Gun control thread #4387

[Crni Vuk]

Laws give the government the chance to fight crime. What ever if we now think those laws are right or not.

That's a weird thing to say. The people decide upon the laws, and we can change them.

No they don't.

People decide who has the power/right to decide upon laws. In other words you go and vote the party or certain people to decide for you. If you vote for representative of the people which decide against laws to limit the use of weapons then they will do that. I don't see where the problem is if people vote for lawmakers which want restrictions.

I am sure there are laws in your area which you don't like and/or agree with. Yet you decided to deal with them. That is how things work. Nothing is perfect. Neither is democracy or politics. The question is how much we can accept it before it bothers us. If we of course always think with extreme cases then we have to life with such. But that is not how it works as the consensus is or should be always to find a compromise.

So you'd be fine with 1984?

There is absolutely no line that the government can cross where you'd say: "THIS IS ENOUGH, I WANT MY FREEDOM"?

What a way to blow my comment out of proportion.

So if people get access to all kind of weapons would be suddenly freedom ?

But if people decide to vote eventually for lawmakers which want laws to limit the use of certain weapons then it is 1984 ?

Then why oh why cant I finally get a law which allows me to own a nuclear weapon. No seriously now! I want my bomb!

Why can you have your damn machine gun firing 1200 rounds per minute but I am not allowed to own a damn nucleal bomb! I don't even want to use it! I promise! I am just collecting nuclear weapons. Is that so wrong ? sure some people might go nuts. But ... but I am not responsible for them. Not nuclear bombs kill people! Its the red button! When you push it. So they should ban buttons!

Com on Sua. You can do better then that. I am not going in here telling you guns kill people. We both know the cases.

But lets assume for a minute you have a crazy guy armed with a 9mm glock and another one armed with a 5.56mm assault rifle or even a machine gun. Who do you think has more potential ?

Remember there was a case where police officers complained about the lack of high powered automatic weapons. This simply tells me at least that different weapons have a different efficiency in the hands of the same user be it a police officer, soldier or criminal. One does not bring a knife to a gunfight even though both can be used (but dont have to) as weapons.

The military is trying to make weapons more effective already since humans started to record history and killing each other. And it has simply shown itself in combat that certain weapons are more efficient in killing people the others. The same is true for other inmate objects. Hence why I don't have a problem with people owning hunting rifles for their intended use or if you want even just for "sport" and collecting but I get a rather fishy feeling when people would cry for owning dynamite or even more powerful military explosives.

What has the limitation or even baning of objects with a very high potential for damage to do with the Orwellian state ? As most people know a state has many tasks. One of them is to protect its civilians. Not just the individual but also on a large scale. This includes for example to even take measures like fighting terrorists - even though the use of force is prohibited and rather frowned upon for the individual a state has to make sure that its citizens have a certain level of safety this includes the threat of strike to any force/group which seeks to harm those citizens the question arise if a state has for example now the right to kill terrorists with assasination either as reaction to their assault or with the premise that doing so would prevent more crimes or act as example that they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Another question. What do you think police officers prefer. Criminals armed with handguns or assault rifles ? Sure a ban will NOT prevent those weapons to get in the wrong hands. But laws against explosives does not stop terrorists or crazy people to build bombs. But that does not mean we should now throw all laws away because it might still happen. There are cases where those laws might have prevented crimes or at least made it very difficult for criminals so they fall back to weapons/tools with less damage and thus lowering eventually the overall damage which was done.

We can not hope to ever have solutions which will be perfect. But we can sure try to improve things. If it works in the end or not. That is a different question. There are definitely many different ways and views how to achieve the improvement.

 

[mobucks]

ugh not another gun discussion.

A gun is a tool. People have gone on mass stabbing sprees killing many people. Tell me we should ban knives?

I can buy a can of gas, put some sort of shrapnel in it and light it in a playground.

Ban gas?

Just be thankful you dont live in some war-torn African country and go on with your lives. Psychotic people happen. Dont blame guns.

Hows this for logic: Take away assault rifles. Will this put a stop to massacres? People who are crazy enough to take mass lives will still get results. Unibomber much? How about Oklahoma City? 9/11? List can go on and on.

**Dives deep and orders silent running**

 

[Crni Vuk]

please read posts before you answer. No one here blamed guns for the actions of that guy. Doing so would be ridiculous.

 

[SuAside]

Yeah, no, you're basically talking out of your ass. The people who have been vocal about wanting further restrictions here is the police, not any particular political party. But hey, let's just assume them darn commies are cooking up some new scheme to screw us over, right?

Of course the cops wouldn't mind less guns. But the backing for this clearly comes heavily from one side of the political spectrum. Not to mention the cop in question is not exactly politically neutral.

Either way, Norway already had fairly strict gun laws. These type of things do not prevent maniacs and/or motivated people from slaughtering people wholesale.

Also bull, all that's needed for a shotgun or semi-automatic rifle is a weekend safety course and a secure storage cabinet.

