Anti-Gun and Gun Control

[Michael Noire]

I think people grossly underestimate the capacity of government to disarm people. Just look at the many states being disarmed in the present. Being disappeared is the real problem. If you have 10 guys with 60 rifles each, that's 600 rifles. They could be in a community that is largely unarmed. Half of these 10 guys could be law enforcement or senile old people. now you just need 5 swat team runs between 12pm and 4am to disappear a community of 1200 "armed" citizens with a firearms saturation rate of "50%".

Most Americans either own a lot of guns or no guns. Most owners of multiple firearms are either police or former police and live compliant life styles because the blessed and beloved government provides them with their necessities.

The remaining "resistance" is mostly people who want to live out their quiet lives with little conflict. Threaten to take their kids away, or their jobs, or their homes, or their cars? They disarm without firing a shot. What's left? People who get disappeared in the middle of the night.

What happens on the news? Those disappeared people are either ignored, or relabeled as terrorists, *****, child kidnappers, lunatics, drug cartel members, racists, etc. And the bulk of the population blinks and leaves it alone.

We can avoid this kind of horror by not registering people with any form of central database. If we seamlessly merge the education of firearms with the education of everything else, then checks are not necessary. I personally do not believe if someone is legally forbidden to carry a weapon, that they should be legally permitted on my streets. The real safety of the population should be set up so that all people legally permitted to be armed are also legally permitted to exist in urban environments. I don't think because some kid sold pot to his cousin, that he should be labeled a felon and stripped of voting or firearms. I don't even think because some asshat tax cheating ponzie scheme guy spent 15 years in prison his firearms rights should be suspended.

Hell, I don't even think the firearms charges are constitutional. Just think for a minute - a person can be bumped up to felon and stripped of firearms because they had firearms. Their right to carry firearms can be deemed illegal because someone decided the firearms they had were deemed illegal. How can you people not realize how ******** up this is?

A president could sign an executive order saying all firearms with triggers thinner than 1" are contraband and possession of said firearms with triggers thinner than 1" is a felony. ********, I know that doesnt make sense, but look at this s**t:

Quote:

The Executive Order signed on Wednesday by President Barack Obama is being called "evil" by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and bans, among other things, the sale of all Russian-made AK-47 semi-automatic rifles, Saiga-12 shotguns, and all other firearms and parts manufactured by Kalashnikov Concern.

something close to half of all popular firearms purchased fit in the AK/Saiga branch, and while this doesn't limit ALL AK/Saiga clones, it does impact cities full of people. It's an example of how you can target something indirectly to ban it, even if there is no logical reason the product itself is bad. Having banned it, you can then criminalize for possession. Therefore, we have criminalized and stripped of the right to bear arms, untold numbers of people who are perfectly competent with firearms, over fickle regulations.

Remove that from the list and what you end up with is the reality - that criminals always have guns, but citizens do not always have guns. Even if the citizens do have guns, there is currently no mechanism to assure their safe operation. I propose we stop thinking about how to regulate guns, and instead figure out how to train people. Change the way people think about guns and you change the crime rate with them.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Koranx

I'm a little torn on this issue, I know there is evidence to support the Pro-gun side and a little to support Anti.

Maybe you're getting little information about the anti because of where you live. Where I Live, the Netherlands, guns are illegal, so we hear more about the cons then the pro's.

You also stated elsewhere that people that are not trained should probably not have them (at least that's what I understood you wrote) and I agree with you on that one. But even when someone is trained, their kids might not be.. and they may have access to the gun nonetheless. It's not unheard of that accidents happen because kids play with guns as if they are toys.

Policeofficers in our country are not only well trained, they know how to lock them up too. My guess is that the American cops also know a little more about gunsafety then the average man. Especially because they come into contact with so much 'evidence' of how people should not handle their guns.

Police officers have good access to better training and more schooling about the weapons they use. If the gouvernement makes sure all the cops get the education needed, I think it's okay for them to carry guns.
Law enforcers who don't get to carry guns are often not taken too seriously.

Here in the Netherlands the crime rates are extraordinary low. Could that have something to do with the no-guns policy perhaps?

Edit: good topic by the way.

Well guns aren't completely illegal, but I imagine far more prevalent factors, such as those pertaining to wealth and general law enforcement effectiveness are more important to consider. Looking at Mexico their gun laws don't seem to have changed anything. xp

I;m afraid I know nothing about Mexican gun laws, so could you specify please? I'm from the Netherlands by the way *waves* Where are you from?

Hai! blaugh

I'm from Texas, the greatest country in Americah! scream


Well, Mexico has fairly strict gun laws; they can only buy guns from a single government controlled store, there's an extremely long waiting period, "military" calibers are banned (which necessitate a change to cartridges such as the .222, even though it's only slightly different from the .223, which is itself not a military caliber, but considered "similar" wink , you can only own 10 guns, 2 handguns, and there are numerous restrictions on the size of the weapons, their length, weight, round count etc.

