Gun ownership thread #2323344

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by jeremy202, Sep 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jeremy202

    jeremy202 First time out of the vault

    59
    Aug 26, 2008

    Seeing as how you're from norway, another european anti gun country(I hope you know why guns are illegal in europe.Its so the government will have absolute control will no fear of reprisal from its people.That is a wrong, a government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around) you would never understand.And yes I am american
     
  2. Loxley

    Loxley Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    911
    Apr 11, 2003
    Well that was informed and original.
     
  3. Malky

    Malky Lived Through the Heat Death
    Orderite

    May 7, 2003
    oh man v for vendetta was sooooooooo cool
     
  4. jeremy202

    jeremy202 First time out of the vault

    59
    Aug 26, 2008
    Yes I like V for vendetta too but when I wrote that I wasnt even thinking about that movie
     
  5. Daimyo

    Daimyo Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
    Orderite

    Oct 26, 2007
    My post was tounge-in-cheek and I was mainly referring to the numbers, (really - a whole arsenal?), you need for your personal defense.

    A gun (preferably with a CCW) I could understand, but a whole arsenal, and all for personal defense? ...

    I also appreciate your insightful analysis of how our government here in Norway, (a country with more guns pr inhabitant than USA btw), is out to get me and subdue me and my rights.

    While we don't have as liberal gun laws as you do in the USA I would not call the Norwegian government particularly "anti gun".

    The Norwegian way is Anti guns for personal defense, yes, but not anti guns for hunting ...

    About the whole "I hope you know why guns are illegal in Europe" etc ... Do you actually believe what you wrote there? If so I don't even know how to begin to answer you.
     
  6. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    The best way to answer stupid people, and especially stupid American gun nuts, is to just ignore them.
     
  7. jeremy202

    jeremy202 First time out of the vault

    59
    Aug 26, 2008
    thats the point, they dont want you to defend yourself.They would rather let criminals or even corrupt police cut your throat or shoot you than have you fire back.I know that european countries allow citizen to own low powered, single shot weapons that are completely ineffective for self defense, so they are completely irrelevant.
     
  8. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jun 21, 2007
    There are only two legitimate reasons to own firearms. Self defense and to over throw an oppressive or corrupt government.

    But you are nuts.
     
  9. Loxley

    Loxley Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    911
    Apr 11, 2003
    hunting? Besides that I agree.
     
  10. Kyuu

    Kyuu Insert Awesome Title Here

    Jul 19, 2007
    Right. Because if the U.S. military, or even the police, decided to come after me, a couple 9mm's and a hunting rifle would totally save me. Also, strict gun laws do in fact result in less gun crime, so you're much less likely to be shot by a criminal with the gun laws than you are without.

    The right to own and operate firearms has nothing to do with personal safety. People are much, much safer without guns.
    I'm sure you're intimately familiar with the gun control laws of every single nation in Europe. Although by the way you speak you seem to be unaware that Europe consists of many different countries all with their own, differing laws.

    Oh, and one last thing: did you know the second amendment was intended to allow local militias to equip themselves? The intent was not to allow nutty fanaticals with delusions of fending off an army from their front porch to stockpile weapons they have no real need or use for.
     
  11. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    You sir, are a complete idiot.

    Then again, what can I expect from an American who can't even write properly in his own language.
     
  12. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Admin

    May 27, 2004
    that's why i get to own a Molot Vepr 12 if i wanted to. you can't, because it looks mean! too mean to import! evil! EVIL!

    and i said before: i can own any pistol and any revolver save for any that are disguised as something else (like a pen gun).
    for rifles and shotguns, i can own anything in semi-auto (or manual action) that has a barrel length greater than 30 cm or an overall length of 60cm.
    the only exception being any gun in 5.7x28mm, which we simply can't have. (foolish as that restriction may be)

    the only thing you need to do is get the required permit or if applicable a sportshooting license. these permits cannot be withheld unless you're :
    1) mentally unfit
    2) physically unfit (to the point of making it dangerous to wield a gun. someone with spasms for instance.)
    3) unable to pass a background check (this excludes people with violent history, etc)
    4) failed an easy theoretical test about the law surrounding guns
    5) failed a practical test about gun safety

    now, except for the fact that i have to request a permit, in the range of gun i can choose from, i'm more free than YOU ARE. i'm not restricted by STUPID LAWS that are aimed at fueling the US economy by banning a whole lot of (evil looking) foreign guns.

    oh, and i can own full auto guns if i got a collectors license. though i cant shoot those 'freely' if i do.
     
  13. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jun 21, 2007
    What purpose besides your own enjoyment does that serve? We don't need to hunt now days, nor do we need to shoot for sport except to practice.

    Except, no.

    Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.112 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.

    (just a little addition the writer added) Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

    In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first.

    Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.

    11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

    59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%.

    90% of all violent crimes in the US don't involve firearms of any type.

    In crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% didn't use or threaten to use the gun.

    Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.

    Two thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals.

    You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:

    Resisting with a gun 6%
    Did nothing at all 25%
    Resisted with a knife 40%
    Non-violent resistance 45%

    When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.

    Firearm availability appears to be particularly useful in avoiding rape. Australia and the United Kingdom virtually banned handgun ownership. During the same period handgun ownership in the United States steadily rose. Yet the rate of rape decreased in the United States, and skyrocketed in the other countries.