Background checks, licenses, safety courses, exams, secure storage, ban on guns that look "evil", limited list of semi-auto weapons that are "acceptable" to own even if functionality is in no way different from any other rifle... That constitutes strict gun control in most parts of the world, you know.

*snip*

Let's start off with: nice straw man. Or an army of straw men, actually.

You keep putting words into my mouth that I have never said and it rightly pisses me off. Stop it, please.

So if people get access to all kind of weapons would be suddenly freedom ?
But if people decide to vote eventually for lawmakers which want laws to limit the use of certain weapons then it is 1984 ?

Two wolves and a sheep vote over what to eat. Democracy are the wolves eating the sheep. Liberty is a well armed sheep telling the wolves to fuck off.

But lets assume for a minute you have a crazy guy armed with a 9mm glock and another one armed with a 5.56mm assault rifle or even a machine gun. Who do you think has more potential ?

Ironically, in these scenarios, semi-auto firearms have proven far more devastating because the people carrying out these acts generally tend to spray and pray if they have fully automatic weapons (and thus run out of ammo quicker). Semi-auto lends itself better to aimed shots, and the military generally only uses full auto for suppression and volume of fire, with good reason.

Which is btw totally irrelevant since I've never advocated allowing full auto weapons in the first place. Not that I'd mind terribly though, if properly licensed etc.

Hence why I don't have a problem with people owning hunting rifles for their intended use or if you want even just for "sport" and collecting but I get a rather fishy feeling when people would cry for owning dynamite or even more powerful military explosives.

So shooting animals is cool, but people shooting paper or cardboard in dynamic shooting disciplines like IPSC or DPSA are evil?

Also, again: I have never advocated ownership of explosives.

What has the limitation or even baning of objects with a very high potential for damage to do with the Orwellian state ?

I'm not adverse to limiting things to a certain extent, but outright denial of certain liberties through questionable motivation is not something that goes over well.

Percentually, doctors kill more people through malpractise than legal firearms kill people. Shall we outlaw medicine as well?
Same goes with drinking and smoking. You don't only kill yourself, you also kill an innocent bystander when you plow into him when driving drunk or when he inhales your smoke and develops cancer. These two kill far more than any legally owned gun has ever done.

Many people enjoy shooting sports, hunting, collecting,... Why take this sport and folklore away from these people?
Most gun owners I know are the most law abiding citizens I've ever met. They're all scared of a single slipup that will end up costing them their guns. Me, I'm even scared of pissing in the woods because technically that's a violation of public decency. This means I would not be able to get my certificate of good behavior and in turn I would lose all my guns...

As most people know a state has many tasks. One of them is to protect its civilians.

Actually, no. The state does not have any legal obligation to protect its citizens. Look it up. The answer might actually surprise you.

This includes for example to even take measures like fighting terrorists - even though the use of force is prohibited and rather frowned upon for the individual a state has to make sure that its citizens have a certain level of safety this includes the threat of strike to any force/group which seeks to harm those citizens the question arise if a state has for example now the right to kill terrorists with assasination either as reaction to their assault or with the premise that doing so would prevent more crimes or act as example that they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Cliché but: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

If all web traffic was monitored and cameras installed into every street, every house and every workplace, the cops would have a far easier job tracking down criminals, don't you think? Surely, no man could possibly oppose this, right?

The line people draw in the sand to say where is "enough" differs, of course, and therein lies the problem.

*snip*

Will you stop talking about assault rifles and bombs? A Mini-14 is not an assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle for fucks sake.

 

[Quagmire69]

But anyway, the liberal use of the term ''commie'' to describe any left-leaning person already left your argument null and void.

I'd consider the all labour parties to be at the very least commie with a smal c.

 

[mobucks]

full auto is for compton drive by's and belt fed weapons.
Semi is the way to go to get real killing done.

just my oppinion.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Let's start off with: nice straw man. Or an army of straw men, actually.

No clue what you mean. We are both using exagerated examples here. Anyway.

Two wolves and a sheep vote over what to eat. Democracy are the wolves eating the sheep. Liberty is a well armed sheep telling the wolves to fuck off.

I never said democracy has no flaws. But that is how things work. If your population feels fine with weapons the government has no need to get laws for them. If your population has the feeling those need restrictions then the governement has to follow it somehow. I am sorry. But that is how it works more or less. That is why you vote a party you feel comfortable with in the hope that they will reflect your opinion as close as possible and thuse lead the politic in a direction you can agree with. It might not be the best way to make politics. but it sure works for most European nations better then lets say how they do it in west Africa.

I am not sure how the right to have weapons will give your "opinion" in a political debate more weight for example.

So shooting animals is cool, but people shooting paper or cardboard in dynamic shooting disciplines like IPSC or DPSA are evil?

Again I have no problem with people using their weapons for hunting OR sport (which I count cardboard shoting in). I HATE hunting to say that. But I am ready to push MY personal feelings aside for the right of people to have firearms for this kind of activity. When I come together with a hunter I will try to explain him my position. But I will not explain him that he has no right to get firearms.