Comparatively such restrictions are not present in the nerthlands, whom while stricter than the U.S. for example, still has much lower crime than Mexico. To my knowledge the only thing banned is automatic guns, but the rest if available.

Oh hai texas! 4laugh

Knowing where you are from puts this topic in a whole different perspective! rofl Even across the Atlantic we know you Texans love your guns heart We chuckle a little bit at that, but then again we're also familiar with the Texas hospitality, which is great. And also contradictive XD

blaugh

Well, while we do love our guns, there are various restrictions placed on them, like concealed carry permits and all that, and long guns are rarely carried in public view although it's legal, BUT!


The main idea is that gun control seems to be more or less irrelevant or negligible to crime rates.

And that few country's truly ban all guns, basically meaning the same guns which are used to commit crimes more often than not, such as .38 special revolvers and all that, are still widely available, likely not changing much. xp

[Keltoi Samurai]

Mulien

Koranx

I'm a little torn on this issue, I know there is evidence to support the Pro-gun side and a little to support Anti.

Maybe you're getting little information about the anti because of where you live. Where I Live, the Netherlands, guns are illegal, so we hear more about the cons then the pro's.

You also stated elsewhere that people that are not trained should probably not have them (at least that's what I understood you wrote) and I agree with you on that one. But even when someone is trained, their kids might not be.. and they may have access to the gun nonetheless. It's not unheard of that accidents happen because kids play with guns as if they are toys.

Policeofficers in our country are not only well trained, they know how to lock them up too. My guess is that the American cops also know a little more about gunsafety then the average man. Especially because they come into contact with so much 'evidence' of how people should not handle their guns.

Police officers have good access to better training and more schooling about the weapons they use. If the gouvernement makes sure all the cops get the education needed, I think it's okay for them to carry guns.
Law enforcers who don't get to carry guns are often not taken too seriously.

Here in the Netherlands the crime rates are extraordinary low. Could that have something to do with the no-guns policy perhaps?

Edit: good topic by the way.

Actually, in the US, the police have very little training with their weapons, and not too long ago, there was a real problem with children getting hold of police officer's weapons and causing trouble, like the off-duty cop who left his gun on the bed, unattended, during a family gathering/cookout, or the motorcycle cop who was at a school for some reason or another, and a kid pulled the trigger on a rifle holstered on the bike, causing damage and scaring everyone involved ( thankfully, there were no deaths reported in that incident, unlike the cookout ).

The average legal gun owner in the US actually knows something about the weapon they own, seeing as how most legal gun owners here are hobbyists of one sort or another ( hunters, marksman, general gun nuts, and the like ), whereas the police are overworked, understaffed, and are being turned into a paramilitary force that just doesn't have the time to learn all the police work, military training and firearms safety and operation while also going out and being police officers and paramilitary troops.

Basically, gun owners tend to learn about and practice with their weapons in their free time, while police just don't have any free time, nor time to train while they work.

[Noble Legolas]

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Well guns aren't completely illegal, but I imagine far more prevalent factors, such as those pertaining to wealth and general law enforcement effectiveness are more important to consider. Looking at Mexico their gun laws don't seem to have changed anything. xp

I;m afraid I know nothing about Mexican gun laws, so could you specify please? I'm from the Netherlands by the way *waves* Where are you from?

Hai! blaugh

I'm from Texas, the greatest country in Americah! scream


Well, Mexico has fairly strict gun laws; they can only buy guns from a single government controlled store, there's an extremely long waiting period, "military" calibers are banned (which necessitate a change to cartridges such as the .222, even though it's only slightly different from the .223, which is itself not a military caliber, but considered "similar" wink , you can only own 10 guns, 2 handguns, and there are numerous restrictions on the size of the weapons, their length, weight, round count etc.

Comparatively such restrictions are not present in the nerthlands, whom while stricter than the U.S. for example, still has much lower crime than Mexico. To my knowledge the only thing banned is automatic guns, but the rest if available.

Oh hai texas! 4laugh

Knowing where you are from puts this topic in a whole different perspective! rofl Even across the Atlantic we know you Texans love your guns heart We chuckle a little bit at that, but then again we're also familiar with the Texas hospitality, which is great. And also contradictive XD

blaugh

Well, while we do love our guns, there are various restrictions placed on them, like concealed carry permits and all that, and long guns are rarely carried in public view although it's legal, BUT!


The main idea is that gun control seems to be more or less irrelevant or negligible to crime rates.

