should be done in the US so that there are considerably less deaths caused by privately owned guns? I mean apart from changing the cultural belief of a fair amount of US citizens that having a gun is your "human right"?


 That's the 64,000-dollar question, isn't it?


----------



## djchak

"By the time that you prove that a nefarious power is threatening your safety, it's too late to go out and buy a gun"

best point made so far. (IMHO)

For Max: FYI on the *SOURCE:* Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention

Note: whether we are 24th without guns, or 8th with guns...I do not dispute that we are high on the list. The point is, that violence (and murder) occurs at higher rates even without the "legal right" to own a gun. 

In Canada you can buy a firearm. But they come in at 20 (firearm included) and 44 (firearms not included).

In the UK handguns are banned, for the most part. They still come in at 32 on the (firearm included) list. Although the murders by capita is relatively low (46). 

I guess the next step would be to ban knives, and cricket bats.


----------



## maxiogee

But you are confusing the legality of having guns and the actual use of them. There are more reasons than murder to control guns, but I'm not a gun-control person (pro or anti). The things are there and will be used. The things to wonder about are… 
a) Would more people be alive today if the nearest weapon to hand for their assailant had been a knife or a stick? A determined assailant will kill no matter what the weapon.
b) What is the overall cost to society of allowing guns to circulate with any degree of freedom — cost of hopital care for wounded, lost income, insurance rates, police investigation time — there are lots of ways in wich a society 'pays' for firearms.
c) Does anyone know how to put a genie back into a bottle?


----------



## .   1

I spent sixteen years of my life defending my state and carrying a Government owned gun and I saw people at their most basic and most uncivilized level.
It is laughable to consider that any of the gun nuts in any country in the world would be able to put up even a token resistance to a professional armed force of any kind.
To put the analogy into the sporting arena.
Could you imagine what would happen if a group of weekend 'park' footballers were to be challenged to a game by a Professional Gridiron team?  Now just imagine you were to tell the parkies that if they lose the game they will die.  How long do you think the parkies will stand and face the Pros?  I suspect that they would stand about as long as an armed rabble with guns.

.,,
The most dangerous thing about a gun is the loose nut behind the trigger.


----------



## fenixpollo

. said:


> It is laughable to consider that any of the gun nuts in any country in the world would be able to put up even a token resistance to a professional armed force of any kind.


 That's exactly what the British said about the American colonists in the 1770's.


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> That's exactly what the British said about the American colonists in the 1770's.


The social conditions in U.S. America today are vastly different as is the professionalism and weaponry of the military.

Logistics played a vast part in the war of the 1770's and it could be said that hunger and distance defeated the British.

The isolated nature and unknown lay of the land caused huge problems for the Redcoats as did a lack of communication.

It was not possible back then to call in an air strike request that a missile be sent through the second window to the right of the main door of whatever target is necessary.

Today in U.S. America you would have citizens with long arms and pistols trying to stand against a wall of metal or planes screaming overhead at supersonic speed sowing cluster bombs at will.

How many gun owners in U.S. America are members of a well regulated militia?

When was the last time that U.S. America faced any threat of imminent invasion?

.,,


----------



## Outsider

I suppose the broader point, though, is that people can use guns to defend themselves from criminals.
The flip side is that where guns are outlawed there are probably less armed criminals.


----------



## fenixpollo

Periodcommacomma, you make very good points and I realized that my argument wouldn't stand up to scrutiny... I was just pointing out that many armies have made the mistake of underestimating an opposing force or dismissing that force as unorganized and underequipped in the face of "overwhelming" modern technology. 





. said:


> It was not possible back then to call in an air strike request that a missile be sent through the second window to the right of the main door of whatever target is necessary.


 (snidely) Is that possible now? 


Outsider said:


> I suppose the broader point, though, is that people can use guns to defend themselves from criminals.
> The flip side is that where guns are outlawed there are probably less armed criminals.


 Even though I don't agree with the broader point, the "flip side" you point out does not seem to be true in Britain, if the article  that djchak posted is accurate -- there are just as many armed criminals where guns are outlawed. Reminds me of the bumper sticker: _When guns are owtlawed, only outlaws will have guns._

 I can't believe that I'm quoting right-wing truck decals and agreeing with djchak again!  Gun control! Gun control!


----------



## ireney

fenixpollo said:


> So, in order to own a gun for "homeland defense" reasons, you have to prove that a reason exists? By the time that you prove that a nefarious power is threatening your safety, it's too late to go out and buy a gun (presuming that the nefarious power that is threatening your safety isn't preventing you from buying one). I'm not arguing in favor of more guns, but your logic seems.... problematic.



I was just pointing out that just proving that the US might possibly be under threat from any army or a goverment is not enough according to the 2nd Amenmend. Proof that militia might be necessery is also needed if you go that way. A rather "theoretical" discussion if you wish


----------



## djchak

I think there's something you aren't seeing here...how do you think the new "Minutemen Militia" came into force? Becuase illegal immigrants are sneaking over the border. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5040372.stm

That's ALL the reason they need. 

(which is somewhat of a B.S. reason in this case, IMHO)

My point is...it's VERY easy to claim that you need a gun, as long as there is ANY threat...the threat doesn't have to be substantiated rationally according to internatational law.

_Note to everyone: please do not use my example to talk about immigration within this thread, that was NOT my intent._


----------



## rsweet

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the number of children who die from gun accidents or suicide.

Here's a site with some statistics.

They're pretty sobering.

Those people who claim they need a gun for protection are just as likely to hurt or kill someone accidently. My 90-year-old grandfather, who grew up with guns for hunting, used to sleep with a gun under his pillow because he was afraid someone would break into his house. He was hard of hearing and kept a bunch of cow bells attached to his bedroom door in case of intruders. One night while I was staying at his house (he was recovering from a stroke) I heard him moaning in his sleep. I sat up and listened carefully but didn't hear anything again. I then agonized over whether or not to go into his room in the middle of the night to check on him. I would surely set off the cow-bell alarm, wake him from a sound sleep and maybe get shot in the process. Since I didn't hear anything more, I decided that he was probably okay. If I was wrong, I reasoned that he'd had a good long life.  I felt it was just too dangerous to go in there! In the morning, I discussed the problem with him, but he refused to give up the gun.


----------



## hohodicestu

Hi,

It is true that guns are being used for self-defense; but most of the time those guns end up killing the owners by accident. How many times have you heard from the news that children play with their parent's guns without the knowledge of the parents or the gun-owners killed themselves during a fight with a family member or even gun-owners killed themselves because they are drunk?????

Let's think about this carefully....


----------



## babylonanka

Hello everybody, 
What do you think about the shooting that happened at Virginia Tech? Why is it so easy for a kid in America to acquire a gun and go on a shooting rampage?  I know that it is about the gun industry and their lobby and poor gun control, but why are people only concerned about it for a while when something terrible happens and then nothing ever changes. It is so frustrating that being a professor or a student can put you into a life threatening situation. Anyway, I am curious about what people think about this. Is it a specifically American problem caused by crazy politics?


----------



## amnariel

Hi babylonanka!

I don't think that posession of legal or illegal weapons and shooting rampages are specifically American problem (caused by crazy politics). There is a lot of that in my country, but not as massive as this horrible tragedy in Virginia. Most of the weapons used in killings/suicides are either illegaly bought or people "saved" them after the war in my country, which is also considered as illegal possesion of the weapons. There were numerous campaigns for return of those weapons going on in my country, and still are, but as much as I'm following up the news usage of illegal weapons is still too frequent.


----------



## badgrammar

Well, Babylonanka, this is likely to stir up quite a debate if there are forero here who support the right to own and carry guns...  I was reading up on the story today, thinking that logically, this would be yet another reason to increase gun control in the U.S....  But of course, among the first things I read was the opinion of a fellow student who said that if it were legal for students to carry concealed firearms, none of this would have happened, because someone would have shot the gunman before he could kill all those people.

So, like in so many other similar cases, people who think like you or I do will say "See!  It's crazy!  This kid just went in and bought a gun and killed 32 people!  Why are guns sold and carried with such impunity?  This is nuts!".  And then people who think the opposite will say "See, if the "good guys" had guns too, they could have stopped him".

So it won't change anything, unfortunately.


----------



## Sallyb36

I would say that it is an problem caused by the gun laws.  I cannot for the life of me understand why it is still part of the constitution that Americans be allowed to own guns.  I saw a news report that stated that, as a result of this, they were talking about all kinds of preventative measures, such as searching students, metal detectors at all entrances, but not about the gun laws in America.   I can't understand why the law remains the same regarding this matter.


----------



## babylonanka

You are right, badgrammar. There will be people who will say that a good guy with a gun would have stopped the bad guy. But that sounds like we are still stuck in the Wild West times. For me, the right to carry a gun is an obsolete one and should be reconsidered. I mean, people can buy a machine gun here if they want to. Politicians are so concerned about terrorists now but I feel that the probability of being shot by a crazy gun owner is much bigger than being blown up on a bus.


----------



## cuchuflete

US gun laws have been discussed in this forum at great length.  Please use Search, or just repeat all that has been stated before.

*Opinions on gun control

**Armas de fuego

**Take the guns out of the hands of....*


----------



## cherine

*Moderator's note:*

*I merged this new thread to an existing one (opinions on gun control). And there's also a thread about school shootings.*

*If anyone feels they still have something to say about this subject, please do it in an existing thread. And PLEASE, don't forget to search before opening a new thread.*


----------



## koabr3gn

babylonanka said:


> Hello everybody,
> What do you think about the shooting that happened at Virginia Tech? Why is it so easy for a kid in America to acquire a gun and go on a shooting rampage? I know that it is about the gun industry and their lobby and poor gun control, but why are people only concerned about it for a while when something terrible happens and then nothing ever changes. It is so frustrating that being a professor or a student can put you into a life threatening situation. Anyway, I am curious about what people think about this. Is it a specifically American problem caused by crazy politics?


 
Yes, gun control is the main issue here. It is extremely easy to obtain a gun in Virginia. My younger brother (age 19) decided to get a rifle last year for hunting. All it took him was two forms of i.d. and a quick criminal background check to get one. 
Something should be done not only to restrict gun ownership but also to break the powerful NRA lobby in congress and in state legislatures. (Most people don't know just how influential the NRA really is)

Guns are just one of the aspects of this tragedy. The real question is: what is our (meaning American) society becoming? 
People knew Cho Seung-Hui was mentally disturbed and he was sent to a mental health facility but nothing more was done. He stalked several people and although this was taken into account, no one was extremely proacitve. Are we becoming too dismissive or do we just not care anymore until something like this happens?

From a personal aspect, I'm completely devastated. My best friend (a Tech student) and her brother happened to be in building right next to the shootings. After hearing the shots, there was complete chaos. People rushed into the building and tried to lock themselves in offices (the only rooms with proper locks). 
The phone lines were completely overloaded; I couldn't get into contact with anyone in the area until around 3pm. Unfortunately, my friend lost a good friend and an acquaintance in the shooting.
Early in the afternoon my university, along with all others in Virginia, were shut down for the rest of the day. 
It was (and still is) very surreal. Everyone is shaken and the atmosphere is like it was during 9/11. There has been almost complete silence in the dining halls and classes for the past two days. 

Having something hit so close to home really makes me wonder how there can be people out there in the world like the shooter, people who are not just crazy but pushed over the edge. 
It's times like these when I lose hope in humanity.


----------



## fenixpollo

Sallyb36 said:


> I would say that it is an problem caused by the gun laws.


 I disagree. I think it's a problem caused by the psychological problems of a young man, the alienation and hostility that he felt towards his peers. The way he chose to act on those feelings may be an issue that relates to gun control, but the cause of these shootings is psychological and societal disfunction.  





> I cannot for the life of me understand why it is still part of the constitution that Americans be allowed to own guns.


 Because once the people have a privilege, it's hard to take it away from them. Auto accidents cause far more deaths than guns, but if I suggested that we should take away everybody's cars and make it illegal to own a car, that would be a very hard sell because it's a privilege that we're accustomed to and we think of it as a need. Many Americans who own guns have the mindset that their guns are a necessity for them. Revising the constitution -- which is hard enough by itself -- would be a very tall hill to climb.


----------



## Sancho Panza

fenixpollo said:


> I disagree. I think it's a problem caused by the psychological problems of a young man, the alienation and hostility that he felt towards his peers. The way he chose to act on those feelings may be an issue that relates to gun control, but the cause of these shootings is psychological and societal disfunction. Because once the people have a privilege, it's hard to take it away from them. Auto accidents cause far more deaths than guns, but if I suggested that we should take away everybody's cars and make it illegal to own a car, that would be a very hard sell because it's a privilege that we're accustomed to and we think of it as a need. Many Americans who own guns have the mindset that their guns are a necessity for them. Revising the constitution -- which is hard enough by itself -- would be a very tall hill to climb.


 
I agree about the causes of the killing... but, i mean, u can't compare cars and guns, although, yeap, it's true that cars kill many  many people. But cars kill by accident, guns are intended to kill... 