I am just saying that we sometimes have to accept things sometimes. Gun owners are a minority. At least here. And I guess they are in most other European nations as well. If the majority now demands a ban of weapons what other choice then to follow has the minority ? Do I find it always right ? No. But guns are not the same like letz say your freedom of expression. And I dont see how you need guns in the first place to get what you want. And if people can make reasonable claims and those sound logic then I doubt that it will be of any issue for the population. Like weapons for sport and eventually hunting. Though if some like the tea party scream for it and think it cuts their rights then I could not care less to be honest. An extremist is an extremist. But that is my opinion. - This is not releated to you. I am just saying in general. I dont know you well enough to really make any claim about your political opinion.

Actually, no. The state does not have any legal obligation to protect its citizens. Look it up. The answer might actually surprise you.

Yes it has. maybe not where you are. But here they have. Also maybe I have trouble to explain this correctly so I hope you forgive me if I lack the correct terms. What I am talking about is the

Rechtsstaat (German: Rechtsstaat) is a concept in continental European legal thinking, originally borrowed from German jurisprudence, which can be translated as "legal state", "state of law", "state of justice", or "state of rights".

A governement usually has rights and responsibilities (again if I am wrong correct me). One of those responsibilities is it as well to defend the state from dangers either from the inside or the outside.

So while a state is not always responsible for the safety of every single citizen they are at least responsible to mentain a certain level of "safety" or "order". otherwise the whole concept of a state becomes not possible to govern. I am talking about the state as a body here.

I will go here with a quote from Wikipedia:
The task of establishing a universal and permanent peaceful life is not only a part of theory of law within the framework of pure reason, but per se an absolute and ultimate goal. To achieve this goal, a state must become the community of a large number of people, living provided with legislative guarantees of their property rights secured by a common constitution. The supremacy of this constitution… must be derived a priori from the considerations for achievement of the absolute ideal in the most just and fair organization of people’s life under the aegis of public law

The safety of the constitution for example can be only garuanted if a state has the right to use force. A single person can not do this. Hence why we have organisations of different size and form stating with the Police, Firebrigades and many times anything that is similar to the FBI or some inteligence service. People will always do certain actions where a single person cant act. Including criminal actions or even war-like situations (riots, attacks from the outside). And here you need something to protect the civilisians. Like with personal trained in release of hostages.

I can only guess of course but I would assume that it is very similar in many other nations. Otherwise why would their Gouvernement (regardless if the US or some african/asian nation) refer to their supremacy.

 

[Ilosar]

A gun is a tool. People have gone on mass stabbing sprees killing many people. Tell me we should ban knives?

Who said the gun fired itself here? The argument is that fully automatic weapons, or deadly semi-autos, should be harder to get because, and I quote someone living in Norway;

all that's needed for a shotgun or semi-automatic rifle is a weekend safety course and a secure storage cabinet.

Nobody said anything about taking away all your precious guns tomorrow morning.

It's a throwaway insult. If that's the only thing you took from my post, I pity you.

Then don't make it?

At the same time it's also a reference to those who have indeed outlawed guns in the past in the name of public safety and then wholesale slaughtered a few tens of millions of people for good measure. Surely, this will not happen in Norway, but it's ridiculous to believe that outlawing guns has anything to do with public safety at all.

Godwin's Law seems to be active in this thread (not that I am completely free of blame). And they don't want to ''outlaw'' guns, they want to make their access harder, and considering the man had 3 registered weapons, I can't blame them.

BTW, I find it hilarious that you say that you basically can't rightly protect yourself from organizations like the maffia.

You know what I meant. You aren't a law-abiding citizen if you manage to piss on the Mafia enough you need a rifle to fend them off.

I'm part of the Flemish Liberal & Democrat party. How about them apples?

Getting some info on that (and no, not from Wikipedia, although it gives the same info as anywhere else), it's not exactly a left-leaning party. They seem to place much emphasis on the more traditional ''liberalism'', freedom from State and such, than from the more modern (or, as I see it, butchered) definition of ''liberalism'' as in 'ineffectual lefty kool-aid drinker who goes to government to beg for money''. In short, no, it doesn't give you the right to call people 'commies'' and get away with it.

How can you quantify what I "should" own or not? And who are you to say what I should have or not? Millions of people around the world own guns legally for various reasons. A tiny margin of them ends up abusing them.

A tiny margin? Millions of legal firearm owners? Any true figures?

How about we take your own reasoning to kitchen knives, cars, or fire axes and medicines? Guns and knives are tools... Stop limiting my freedom when I do not threathen yours.

*sigh* Who said they wanted to take your freedom? And the reasoning is that knifes, fire axes and medicine have practical uses. Guns are only useful for shooting at targets (which is fine by me, I did it when I was in the Reserve and it's fun while it lasts) or killing people.

There are many types of intermediate gun laws that have shown success. Hell, Norway never had any issues with legally owned guns. The random nutjob taking abuse of the system cannot be prevented any more than you can prevent a drunk driver with a license from running over a child with his car. Sadly, the latter happens a lot more than the former.