And that few country's truly ban all guns, basically meaning the same guns which are used to commit crimes more often than not, such as .38 special revolvers and all that, are still widely available, likely not changing much. xp

It sounds like you guys have about the same restrictions as we do

BUT

No one gets to own a gun here, besides people who join some shooting club or cops.

Even BB guns have those restrictions.

My neighbour owned an airgun. We had fun shooting cans, but it was actually illegal to have it. *hush* lol!

How come Texans all have guns (that's how it's portait here, sorry if I'm wrong)?

[Noble Legolas]

Keltoi Samurai

Mulien

Koranx

I'm a little torn on this issue, I know there is evidence to support the Pro-gun side and a little to support Anti.

Maybe you're getting little information about the anti because of where you live. Where I Live, the Netherlands, guns are illegal, so we hear more about the cons then the pro's.

You also stated elsewhere that people that are not trained should probably not have them (at least that's what I understood you wrote) and I agree with you on that one. But even when someone is trained, their kids might not be.. and they may have access to the gun nonetheless. It's not unheard of that accidents happen because kids play with guns as if they are toys.

Policeofficers in our country are not only well trained, they know how to lock them up too. My guess is that the American cops also know a little more about gunsafety then the average man. Especially because they come into contact with so much 'evidence' of how people should not handle their guns.

Police officers have good access to better training and more schooling about the weapons they use. If the gouvernement makes sure all the cops get the education needed, I think it's okay for them to carry guns.
Law enforcers who don't get to carry guns are often not taken too seriously.

Here in the Netherlands the crime rates are extraordinary low. Could that have something to do with the no-guns policy perhaps?

Edit: good topic by the way.

Actually, in the US, the police have very little training with their weapons, and not too long ago, there was a real problem with children getting hold of police officer's weapons and causing trouble, like the off-duty cop who left his gun on the bed, unattended, during a family gathering/cookout, or the motorcycle cop who was at a school for some reason or another, and a kid pulled the trigger on a rifle holstered on the bike, causing damage and scaring everyone involved ( thankfully, there were no deaths reported in that incident, unlike the cookout ).

The average legal gun owner in the US actually knows something about the weapon they own, seeing as how most legal gun owners here are hobbyists of one sort or another ( hunters, marksman, general gun nuts, and the like ), whereas the police are overworked, understaffed, and are being turned into a paramilitary force that just doesn't have the time to learn all the police work, military training and firearms safety and operation while also going out and being police officers and paramilitary troops.

Basically, gun owners tend to learn about and practice with their weapons in their free time, while police just don't have any free time, nor time to train while they work.

Whua I'm shocked! It's ridiculous cops bring their guns with them when they go in a school with innocent children! And to read they are educated so poorly. Now I get why this topic was started. Such people shouldn't be allowed to carry weaponry. This is all unheard of in the Netherlands.
I bet this story will work well for me at gatherings and birthdayparties over here. Thanks for that! *omg I'm ashamed now, but then again it's not my fault right?*

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Well guns aren't completely illegal, but I imagine far more prevalent factors, such as those pertaining to wealth and general law enforcement effectiveness are more important to consider. Looking at Mexico their gun laws don't seem to have changed anything. xp

I;m afraid I know nothing about Mexican gun laws, so could you specify please? I'm from the Netherlands by the way *waves* Where are you from?

Hai! blaugh

I'm from Texas, the greatest country in Americah! scream


Well, Mexico has fairly strict gun laws; they can only buy guns from a single government controlled store, there's an extremely long waiting period, "military" calibers are banned (which necessitate a change to cartridges such as the .222, even though it's only slightly different from the .223, which is itself not a military caliber, but considered "similar" wink , you can only own 10 guns, 2 handguns, and there are numerous restrictions on the size of the weapons, their length, weight, round count etc.

Comparatively such restrictions are not present in the nerthlands, whom while stricter than the U.S. for example, still has much lower crime than Mexico. To my knowledge the only thing banned is automatic guns, but the rest if available.

Oh hai texas! 4laugh

Knowing where you are from puts this topic in a whole different perspective! rofl Even across the Atlantic we know you Texans love your guns heart We chuckle a little bit at that, but then again we're also familiar with the Texas hospitality, which is great. And also contradictive XD

blaugh

Well, while we do love our guns, there are various restrictions placed on them, like concealed carry permits and all that, and long guns are rarely carried in public view although it's legal, BUT!


The main idea is that gun control seems to be more or less irrelevant or negligible to crime rates.

And that few country's truly ban all guns, basically meaning the same guns which are used to commit crimes more often than not, such as .38 special revolvers and all that, are still widely available, likely not changing much. xp

It sounds like you guys have about the same restrictions as we do

BUT

No one gets to own a gun here, besides people who join some shooting club or cops.

Even BB guns have those restrictions.