I try to get the picture, i try to understand the point of the americans (or anybody else) that believe in carrying a gun (really). And I have problems. Because I don't want my neighbours to carry guns, or the shop owners... Actually, anybody. FOr me is more than enough that policemen have them, and, seriously, I feel less afraid when i know that there is really few people around me allowed to have a gun....
Of course bad stuff happens around me (well, up here in the north not really, but back in spain yes), but still, if I carry a gun, it's to use it, and i don't want to kill anybody. 
U know that in spain altough u r defending urself, if u kill a person u still have killed a person and even policemen have to see the judge? Policemen are supposed to harm first, trying not to kill. And of course its not the same as just killling someone, thats true.
I dont know waht u think about this, but i hope we wont change it, i find it quite sensitive...


----------



## Etcetera

In Russia, if you want to purschase a gun of any kind, you should pass a medical examination and receive a special license. 
I think that this is definetely good, as I don't have much faith in most of my compatriot's common sense, and I certainly wouldn't feel good if I knew that purchasing guns was so easy.


----------



## Fernando

I agree with Fenixpollo. Though I am in favour of gun control, the VTech news are nothing but anecdotical.

About the inclusion of owning weapons (for the "militia" or not) in US Constitution, I think it has some sense in the context of US distrust of armies (at the moment, British Army) and governments. They prefer the government to be scared of citizens. Here in Europe we are more scared of our neighbour.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:


> Here in Europe we are more scared of our neighbour.


 We are scared of our neighbors, too. They all have guns, after all.


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo said:


> We are scared of our neighbors, too. They all have guns, after all.



Agreed, you are right to be scared. But you prefer to shoot him rather than empowering the State for disarming him. 

If you were so scared you would say Marines: "Come back, stop disarming Al Qaida guys and disarm the next door guy". Apparently, you trust your own markmanship.


----------



## federicoft

Laws on guns should be the strictest. Freely buying and owning guns is typical of an anarchical state in which anyone who have just in disregard the human life can do a lot of harm to dozens of people, rathern than a liberal democracy.


----------



## CrazyArcher

In Israel it's common to see soldiers armed with M4 assualt rifles everywhere, as well as handguns on security staff, which checks everyone at the entrance of any public place. As for civilians, however, only certain categories can obtain a license (retired army officers, jewelers, and some more), and they are also limited to owning only one handgun.

As for gun control, I think that one who wants a gun will get it anyway, so you'll get armed criminals and unarmed law-obeying civilians. I think that it's possible to allow people purchase self-defense weapons, but I'd limit it to one gun per owner, and restrict it only to handguns. I don't think that rifles, designed to have an effective range of some 100 meters are a self-defence weapon, of course. Also, getting a license should be not easier than getting a driving license. 

The whole American weapon culture kind of drives me insane... I can't understand those collecting dozens of pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. This stuff is designed to kill people, so if you don't have an intent to kill someone, there's no reason to stockpile weapons enough to arm a squad. If you think that weapons are beautiful, buy replicas and hang them on the wall.

One more thing on the topic: the country with the highest amount of weapons per capita is... Switzerland. Yet you don't see blood flowing down the streets there, or anything resembling it. Puzzling?


----------



## .   1

CrazyArcher said:


> In Israel it's common to see soldiers armed with M4 assualt rifles everywhere, as well as handguns on security staff, which checks everyone at the entrance of any public place. As for civilians, however, only certain categories can obtain a license (retired army officers, jewelers, and some more), and they are also limited to owning only one handgun.


I assume that these people are required to proactively demonstrate that their character is such that society can trust them with a gun rather than just filling out a form and saying that they have never actually been arrested or that if they have been arrested for crimes of violence or that the crimes of violence wrere not too severe as is the case in some communities.



CrazyArcher said:


> As for gun control, I think that one who wants a gun will get it anyway, so you'll get armed criminals and unarmed law-obeying civilians. I think that it's possible to allow people purchase self-defense weapons, but I'd limit it to one gun per owner, and restrict it only to handguns. I don't think that rifles, designed to have an effective range of some 100 meters are a self-defence weapon, of course. Also, getting a license should be not easier than getting a driving license.


Dead right here except that few rifles more powerful than a BB gun are limited to a puny 100 metres.
Most modern rilfes are spoken of having a range in numbers of kilometres.
7.62mm rimless NATO rounds fired from an A1E1 SLR (Self Loading Rifle) can hit a heart sized target consistently at 300 metres and can lay down an enfilade pattern up to 3 kilometres.
This is an ancient weapon.
5.56mm is far more deadly and with a terrific rate of fire.
Some readily modern weapons can be simply modified to fire on full automatic making them effective sub-machine guns.
Other weapons are only suitable for hunting huge humans or elephants wearing 'bullet proof' vests.  Even bullet proof vests are no match for guns available over the counter in basically department stores.



CrazyArcher said:


> The whole American weapon culture kind of drives me insane... I can't understand those collecting dozens of pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. This stuff is designed to kill people, so if you don't have an intent to kill someone, there's no reason to stockpile weapons enough to arm a squad. If you think that weapons are beautiful, buy replicas and hang them on the wall.


There is a hauntingly beautiful sculpture somewhere.
We had a tragedy in Port Arthur.
A young man, who had coincidentally been bullied and ostracised and shunted aside because he was non standard (he has high level Aserger's
Syndrome which is not linked to violence), took three high powered rifles and a bag of ammunition and murdered too many people to count.
Australians said, bugger it guns are not worth it.
There was a huge gun buy back and they were all melted down and some were welded into a sculpture.
I saw a photo once and I still tear up at it.

Australia was not a namby pamby culture about guns.
I hitchiked as a 10 year old with a .22 rifle over my arm.
Every town had a Rifle Range and every manly man was a member.
People who refused to take up arms received the dreaded Three White Feathers in the mail.
My father had me join a pistol club when I was 14 along with my 13 year old brother.  We had to wait until we were 16 to hold our own licences and therefore own our own pistols.  I eventually had five.  One for each discipline.  These weapons never cut anything other than a paper target.
Our culture was awash with guns.
Police officers in the bush would attend houses with a rifle leaning against the door.
We were instructed in the correct body positioning in such cases.

Guns disappeared virtually overnight.
It just wasn't socially cool.
There are some reactionary defence nuts but so few as to not be a concern.
Our murder rate and mass killing rate and and suicide rate and school hostage murder rate did not increase after we disarmed ourselves.



CrazyArcher said:


> One more thing on the topic: the country with the highest amount of weapons per capita is... Switzerland. Yet you don't see blood flowing down the streets there, or anything resembling it. Puzzling?


Wow!  This I didn't know.
The only rule is that there is an exception to every rule.

.,,


----------



## karuna

CrazyArcher said:


> One more thing on the topic: the country with the highest amount of weapons per capita is... Switzerland. Yet you don't see blood flowing down the streets there, or anything resembling it. Puzzling?



But it is also interesting to note that most Swiss males must undergo mandatory service in the army, so they are very well trained and aware how dangerous the guns can be. They are required to keep a service gun at home but they have to follow certain rules, like keeping it in a safe etc.

Otherwise carying or buying a gun in Switzerland requires a permit that is issued only for professional related reasons (security work etc.). So, it is not comparable with the situation in the USA where Virginia tragedy perpetrator was able to buy a gun (a receipt was found in a backpack) despite having mental illness in medical history.


----------



## beclija

CrazyArcher said:


> One more thing on the topic: the country with the highest amount of weapons per capita is... Switzerland. Yet you don't see blood flowing down the streets there, or anything resembling it. Puzzling?


You are sure it is? What I've read, it is the _Western European_ country with the highest number of weapons per capita. This does not preclude, in fact presupposes, that a country like the USA, leave alone some civil war torn places, may have significantly higher amounts of weaponry. 
And, though Switzerland may well have a relatively low overall homicide rate (I don't know if it has), the source I recall states that it has (or had, may have been late 90s or early 2000s) the highest number of people killed _with guns_ of all Europe.


----------



## winklepicker

The defence industry in this country is a huge earner, and creates many jobs. All round the world there are factories churning out weapons. Then - oh whoops- we're surprised when people shoot each other. We've got to wean ourselves off this immoral trade - beat our swords into ploughshares. Other countries manage.

Yes, I know: if we don't sell weapons to [insert people of your choice] then [insert country of your choice] will sell them instead. As I recall, that argument was used to justify the slave trade. Sometimes you have to act morally just because it's the right thing to do - not because it will profit you.


----------



## CrazyArcher

. said:


> I assume that these people are required to proactively demonstrate that their character is such that society can trust them with a gun rather than just filling out a form and saying that they have never actually been arrested or that if they have been arrested for crimes of violence or that the crimes of violence wrere not too severe as is the case in some communities.



Well, keeping in mind mandatory military service that most people pass, I think it's a prerequirement to get a license. So, well, if you trusted a person with an assault rifle, you can trust him with a pistol, no?



> Dead right here except that few rifles more powerful than a BB gun are limited to a puny 100 metres.
> Most modern rilfes are spoken of having a range in numbers of kilometres.
> 7.62mm rimless NATO rounds fired from an A1E1 SLR (Self Loading Rifle) can hit a heart sized target consistently at 300 metres and can lay down an enfilade pattern up to 3 kilometres.
> This is an ancient weapon.
> 5.56mm is far more deadly and with a terrific rate of fire.
> Some readily modern weapons can be simply modified to fire on full automatic making them effective sub-machine guns.
> Other weapons are only suitable for hunting huge humans or elephants wearing 'bullet proof' vests.  Even bullet proof vests are no match for guns available over the counter in basically department stores.


Well I was talking about 100 meters as a range for comfortably taking out a standing target. And yep, 'bullet-proof' vests are nonsense. I don't think that even a brand-new ceramic vest holds a bullet fired from M16 at a distance of 50 meters. As for modifying to a full auto mode, I don't think it's worth the effort. Full auto is just a waste of bullets, if we talk about assault rifles or anything without a bipod. Rate of fire is not essental if you use semi-auto mode all the time anyway... On topic: civilians shouldn't be allowed to have self-reloading wepons with magazines of more than 12 bullets, which brings me to the point I've stated here before: nothing except handguns for civilians. Glock-17 is already an overkill IMO.


----------



## beclija

CrazyArcher said:


> Well, keeping in mind mandatory military service that most people pass, I think it's a prerequirement to get a license. So, well, if you trusted a person with an assault rifle, you can trust him with a pistol, no?


I wouldn't neccessarily say so. Trusting people with an assault rifle in a tightly controlled situation does not on itself imply that you should entrust them anything with killing potential once back "in the wild".


----------



## swift_precision

The idea that "if some of the students had been armed, they would've taken down the bad guy" is purely and utterly ludicrous. It takes a well- trained individual who possess certain characteristics or character traits if you will to be able to, at a moment's notice, shoot a _human being especially _when another _human being _is shooting back at _him_ and I'm sure periodcommmacomma can attest to this. Who is to say that because a student had a CCW or a CHP he would've been able to defend the others around him without a moment of hesitation? Also, according to news reports, this shooting apparently happened in an engineering building---were there no objects laying around that people could've used to fend off this attacker? To the best of my knowledge I don't think engineering schools are running short on computers--yet there appeared no mention of anyone possibly picking of a computer and perhaps throwing it at the attacker. If one cannot adequately defend himself using a weapon of opportunity, how can he possibly expected to reasonbly defend himself and others using a more dangerious weapon such as a firearm?


----------



## .   1

CrazyArcher said:


> Well, keeping in mind mandatory military service that most people pass, I think it's a prerequirement to get a license. So, well, if you trusted a person with an assault rifle, you can trust him with a pistol, no?


I understood this exactly the first time round.  Yep.  They have actively demonstrated that they can be trusted with our most potent magic which is the ability to easily kill over a remote distance.

.,,


----------



## swift_precision

CrazyArcher said:


> Well, keeping in mind mandatory military service that most people pass, I think it's a prerequirement to get a license. So, well, if you trusted a person with an assault rifle, you can trust him with a pistol, no?
> 
> 
> Well I was talking about 100 meters as a range for comfortably taking out a standing target. And yep, 'bullet-proof' vests are nonsense. I don't think that even a brand-new ceramic vest holds a bullet fired from M16 at a distance of 50 meters. As for modifying to a full auto mode, I don't think it's worth the effort. Full auto is just a waste of bullets, if we talk about assault rifles or anything without a bipod. Rate of fire is not essental if you use semi-auto mode all the time anyway... On topic: civilians shouldn't be allowed to have self-reloading wepons with magazines of more than 12 bullets, which brings me to the point I've stated here before: nothing except handguns for civilians. Glock-17 is already an overkill IMO.


 
How about a standard 9mm glock that holds 16 bullets.  Should civilians be allowed to own such a weapon?


----------



## winklepicker

beclija said:


> I don't have the numbers at hand, but Switzerland has by far most gun-related deaths of all of Western Europe (while generally having a fairly low crime rate). As it happens, the Swiss also have the most private guns. (A large percentage of adult males are in the reserve for the army and have to store their equipment at home so that they would be "ready anytime", or so it used to be until a few years ago.)