I agree that extremes don't help anyone, but you have to understand it's one hell of a traumatism. No different from 9/11; I mean, surely more people die in one year from car accidents or smoking, but there's always a cause; alcoholism, irresponsibility, or just blind dumb bad luck. Terrorism is deliberate and hits many people very hard. It's what makes it so striking.

People often forget that the MAJORITY of people in the rural areas on the european mainland carried firearms in the period between the world wars. There were plagues of wild dogs that would attack people walking past or driving past on bicycles. The "Velodog" revolvers were everywhere. Yet there was hardly any more gun crime than there is now. Hell, even less if statistics are to be believed.

Statistics from these eras are always sketchy at best. But since there is usually little crime in the countryside comparatively to cities in general, it's not really a point about gun laws anyhow. Most of them were light hunting weapons probably, usually unfit for killing people. At least my grandad says so.

That's a weird thing to say. The people decide upon the laws, and we can change them.

Nope. You elect the people who write and change the laws. Pressure can be applied to change courses, obviously.

So you'd be fine with 1984?

There is absolutely no line that the government can cross where you'd say: "THIS IS ENOUGH, I WANT MY FREEDOM"?

And you try to pull the strawman card? Come on.

Of course the cops wouldn't mind less guns. But the backing for this clearly comes heavily from one side of the political spectrum. Not to mention the cop in question is not exactly politically neutral.

So many assumptions.

Background checks, licenses, safety courses, exams, secure storage, ban on guns that look "evil", limited list of semi-auto weapons that are "acceptable" to own even if functionality is in no way different from any other rifle... That constitutes strict gun control in most parts of the world, you know.

So what exactly do you suggest instead? Because it seems like basic safety to me. If you want a gun at home, you have to prove you won't go bersek with it or mishandle it.

Let's start off with: nice straw man. Or an army of straw men, actually.

After invoking 1984 and the Nazis in one post you don't really have any authority to accuse people of using strawmen.

You keep putting words into my mouth that I have never said and it rightly pisses me off. Stop it, please.

Yet you seem keen to do so yourself;

So if people get access to all kind of weapons would be suddenly freedom ?
But if people decide to vote eventually for lawmakers which want laws to limit the use of certain weapons then it is 1984 ?

Two wolves and a sheep vote over what to eat. Democracy are the wolves eating the sheep. Liberty is a well armed sheep telling the wolves to fuck off.

Because that's not what he said, at all. Also, presenting democracy and liberty as two opposing concepts is funny, if nothing else. And that quote is tired and old anyway, I can make up any kind of imaginary scenarios to justify any kind of political statement I want too.

I'm not adverse to limiting things to a certain extent, but outright denial of certain liberties through questionable motivation is not something that goes over well.

And what has that to do with the situation in Norway? A guy killed many people with registered weapons. They want to limit access to (and not ''ban'' or ''outlaw'', as you insist) said registered weapons. I do not call this a denial of liberty through questionable motives.

Percentually, doctors kill more people through malpractise than legal firearms kill people. Shall we outlaw medicine as well?

??? Medical errors are the same as shooting people now? And you try to lecture me on apples and oranges?

Me, I'm even scared of pissing in the woods because technically that's a violation of public decency. This means I would not be able to get my certificate of good behavior and in turn I would lose all my guns...

Way to hyperbole things. I lived in Belgium myself for a few months, and they are nowhere near as crazy as that.

Actually, no. The state does not have any legal obligation to protect its citizens. Look it up. The answer might actually surprise you.

What he says is actually true, Crni. A State is characterized by the monopoly of force. But then his argument falls apart the moment you read the Constitution of any government worth it's salt.

Will you stop talking about assault rifles and bombs? A Mini-14 is not an assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle for fucks sake.

Not everyone is gun-savvy, no need to get angry. They are not the same but share basic similarities. Like Labour parties and Communists. See what I did there?

 

[Crni Vuk]

What he says is actually true, Crni. A State is characterized by the monopoly of force. But then his argument falls apart the moment you read the Constitution of any government worth it's salt.

I am not sure I am now wrong or did I said something intelligent for a change >-< ?

What I meant with monopoly on force (if that is what I really meant ...) that a citizen has (eventually) no legal right to act in certain situations. - Or at least it is not expected from him.

Like a criminal taking hostages. It is not the task of a usual citizen what ever if he is armed or not to storm in to the bank guns blazing trying to save the day - no one will argue about the situation if he killed the criminal to defend him self of course. But I am just saying. That is NOT the role a citizen has to assume. The force a state has is divided by its political bodies (Separation of powers?).

Its hard for me to get this correct in english when I don't even know what the names of all that stuff is ... I just know it from German.

 

[Ilosar]

Yeah, that's more or less it. The State should (by the strictly theoretical definition) be the only one capable of using force in any kind of legitimate fashion. Of course, theory doesn't hold a candle to practice, which is why people are still allowed to defend themselves (within reasonable criteria). And it's also why the State tries to protect it's citizens (because, well, the State is composed of them), especially in democracies where the difference between the two is lesser than in autocracies.