My neighbour owned an airgun. We had fun shooting cans, but it was actually illegal to have it. *hush* lol!

How come Texans all have guns (that's how it's portait here, sorry if I'm wrong)?

Mainly it's an idea of self defense and independence; if you live in a rural area, without a high population density, cops could be 10's of miles away, and so thus the ability to fight off animals or other people with guns is considered a good idea, so that you can keep them at bay until police arrive, or scare them off yourself.

The general idea is that self defense is an applicable reason to own a gun, that or hunting, and that since it's such a widespread need and there's a desire to reduce crime (even though individually, your average person is unlikely to be attacked by a criminal), so they're widely available.

Not everyone has a gun, but most people do, easily over 50%.

Think of it like locking your door. We keep a gun around in case of a dangerous intruder or something, to be able to fire warning shots or threaten individuals and so on. xp

[VeganIncubus]

Koranx

I said reform starts with the Police, because they are the primary protectors of the law in our civilization.

arrow Suddenly, police brutality makes sense. They are the shining beacons of our civilisation, looking out for the poor and the hungry and the disenfranchised and the ones that protest and speak up by shutting them up and beating them to death and shooting them. Oh, where would we be without them?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Mulien

Keltoi Samurai

Mulien

Koranx

I'm a little torn on this issue, I know there is evidence to support the Pro-gun side and a little to support Anti.

Maybe you're getting little information about the anti because of where you live. Where I Live, the Netherlands, guns are illegal, so we hear more about the cons then the pro's.

You also stated elsewhere that people that are not trained should probably not have them (at least that's what I understood you wrote) and I agree with you on that one. But even when someone is trained, their kids might not be.. and they may have access to the gun nonetheless. It's not unheard of that accidents happen because kids play with guns as if they are toys.

Policeofficers in our country are not only well trained, they know how to lock them up too. My guess is that the American cops also know a little more about gunsafety then the average man. Especially because they come into contact with so much 'evidence' of how people should not handle their guns.

Police officers have good access to better training and more schooling about the weapons they use. If the gouvernement makes sure all the cops get the education needed, I think it's okay for them to carry guns.
Law enforcers who don't get to carry guns are often not taken too seriously.

Here in the Netherlands the crime rates are extraordinary low. Could that have something to do with the no-guns policy perhaps?

Edit: good topic by the way.

Actually, in the US, the police have very little training with their weapons, and not too long ago, there was a real problem with children getting hold of police officer's weapons and causing trouble, like the off-duty cop who left his gun on the bed, unattended, during a family gathering/cookout, or the motorcycle cop who was at a school for some reason or another, and a kid pulled the trigger on a rifle holstered on the bike, causing damage and scaring everyone involved ( thankfully, there were no deaths reported in that incident, unlike the cookout ).

The average legal gun owner in the US actually knows something about the weapon they own, seeing as how most legal gun owners here are hobbyists of one sort or another ( hunters, marksman, general gun nuts, and the like ), whereas the police are overworked, understaffed, and are being turned into a paramilitary force that just doesn't have the time to learn all the police work, military training and firearms safety and operation while also going out and being police officers and paramilitary troops.

Basically, gun owners tend to learn about and practice with their weapons in their free time, while police just don't have any free time, nor time to train while they work.

Whua I'm shocked! It's ridiculous cops bring their guns with them when they go in a school with innocent children! And to read they are educated so poorly. Now I get why this topic was started. Such people shouldn't be allowed to carry weaponry. This is all unheard of in the Netherlands.
I bet this story will work well for me at gatherings and birthdayparties over here. Thanks for that! *omg I'm ashamed now, but then again it's not my fault right?*

Uh... I would take what he says with a grain of salt but, there is no national standard on police accuracy or competency with weapons, so in some jurisdictions it's non-existent, since police are considered to have a wide variety of jobs not including firearms.

[Noble Legolas]

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Hai! blaugh

I'm from Texas, the greatest country in Americah! scream


Well, Mexico has fairly strict gun laws; they can only buy guns from a single government controlled store, there's an extremely long waiting period, "military" calibers are banned (which necessitate a change to cartridges such as the .222, even though it's only slightly different from the .223, which is itself not a military caliber, but considered "similar" wink , you can only own 10 guns, 2 handguns, and there are numerous restrictions on the size of the weapons, their length, weight, round count etc.

Comparatively such restrictions are not present in the nerthlands, whom while stricter than the U.S. for example, still has much lower crime than Mexico. To my knowledge the only thing banned is automatic guns, but the rest if available.

Oh hai texas! 4laugh

Knowing where you are from puts this topic in a whole different perspective! rofl Even across the Atlantic we know you Texans love your guns heart We chuckle a little bit at that, but then again we're also familiar with the Texas hospitality, which is great. And also contradictive XD

blaugh

Well, while we do love our guns, there are various restrictions placed on them, like concealed carry permits and all that, and long guns are rarely carried in public view although it's legal, BUT!