 Correct. Here are the numbers.


----------



## beclija

Of course one can argue that some of the would-be gunshootings end up being murders by other means where firearms are not so easily available. But certainly many others would simply not happen - most probably aren't instances of planned murder but manslaughter that would not have happened at all if killing required planning or a significant risk for the assaultant himself.


----------



## ernest_

swift_precision said:


> Who is to say that because a student had a CCW or a CHP he would've been able to defend the others around him without a moment of hesitation? Also, according to news reports, this shooting apparently happened in an engineering building---were there no objects laying around that people could've used to fend off this attacker? To the best of my knowledge I don't think engineering schools are running short on computers--yet there appeared no mention of anyone possibly picking of a computer and perhaps throwing it at the attacker. If one cannot adequately defend himself using a weapon of opportunity, how can he possibly expected to reasonbly defend himself and others using a more dangerious weapon such as a firearm?



Exactly. If you feel the need to defend yourself then learn some kind of martial art, and you'll be ten thousand times safer than carrying a gun. But it demands a lot of training to know exactly what to do, when the moment comes, to act without hesitation when your life is at stake.

And there's another problem with allowing ordinary people to carry guns, which is that if everybody can have a gun there's no way to identify the "madman". Policemen and security guards they all wear uniforms, but if someone else pulls a gun no one can tell whether he is someone trying to help or just another radge. So, basically, it is an accident waiting to happen, I think.


----------



## faranji

International Homicide Rate Table

Check out the non-gun homicide rates. Pretty interesting.


----------



## ciberlingua

My humble opinion is this:

The US society and government should give up their cant and ban the guns as far as they can.

I know there are lots of interests and lobbies around this issue, but as European, I have the impression (from TV, films, etc) that the US society is brainwashed and educated in a continuous state of paranoia about violence, agresivity, etc.

Their constitution says that anyone has the right to bear guns....but that is a regulation of the 18th century and has a 18th century mentality! We live in the 21st cent and I suppose that Americans no longer live in a "Far West"-style society, with red-skins assaulting on villages and so on. The culture of violence should be outcast from the US society, but I assume that "the system" is not interested in breaking the state of paranoia the American people are immersed in.

To sum up, I would ask the US people to stop putting on sad faces and candles in the wind whenever a massacre takes place, AND TACKLE THIS PROBLEM BY BANNING FIREGUNS! It's "easy".

Just an opinion from Europe.
Thanks for reading me.


----------



## .   1

ciberlingua said:


> Just an opinion from Europe.
> Thanks for reading me.


And a refreshingly candid one at that.

.,,


----------



## amnariel

ciberlingua said:


> To sum up, I would ask the US people to stop putting on sad faces and candles in the wind whenever a massacre takes place, AND TACKLE THIS PROBLEM BY BANNING FIREGUNS! It's "easy".


 
I agree with you - banning fireguns would be the best solution, it would actually contribute to peace in the world, BUT.... We have to be aware that there is black market that works perfectly, worldwidely and boundary-free, and that those who want to buy firearms will, sadly, always be able to do so, all they have to do is ask around a bit, and they will surely find a seller. 

That's how I see this situation. It is not USA exclusive, it is world wide problem and it will not be solved by repression, just because those who profit from selling firearms (illegaly of course) do not care, not for a split second.


----------



## CrazyArcher

I participate one more forum, which is populated mostly by Americans (xxxxx.com), and from their gun discussion I understand that they are not going to surrender their guns if the government bans them. That's perfectly their reson, Amnariel: criminals aren't going to surrender their weapons in case of the banning, so why should they do it?

It looks like the US' government tells the society "Okay, you can have your guns as much as you want, so you can defend yourself, so we don't REALLY have to fight the crime". All this 'lax attitude, plus a certain degree of paranoia and/or infantilism in the American society really make me mad.

Yet, I think that declaring the campus as a gun-free zone was a really dumb thing to do, because no one is going to enforce that in a slightest degree. That psycho didn't have a slightest problem to bring a gun to the campus, so this rule really handicaps the law-obeying individuals. I AM convinced that if there was anyone with a gun there, he would have stopped the killer. Swift Precision and Ernest, what do you thknk is easier to do: throwing a PC monitor at a killer armed with a gun, or pointing another gun at him probably from 20 meters and shooting? You have to be a REALLY brave person to rush towards a killer armed with a firearm into a hand-to-hand range and attack him, keeping in mind that your attack probably won't be successful. Personally, I wouldn't have the guts to do it, I have to say. I don't imply that allowing guns in the campus is a panacea, but in the CURRENT conditions, it's better to be with than without.


----------



## Sallyb36

fenixpollo said:


> I disagree. I think it's a problem caused by the psychological problems of a young man, the alienation and hostility that he felt towards his peers. The way he chose to act on those feelings may be an issue that relates to gun control, but the cause of these shootings is psychological and societal disfunction.   Because once the people have a privilege, it's hard to take it away from them. Auto accidents cause far more deaths than guns, but if I suggested that we should take away everybody's cars and make it illegal to own a car, that would be a very hard sell because it's a privilege that we're accustomed to and we think of it as a need. Many Americans who own guns have the mindset that their guns are a necessity for them. Revising the constitution -- which is hard enough by itself -- would be a very tall hill to climb.




Obviously the perpetrator had mental problems caused by things other than owning a gun, but my point is that if it wasn't so easy to own a gun then maybe the situation would have been different, maybe he would have harmed himself and his girlfriend in a different way - I don't know.  However, owning guns is a recipe for distaster, and as for them being a priviledge, well, I don't see it as such, I see it as a liability.  Maybe when the constitution was written then there was a need for guns to be carried, but in this day and age I think not.  If no-one had them then there would be no need to have one for defense.  The fact that many Americans regard guns as a necessity indicates to me the great fear that many Americans must live with.  I feel sorry that this is the case.


----------



## ciberlingua

Firstly, I refer myself to my previous post.

Secondly, I would like to add this:

If no-one in the US (apart from policemen, security guards and soldiers) had guns, if guns weren't allowed and sold _as corn-flakes, _people would not feel scared and there would not be such a state of paranoia, insecurity and the like.

I cannot understand what Felixpollo says "a gun is a privilege"....I cann't believe it, really. To me, bearing a gun or having it at home would be *a big responsibility*. Indeed, I am scared of guns. 

I feel safe in my town 'cos I know people have no guns with them. 

I think the solution to avoid massacres in the US is easy: restrict guns and avoid the _culture of fear_.

An opinion from Europe.
Ta!


----------



## fenixpollo

ciberlingua said:


> If no-one in the US (apart from policemen, security guards and soldiers) had guns, if guns weren't allowed and sold _as corn-flakes, _people would not feel scared and there would not be such a state of paranoia, insecurity and the like.
> 
> I cannot understand what Fe*n*ixpollo says "a gun is a privilege"....I cann't believe it, really. To me, bearing a gun or having it at home would be *a big responsibility*. Indeed, I am scared of guns.
> 
> I feel safe in my town 'cos I know people have no guns with them.


  I don't agree that there is a culture of paranoia in the U.S., but perhaps that's a topic for another thread. In the first posts in this thread, you'll see some reasons why many Americans feel that owning a gun is a good thing.

How do you know that nobody in your town has a gun? 





CrazyArcher said:


> It looks like the US' government tells the society "Okay, you can have your guns as much as you want, so you can defend yourself, so we don't REALLY have to fight the crime". All this 'lax attitude, plus a certain degree of paranoia and/or infantilism in the American society really make me mad.


 The government most definitely does NOT assume that because citizens have guns, that they are fighting crime and the government doesn't have to. It's the opposite. The government realizes that guns actually make crime _worse_, and most police officials hope that the citizens are not trying to enforce the laws with their own guns. We're not living in anarchy over here! 





Sallyb36 said:


> Obviously the perpetrator had mental problems caused by things other than owning a gun, but my point is that if it wasn't so easy to own a gun then maybe the situation would have been different,  maybe he would have harmed himself and his girlfriend in a different way - I don't know.  However, owning guns is a recipe for distaster, and as for them being a priviledge, well, I don't see it as such, I see it as a liability.  Maybe when the constitution was written then there was a need for guns to be carried, but in this day and age I think not.  If no-one had them then there would be no need to have one for defense.  The fact that many Americans regard guns as a necessity indicates to me the great fear that many Americans must live with.  I feel sorry that this is the case.


 Again, I think that assumptions are being made about Americans living in a state of fear. If you are correct, then perhaps non-Americans have a lower anxiety level overall because they believe that they don't live around people with guns. Perhaps it would also be obvious to visitors that there is an atmosphere of paranoia here. However, I don't remember de Tocqueville writing anything about paranoia being one of our cultural traits, and I don't hear Americans being characterized as paranoid.  We're described as arrogant, imperialistic, loud, tasteless, dumb, and violent... but not paranoid.


----------



## CrazyArcher

ciberlingua said:


> If no-one in the US (apart from policemen, security guards and soldiers) had guns, if guns weren't allowed and sold _as corn-flakes, _people would not feel scared and there would not be such a state of paranoia, insecurity and the like.
> 
> ....
> 
> I think the solution to avoid massacres in the US is easy: restrict guns and avoid the _culture of fear_.



About part 1:
I don't think that all the assumptions like yours are of any use. Of course, it would be very nice to live in a world with no crime, no wars, all the people being polite to each other, and police existing just for the protocol. Unfortunately, it's not the case. I agree, guns definately should NOT be sold like cornflakes, but at the other hand you can't ban them completely, at least not in the US. Think about a farmer living at a remote farm, where it would take the police half an hour to get there or even more. I think that he may have a gun to protect his house and family against riff-raff. You can't ignore the illegal gun trade either, and with the borders of the US stretching accross thousands of kilometers contraband shipments won't be a problem too.

About part 2:
I don't think there's any _easy_ solution to avoid massacres. Yes, the wide availability of guns makes a shootout the easiest option for a psycho killer, but I'm pretty sure that even without a gun he will find a way to kill a large amount of people. Maybe not en masse, maybe with a kitchen knife one by one at nights like Jack the Ripper...


----------



## swift_precision

CrazyArcher said:


> I participate one more forum, which is populated mostly by Americans (xxxxxx.com), and from their gun discussion I understand that they are not going to surrender their guns if the government bans them. That's perfectly their reson, Amnariel: criminals aren't going to surrender their weapons in case of the banning, so why should they do it?
> 
> It looks like the US' government tells the society "Okay, you can have your guns as much as you want, so you can defend yourself, so we don't REALLY have to fight the crime". All this 'lax attitude, plus a certain degree of paranoia and/or infantilism in the American society really make me mad.
> 
> Yet, I think that declaring the campus as a gun-free zone was a really dumb thing to do, because no one is going to enforce that in a slightest degree. That psycho didn't have a slightest problem to bring a gun to the campus, so this rule really handicaps the law-obeying individuals. I AM convinced that if there was anyone with a gun there, he would have stopped the killer. Swift Precision and Ernest, what do you thknk is easier to do: throwing a PC monitor at a killer armed with a gun, or pointing another gun at him probably from 20 meters and shooting? You have to be a REALLY brave person to rush towards a killer armed with a firearm into a hand-to-hand range and attack him, keeping in mind that your attack probably won't be successful. Personally, I wouldn't have the guts to do it, I have to say. I don't imply that allowing guns in the campus is a panacea, but in the CURRENT conditions, it's better to be with than without.


 

Well of course shooting an armed person would be the better of the two choices _if you have a gun_ but you can not assume that because someone has a gun and knows how to use it that he will be somehow naturally pyschologically prepared to fire it upon another human being without hesitation and fire it when the other human being is shooting at _him_.  That would be an incorrect assumption.  You can ask any war veteran and he will confirm that sometimes in the "fog of war" people become confused and disoriented and even the most well-trained soldier can sometimes be unsure of what to do.  Granted, the VT shooting was not necessarily a war (at least war in the conventional sense) but nonetheless it happend fast and students barely had enough time to react.  No one is suggesting that someone should've engaged in hand-to hand combat with the killer.  That would be stupid at best; suicidal at worst 

I agree with Fenix. The US goverment does not operate on the premise that we the citizens would supposedly be able to fight are own battles just because _some _of us are armed.  If that was the case, I'm sure that more citizens would be willing to stand watch at our borders and deflect the amount narcotics smugglers attempting to cross;  maybe they would have citizens patroling the streets in their own vehicles attempting to stop drug sales and make more "citizens arrests."