The force a state has is divided by its political bodies (Separation of powers?).

Erm, no, monopoly of force and separation of power are not the same thing. Separation of power ensures not one individual or small group of individual has control of all aspects of a government (legislative, executive, judicial, some people add the bureaucratic power to this sometimes), preventing tyranny.

 

[SuAside]

Actually, no. The state does not have any legal obligation to protect its citizens. Look it up. The answer might actually surprise you.

Yes it has. maybe not where you are. But here they have. Also maybe I have trouble to explain this correctly so I hope you forgive me if I lack the correct terms. What I am talking about is the

Rechtsstaat (German: Rechtsstaat) is a concept in continental European legal thinking, originally borrowed from German jurisprudence, which can be translated as "legal state", "state of law", "state of justice", or "state of rights".

A governement usually has rights and responsibilities (again if I am wrong correct me). One of those responsibilities is it as well to defend the state from dangers either from the inside or the outside.

So while a state is not always responsible for the safety of every single citizen they are at least responsible to mentain a certain level of "safety" or "order". otherwise the whole concept of a state becomes not possible to govern. I am talking about the state as a body here.

Even in a rechtsstaat, the police (government, whatever) has no actual legal obligation to protect its citizens when they require aid. If you call the cops, they're not actually legally obligated to come.

Who said the gun fired itself here? The argument is that fully automatic weapons, or deadly semi-autos, should be harder to get because, and I quote someone living in Norway;

"Deadly semi-autos". How little you know of guns...

Nobody said anything about taking away all your precious guns tomorrow morning.

Actually, yes, we did since the list of "allowed" guns is being shortened. Anyone that will fall outside of this list, will have to turn in his legal property and will not be compensated for it.

It's a throwaway insult. If that's the only thing you took from my post, I pity you.

Then don't make it?

This is a computer game forum. Not the Senate. I'm free to make jokes and puns as I see fit.

At the same time it's also a reference to those who have indeed outlawed guns in the past in the name of public safety and then wholesale slaughtered a few tens of millions of people for good measure. Surely, this will not happen in Norway, but it's ridiculous to believe that outlawing guns has anything to do with public safety at all.

Godwin's Law seems to be active in this thread (not that I am completely free of blame). And they don't want to ''outlaw'' guns, they want to make their access harder, and considering the man had 3 registered weapons, I can't blame them.

I'm referencing communists and particularily Stalin, not Hitler. Godwin has nothing to do with this.

And access will not be made harder, the access to certain guns will be made legally impossible.

BTW, I find it hilarious that you say that you basically can't rightly protect yourself from organizations like the maffia.

You know what I meant. You aren't a law-abiding citizen if you manage to piss on the Mafia enough you need a rifle to fend them off.

And you know that due to your extensive experience with said maffias? Italian, Sicilian, Russian, Albanian,...?

Denying them protection money has in the past resulted in burned down stores, houses, and assassination.

I'm part of the Flemish Liberal & Democrat party. How about them apples?

Getting some info on that (and no, not from Wikipedia, although it gives the same info as anywhere else), it's not exactly a left-leaning party. They seem to place much emphasis on the more traditional ''liberalism'', freedom from State and such, than from the more modern (or, as I see it, butchered) definition of ''liberalism'' as in 'ineffectual lefty kool-aid drinker who goes to government to beg for money''. In short, no, it doesn't give you the right to call people 'commies'' and get away with it.

VLD is centrist. Most will even say left, unless you yourself are from a socialist country. For an american for instance it would left without question.

How can you quantify what I "should" own or not? And who are you to say what I should have or not? Millions of people around the world own guns legally for various reasons. A tiny margin of them ends up abusing them.

A tiny margin? Millions of legal firearm owners? Any true figures?

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf all info is sourced, so you can double check everything yourself.
Knock yourself out.

How about we take your own reasoning to kitchen knives, cars, or fire axes and medicines? Guns and knives are tools... Stop limiting my freedom when I do not threathen yours.

*sigh* Who said they wanted to take your freedom? And the reasoning is that knifes, fire axes and medicine have practical uses. Guns are only useful for shooting at targets (which is fine by me, I did it when I was in the Reserve and it's fun while it lasts) or killing people.

My freedom to own guns, clearly.

And knives are way more often used in violent crimes in Europe than guns are.

And no, guns are useful for a lot more things than shooting paper or people...

I agree that extremes don't help anyone, but you have to understand it's one hell of a traumatism. No different from 9/11; I mean, surely more people die in one year from car accidents or smoking, but there's always a cause; alcoholism, irresponsibility, or just blind dumb bad luck. Terrorism is deliberate and hits many people very hard. It's what makes it so striking.

And somehow terrorism has a knack for not giving a shit about laws. Gee wiz, I wonder how the Rote Armee Fraktion got their guns!

Anders pointed out extensively that it would not have mattered if the laws were any different.