The main idea is that gun control seems to be more or less irrelevant or negligible to crime rates.

And that few country's truly ban all guns, basically meaning the same guns which are used to commit crimes more often than not, such as .38 special revolvers and all that, are still widely available, likely not changing much. xp

It sounds like you guys have about the same restrictions as we do

BUT

No one gets to own a gun here, besides people who join some shooting club or cops.

Even BB guns have those restrictions.

My neighbour owned an airgun. We had fun shooting cans, but it was actually illegal to have it. *hush* lol!

How come Texans all have guns (that's how it's portait here, sorry if I'm wrong)?

Mainly it's an idea of self defense and independence; if you live in a rural area, without a high population density, cops could be 10's of miles away, and so thus the ability to fight off animals or other people with guns is considered a good idea, so that you can keep them at bay until police arrive, or scare them off yourself.

The general idea is that self defense is an applicable reason to own a gun, that or hunting, and that since it's such a widespread need and there's a desire to reduce crime (even though individually, your average person is unlikely to be attacked by a criminal), so they're widely available.

Not everyone has a gun, but most people do, easily over 50%.

Think of it like locking your door. We keep a gun around in case of a dangerous intruder or something, to be able to fire warning shots or threaten individuals and so on. xp

It makes sense. But who's brave enough to actually wave a gun at intruders with guns? Isn't that the stupidest thing to do?

[Noble Legolas]

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Keltoi Samurai

Mulien

Koranx

I'm a little torn on this issue, I know there is evidence to support the Pro-gun side and a little to support Anti.

Maybe you're getting little information about the anti because of where you live. Where I Live, the Netherlands, guns are illegal, so we hear more about the cons then the pro's.

You also stated elsewhere that people that are not trained should probably not have them (at least that's what I understood you wrote) and I agree with you on that one. But even when someone is trained, their kids might not be.. and they may have access to the gun nonetheless. It's not unheard of that accidents happen because kids play with guns as if they are toys.

Policeofficers in our country are not only well trained, they know how to lock them up too. My guess is that the American cops also know a little more about gunsafety then the average man. Especially because they come into contact with so much 'evidence' of how people should not handle their guns.

Police officers have good access to better training and more schooling about the weapons they use. If the gouvernement makes sure all the cops get the education needed, I think it's okay for them to carry guns.
Law enforcers who don't get to carry guns are often not taken too seriously.

Here in the Netherlands the crime rates are extraordinary low. Could that have something to do with the no-guns policy perhaps?

Edit: good topic by the way.

Actually, in the US, the police have very little training with their weapons, and not too long ago, there was a real problem with children getting hold of police officer's weapons and causing trouble, like the off-duty cop who left his gun on the bed, unattended, during a family gathering/cookout, or the motorcycle cop who was at a school for some reason or another, and a kid pulled the trigger on a rifle holstered on the bike, causing damage and scaring everyone involved ( thankfully, there were no deaths reported in that incident, unlike the cookout ).

The average legal gun owner in the US actually knows something about the weapon they own, seeing as how most legal gun owners here are hobbyists of one sort or another ( hunters, marksman, general gun nuts, and the like ), whereas the police are overworked, understaffed, and are being turned into a paramilitary force that just doesn't have the time to learn all the police work, military training and firearms safety and operation while also going out and being police officers and paramilitary troops.

Basically, gun owners tend to learn about and practice with their weapons in their free time, while police just don't have any free time, nor time to train while they work.

Whua I'm shocked! It's ridiculous cops bring their guns with them when they go in a school with innocent children! And to read they are educated so poorly. Now I get why this topic was started. Such people shouldn't be allowed to carry weaponry. This is all unheard of in the Netherlands.
I bet this story will work well for me at gatherings and birthdayparties over here. Thanks for that! *omg I'm ashamed now, but then again it's not my fault right?*

Uh... I would take what he says with a grain of salt but, there is no national standard on police accuracy or competency with weapons, so in some jurisdictions it's non-existent, since police are considered to have a wide variety of jobs not including firearms.

Awe crap... oh well I'm still going to forward the juicy version of this story to my friends and family mrgreen I bet it will make me popular and interesting. No one is gonna double check me anyway cheese_whine

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Hai! blaugh

I'm from Texas, the greatest country in Americah! scream


Well, Mexico has fairly strict gun laws; they can only buy guns from a single government controlled store, there's an extremely long waiting period, "military" calibers are banned (which necessitate a change to cartridges such as the .222, even though it's only slightly different from the .223, which is itself not a military caliber, but considered "similar" wink , you can only own 10 guns, 2 handguns, and there are numerous restrictions on the size of the weapons, their length, weight, round count etc.