----------



## xrayspex

_Our murder rate and mass killing rate and and suicide rate and school hostage murder rate did not increase after we disarmed ourselves._

Data on recorded crime as published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for the period 1996 to 2004

(** Australia disarmed civilians in 1996)

Homicide
1996 354
1997 364
1998 332
1999 386
2000 363
2001 346
2002 365
2003 341
2004 293

Assault
1996 114,156
1997 124,500
1998 130,903
1999 134,271
2000 138,708
2001 152,283
2002 160,118
2003 158,629
2004 n/a

Robbery
1996 16,372
1997 21,305
1998 23,801
1999 22,606
2000 23,336
2001 26,591
2002 20,989
2003 19,709
2004 16,490


----------



## .   1

Thanks mate.
I didn't know how to find the data, I just knew this is the case.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

The interesting thing is that it didn't significantly decrease, either, which is what I would expect. Strange. I've always held out the hope that disarming citizens would result in a dramatic decrease in violent crimes in the U.S. If nothing else, it would give the police a reason to arrest someone with a handgun without any other reason needed.

Personally, I'd like to see a ban on handguns for private citizens in the U.S. It's a VERY unpopular view, even in California, a pretty liberal state. It's a bit disappointing, though, to see statistics from Australia that don't drop significantly after a dramatic action like disarming the private citizen.  In fact, assaults and robberies increased.


----------



## nicolioncelle

Dear fenixpollo,



fenixpollo said:


> Revising the constitution -- which is hard enough by itself -- would be a very tall hill to climb.


 
It seems to me the current brilliant administration managed to revise the Habeas Corpus, which grants prisoners and "combatant ennemies" certain immuable rights, specifically with respect to torture. It dates back to 1305 (according to Wikipedia). So how old and anchored a text is doesn't seem relevant, and I don't take your point as a valid argument. That the NRA is a very stubborn and powerful lobby, is, on the other hand, a (most saddening) fact. 

Also, you mention that you don't see paranoia as a characteristic American trait, nore does Tocqueville. So how else would you characterize the attitude of people who bring up arguments like "oh, had everyone been equipped with guns, they would've taken care of the killer more quickly and efficiently", which I've been reading on the NY Times forum. Doesn't it assume that every college student is a potential killer ? Isn't that a reaction emanating from sheer paranoia ? 

I've been living in then US for ten months, that's not a lot. But one characteristic that strikes me is precisely a rampant fear in social interactions. I don't want to develop on this point because it's straying off topic; but it might prove a good subject for another thread.

Best,

Nicolas


----------



## maxiogee

.....homicide..............assault.................robbery
1996	354..100%..........114,156..100%..........16,372..100%
1997	364..103%..........124,500..109%..........21,305..130%
1998	332...94%..........130,903..115%..........23,801..145%
1999	386..109%..........134,271..118%..........22,606..138%
2000	363..103%..........138,708..122%..........23,336..143%
2001	346...98%..........152,283..133%..........26,591..162%
2002	365..103%..........160,118..140%..........20,989..128%
2003	341...96%..........158,629..139%..........19,709..120%
2004	293...83%.................................16,490..101%

Interesting figures - possibly - xrayspex.
They might be more useful if we had figures for the pre-disarmament period, say for the preceeding nine-year span to give a comparison. 

We must, of course, bear in mind that crime figures are notorious for fluctuating wildly for reasons which the police who deal with them can't explain or forecast and that the only conclusion which can be drawn from them is that - generally speaking - any politician who claims credit for the lowering figures will be difficult to find when the figures are rising.

I can't help but wonder if police/civilian trust and respect didn't soar when the guns went away in Australia.

Thank goodness we still have a largely unarmed police force in Ireland, and with the alleged conversion of the IRA to political means there has been a perceived fall-off in gun crime North and South, but unfortunately there are a lot of weapons in the hands of drug gangs (many of which are believed to be sourced from terrorist organisations) and they are in pretty regular use. The only 'good' point about it is that they tend to be used in internecine tit-for-tat shootings of gang members. Weapons have been carried, but not used, in the rising number of "Tiger kidnappings" which we are experiencing here.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> The interesting thing is that it didn't significantly decrease, either, which is what I would expect. Strange. I've always held out the hope that disarming citizens would result in a dramatic decrease in violent crimes in the U.S. If nothing else, it would give the police a reason to arrest someone with a handgun without any other reason needed.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see a ban on handguns for private citizens in the U.S. It's a VERY unpopular view, even in California, a pretty liberal state. It's a bit disappointing, though, to see statistics from Australia that don't drop significantly after a dramatic action like disarming the private citizen. In fact, assaults and robberies increased.


It is raw data.
There has been no adjustment for population.
There is no mention of suicides.
There is no discrimination of 'Assaults'.  A slap on the face or pistol whipped is still an assault.

There is no discrimination of 'Robberies'.  Bound and gagged at the point of a 12 guage shotgun or a bag snatch is still a robbery.

Do you reckon that people would be happy to live without guns if the price they have to pay is a crime rate that does not fall?

.,,


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> It is raw data.
> There has been no adjustment for population.
> There is no mention of suicides.
> There is no discrimination of 'Assaults'. A slap on the face or pistol whipped is still an assault.
> 
> There is no discrimination of 'Robberies'. Bound and gagged at the point of a 12 guage shotgun or a bag snatch is still a robbery.
> 
> Do you reckon that people would be happy to live without guns if the price they have to pay is a crime rate that does not fall?
> 
> .,,


 
I understand that it is raw data. I agree with Maxiogee that it would be very helpful to see the numbers before the disarming for comparison. 

I have no idea what this question of yours means:



> Do you reckon that people would be happy to live without guns if the price they have to pay is a crime rate that does not fall?


 
I don't think people would be happy to be disarmed if it had no effect on crime rates, or if crime rates continued to rise, if that's what you're asking. The question would be: "what was the point of disarming us, then?" If the argument for disarming the population is to increase their safety, reduce violence, and cut down on the number of murders, I think people would be more than a little upset if none of that was borne out in the following decade's statistics.

Throughout this thread there have been many people arguing that disarming the population would save lives and reduce violence. That has always been my belief as well. All I'm saying is that the raw figures from Australia do not reflect that and I, for one, am disappointed to see that.

I'd love to have seen a dramatic drop in the figures or even a steady one; it would support my long-held belief that the presence of guns in the general population actually increases the level of violence and the number of murders.

Your point that there is no adjustment for population increase is a good one. If the population of Australia increased significantly over the same period, the incidence per thousand might have actually dropped.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> I'd love to have seen a dramatic drop in the figures or even a steady one; it would support my long-held belief that the presence of guns in the general population actually increases the level of violence and the number of murders.


The only thing that changes the murder rate is changing the species.
I will guess that the crime rate has been basically static in Australia for about a century or so.
I suspect that the crime rate in the USA has been static for a couple of hundred years and I suspect that this is the case all over the world.
Some countries collect statistics in a differing manner.
During World Wars 1 and 2 and all prior conflicts the government went to great pains to not report defeats and disasters because they did not want to panic the population but times have changed.
Politicians re-discovered that a scared population is easier to manipulate so they keep us scared.

Here's the thing.
If the USA simply removed all of the MASS SCHOOL MURDERS from the statistics there would be virtually no effect on the statistics but would there be a significant effect on the perception by the community?
I contend that removing all highpowered weapons from readily accessable sale will make it very hard for a skinny little nutter to brass up a few dozen children just cause he feels pissed.
If Television and Movies stopped telling us that every single problem in the entire world can be solved at the point of a huge ridiculous gun (the bigger the better) gripped in the muscled (the huger the better) fist of a buzz cut steriod freak (the more massive the better) maybe some people would not feel the need to scream (quite accurately with prescience generally denied to such minds), "You'll take this gun from my cold, dead hand!"

.,,


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> Your point that there is no adjustment for population increase is a good one. If the population of Australia increased significantly over the same period, the incidence per thousand might have actually dropped.


Australia was also gripped by The Royal Commission into Police Corruption in NSW in 1995/96.
It is possilbe that there has been a huge societal shift and people may feel safer to report crimes to a Police Force that they no longer see as 'green lighting' crime.
In the days before The Commission NSW Police virtually ran crime in NSW (a legacy from The Rum Corps days) so many people just kept away from reporting crime because they knew 'the joke' as it was referred to by the bent cops who got caught.
At the time of The Commission there was a huge group of coppers who decided to resign rather than answer questions and most of those who took the risk and answered the questions were resigned to their fate.

It is my firm belief that Australia is a far more secure unarmed society than ever it was when we need a gun to feel safe.

If a country limits the number of guns available there are two things that will definitely decrease.
Mass School Murders and a reduction of that is good for everybody.

The other thing that will decrease is not so well known.
It is also not well known just how debilitating this can be on law and order in a community. We need cops who are people. We need our guardians to be us. We need to reduce their unnecessary daily horror to increase their propensity to humanity.
There is nothing more gutwrenchingly soul destroying than to have to walk into a room full of the hot-wet-sweet-metal cloying taste of bits of bone and brain scattered in a non random pattern in a lounge room that looks just like mine.
Suicide will remain but those left to pick up the pieces will not have to pick up so many dripping pieces.

Oh how they winge and they whine and they wail as they quail with their tail firmly nailed by the flail of the grail from the gavel in the hand of the man with the strength to stand and face the ban then take the hand of the sham who banned the Grand Illustrious Land and place that ham directly in the bin that displays the sin behind the grin and those who go in the inquiring bin no longer grin while the strength to stand comes back to the man who faced the ban and was damned and the hand that was grand in the Illustrious Land moves in ways now strange to those who stand in the Grand Illustrious Land - the land that was forged by the hand of the damned.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> It is my firm belief that Australia is a far more secure unarmed society than ever it was when we need a gun to feel safe.


 
As I said, it makes sense that it would be.



> If a country limits the number of guns available there are two things that will definitely decrease.
> Mass School Murders and a reduction of that is good for everybody.


 
I don't know that this is true.  I would hope it to be true.  It seems like it would cut down on any impulsive murder spree, but I'm not aware of any of the cases in the last ten years in the U.S. where there wasn't a long-term, methodical plan in place.  With this in mind, I think someone could get hold of a gun illegally if they were determined to do so.  

I think it would be more likely to decrease the number of murders by angry spouses or lovers who walk into an office, shoot the object of their disaffection, and then proceed to shoot others in the office while they're at it.



> The other thing that will decrease is not so well known.
> It is also not well known just how debilitating this can be on law and order in a community. We need cops who are people. We need our guardians to be us. We need to reduce their unnecessary daily horror to increase their propensity to humanity.


 
That makes sense to me.  As they say, "you're preaching to the choir." 



> Oh how they winge and they whine and they wail as they quail with their tail firmly nailed by the flail of the grail from the gavel in the hand of the man with the strength to stand and face the ban then take the hand of the sham who banned the Grand Illustrious Land... (etc.)


 
Have you tried decaf?    (Just joshing with you.) 

- James


----------



## xrayspex

_We must, of course, bear in mind that crime figures are notorious for fluctuating wildly for reasons which the police who deal with them can't explain or forecast _ 
That's more or less why I didn't editorialize.  I just put up the data.  

_It is raw data.
There has been no adjustment for population.
_

It's really hard to find detailed raw data, where that sort of thing is broken out, and I have looked for it before.  I'm sure it exists, somewhere. 

It is not a simple issue, and even advanced, detailed statistical analysis is confusing and will change few people's minds, which is one reason I generally avoid debating the subject.  It's like abortion; there are just more productive ways to spend your time than arguing about it.  I'd rather drink beer.


----------



## xrayspex

_If the argument for disarming the population is to increase their safety, reduce violence, and cut down on the number of murders, I think people would be more than a little upset if none of that was borne out in the following decade's statistics._

How about if the argument were closer to reality: eliminating guns reduces fatalities, but increases non-fatal injuries. For example, instead of 50 people being killed and 200 being beaten up, 20 are killed and 450 are beaten up. I'm just making up numbers, of course, for a hypothetical question. 

To rephrase, what if your chance of being murdered dropped from 1% to 0.2%, but your chance of being hurt in a robbery went from 3% to 12%? Obviously, you'd rather have a broken jaw than be killed, but what if you had to weigh a 50% reduction in your chance of being killed against a 400% increase in your chance of being badly hurt? 

How could ANYBODY answer that question? I can't. 

_I suspect that the crime rate in the USA has been static for a couple of hundred years and I suspect that this is the case all over the world._
_Some countries collect statistics in a differing manner._


No, I think it's worse in the US. MUCH MUCH worse. I don't blame guns, I blame a culture of violence being forced on us via TV, movies, and music. This is a screwed up place when you can't show a woman's nipple on TV, but you can show a bloody corpse. Now THAT'S obscene.


----------



## JamesM

xrayspex said:


> This is a screwed up place when you can't show a woman's nipple on TV, but you can show a bloody corpse. Now THAT'S obscene.


 
Amen to that!  Now it's advanced to the point that a bloody corpse is not enough. You have to have people dissecting and fishing through the corpses, complete with squishing and popping sounds.  I honestly can't watch a fair portion of the new crime dramas.  They are macabre.


----------



## winklepicker

What is a firegun?


----------



## cirrus

I agree with the points about you can't swear or be seen naked but you can broadcast video messages from a suicidal maniac.  

Is not the problem that there is a global appetite for this sort of gruesomeness which makes pornography look innocent?  

In the UK there is a huge tradition of this which dates back to (at the very least) Jack the Ripper.