Statistics from these eras are always sketchy at best. But since there is usually little crime in the countryside comparatively to cities in general, it's not really a point about gun laws anyhow. Most of them were light hunting weapons probably, usually unfit for killing people. At least my grandad says so.

Even .22LR kills people just fine... And 'light hunting weapons'? What is considered light for hunting is MORE POWERFUL THAN MOST SPORTING WEAPONS, MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLES AND PISTOLS!

Background checks, licenses, safety courses, exams, secure storage, ban on guns that look "evil", limited list of semi-auto weapons that are "acceptable" to own even if functionality is in no way different from any other rifle... That constitutes strict gun control in most parts of the world, you know.

So what exactly do you suggest instead? Because it seems like basic safety to me. If you want a gun at home, you have to prove you won't go bersek with it or mishandle it.

I don't suggest anything instead.
Mental & physical exam, proof of good conduct, safety classes & exams, theoretical law exam, secure storage and so on are already more than useful. I'd actually advocate less tight laws. Banning guns for 'looking evil' is retarded. There should be no such list, only types of guns allowed. Arguably you can keep full autos banned for all I care though.

And you try to pull the strawman card? Come on.

A question can never be a straw man unless it is rhetorical.

After invoking 1984 and the Nazis in one post you don't really have any authority to accuse people of using strawmen.

See quote above.

And nope, it's the commies card, not the nazi card.

I'm not adverse to limiting things to a certain extent, but outright denial of certain liberties through questionable motivation is not something that goes over well.

And what has that to do with the situation in Norway? A guy killed many people with registered weapons. They want to limit access to (and not ''ban'' or ''outlaw'', as you insist) said registered weapons. I do not call this a denial of liberty through questionable motives.

Yes BAN, not restrict access to. Outright BAN access to. That's what we're talking about here. Outlawing semi-automatics.

And yes, if something happens once, and has been working just fine for the past 200 years, than I find it highly questionable to ban something based on that single incident.

Me, I'm even scared of pissing in the woods because technically that's a violation of public decency. This means I would not be able to get my certificate of good behavior and in turn I would lose all my guns...

Way to hyperbole things. I lived in Belgium myself for a few months, and they are nowhere near as crazy as that.

That's not a hyperbole. I AM scared of pissing in the woods. It only requires one overzealous cop or bored ranger to forfeit my right to own guns due to pissing against a fucking tree.

What he says is actually true, Crni. A State is characterized by the monopoly of force. But then his argument falls apart the moment you read the Constitution of any government worth it's salt.

There is not a single government in the world that has the legal OBLIGATION to protect it's citizens, Ilosar. If there is, please show me proof.
Of course, government strives to some extent to provide justice, but that's AFTER the fact.

 

[alec]

I AM scared of pissing in the woods.

Also, I think that law only counts in urban areas (parc, recreation center, streets, ...), not in the wild (woods). I'm not sure though.

 

[DammitBoy]

I think the Norway tragedy has shown us that the best thing to do is to ban fertilizer...

 

[alec]

Yeah: shit in them Norwegian woods and you lose your right to vote.

 

[Wintermind]

The only change in policy should be in regards to body armor. Trauma plates for everyone!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Even in a rechtsstaat, the police (government, whatever) has no actual legal obligation to protect its citizens when they require aid. If you call the cops, they're not actually legally obligated to come.

As said HERE (Germany) it is:

If you call the police they HAVE to come. Simple as that. No clue how it is in Belgium. however here it depends very much on the regulations of each state. In other words someone calling the police because her husband is threatening her with a knife will have a higher priority then illegal parking. But at least here. They have to get out.

Just as how the fire department HAS to get out when someone is calling them.

If the situation really required them or not is a different question.

I will show you some of our laws regarding it. In German sadly but I will try to translate the important part. NOTE: It is from the state bavaria but I am very certain this part counts for the other states as well.

www.Polizeirecht.de

§ 2 Aufgaben der Polizei

(1) Die Polizei hat die Aufgabe, die allgemein oder im Einzelfall bestehenden Gefahren für die öffentliche Sicherheit oder Ordnung abzuwehren.


This is more or less the obligation that the Police has the task/duty to avert dangers either for the public or in a single case which threat the public safety.
- after looking for more laws, it seems the situation is pretty much the same for the police as whole in all German states. It says the police has the task to fend of and prevent any threat to the puplic safety.

Though Sua. You cant tell me that your state is not obliged to defend it self.

And you know that due to your extensive experience with said maffias? Italian, Sicilian, Russian, Albanian,...?

Denying them protection money has in the past resulted in burned down stores, houses, and assassination. .

An interesting case.

Though I fail to see how weapons are going to really help you here. As the individual to say that.