Comparatively such restrictions are not present in the nerthlands, whom while stricter than the U.S. for example, still has much lower crime than Mexico. To my knowledge the only thing banned is automatic guns, but the rest if available.

Oh hai texas! 4laugh

Knowing where you are from puts this topic in a whole different perspective! rofl Even across the Atlantic we know you Texans love your guns heart We chuckle a little bit at that, but then again we're also familiar with the Texas hospitality, which is great. And also contradictive XD

blaugh

Well, while we do love our guns, there are various restrictions placed on them, like concealed carry permits and all that, and long guns are rarely carried in public view although it's legal, BUT!


The main idea is that gun control seems to be more or less irrelevant or negligible to crime rates.

And that few country's truly ban all guns, basically meaning the same guns which are used to commit crimes more often than not, such as .38 special revolvers and all that, are still widely available, likely not changing much. xp

It sounds like you guys have about the same restrictions as we do

BUT

No one gets to own a gun here, besides people who join some shooting club or cops.

Even BB guns have those restrictions.

My neighbour owned an airgun. We had fun shooting cans, but it was actually illegal to have it. *hush* lol!

How come Texans all have guns (that's how it's portait here, sorry if I'm wrong)?

Mainly it's an idea of self defense and independence; if you live in a rural area, without a high population density, cops could be 10's of miles away, and so thus the ability to fight off animals or other people with guns is considered a good idea, so that you can keep them at bay until police arrive, or scare them off yourself.

The general idea is that self defense is an applicable reason to own a gun, that or hunting, and that since it's such a widespread need and there's a desire to reduce crime (even though individually, your average person is unlikely to be attacked by a criminal), so they're widely available.

Not everyone has a gun, but most people do, easily over 50%.

Think of it like locking your door. We keep a gun around in case of a dangerous intruder or something, to be able to fire warning shots or threaten individuals and so on. xp

It makes sense. But who's brave enough to actually wave a gun at intruders with guns? Isn't that the stupidest thing to do?

Nah, usually intruders aren't very well trained, and since they'd need to rob like 50 houses to make a living, if they run into a person that can end their life every time, they start to become hesitant. In essence, why would you risk a fight with a person, risking your life every time, when you just want money? Most of these criminal types just want to live an easy life, if they face a guy with a gun concerned for his life, against a guy with a gun who just wants to be lazy or selfish, it's not as if he's going to want to fight to the death. He'll run off to try to find an easier target, and if none exist, then the job at walmart down the street seems easier than robbing people. xp

In essence, they're more afraid of risk than us, since they're typically inherently selfish, and have to commit crimes over and over again to make money. Most criminal types are cowardly, high school drop outs, that sort of thing. xp


Imagine a wolf pack needs to kill once a week to avoid atrophying; humans eat 3 meals a day 7 times a week, so that's 21 meals compared to the wolf! That means 52 kills a year. They just want to eat, a regular grind for them, while the deer's life is on the line. It's going to fight to the death, gouging and biting and kicking, where as the wolf can't afford to get injured even once, since it's not a once in a life time thing, it's over and over again. Those wolves can't afford to lose 1 wolf a battle, because in 6 weeks they'd all be dead (if it was a pack of say, 6 wolves).

So, imagine a lone criminal. Does he really think going up against these people is a good idea if they're all armed to the teeth? They head after the old, sick and feeble, or those who stray too far from the herd (like wolves), except in our society, even old grandmas got Smith and Wessons. So, who's the easy target? The idea is they give up and go after something else, hopefully more productive and less parasitic. xp

[The20]

Michael Noire

A long time ago I proposed this:

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/mandatory-gun-safety-courses/t.89715677/

Making something like this mandatory is just asking for trouble.

[Noble Legolas]

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

blaugh

Well, while we do love our guns, there are various restrictions placed on them, like concealed carry permits and all that, and long guns are rarely carried in public view although it's legal, BUT!


The main idea is that gun control seems to be more or less irrelevant or negligible to crime rates.

And that few country's truly ban all guns, basically meaning the same guns which are used to commit crimes more often than not, such as .38 special revolvers and all that, are still widely available, likely not changing much. xp

It sounds like you guys have about the same restrictions as we do

BUT

No one gets to own a gun here, besides people who join some shooting club or cops.

Even BB guns have those restrictions.

My neighbour owned an airgun. We had fun shooting cans, but it was actually illegal to have it. *hush* lol!

How come Texans all have guns (that's how it's portait here, sorry if I'm wrong)?

Mainly it's an idea of self defense and independence; if you live in a rural area, without a high population density, cops could be 10's of miles away, and so thus the ability to fight off animals or other people with guns is considered a good idea, so that you can keep them at bay until police arrive, or scare them off yourself.