In the meantime I still find it strange to the nth degree that anybody who is not part of a military command structure should have access to weapons which can easily kill dozens of people. Regardless of their mental health at the time when they buy the thing, what possible justification could they have for it?  Arcane arguments about the need to keep the States independent from the Brits don't really have much relevance.

I am also intrigued by dot dot comma's intervention which really puts Bowling for Columbine into sharp relief:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=221221&page=4 # 73  

The bit which interests me is 
"Our culture was awash with guns.
Police officers in the bush would attend houses with a rifle leaning against the door.  We were instructed in the correct body positioning in such cases.

* Guns disappeared virtually overnight*.
It just wasn't socially cool.
There are some reactionary defence nuts but so few as to not be a concern.
Our murder rate and mass killing rate and and suicide rate and school hostage murder rate did not increase after we disarmed ourselves."

How can we replicate that in the US or Colombia?

Here in London we also have gun and knife issues. The same guns (very few in number, it has to be said) are being passed literally hour by hour from one sad idiot to the next.  
The difference is that each killing is a national headline, each death is viewed as unacceptable.  

A take I heard on the news the other day was that US politicians were unlikely to bring up gun control (even with nigh on 3 dozen dead) because it wouldn't play well in the south of the US where gun control isn't viewed as an election winner.  And that from a country which prides itself on its religion - can someone please pass me the bucket.


----------



## TRG

It is disappointing to me that we are not making more progress on limiting access to firearms in the U.S. As a start, access to handguns needs to be controlled and in time eliminated. It is going to take a long time and probably more events like the one at VT, but we simply have to do it. For reasons that I do not entirely understand, many people are convinced that they will not be safe unless they have the right to own guns. They don't seem to recognize the threat from guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed. They always think they will be able to defend themselves, but this is just a false sense of security. Guns rights advocates also subscribe to theory of the slippery slope of regulations, so they don't want anything regulated because once it starts, they believe it will not stop until all guns have been confiscated. I'm prepared to take that chance.


----------



## .   1

cirrus said:


> How can we replicate that in the US or Colombia?


By telling John and Juanita the truth.
Australia has few wild animals that we need to use guns to defend outselves.

Stupid statements like "The children were just in the wrong place at the wrong time" is retch making.

The wrong place = university
The wrong time = School Day

That is a base canter slanting reality.

If more guns were in the school there would be less deaths.  Give me a break.  This forum thinks it is obscene to teach kids passive self defence.
This forum slashed me for saying that a kid should be taught to hit a gunman across the teeth with a flipping chair and now people are claiming that hitting the gunman across the teeth with high speed lead is the way to go.

Those poor kids died because they were too scared to do anything and they didn't even know what to do.
There should be protocols like the old nonsense about duck and dive.
That was a bloody university full of the best and brightest.
If those kids had been given a few lousy hours instruction about how to barricade doors and safe exit points depending on the location of the gunman they would have all dissappeared without trace.
Kids are so connected by cellphone that the news would have spread faster than the crazed lunatic could stalk.
With the use of cellphones he could have been lured into a corridore and then have had the emergency doors jammed behind him.

There just was no plan.
America is living in denial about these School Atrocities because it will not admit that it doesn't need guns.
How many cold dead hands do they want to prise hot live guns from?
How many hot dead kids is worth the machismo?


Why are guns so necessary that this price is considered acceptable?

.,,


----------



## .   1

winklepicker said:


> What is a firegun?


What should be done with all guns.
Fire 'em up in a furnace and melt them into the first piece of art that could be accurately described as being postmodern.


.,,
The most dangerous part of a gun is the loose nut behind the trigger.


----------



## giniva55

The worst killings in America were not done by guns. They were done by fertilizer (Oklahoma City Bombing, 1995) and by airplanes (Sept. 11, 2001). 
The only way America will outlaw guns would be in a perfect world where no one has guns, including the criminals.
Does such a society exist anywhere? I don't know; I am seriously asking.
I am new and from Virginia, USA.


----------



## .   1

giniva55 said:


> The worst killings in America were not done by guns.


True, they were done by people.



giniva55 said:


> They were done by fertilizer (Oklahoma City Bombing, 1995)


Yup again. It is now very difficult to buy those types of fertiliser in Australia in any significant quantity.
I am surprised that America has not clamped down on that type of fertilizer.  
Very heavy restrictions were placed upon the sale and distribution of that fertiliser down here.
Guns were used.
The smudges who did it were inculcated into the survivalist gun nut mentality of the fundamentally ignorant.
They carried guns to protect themselves.

Guns in the hands of the citizens didn't do much good there.



giniva55 said:


> and by airplanes (Sept. 11, 2001).


Right again but what did the guns that American society is suffused with do to protect the people?




giniva55 said:


> The only way America will outlaw guns would be in a perfect world where no one has guns, including the criminals.


Your view seems to require a return to the fictional days of the Olde West where manly men solved disputes by facing each other on the main street at noon.
Have a bit of a scratch back and you will quickly find that maybe you don't really want to live in a frontier type society where the rule of the land is at the hand of the quickest gun.

At the moment America has created a society where just about averybody has a right of sorts to carry a gun but who carries guns?

How many civilian people do you know who regularly carry guns?

By taking a wild guess which group in your society would be more likely to walk your streets packing heat, a law abiding citizen intent on living his day or a hoodlum hell bent on mayhem?
Wouldn't it be better if everybody was supposed to be unarmed so that the cops could nab anybody who even carries a gun?




giniva55 said:


> Does such a society exist anywhere? I don't know; I am seriously asking.


I know that you are seriously asking or I would not be seriously answering.





giniva55 said:


> I am new and from Virginia, USA.


I am old from Melbourne, Australia.

I would have guessed your state just from your name.

Hi, Gini from Va or Virginia Squared or Virginia from Virginia.

See ya

.,,


----------



## JamesM

> This forum thinks it is obscene to teach kids passive self defence.
> This forum slashed me for saying that a kid should be taught to hit a gunman across the teeth with a flipping chair and now people are claiming that hitting the gunman across the teeth with high speed lead is the way to go.


 
"This forum" hasn't done anything.  This is a conversation among individuals.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> "This forum" hasn't done anything. This is a conversation among individuals.


This forum is a community.

This community responded in certain ways to certain events as does a real time community.
I apologise to any person who did not slash me in relation to this issue.
It was never my intent to demean such people.

Such rare people are a jewel to me.

As you have raised the issue I also directly apologise to you because you have obviously been offended by my remarks.

I am very sorry for this.

.,,


----------



## giniva55

I live in a very low crime area, as is Blacksburg, and I have a gun in my home. A .38 special. I belong to a gun club and I do target practice and have done so since I was a child in southern California.

Many of my friends and acquaintances have guns in their homes and vehicles, with proper permits, as they travel to higher crime areas. All are trained to use their weapons.

Our area is full of military bases and so beautiful and pleasant that they return to retire. They tend to fancy a continued relationship with their handguns.

As a native of Los Angeles, California, there have been many times I was in grave danger. Only through the grace of God and my hand wrapped around a firearm did I survive. 

Very little is known about my viewpoint here, so far, and assuming I "suggest a return to the fictional days of the Olde West" is a stretch.

Do the police in Australia actually accost citizens on the street to check them for illegal weaponry? How invasive and un-American. We would never put up with that here. 

Does anyone truly believe the crazed Blacksburg killer would not have found his way to an illegal gun to carry out his plan?


----------



## .   1

giniva55 said:


> Very little is known about my viewpoint here, so far, and assuming I "suggest I a return to the fictional days of the Olde West" is a stretch.


I disagree on both points but I withdraw.
You will not be convinced by me and I do not understand you.

Peace be with you.

.,,


----------



## TRG

giniva55 said:


> Does anyone truly believe the crazed Blacksburg killer would not have found his way to an illegal gun to carry out his plan?



We can never know exactly what someone might have done, but we do know that it was ridiculously easy for this person to acquire a handgun.  At minimum, it should be much more difficult and anyone with his history should not be allowed to own a handgun.  A person who wants to buy a handgun should be required to have a complete background investigation.  This would be expensive and time consuming, but would doubtless keep guns out of the hands of some people.


----------



## xrayspex

_It is now very difficult to buy those types of fertiliser in Australia in any significant quantity. I am surprised that America has not clamped down on that type of fertilizer. _ 

It's heavily regulated now, and much more difficult to buy.  I don't know how hard it is to steal. 

Many farmers use liquid ammonia for fertilization now, and that's also heavily regulated, but for a different reason; it's used for manufacturing methamphetamines.


----------



## Kajjo

I really cannot follow all the Americans claiming an entertaining value of guns. Firearms are no toys, nothing supposed to give fun and joy. In Germany only very few people are allowed to possess guns and I believe this is the right way to live. The number of deaths by firearms is significantly lower here as has been demonstrated by the cited statistics previously mentioned in this thread. I do not see any point why a normal person should possess a gun and I would even prefer that the quite strict German weapon's law were even stricter.

Kajjo


----------



## fenixpollo

Kajjo, do you mean that you don't understand the arguments in favor of owning guns, or that you don't agree with them?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hmmm....it seems that the International Olympics has a different view, and a German gold medal winner doesn't share Kajjo's personal opinions about guns for recreation:

25 metre rapid fire pistol Gold Medal
_details_ Ralf Schumann
_Germany


Germany and the US tied for third place in shooting events, with three medals each.  They trailed China and Russia.  
_


----------



## Kajjo

fenixpollo said:


> Kajjo, do you mean that you don't understand the arguments in favor of owning guns, or that you don't agree with them?


Difficult question in this case. Usually my understanding is quite good, thus I suppose I do not agree with arguments in favor of guns.

For example:
_"I would feel safer if every student had a gun"_  -- I do not agree with this statement at all. I cannot understand how someone could feel safe if _every_ student had a gun. There would be definitely more shootings than now in German universities. It would be horrible and dangerous. I honestly do not know whether I do not _agree or understand_ this argument. It is just entirely wrong in itself.

"I need my gun because I like practising it." -- I understand this argument, but I do not agree. I practice for actions I intend to use. I use spare time activities to enjoy and relax. I cannot understand how firearms can be seen as a proper spare time pleasure. This surely is a cultural thing. In Germany we associate weapons with crime. Mostly this is correct, I believe.

"I need my gun because I like hunting." -- I can understand this argument, but I believe that hunting is a cruel and anachronistic method, when done for _joy_ and not _out of need. _Why do normal people of urban areas have to hunt? I am very much in favor of liberty and probably we should not forbid people to hunt. But hunters should be required to have examinations, special licenses to renew anually, certain knowledge to posses, and to register their weapons and store them out of reach on normal days (e.g. as the law in Germany). There is no need for _everyone _being able to buy and store weapons, because _some_ people want to hunt. There is no need that all hunters have many guns available on all days and carry them as they wish every day, if they only hunt on _some_ days. This might be different for professional hunters, which are much less frequently, I suppose.

I am not American. I am sure many aspects of this discussion are very cultural. I do not want to change the American culture, but I just wanted to state that from the viewpoint of German culture many of these arguments sound less than valid.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> Hmmm....it seems that the International Olympics has a different view, and a German gold medal winner doesn't share Kajjo's personal opinions about guns for recreation:


Gun sport is not very popular in Germany, quite the contrary indeed. That does not mean that a few people cannot be very good at it.

Sportsmen are legally required to lock their guns in the sporting club, as far as I know. They are not allowed "to carry". They are not allowed to shoot in the wilderness. They need to register the gun and to obtain a license. Mental health, reliability and no criminal record are required to receive a license. Nothing to be compared to American circumstances, I believe.

Kajjo


----------



## JamesM

> They are not allowed "to carry". They are not allowed to shoot in the wilderness. They need to register the gun and to obtain a license. Mental health, reliability and no criminal record are required to receive a license. Nothing to be compared to American circumstances, I believe.


 
Actually, this is very close to the restrictions in California.  I can't speak for all states.  I don't own a gun but I know people who hunt.  My father hunted.

In California, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon unless you have a very special permit. The last I heard, the County of Los Angeles has had a moratorium in place for several years on this type of permit.  A gun must be registered and you must have a license.  A criminal background check is done when you purchase a gun.  There is an effort to allow an automatic cross-check of mental health records; I don't know where we are in that process.  I don't know how anyone can measure "reliability" at the time of requesting a license.

- James


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Hmmm....it seems that the International Olympics has a different view, and a German gold medal winner doesn't share Kajjo's personal opinions about guns for recreation:



The IOC is not a body I tend to turn to for sensible judgments on anything. They call "synchronised swimming" and "artistic gymnastics" sports. They allow boxing but have "discontinued" golf.

As for Herr Schumann's opinions on his endeavours — I'm quite sure that bear-baiting had it's fans too.