How are lets say weapons protecting you eventually from maffia/criminals throwing a firebomb in your home or store ? how is protecting you from assassinations ?

don't you think that a good and correctly working police is better suited for protection ? I am not saying that weapons are ineffective. I just have the feeling they are rather ill-suited for fighting crime of that size. It goes far beyond the "self-defence". I mean if it would be THAT easy to defend your self then I am curious what the reason is behind the witness protection program. Even if you sleep with a gun under your pillow. Even if you have it all the time in your car, at work etc. it is no guarantee for being safe. I don't think that this is what you mean. But weapons alone will NOT protect you from the organization (as whole). Just give you eventually the possibility to shoot at someone. What the Mafia has and you as individual lack are numbers. Though I personally would not want to life in a society where the citizens are required to get weapons and team up like "gangs" to defend them self. And I am even so far to admit that if someone is breaking in your home while you notice it a weapon will give you a possible chance to protect your self. But this is a rather individual case. Not the same like protecting your self from a whole organization.

Something which should not be forgot either is that a population with many arms might make it very difficult for the police to differentiate between the criminal and the civilian. Think about a situaiton like a school shooting with someone killing people and now suddenly a student or teacher stats to shoot back. How would some police offers know in the first moment who the real shooter is ? I can only imagine this to be a very difficult situation.

There is also the case of Beslan school hostage crisis where civilians (no clue how many) started to shoot at the terrorists. to go with wikipedia : (...)After an exchange of gunfire with police and an armed local civilian, in which it was reported one attacker was shot dead and two were wounded, the militants seized the school building.[34] Reports of the death toll from this shootout ranged from two to eight people, while more than a dozen people were injured.

Civilians are neither trained nor expected to actually take part in such situations. So weapons are not inherently the solution or protection to every case. Sometimes a higher force and/or organization is needed with the training and discipline which is requierd for such a case. And you cant tell me now that a civilian will perform here as efficiently like personal with the correct training.

 

[James Snowscoran]

Yeah, no, you're basically talking out of your ass. The people who have been vocal about wanting further restrictions here is the police, not any particular political party. But hey, let's just assume them darn commies are cooking up some new scheme to screw us over, right?

Of course the cops wouldn't mind less guns. But the backing for this clearly comes heavily from one side of the political spectrum. Not to mention the cop in question is not exactly politically neutral.

More conspiracy theories with no facts backing them. Police, commie politicians, they're all out to get you man, watch for black helicopters.

Either way, Norway already had fairly strict gun laws. These type of things do not prevent maniacs and/or motivated people from slaughtering people wholesale.

Also bull, all that's needed for a shotgun or semi-automatic rifle is a weekend safety course and a secure storage cabinet.

Background checks, licenses, safety courses, exams, secure storage, ban on guns that look "evil", limited list of semi-auto weapons that are "acceptable" to own even if functionality is in no way different from any other rifle... That constitutes strict gun control in most parts of the world, you know.

Still we somehow managed to rank as #11 out of 178 countries on a guns/capita survey from 2007. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

As I tried to explain to you before, gun ownership in Norway isn't allowed for reasons of self-defense or because we hold the right to own firearms to be some sacred dogma. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis of whether allowing people to own guns for recreational shooting and hunting outweighs the problems related to firearms deaths. The freedom to own guns is not inherently different from the freedom to wave your dick around in public, and laws restricting either isn't a controversial issue in most countries.

 

[SuAside]

www.Polizeirecht.de

My german is sadly not good enough to analyze the wording.
In general, the actual wording in law is chosen specifically to prevent liability of the state/police.

don't you think that a good and correctly working police is better suited for protection ?

Over the top, but one of the jokes used in the US to promote concealed carry is this:

Person: "Why do you feel the need to conceal carry?"
CCWpermitowner: "Because I can't carry a cop in my pocket."

And rightly so. Regardless of how good the police functions, you will never be fully protected against all harm. It's simply impossible.

I just have the feeling they are rather ill-suited for fighting crime of that size. It goes far beyond the "self-defence".

Regardless of the number of persons threathening you, it is still very much self-defense.

I mean if it would be THAT easy to defend your self then I am curious what the reason is behind the witness protection program.

I never said you'd be successfull.

It is no guarantee for being safe.

Guns do not provide safety. They provide something that could in some cases even the odds, nothing more, nothing less.

And I am even so far to admit that if someone is breaking in your home while you notice it a weapon will give you a possible chance to protect your self. But this is a rather individual case. Not the same like protecting your self from a whole organization.

Do the unlikelyhood of the odds mean you should not be given that chance if you wanted it?

Something which should not be forgot either is that a population with many arms might make it very difficult for the police to differentiate between the criminal and the civilian. Think about a situaiton like a school shooting with someone killing people and now suddenly a student or teacher stats to shoot back. How would some police offers know in the first moment who the real shooter is ? I can only imagine this to be a very difficult situation.

Do the swiss have trouble differentiating between citizens and criminals? No more than any other country I'd say. Yet people go to the supermarket with military assault rifles slung on their back.

Of course, there's trouble if something happens and a concealed carry permit owner draws his weapon to defend himself and others. But that person made his own choice and chose to defend himself, rather than being defenseless. In general, cops will tell you to drop your weapon before they shoot, unless you're directly endangering someone. CCW owners have made their choice and prefer their chances with a gun than without.