    1995 2003 | % of Change
    72.5 91.7 | +26.5 Australia
    43.3 69.2 | +59.8 United Kingdom
    37.1 32.1 | -13.5 United States

    (of course there are other factors but, meh I'll put it up anyway.)

    In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following year.

    (so many other factors :P )

    “... a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.” -Colin Greenwood, “Minutes of Evidence”, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003

    Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year – the equivalent of almost three fully loaded Boeing 747 jet crashes per day – or about 286 times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths.205 This translates into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,666 gun owners doing the same.


    Do you know that, every able bodied man between 18 and 40 is part of the militia.

    And did you realize that it was in fact intended for those "nutty fanatical" who thought they could fend off an army invading their own land. You know, cause thats what they did shortly before writing that. Against what was considered the most powerful army on earth, and in fact they themselves didn't think they would survive much less win. That in my opinion, is pretty fanatical.


    "Those who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." -Aristotle

    "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson

    "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson

    "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." Thomas Jefferson
    That last one kinda also says that because everyone has a gun, we don't need an army. Now imagine that, no standing army. No airforce, no heavy navy(just some citizens with boats), no army. No globe hopping. We'd be forced to stay within our boarders. And in the case we were ever invaded, we would be able to fend them off because it would just be too much trouble to disarm all of us.

    Not that I really agree with that but for those of you who'd rather countries stay within their own boarders, give that a thought.
     
  14. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Admin

    May 27, 2004
    the majority of hunters here eat what they shoot. or give it to someone who will.

    what do you think had a better life? the boar that was shot in the woods or the pig living crammed in a metal cage? both die a violent death.
    hunters here also get to hunt about 4 months per year, and the rest of the year they have to lend their aid to the rangers. basically, for most of the year, they're helping nature. hell, hunting in itself can also help nature by removing pests and whatnot that would otherwise cause imbalance in nature.

    while hunting is no life necessity anymore, it is however not purely for entertainment purposes.

    (i don't hunt & likely never will btw)
     
  15. Loxley

    Loxley Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    911
    Apr 11, 2003
    Only purpose of hunting is to get food or entertainment? Not a frontiersman are we? It is called "regulating an animal population" so that it does not cause property damage or that it becomes so many that the population endangers itself. If a bear suddenly gets the taste for killing sheep should we let that bear kill of the population of some five or six farms so that the farmers loose his livelihood. Hell no, we send out a hunting team to shoot the bear down.

    And yes we eat the meat would be a damn shame to throw it away. There is a resturant not far from where I grew upp that serve bear steak if you could pay for it. They would buy all the meat from bears that were shot like that and sell it, but I hear it is very expensive.

    Besides that it is a principle in my country that if we can use a natural resource without endangering the population, then we shall. And I think that is a fair principle. Grouse sauce, yum.
     
  16. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jun 21, 2007
    I never said I was against hunting, I'm just saying it's not a good enough reason to keep or to disallow firearms. It's just not that important.

    Regulating the population can be done by the government. It would be inefficient, wasteful, and costly but it can be done. But like I said, I'm not against hunting.

    Don't get me started on how a bear starts attacking farm animals. Thats how so many natural predictors get wiped out for imagined threats to livestock.

    OOooh dear god! I saw a wolf within 15 miles of my livestock! We need to get them! My children aren't safe!


    ---------------

    And russian! ^,,^ you make me happy!
     
  17. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    Isn't gun ownership also tied to imaginary threats?

    In Poland you can get a permit only if you have real need - e.g. death threats were made.
     
  18. Cromlech

    Cromlech It Wandered In From the Wastes

    110
    Dec 8, 2007
    Well, I am not American, but I can tell you that gun ownership there is 'tied to' the constitution and to that whole declaration of independence/mistrust of government thing. It's a part fo the culture, the nation was forged out of a fight for it's freedom from a tyrannical state (my boys, the British Empire). It's hard to change after 250 years of that kind of culture.
     
  19. Loxley

    Loxley Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    911
    Apr 11, 2003
    See what I did there? As you said, it would be inefficient and people and property would be hurt eventually. It is the government that regulates the hunt btw.


    Sometimes a bear will kill a sheep and become what we call a Slag-bear.(dunno how to translate it to english, it is something all Norwegians know what is) Meaning he will get the taste for killing, usually sheep is the ones he will kill, but it can kill other things aswell. Such a bear will kill sheep and do not need to eat any part of them, sometimes just a very few will be eaten, but it will be a real threat to livestock. For such cases special permits are issued and the bear is usually shot, swiftly and with style.

    Then depending on how many bears is around we will hunt someone down during hunting season. As I said, it is regulating the population, for bears, some years no bear hunt is allowed at all.

    That said, the Norwegian bear was almost wiped out as an imaginary threat to livestock, but in the process we changed the bears eating habits so that it became more predatory and thus a real threat.
     
  20. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    Yes. Sadly, 99% of America (statistics by myself) does not care to learn history and understand that that particular Constitutional right was enacted in a time when America was still weak and had no standing army, and the citizens were supposed to form cannon fodder, err, a militia to defend the country.

    Of course it's outdated, but the gun nut propaganda is seemingly stronger than common sense. Not that it surprises me, given the country we are talking about.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.