----------



## giniva55

Kajjo said:


> Difficult question in this case. Usually my understanding is quite good, thus I suppose I do not agree with arguments in favor of guns.
> 
> For example:
> _"I would feel safer if every student had a gun"_ --
> 
> "I need my gun because I like practising it." --
> 
> "I need my gun because I like hunting." --
> 
> I am not American. I am sure many aspects of this discussion are very cultural. I do not want to change the American culture, but I just wanted to state that from the viewpoint of German culture many of these arguments sound less than valid.
> 
> Kajjo


 
Hoping you don't have the impression Americans want "every student" to have a gun, I want to express my accord with your alarm at the thought. At most, the professors who are former military could be armed on campus and I am not suggesting that as a solution to school shootings.

While I could never sit through the tedium of a soccer game in which my own child was not playing, I'm sure you can't envision going to a gun club and testing skill at target shooting with friends. This would indeed be a cultural difference and certainly most Americans do not belong to such clubs.

Hunting is done for a variety of reasons. I live in a semi-rural area and we have an annual 3 week period during which deer can be hunted. If the herd is not culled, they will starve in the winter. Only adult males may be killed and the meat is all used -either by the hunters or donated to needy families.

Having lived in rural Montana, USA, I tell you even some women hunt with rifles and my friend got her allowed one elk each year and stored the meat in her freezer for winter eating. I personally have never shot an animal except one ill wild owl, however I don't understand the difference in cruelty of shooting your own meat or buying it at a supermarket. Maybe if you have been to a slaughterhouse you understand an expert single shot is more humane. Maybe slaughterhouses in Germany are quite humane.

The interest of this site, to me, is understanding the viewpoint from other places in the world, not in attempting to "convince" anyone my opinion or assertion is the correct one. I enjoy the free exchange of ideas and am not trying to change your mind or anyone else's.


----------



## Kajjo

giniva55 said:
			
		

> Maybe if you have been to a slaughterhouse you understand an expert single shot is more humane.


I see your point. You are right. However, three issues to consider: First, sparetime hunters are rarely experts, even if they like to believe it. I have heard of enough shots even by so-called experts that have not instantly killed. I am sure that particularly in group huntings many a shot is not as precisely placed as would be desirable. Secondly, I am personally opposed to people hunting and killing _for the joy of it_. Slaughterhouses provide food as main goal, while urban citizens that once a year go hunting enjoy the killing. I do not like the feeling of seeing killing as sport or entertainment rather than as necessity -- and it does not matter whether the meat is finally used or not for this judgement. Again, I am in favor of liberty and do not want to prohibit hunting -- it is just hard for me to accept it. Thirdly, I only stated this in context of guns and their abuse. I believe that as long as anyone who claims to want to hunt, is provided with rifles, it is too easy and too unregulated access to deadly weapons.



> Maybe slaughterhouses in Germany are quite humane.


No, they are not. I suppose they are quite the same as in the US.

Kajjo


----------



## .   1

xrayspex said:


> _It is now very difficult to buy those types of fertiliser in Australia in any significant quantity. I am surprised that America has not clamped down on that type of fertilizer. _
> 
> It's heavily regulated now, and much more difficult to buy. I don't know how hard it is to steal.
> 
> Many farmers use liquid ammonia for fertilization now, and that's also heavily regulated, but for a different reason; it's used for manufacturing methamphetamines.


So a product that is utterly necessary for the continuation of life is now more heavily regulated as the result of a single criminal attack by a deranged lunatic but guns and gun ownership just keeps being gripped in the cold dead hand of words uttered dozens of generations ago.

Farmers are penalised but manly men get to shoot fluffy little things with ejaculations from big manly guns to prove that they are manly men and not pussy peacenicks.
Eeech.

.,,


----------



## .   1

giniva55 said:


> Hunting is done for a variety of reasons. I live in a semi-rural area and we have an annual 3 week period during which deer can be hunted. If the herd is not culled, they will starve in the winter. Only adult males may be killed and the meat is all used -either by the hunters or donated to needy families.


Yes but such 'culling' upsets the equilibrium of the herd.Large antlered bucks are generally the choice target. These are the prime breeding stock. Each time an Alpha buck is killed by a bullet the gene pool of the herd is diminished.
By killing the Alpha bucks enough feed is left available for less able bucks who breed when they would not have been able to breed were it not for the intervention of 'hunters'.
The meat of such animals is definitely an acquired taste.
It is strong and gamey and often full of parasites.
Hunters seldom dress the carcase properly.
It is often not possible to properly bleed the carcase.
In most instances some prized bits are crudely hacked off and the rest is left to rot or the whole dead body is strapped across the bonnet of the car to be driven home as a show pony display meanwhile subjecting the meat to the heat of the engine for hours.
I am a carnivore but I would have to be pretty peckish to start fanging into that rank meat.



giniva55 said:


> Having lived in rural Montana, USA, I tell you even some women hunt with rifles and my friend got her allowed one elk each year and stored the meat in her freezer for winter eating. I personally have never shot an animal except one ill wild owl, however I don't understand the difference in cruelty of shooting your own meat or buying it at a supermarket. Maybe if you have been to a slaughterhouse you understand an expert single shot is more humane. Maybe slaughterhouses in Germany are quite humane.


How many expert shots go hunting. Most hunters time their trip not on how much ammunition they can carry for their guns but how much booze they can carry. Nobody can shoot accurately in the bush after even two beers.
Slaughter houses kill the beasts as quickly as humanly possible because that is the cheapest way to do it.
It is very hard to work around a couple of tonnes of flailing death. Slaughter house kills are dead before they hit the floor from a bolt shot to the head. It is just like a gun but it just rams a rod rather than firing a projectile so it is only dangerous when held formly against the beast's head and boom it is brain crushed far more effectively than a single, or more commonly multiple bullets fired from Self Loading Rifles, bullet fired from a distance by an amateur.



giniva55 said:


> The interest of this site, to me, is understanding the viewpoint from other places in the world, not in attempting to "convince" anyone my opinion or assertion is the correct one. I enjoy the free exchange of ideas and am not trying to change your mind or anyone else's.


As should be the case.

I welcome a fellow seeker.

.,,


----------



## xrayspex

_Farmers are penalised but manly men get to shoot fluffy little things_


I'm sure there are some actual Old McDonald kind of farmers left, somewhere, but most of them these days have been replaced by agricultural conglomerates.  Big faceless corporations, with their own lobbyists in Washington.  It's hard to feel sorry for them for anything.


----------



## ireney

Mod's note: We are getting side-tracked to a very interesting, but off-topic discussion. While the conversation about hunting is linked to gun-control we're fine. Just a note though: let us not however start discussing hunting vs. butchers etc in this thread eh?


----------



## 涼宮

Tsoman said:


> What are the laws in your country?
> What do you think of gun ownership in general?



I didn't know this thread was here, it's been most interesting. I looked for it after I read the article about the 9 year old girl who killed by accident her instructor with an uzi submachine this August. 

As for the the two questions, since mostly Europe and the US have been discussed here, in Venezuela it's pretty different. The US has a pretty high crime rate and so does Venezuela, Vzla has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, over 16k people murdered a year, around 60-70 per day, everyday at the hospital somebody is brought 'cause they were either stabbed or shot, and crime has been increasing since the 90's, so we're getting worse, and all this happens while you can't legally own a gun. Only police officers, soldiers and criminals own guns. Since most citizens are unarmed you can't do anything, criminals here always find a way to get firearms. Some say it's because of the huge corruption that exists here and that people don't care much about laws, they're easily broken, that many have access to illegal weapons. Also, because it seems just about anybody can become a police officer and carry a gun so people are generally more afraid of police officers than the common thug, at least the common thug cannot use his badge to rob you.

My opinion on gun ownership is that it depends on the situation of the country. In a country where crime rate is very low like in Iceland or New Zealand there is no need for people to go around with guns, in a country where there is so much crime and you know the police won't do shit and that criminals can easily get out of jail or get away with murder at least having a gun and a law that states you can kill your attacker in self defense is better, since you can't count on your government at least do the job yourself with the proper training. The thing is, if suddenly here a law were passed to allow everyone to own guns the country would heavily change for the better and for the worse. Due to the fanatic political brainwashing this country has been suffering from for some time in which the country is divided in two, either you're with the government or you're against it, having guns would probably result in a bloodshed between both parties, killing each other for political reasons, forgetting about the huge insecurity there is altogether. Criminals here almost never reform, jails here are universities for criminals, if you go in for carrying drugs you'll go out with the mindset of kidnapping, raping and murdering, jails are crowded and there are many more out in the streets. Criminals here do not, or rarely reform, because the environment in jails here is too savage, it's not super fancy like the jails in Norway. Because criminals do not reform many agree here that death penalty and life imprisonment should be part of the law, accompanied with an education reform and a betterment in the general quality of life of the country to reduce poverty as many, perhaps most, criminals come from slums, we need both sides of the coin, a purge and a betterment in the quality of life. The point is, if there were no political fanaticism owning a gun would be kinda useful, people could get training and start killing all the criminals that the government won't take care of. Criminals here either die in the streets killed by another criminal, die at the hands of some soldiers, or die in jail. They don't live long, at least, but they kill too many people, and people live in fear because they can't do anything, a gun would be a relief to many because they can at least have a chance. Handing over your money does not guarantee you your life, people kill here for cellphones and you can be killed even if you do what the thief says. So, yes, I agree that owning a gun is good under the right circumstances, if the requirements aren't met and the problems in your country do not require such measures owning a gun is unnecessary but it certainly won't stop mass shootings from happening. 

The problem in the US is much more complex as I see it, and certainly fixing it is very complicated. Banning guns could be a good way to begin with but since illegal guns won't stop existing and thousands of criminals will still have theirs a good measure must be put together with the banning of guns. Perhaps, for example, everyone who owns a gun must hand it over, all soldiers and police officers must be deployed throughout the country searching for those who still have guns, anybody with a gun after the period of handing them over is over will be considered a criminal or something along the lines, bribing the population with juicy money rewards or something similar for giving info on those who still have guns should get the government more guns to get rid of as they can cover more terrain that way, the US is too big and it'll be hard to get them all, but if more people look for them with the proper equipment you can get more guns. But you need to convince people about why having pretty much everyone with guns is ''bad'' and how the country could improve if they disappeared. Telling Americans ''cuz generally Europe is safer and most don't own guns so let's follow their example'' won't do the trick, especially if most Americans are very proud of their country, comparisons will be frowned upon, plus, the situation in Europe is different from the American one, you need different measures. And finally, you need to let time pass and see how crime changes, it's certainly got to with the the mindset and living conditions of Americans, while there are many reasons to commit a crime many do it out of necessity or because of the place they were raised in. If you live in a neighborhood where many are criminals or belong to gangs, well, you might as well copy that behavior and go with the flow. Education plays an important role, too.

Personally, I kinda like the gun culture that the US has, I find it interesting as the rest of the world isn't in the same situation, so, it's something ''weird'', ''unique'', if only there were ways to do social experiments to isolate problems in the population and heavily reform the education system perhaps a way could be found to own guns while having low crime rates. We know wars will not cease to exist, while I find it unlikely somebody would want to invade the US with their powerful army having your citizens armed to the teeth would make it harder a land to conquer if people are properly trained. Perhaps this is possible to know, we'd have to look at the lifestyle people had in the middle ages or even before that, if a good portion of people owned weapons and the crime rate was somehow low it could prove that allowing everyone to own guns/swords, etc. isn't the problem itself but the attitude and mindset of people.


----------



## Darth Nihilus

涼宮 said:


> I didn't know this thread was here, it's been most interesting. I looked for it after I read the article about the 9 year old girl who killed by accident her instructor with an uzi submachine this August.



I  also saw the news about that incident. The moment I read it, I was  positive some American libtards would use it to pursue their anti-gun  agenda. These people seem not to realise how lame their argumentation  is; imagine if we had to debate the "automobile question" every time  somebody gets hurt or deceased in car crashes. _"Oh, Richie's nephew got drunk and drove, running over and killing a woman and her baby??? BAN CARS!! *NOBODY* SHOULD OWN THEM!!"_.  Most Americans, however, seem to be sensible enough not heed these  people. Sadly, such is not the case in other countries. In mine  specifically, that kind of argumentation is widespread. The lily-faced  imbeciles want to externalise their fears into legislation at all costs.



涼宮 said:


> Only police officers, soldiers and criminals own  guns. Since most citizens are unarmed you can't do anything, criminals  here always find a way to get firearms.





涼宮 said:


> Also, because it seems just about anybody can become a police officer  and carry a gun so people are generally more afraid of police officers  than the common thug, at least the common thug cannot use his badge to  rob you.



Exactly the same thing in Brazil.



涼宮 said:


> My opinion on gun ownership is that it depends on  the situation of the country. In a country where crime rate is very low  like in Iceland or New Zealand there is no need for people to go around  with guns, in a country where there is so much crime and you know the  police won't do shit and that criminals can easily get out of jail or  get away with murder at least having a gun and a law that states you can  kill your attacker in self defense is better, since you can't count on  your government at least do the job yourself with the proper training.



I must disagree with you. Granting its government the  sole ownership of guns is the greatest mistake any people can make; a  fatal one indeed. I would go so far to state that a people who does  that, deserve to be enslaved and tyrannised by its government, as due  payment for its stupidity and naivety. 