The general idea is that self defense is an applicable reason to own a gun, that or hunting, and that since it's such a widespread need and there's a desire to reduce crime (even though individually, your average person is unlikely to be attacked by a criminal), so they're widely available.

Not everyone has a gun, but most people do, easily over 50%.

Think of it like locking your door. We keep a gun around in case of a dangerous intruder or something, to be able to fire warning shots or threaten individuals and so on. xp

It makes sense. But who's brave enough to actually wave a gun at intruders with guns? Isn't that the stupidest thing to do?

Nah, usually intruders aren't very well trained, and since they'd need to rob like 50 houses to make a living, if they run into a person that can end their life every time, they start to become hesitant. In essence, why would you risk a fight with a person, risking your life every time, when you just want money? Most of these criminal types just want to live an easy life, if they face a guy with a gun concerned for his life, against a guy with a gun who just wants to be lazy or selfish, it's not as if he's going to want to fight to the death. He'll run off to try to find an easier target, and if none exist, then the job at walmart down the street seems easier than robbing people. xp

In essence, they're more afraid of risk than us, since they're typically inherently selfish, and have to commit crimes over and over again to make money. Most criminal types are cowardly, high school drop outs, that sort of thing. xp


Imagine a wolf pack needs to kill once a week to avoid atrophying; humans eat 3 meals a day 7 times a week, so that's 21 meals compared to the wolf! That means 52 kills a year. They just want to eat, a regular grind for them, while the deer's life is on the line. It's going to fight to the death, gouging and biting and kicking, where as the wolf can't afford to get injured even once, since it's not a once in a life time thing, it's over and over again. Those wolves can't afford to lose 1 wolf a battle, because in 6 weeks they'd all be dead (if it was a pack of say, 6 wolves).

So, imagine a lone criminal. Does he really think going up against these people is a good idea if they're all armed to the teeth? They head after the old, sick and feeble, or those who stray too far from the herd (like wolves), except in our society, even old grandmas got Smith and Wessons. So, who's the easy target? The idea is they give up and go after something else, hopefully more productive and less parasitic. xp

But still, I'd be shitting my pants. Then run away or hide.. call the police first and then the insurance company.
I mean, there is insurance there right?
Mine works so well for me. I once dropped my sig accidentally on the coutch and it left a burnmark. I called the insurance company and they gave me cash for a whole new one! I only reordered the one pillow and kept the rest of the money.
It's okay if I get robbed. As long as I dont get hurt. I'd be happy to shop for something new.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Michael Noire

I think people grossly underestimate the capacity of government to disarm people. Just look at the many states being disarmed in the present. Being disappeared is the real problem. If you have 10 guys with 60 rifles each, that's 600 rifles. They could be in a community that is largely unarmed. Half of these 10 guys could be law enforcement or senile old people. now you just need 5 swat team runs between 12pm and 4am to disappear a community of 1200 "armed" citizens with a firearms saturation rate of "50%".

Most Americans either own a lot of guns or no guns. Most owners of multiple firearms are either police or former police and live compliant life styles because the blessed and beloved government provides them with their necessities.

The remaining "resistance" is mostly people who want to live out their quiet lives with little conflict. Threaten to take their kids away, or their jobs, or their homes, or their cars? They disarm without firing a shot. What's left? People who get disappeared in the middle of the night.

What happens on the news? Those disappeared people are either ignored, or relabeled as terrorists, *****, child kidnappers, lunatics, drug cartel members, racists, etc. And the bulk of the population blinks and leaves it alone.

We can avoid this kind of horror by not registering people with any form of central database. If we seamlessly merge the education of firearms with the education of everything else, then checks are not necessary. I personally do not believe if someone is legally forbidden to carry a weapon, that they should be legally permitted on my streets. The real safety of the population should be set up so that all people legally permitted to be armed are also legally permitted to exist in urban environments. I don't think because some kid sold pot to his cousin, that he should be labeled a felon and stripped of voting or firearms. I don't even think because some asshat tax cheating ponzie scheme guy spent 15 years in prison his firearms rights should be suspended.

Hell, I don't even think the firearms charges are constitutional. Just think for a minute - a person can be bumped up to felon and stripped of firearms because they had firearms. Their right to carry firearms can be deemed illegal because someone decided the firearms they had were deemed illegal. How can you people not realize how ******** up this is?