There is also the case of Beslan school hostage crisis where civilians (no clue how many) started to shoot at the terrorists. to go with wikipedia : (...)After an exchange of gunfire with police and an armed local civilian, in which it was reported one attacker was shot dead and two were wounded, the militants seized the school building.[34] Reports of the death toll from this shootout ranged from two to eight people, while more than a dozen people were injured.

I don't see how this proves or changes anything.

Statistically, allowing for concealled carry and armed self-defense has caused extremely little damage and a lot of good things. The collateral damage if far far smaller than the prevented crimes in countries like the Czech Republic, USA,... Sadly, it obviously can't solve everything, but it gives people a chance if they want it.

Civilians are neither trained nor expected to actually take part in such situations. So weapons are not inherently the solution or protection to every case. Sometimes a higher force and/or organization is needed with the training and discipline which is requierd for such a case. And you cant tell me now that a civilian will perform here as efficiently like personal with the correct training.

Guns are never a solution, but they can be a tool to empower those in need.

And of course, again: if cops and army could be anywhere at any time, then CCW has extremely limited usefulness. But cops aren't everywhere. Civilians however usually are around.


With that said, as I've said before, none of the weapons I own, I own for self-defense. I would use a gun in self-defense if I was attacked in my home however. But it was never a motivation for me to own guns. Sport, history, engineering, recreation, mechanics, ballistics and so on were.
I would also never actually conceal carry a weapon in my daily life if it were legal, but I would not find it bad if people could get a license for it. Right now only judges, politicians and so on are capable of getting such a license and that is a travesty.

More conspiracy theories with no facts backing them. Police, commie politicians, they're all out to get you man, watch for black helicopters.

It's not because you're paranoid that they're not after you.

And no, I'm not afraid of communists. They're the least of my concerns.

Still we somehow managed to rank as #11 out of 178 countries on a guns/capita survey from 2007. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

Strictness of gun control CANNOT be measured by the quantity of guns available in a country. I'll let you figure out yourself why that's a logical falacy. But hey, don't let common sense get in the way of your arguments.

Also, eventhough Sweden is 11th, they still had extremely low firearms crime with legally owned weapons? Gee wizz, I wonder if we could do something useful with that info?

As I tried to explain to you before, gun ownership in Norway isn't allowed for reasons of self-defense or because we hold the right to own firearms to be some sacred dogma. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis of whether allowing people to own guns for recreational shooting and hunting outweighs the problems related to firearms deaths. The freedom to own guns is not inherently different from the freedom to wave your dick around in public, and laws restricting either isn't a controversial issue in most countries.

And? I've never claimed it to be any special right?

I've claimed it a right where I'd draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough.

It's no different from the right to drive a car, own a dog or smoke a cigarette.

 

[James Snowscoran]

More conspiracy theories with no facts backing them. Police, commie politicians, they're all out to get you man, watch for black helicopters.

It's not because you're paranoid that they're not after you.

And no, I'm not afraid of communists. They're the least of my concerns.

I'm confused. Then who excactly are you ranting against?

Still we somehow managed to rank as #11 out of 178 countries on a guns/capita survey from 2007. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

Strictness of gun control CANNOT be measured by the quantity of guns available in a country. I'll let you figure out yourself why that's a logical falacy.

My claim wasn't as strong as that though. I merely asserted that your claim that a country with one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership in the world has comparatively stringent gun control laws is puzzling at best. Given that gun control laws attempt to restrict the ability of civilians to own firearms, they can by definition not be very strict if ownership is widespread.

As I tried to explain to you before, gun ownership in Norway isn't allowed for reasons of self-defense or because we hold the right to own firearms to be some sacred dogma. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis of whether allowing people to own guns for recreational shooting and hunting outweighs the problems related to firearms deaths. The freedom to own guns is not inherently different from the freedom to wave your dick around in public, and laws restricting either isn't a controversial issue in most countries.

And? I've never claimed it to be any special right?

I've claimed it a right where I'd draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough.

It's no different from the right to drive a car, own a dog or smoke a cigarette.

Well, driving a car requires a license with more stringent requirements than obtaining a firearm. Dog ownership and cigarette smoking are also subject to regulations.

PS: What would you do if someone steps over your line in the sand? Take up arms against the government?

 

[Loxley]

Its quite simple math suaside. You do not need a semi automatic for hunting deer or whatnot. Since you should only need one shot.

So what do one really need a semi automatic for? Not for hunting. And not for marksmanship shooting as far as I know. Can do that just well with a normal rifle. And by doing that one take away the ability to rapidly kill people by alot.

Also the norwegian labour party is not communist. Seriously..they are the typical talk left move right party you will find anywhere..the only people that think they are communist are right wing extremists like Breivik.

As for "oh he can get it other ways" argument. The shooter did try that. He tried to get a illegal autmatic and did not manage it.

The big thing however is. There is no real need for people to have semi automatics.