涼宮 said:


> Due to the fanatic political brainwashing this  country has been suffering from for some time in which the country is  divided in two, either you're with the government or you're against it,  having guns would probably result in a bloodshed between both parties,  killing each other for political reasons, forgetting about the huge  insecurity there is altogether



Well, bloodshed between two parties is always better than an one-sided massacre. 



 涼宮 said:


> Criminals here almost never reform, jails here are  universities for criminals, if you go in for carrying drugs you'll go  out with the mindset of kidnapping, raping and murdering, jails are  crowded and there are many more out in the streets. Criminals here do  not, or rarely reform, because the environment in jails here is too  savage, it's not super fancy like the jails in Norway.



Brazilian  prisons are the same. Anyway, I'm not sure Norwegian prisons are  role-models. Anders Breivik, last I read, seems to be having a good time  in those prisons, at the very expense of the parents of the teenagers  he shot. Talk about irony, uhm? I think any prison system which does not  include long labour hours is doomed to failure.



涼宮 said:


> The point is, if there were no political fanaticism owning a  gun would be kinda useful, people could get training and start killing  all the criminals that the government won't take care of.



Apparently  some Vigilantes are already doing that in Mexico. Recently we had a  rise in Vigilantism also in Brazil, but still most of the population is  the gutless sort, who will whine, and whine, and whine a bit more, for  the government, Superman, God, SOMEONE do something! Except them of  course, who will keep condemning violence and guns.  



涼宮 said:


> The problem in the US is much more complex as I see it



I don't think the US has a gun problem, and neither...



 涼宮 said:


> Personally, I kinda like the gun culture that the US has, I  find it interesting as the rest of the world isn't in the same  situation



do you.   The US has actually a Gun solution! It's exactly because of the gun  legislation of some states that the USA is presently the only country  worth immigrating to.


----------



## JamesM

> I also saw the news about that incident. The moment I read it, I was positive some American libtards would use it to pursue their anti-gun agenda. These people seem not to realise how lame their argumentation is; imagine if we had to debate the "automobile question" every time somebody gets hurt or deceased in car crashes. "Oh, Richie's nephew got drunk and drove, running over and killing a woman and her baby??? BAN CARS!! NOBODY SHOULD OWN THEM!!". Most Americans, however, seem to be sensible enough not heed these people.



This is a weak argument.  A car is used for lots of purposes.  A gun is used for one.  Driving a car may kill someone in an accident but its sole function is not to run people over.  A gun's sole purpose is to shoot bullets.  We don't let 9-year-olds drive cars.  Can you give me a good reason why we should have gun clubs that let 9-year-olds shoot Uzis? 

The lack of responsibility on the part of the instructor and the parents is mind-boggling.  Can you imagine the reaction if a driving school put a kid behind the wheel at the urging of the parents? There would be an outcry.  This is just the same thing, in my opinion.  The reaction is not so much to guns, per se, but the complete lack of forethought on the part of the adults involved.  I'm sure my father-in-law, an avid gun rights advocate, would agree.  This particular incident was sheer stupidity.


----------



## 涼宮

Darth Nihilus said:


> I must disagree with you. Granting its government the  sole ownership of guns is the greatest mistake any people can make; a  fatal one indeed. I would go so far to state that a people who does  that, deserve to be enslaved and tyrannised by its government, as due  payment for its stupidity and naivety.



I can understand your point, then, what about something like this? Even if the country's very peaceful and has low crime rate citizens should be allowed to purchase, train and know how to handle guns given the proper training, and once you acquire your license you're required to get a mental health exam every now and then to know if you're still up to the task, in addition, whenever the country is in danger of invasion or war everybody can purchase weapons everywhere, having your entire country trained and armed to the teeth is far better, because at war citizens are the ones who suffer the most. If everybody knows how to fight things will be very different. I'd rather die fighting than die being a sitting duck waiting for the worst as a citizen. I wouldn't join the army, though, never ever. 





> Well, bloodshed between two parties is always better than an one-sided massacre.



But it sucks, because if that were the case non-criminals will be killing each other, leaving behind criminals, nobody would like a country where the majority of people are criminals. It'd become a pirate country, anarchy everywhere. 



> Brazilian  prisons are the same. Anyway, I'm not sure Norwegian prisons are  role-models. Anders Breivik, last I read, seems to be having a good time  in those prisons, at the very expense of the parents of the teenagers  he shot. Talk about irony, uhm? I think any prison system which does not  include long labour hours is doomed to failure.



I've heard of Brazilian prisons, too, I remember not long ago there was a murder in North Brazil, a referee stabbed a player in the middle of a football game and the public got furious and killed and butchered him into pieces and they also impaled his head. I saw the vid, not the funny-looking animation the news had made to represent the event, but the real vid, I found it in some website, I also saw the guy in pieces in the morgue, 4chan provided the link. I remember reading people's comments, they were horrified at the incident, and there I was, thinking ''that happens in Venezuela, too, OMG!''. On the Internet you can find videos about Venezuelan prisons, some inmates chop your head off and play football with it. Here they even get weapons in jails, the criminals rule them, not the guards. 

I agree prisons should also force labor, but also educate and treat well enough the criminal to properly reintegrate them in society. However, death penalty should always be an option for the worst vermin. I'm of the opinion that drug lords, mafia heads, and powerful politicians should be killed as soon as they're caught, and that's because walls mean nothing when you've got power, they can still control and kill behind walls especially if there is lots of corruption, they always have inside people, powerful people like that can't be left alive. Another option is, if you don't want to execute the worst criminals harvest their organs at least, many people need donors, so, let's not waste good organs. 



> Apparently  some Vigilantes are already doing that in Mexico. Recently we had a  rise in Vigilantism also in Brazil, but still most of the population is  the gutless sort, who will whine, and whine, and whine a bit more, for  the government, Superman, God, SOMEONE do something! Except them of  course, who will keep condemning violence and guns.




That's great! But there needs to be a seizable amount that carries out the task. I remember I saw once a video where Peruvians got fed up and killed a rapist that had been on the loose in their neighborhood, the police did nothing despite everyone knowing he was a rapist and there had been several victims, so, people got fed up, beat him up and burned him alive. I really like it when citizens punish criminals that for one reason or another ''the law'' won't take care of; corruption is a common reason why many criminals are out in the streets, especially if the criminal happens to be the son or daughter of a powerful person.


----------



## Darth Nihilus

JamesM said:


> This is a weak argument.  A car is used for lots  of purposes.  A gun is used for one.  Driving a car may kill someone in  an accident but its sole function is not to run people over.  A gun's  sole purpose is to shoot bullets.  We don't let 9-year-olds drive cars.   Can you give me a good reason why we should have gun clubs that let  9-year-olds shoot Uzis?
> 
> The lack of responsibility on the part of the instructor and the parents  is mind-boggling.  Can you imagine the reaction if a driving school put  a kid behind the wheel at the urging of the parents? There would be an  outcry.  This is just the same thing, in my opinion.  The reaction is  not so much to guns, per se, but the complete lack of forethought on the  part of the adults involved.  I'm sure my father-in-law, an avid gun  rights advocate, would agree.  This particular incident was sheer  stupidity.



But purpose has nothing to do with that fact  that neither a car, nor a gun can harm a person in any way on its own.  How would you feel if your right to own and drive a vehicle would be  taken away because _someone else_ was irresponsible with it? Same thing with guns. Why should other people be penalised because an instructor was careless?

I  view the issue as a sad accident and nothing more. But I particularly  don't blame the parents. I would probably have taken my children to the  shooting range too, if I had any. As for reasons why a 9 year-old should  shoot an Uzi, I can think of plenty, but then I think we'd be  discussing "parenting" and not our takes on gun control. 



 涼宮 said:


> I can understand your point, then, what about something like  this? Even if the country's very peaceful and has low crime rate  citizens should be allowed to purchase, train and know how to handle  guns given the proper training, and once you acquire your license you're  required to get a mental health exam every now and then to know if  you're still up to the task, in addition, whenever the country is in  danger of invasion or war everybody can purchase weapons everywhere,  having your entire country trained and armed to the teeth is far better,  because at war citizens are the ones who suffer the most. If everybody  knows how to fight things will be very different. I'd rather die  fighting than die being a sitting duck waiting for the worst as a  citizen. I wouldn't join the army, though, never ever.



 My thoughts exactly. _Si vis pacem, para bellum._
 There was a Venezuelan general, Angel Vivas, who was a practical  example of what you said. Some time ago, Maduro ordered his arrest for a  very arbitrary reason. When the officials got at the general's  residence, found it barricaded and the General was waiting for them with  an assault rifle in hands. Do you think they had the guts to try their  luck and arrest the general?



涼宮 said:


> 4chan provided the link.



Aha! 4chaner, uhm? No wonder you know the real meaning of Lulz.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Darth Nihilus said:


> The lily-faced * imbeciles *want to externalise their fears into legislation at all costs.


I wish you stopped insulting me and other foreros, as courtesy is a rule here.

Within civilized countries, guns serve no good purpose outside of army and the police, except as toys (best case) or substitutes for something you feel you lack (psychoanalytical standpoint). You'll probably understand it the day your neighbour shot your kids because he doesn't like their music.


----------



## JamesM

> But purpose has nothing to do with that fact that neither a car, nor a gun can harm a person in any way on its own.



That is also a specious argument.  A bomb can't harm anyone on its own.  A nuclear weapon can't harm anyone on its own.  There is always a human agent.  All of our inventions are tools but there are restrictions on some of them because their very purpose is destruction.

I'm still waiting for a plausible reason that a 9-year-old in Arizona should be given an Uzi to shoot.  If gun rights advocates would be willing to at least acknowledge the absurdity of some of these situations it would go a long way to actually having a conversation about the issue.


----------



## 涼宮

JamesM said:


> I'm still waiting for a plausible reason that a 9-year-old in Arizona should be given an Uzi to shoot.



There shouldn't be any per se, she's too young for that power, some guns should have age restrictions, it's the instructor's and parent's fault for such negligence.


----------



## Darth Nihilus

JeanDeSponde said:


> I wish you stopped insulting me and other foreros, as courtesy is a rule here.
> 
> *Within civilized countries*, guns serve no good purpose  outside of army and the police, except as toys (best case) or  substitutes for something you feel you lack (psychoanalytical  standpoint). You'll probably understand it the day your neighbour shot  your kids because he doesn't like their music.



Actually, I was thinking of the Brazilian scenario, I wasn't  referring to you or any other individual who posted on the thread.  Nevertheless, I offer you my apologies. As an uncivilized brute (after  all, you _can_ purchase firearms legally in my country and they _do_ serve a purpose in civilian life) I lack the ability to sugar  coat some terms and may end up overstepping some boundaries. In a  civilized country, how do you call a person who is unwilling to defend  himself and want to prevent others from having means to do it?

As for _neighbour shooting your kid because he doesn't like his music_. Well, if you had a psychopath as neighbour, you don't suppose _not having_ a gun would stop him, do you? He'd just grab a kitchen knife and wait for a moment when your kid is alone and would stab him to death. 




JamesM said:


> That is also a specious argument.  A bomb can't harm anyone on its own.  A nuclear weapon can't harm anyone on its own.  There is always a human agent.  All of our inventions are tools but there are restrictions on some of them because their very purpose is destruction.



That's correct. The difference is that you can use, let's say a pistol, to defend yourself, since you can pinpoint specific targets and you can use it quickly. How would you do that with a nuclear warhead?



JamesM said:


> I'm still waiting for a plausible reason that a 9-year-old in Arizona should be given an Uzi to shoot.  If gun rights advocates would be willing to at least acknowledge the absurdity of some of these situations it would go a long way to actually having a conversation about the issue.



In regard to the tragedy at the shooting range, when you say "should be given an Uzi to shoot", you seem to be thinking that things go like _"Hey kid. Here's gun, the ammo and the target are over there. Have fun!"_
A shooting range that allows children to shoot surely will have qualified instructors who know how do deal with it safely. How many
other incidents of this nature have happened recently? This is a very rare occurrence.

Why did the parents take the child to the shooting range? Dunno, maybe it was just for fun. Shooting is a sport after all. Anyway, I can't answer for them and I won't second-guess. Self-defence and combat skills are, however, intrinsically entwined with survival. By teaching these concepts, you're not only making
your offspring fitter for survival, you're also teaching them one of the most important lessons in life: as much as you love them, you won't always be there for them. You'll be teaching _self-reliance_; so that in times of need, they will be able to fend for themselves. Creating a child in a bubble of protection "until it comes of age" create quite often only whiny, weak-willed, sensitive adults.
You see, I favour strong individuals over a strong society.


----------



## JamesM

> As for neighbour shooting your kid because he doesn't like his music. Well, if you had a psychopath as neighbour, you don't suppose not having a gun would stop him, do you? He'd just grab a kitchen knife and wait for a moment when your kid is alone and would stab him to death.