A president could sign an executive order saying all firearms with triggers thinner than 1" are contraband and possession of said firearms with triggers thinner than 1" is a felony. ********, I know that doesnt make sense, but look at this s**t:

Quote:

The Executive Order signed on Wednesday by President Barack Obama is being called "evil" by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and bans, among other things, the sale of all Russian-made AK-47 semi-automatic rifles, Saiga-12 shotguns, and all other firearms and parts manufactured by Kalashnikov Concern.

something close to half of all popular firearms purchased fit in the AK/Saiga branch, and while this doesn't limit ALL AK/Saiga clones, it does impact cities full of people. It's an example of how you can target something indirectly to ban it, even if there is no logical reason the product itself is bad. Having banned it, you can then criminalize for possession. Therefore, we have criminalized and stripped of the right to bear arms, untold numbers of people who are perfectly competent with firearms, over fickle regulations.

Remove that from the list and what you end up with is the reality - that criminals always have guns, but citizens do not always have guns. Even if the citizens do have guns, there is currently no mechanism to assure their safe operation. I propose we stop thinking about how to regulate guns, and instead figure out how to train people. Change the way people think about guns and you change the crime rate with them.

They can already do that, so, not having a license or training for people won't really change anything. xp

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

Mulien

Suicidesoldier#1

blaugh

Well, while we do love our guns, there are various restrictions placed on them, like concealed carry permits and all that, and long guns are rarely carried in public view although it's legal, BUT!


The main idea is that gun control seems to be more or less irrelevant or negligible to crime rates.

And that few country's truly ban all guns, basically meaning the same guns which are used to commit crimes more often than not, such as .38 special revolvers and all that, are still widely available, likely not changing much. xp

It sounds like you guys have about the same restrictions as we do

BUT

No one gets to own a gun here, besides people who join some shooting club or cops.

Even BB guns have those restrictions.

My neighbour owned an airgun. We had fun shooting cans, but it was actually illegal to have it. *hush* lol!

How come Texans all have guns (that's how it's portait here, sorry if I'm wrong)?

Mainly it's an idea of self defense and independence; if you live in a rural area, without a high population density, cops could be 10's of miles away, and so thus the ability to fight off animals or other people with guns is considered a good idea, so that you can keep them at bay until police arrive, or scare them off yourself.

The general idea is that self defense is an applicable reason to own a gun, that or hunting, and that since it's such a widespread need and there's a desire to reduce crime (even though individually, your average person is unlikely to be attacked by a criminal), so they're widely available.

Not everyone has a gun, but most people do, easily over 50%.

Think of it like locking your door. We keep a gun around in case of a dangerous intruder or something, to be able to fire warning shots or threaten individuals and so on. xp

It makes sense. But who's brave enough to actually wave a gun at intruders with guns? Isn't that the stupidest thing to do?

Nah, usually intruders aren't very well trained, and since they'd need to rob like 50 houses to make a living, if they run into a person that can end their life every time, they start to become hesitant. In essence, why would you risk a fight with a person, risking your life every time, when you just want money? Most of these criminal types just want to live an easy life, if they face a guy with a gun concerned for his life, against a guy with a gun who just wants to be lazy or selfish, it's not as if he's going to want to fight to the death. He'll run off to try to find an easier target, and if none exist, then the job at walmart down the street seems easier than robbing people. xp

In essence, they're more afraid of risk than us, since they're typically inherently selfish, and have to commit crimes over and over again to make money. Most criminal types are cowardly, high school drop outs, that sort of thing. xp


Imagine a wolf pack needs to kill once a week to avoid atrophying; humans eat 3 meals a day 7 times a week, so that's 21 meals compared to the wolf! That means 52 kills a year. They just want to eat, a regular grind for them, while the deer's life is on the line. It's going to fight to the death, gouging and biting and kicking, where as the wolf can't afford to get injured even once, since it's not a once in a life time thing, it's over and over again. Those wolves can't afford to lose 1 wolf a battle, because in 6 weeks they'd all be dead (if it was a pack of say, 6 wolves).

So, imagine a lone criminal. Does he really think going up against these people is a good idea if they're all armed to the teeth? They head after the old, sick and feeble, or those who stray too far from the herd (like wolves), except in our society, even old grandmas got Smith and Wessons. So, who's the easy target? The idea is they give up and go after something else, hopefully more productive and less parasitic. xp

But still, I'd be shitting my pants. Then run away or hide.. call the police first and then the insurance company.
I mean, there is insurance there right?
Mine works so well for me. I once dropped my sig accidentally on the coutch and it left a burnmark. I called the insurance company and they gave me cash for a whole new one! I only reordered the one pillow and kept the rest of the money.
It's okay if I get robbed. As long as I dont get hurt. I'd be happy to shop for something new.

It depends on what's insured and why. xp

Also it's not so scary to have an attacker; even if it is, not having a gun just means on that last leg of defense you wouldn't have one. You don't shoot first obviously, you call the police, go hide or whatever, but if they come after you, you have a gun if you need it.


Most likely they're more afraid of you then you are of them xD