The issue is that guns allow a moment's rage or irrationality to turn deadly.  A knife requires direct personal contact and usually allows the potential victim to defend himself, even if unarmed.  You can run away from a knife attack, usually, because there is time between the threat and the deed.  A gun is different.  So yes, I do think that someone who can be angry enough to fire a gun and kill someone out of anger would be far less likely to take a knife and approach the person in a threatening manner.  There is greater potential for personal harm out of the attack with a knife.  That causes a lot of people to think twice.



> That's correct. The difference is that you can use, let's say a pistol, to defend yourself, since you can pinpoint specific targets and you can use it quickly.



True, but I'm not talking about banning all things that could do harm. (I'm actually not talking about banning anything at this point.) 

A gun does more harm, faster, than a knife.  That is the problem.  If you live in a high-crime area and you want to defend yourself, get a gun.  Go for it.  But that won't make your neighborhood safe; it might make you safer but it also ups the possibility that someone will get killed or injured unintentionally.  It may be a necessary evil in some environments.  On the other hand, many people do not think clearly when using guns.  Many people aren't trained.  And many people don't respect the deadly threat that a gun poses not only to attackers, but to children, family members and others. 



> Self-defence and combat skills are, however, intrinsically entwined with survival. By teaching these concepts, you're not only making
> your offspring fitter for survival, you're also teaching them one of the most important lessons in life.



There is nothing in my daily life that requires either a gun or combat skllls. Perhaps you live in a different environment.  I don't know. But it would be absurd for my next door neighbor, who is a big gun advocate and a very responsible gun owner, to state that he needed a gun and combat skills to live in our middle-class neighborhood and work in an electronics manufacturing facility.  I can't imagine him saying it.

We do not have neighbors dying left and right because they don't know karate or don't know how to shoot a gun.  There is no intrinsic necessity for guns or combat skills for 90% of the U.S. population, as far as I can see, and the fantasy that these skills were really needed would affect the way people interact. I live in a society that is primarily based on trust and the assumption that you will not be attacked as part of your daily life.  It might be different for you, in which case having a gun and teaching your child to handle one is a good and necessary thing.  Many of the gun owners here in the U.S., however, are not operating out of an actual threat to their lives or property.


----------



## Darth Nihilus

JamesM said:


> The issue is that guns allow a moment's rage or  irrationality to turn deadly.  A knife requires direct personal contact  and usually allows the potential victim to defend himself, even if  unarmed.  You can run away from a knife attack, usually, because there  is time between the threat and the deed.  A gun is different.  So yes, I  do think that someone who can be angry enough to fire a gun and kill  someone out of anger would be far less likely to take a knife and  approach the person in a threatening manner.  There is greater potential  for personal harm out of the attack with a knife.  That causes a lot of  people to think twice.



The scenario Jean alluded to was  deranged adult vs child. Armed with knife, I don't think a child could  fight back, neither outrun his attacker. Outside that context, you're  right, I suppose in case of an attack you could run away. But if you had  a gun or had combat skills, that wouldn't be necessary; plus you'd be  able to do your neighbourhood a service and send the scumbag who  attacked you to hell. In either case: you wouldn't need to be afraid.
I'm  not really sure a knife attack requires premeditation. At least in  Brazil almost every week I read the news that somebody got stabbed  during an argument.






JamesM said:


> A gun does more harm, faster, than a knife.  That is the problem.   If you live in a high-crime area and you want to defend yourself, get a  gun.  Go for it.  But that won't make your neighborhood safe; it might  make you safer but it also ups the possibility that someone will get  killed or injured unintentionally.  It may be a necessary evil in some  environments.  On the other hand, many people do not think clearly when  using guns.  Many people aren't trained.  And many people don't respect  the deadly threat that a gun poses not only to attackers, but to  children, family members and others.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in my daily life that requires either a gun or combat  skllls. Perhaps you live in a different environment.  I don't know. But  it would be absurd for my next door neighbor, who is a big gun advocate  and a very responsible gun owner, to state that he needed a gun and  combat skills to live in our middle-class neighborhood and work in an  electronics manufacturing facility.  I can't imagine him saying it.
> 
> We do not have neighbors dying left and right because they don't know  karate or don't know how to shoot a gun.  There is no intrinsic  necessity for guns or combat skills for 90% of the U.S. population, as  far as I can see, and the fantasy that these skills were really needed  would affect the way people interact. I live in a society that is  primarily based on trust and the assumption that you will not be  attacked as part of your daily life.  It might be different for you, in  which case having a gun and teaching your child to handle one is a good  and necessary thing.  Many of the gun owners here in the U.S., however,  are not operating out of an actual threat to their lives or  property.



As a matter of fact, I also live in a middle-class (at least for  Brazilian standards) neighbourhood. That doesn't really matter though.  Supposing I lived in a place with almost non-existent violent crimes,  let's say, somewhere Iceland's countryside. That wouldn't give me the  illusion of "safety". Claiming that you don't need combat skills because  you don't need it in your daily life would be exactly the same if  saying that you don't want a car with airbags, because you don't crash  your car daily and you drive very carefully.
An act violence (armed  or not) may happen to you anytime, regardless of where you are. Just  like a car crash, you won't get a warning beforehand. The air bag is  there because IF an accident happens, it will make a difference and save  your life. Unless you're in a war, of course you won't be shooting and  fighting people on a daily basis. But If someone threatens your life,  having a gun and combat skills is what is going to prevent you from  being the next body bag in the morgue.


----------



## JamesM

Possibly, but statistically that's not the case, at least in the U.S.   For those who are well-trained and well-prepared it does provide an advantage.  However, there are far too many people who buy a gun because "it's a good idea" but don't really put the time and effort into learning how to use it.  They think of it like the airbag; it only needs to be deployed in an emergency.

In our town there have been exactly zero murders over the last eight years.  Zero.  It is possible that some day someone might try to murder me.  If they do, and it's with a gun, I will probably die because I have no combat skills and no gun skills (nor do I have a gun).  That said, I don't see any more need for those than I do understanding how to analyze drug interactions that might kill me.  It's possible I could die from taking medications that interact, I suppose, but I don't think it's practical (or healthy) for me to live as if drugs will kill me someday and I must be prepared to defend myself against that possibility.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Darth Nihilus said:


> In a  civilized country, how do you call a person who is unwilling to defend  himself and want to prevent others from having means to do it?


In civilized countries armies and the police are here exactly for that, and do the job much better than any self-appointed sheriff or trigger-happy vigilante.
My relying on police and justice is not the proof that I'm weak: on the contrary it is the proof that civilized countries are stronger than others.
Free guns in America are but a fossil of an era when America was not civilized everywhere yet.


----------



## Darth Nihilus

JamesM said:


> Possibly, but statistically that's not the case,  at least in the U.S.   For those who are well-trained and well-prepared  it does provide an advantage.  However, there are far too many people  who buy a gun because "it's a good idea" but don't really put the time  and effort into learning how to use it.  They think of it like the  airbag; it only needs to be deployed in an emergency.



Once  becoming well-trained and well-prepared cannot be achieved overnight,  starting to train at an early age might be a good idea. 



JamesM said:


> In our town there have been exactly zero murders  over the last eight years.  Zero.  It is possible that some day someone  might try to murder me.  If they do, and it's with a gun, I will  probably die because I have no combat skills and no gun skills (nor do I  have a gun).  That said, I don't see any more need for those than I do  understanding how to analyze drug interactions that might kill me.  It's  possible I could die from taking medications that interact, I suppose,  but I don't think it's practical (or healthy) for me to live as if drugs  will kill me someday and I must be prepared to defend myself against  that possibility.



Ideally yes, you should have a grip on  how your body reacts to certain drugs. In practice, it's different. I  understand your reasoning. I've thought of another example myself: the  odds of one being struck by a lightning bolt are so thin that people go  out in rain carrying their umbrellas without giving it any second  thought, despite the fact that they might be struck any time in a rainy  day.
That's sensible. The difference between your and my examples  from suffering an act of aggression is the human factor. _I refuse flatly  to submit to another human being under threat of violence.
_


JeanDeSponde said:


> In  civilized countries armies and the police are here exactly for that,  and do the job much better than any self-appointed sheriff or  trigger-happy vigilante. My relying on police and justice is not the  proof that I'm weak: on the contrary it is the proof that civilized  countries are stronger than others.
> Free guns in America are but a fossil of an era when America was not civilized everywhere yet.



I trust you realise that _"justice"_ and _"civilized"_ are  quite subjective concepts. The handling of an occurrence by a judicial  system does not render it automatically just, especially by a judiciary  so inefficient and twisted like the Brazilian one. Attributes which in  your eyes make your own civilization stand out may be seen by others as inefficient and outdated as well.

I  don't see the Police as a babysitting force. The ordinary citizen  cannot take a day off his work in order to pursue investigations, hunt  down suspects, etc etc..
That's why the police is there. The Police  won't magically appear to save you whenever you find yourself in  trouble. The Police exists to assist you, not to take responsibility for  your life, as though you were some sort of incapable child. Your life  belongs to you, not the State, thus you're solely responsible for it.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Darth Nihilus said:


> The handling of an occurrence by a judicial  system does not render it automatically just, especially by a judiciary  so inefficient and twisted like the Brazilian one.


It doesn't make it automatically just: it makes it _more just_ than self-justice. Just like democracy is not right _per se_: it just proved to be less faulty than other systems.

If Brazilian justice is so inefficient and twisted then you (and your fellow citizens) should spend more efforts toward making it better it than teaching a 9-year girl to handle a gun: learn true democracy, not guns...


----------



## Darth Nihilus

JeanDeSponde said:


> It doesn't make it automatically just: it makes it _more just_ than self-justice.


Hm. A good lawyer begs to differ.



JeanDeSponde said:


> If Brazilian justice is so inefficient and  twisted then you (and your fellow citizens) should spend more efforts  toward making it better it than teaching a 9-year girl to handle a gun:  learn true democracy, not guns...


I mentioned the Brazilian  flawed judicial system as an aggravating factor, not the reason for the  advocacy of a gun-friendly legislation. By the way, the very hostility  towards firearms manifest in this legislation is one the reasons it is  flawed.

Here is a real life example. It happened just this  weekend, 30/08. Unfortunately I couldn't find it in English, so the news  is in Portuguese.

But to sum it up: a 77-year-old lady  confronted and shot dead a robber who invaded her establishment  demanding money. And how is our dear Police acting? Instead of praise  and commendation, the police is focused on ascertaining the legality of  the old lady's revolver. She may land in jail for defending her life. To  our dear system, enforcing its dumb rules is more important than a  citizen's life.

Honestly, in a span of 3 months I could have  picked lots of other examples like this one in the Brazilian scenario.  Another important question: how would the police have helped in this  specific situation? Even if, by sheer luck, some police officers were  strolling by at the moment of the crime, that would have maybe just  worsened the situation: an unarmed old lady would be simply taken as  hostage. Fortunately that didn't happen, thanks to the foresight of a  citizen in purchasing a weapon, and her bravery in using it when needed.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

See here:





> A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities  revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a  self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four  unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11  attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).


So your story is about one case in 22, with 15 other cases of accidents or suicides...


----------



## Darth Nihilus

JamesM has been addressing the "accident" issue (#143,145). And suicide  is a far broader subject, not really a gun-related issue.

I had a close look at your link. Interesting article.

I  must say I wasn't totally surprised to see Brazil ranking just below  the US on the Firearms Death Rate graph. Guess we sort of share a gun  culture; except we don't have the magnificent 2nd amendment. A mistake  which, of course, we can still correct. Anyway, the graph depicted the  period between 1990-1995. Since PT (Labours' Party) rose to power in  2003, effectively assuming the presidency, they have been introducing a  gradual crackdown on guns, making it harder and harder to purchase  legally guns, going so far to hold a referendum in 2005 to totally  outlaw the commerce of firearms. People voted against it. Here you can  see how the crackdown on legal guns is working out. Also, just in 2012,  there were over 50 thousand homicides in Brazil. 

The formula _more guns = more deaths_ is not always precise.


----------



## JamesM

It seems you have us beat on homicides, however.   We have more suicides than homicides, and just 1/5th the number of homicides you have.  Brazil is starting to sound pretty scary.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Yes, not enough guns for suicides in Brazil yet.
Because of too tough a legislation, I'd say...


----------



## Sepia

@  A knife requires direct personal contact and usually allows the potential victim to defend himself, even if unarmed.  You can run away from a knife attack, usually, because there is time between the threat and the deed.  A gun is different.


Here somebody obviously has no idea how a knife attack often takes place or what kind of wounds are inflicted.

In general your chance of surviving a handgun wound is greater than of surving a knife wound. Second, just running away ... you'll have to see it coming and you'll have to have somewhere to run. In a confined space your chances are slim. Even with special training it is very difficult to defend against a knife. Even if you have a gun it is difficult if that is still in its holster. If the knifeman is closer as 5 meters and really determined to get you, you really have a problem if your gun isn't already pointed at him. At really close range it is even easier to disarm a gunman than a knifeman because you can grab any part of the gun and even block its funktions by doing so.


----------

