Guns, guns, guns

[DammitBoy]

LOL. DB posted an off topic report on the psychology of weapons relating to the penis if anyone didn't decide to read it.

How is that off-topic? It was in direct response to the silly comments about people owning guns and dick wagging references you made.

It's a common theme expressed by those who don't know any better and are afraid of guns and those who own them.

---

Serge - I said from the start that nothing would be resolved by this endless debate and that's why I asked that this topic be split off from the 'show us your guns' thread. It's also why I refused to engage in the debate on that other thread.

I don't think I've ever seen a gun ownership debate thread do anything but devolve into a mindless back and forth of 'uh huh - nuh uh' so, there is no point beyond expressing one's opinion and the whole pissing match meme.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes, it's our individual responsibility to defend ourselves from violence. The violence you admit is in every society. I choose to defend myself and my family from violence with a firearm. You can choose to hope that the police or a law or your government will be able to protect you. Usually the police only show up after the fact, the law doesn't stop anyone who chooses to disregard it and the government does nothing.

I dont just hope it. They actualy "do" it. One can't argue that the police or gouvernement is not protecting you. Obviously they arrive many times in situations where the crime has already happend and the efficiency could be of course a lot better but thats just natural it could be always better. I dont even want to imagine a world without any police at all. I am not saying now that you would want such a place. But I do think that they [police, laws] also have seen enough cases in where crimes have been prevent from actualy happening. A good case would be controls by the police where they search in a car and find illegal automatic weapons like AK47s (or anything similiar). I have read about cases where the police searched a car, found assault rifles in the back of the car which have been later used in a bank robbery simply cause they had no right to confiscate the weapons as it was so comon to own guns that no officer would really had to say against it. I am not sure if such kind of things make a society really more safe.

I make it more difficult for the criminal by refusing to be a victim or an easy target. Criminals are lazy and cowardly. They will avoid me while looking for you.

Yes, for the case they know about your amarment which might again as well prove to be a issue if you paint it all over your house that its armed like Fort Bragg for those criminals that seek to brake in your home and steel said weapons for the case that those are weapons of either high quality or with historic values I heard a MP44/STGW or G41 (extremly rare) start somewhere between 10 000 and 20 000 dollar I guess certain modern weapons arent that much cheaper either. Usualy I guess a criminal would know if his victim is armed or not thus I dont see the determent by the fact of beeing well armed as it is not the same case like with a police officers, soldier or similar personal that are visibly "armed" and thus have the effect determent on their side. Other question is what you would do if a criminal is catching you by surprise maybe on the street or even in your home. I do not say that a gun gives you no opportunity to "fight back" it of course does, its a lethal tool. But I would question its practicabillity in a situation where you have someome point with a gun in your back or in your face the moment you wake up or taking your children as hostage.

I own several Mausers, a Luger, and an Heckler & Koch. All very fine german firearms. Germany manufactures some of the world's best firearms - which as you say are made only for killing people. Your firearms manufacturers will sell to anybody who can afford to buy them, don't kid yourself junior.

Only if you see your self as "poor third world nation" then I would agree with you. But since the US market is in general (compared to many nations in africa for example) seen as rather healthy, very far sophisticated and political stabile society I dont see the relation to companies that legaly sell firearms on "large scale" to third world nations with highly political instabile enviroment. And for most German citizens it would not be acetable if German weapon manufactures/companies would here now participate in such a buisness on a legal basis. You might have overread the part where I mentioned that one has to make particularly a difference between individual purchase and the distribution of weapons on a world wide scale.

That's because you are a nation of sheep, bred to be sheep - nobody wants an armed agressive Germany in anybody's future.

Mind you Germany is not a fascistic nationalistic state anymore. I think we should stay in the present/distant future. I think I slowly understand from where Welsh gets the impression your views would be racistic in their tone (by the way I am not even from Germany I am a serbian with German citizenship but that just by the way). You seem to be pretty limited to your own oppinion and view of the world without the intention to try at least to understand the situation and positions of others. No one should seriously expect from you to change your oppinion or convince you to a different point. But you seem also to have no intention to respect the positions of others. I respect your points, at least the one you make without the tendency to discredit the others position. I dont say that you have to ultimately "accept" any ones oppinion or point to become your own and thus change your mind. But as sane person you should be able to at lesat "respect" and "ackowledge" it. I can do it with your points too and do respect your points (not the way though how you explain them). If I would not even "want" to understand the positions, oppinions and reasons of people, organisations or nations I would probably run around like many of the Serbians that I know which just do nothing more then scream "hate" for America(ns). But I actualy do not, cause even if I dont think politicaly eveything the US did was right - which nation though is always right anyway - I try at least to see the reasons behind their decisions and understand the actions and not just simply "blame" anyone.

No, I don't try and explain away the firearms industry and you have veered far off topic. The topic is not about the vast military firearms complex. It's about individual ownership of firearms.

I think I've explained rather clearly why I have the right and why I exercise that right. I'll leave the bloviating, the strawmen arguments, and the hyperbole to the rest of you.

Yes, Yes it is. What do you think the "fire arms industry" is using as "excuse" for their right to sell fire arms on a large scale to third world nations with instabile political enviroments and societies? With "the right of self" defence (of course it counts not for "everyone" i am talking more on a general basis about the situatoin) that every human seems to have from the "american" definition - I am using the world "american" here not as insult. This kind of reason is mentioned by the industry and military alike. It was named by those military personal that sold "illegaly" anti air missiles to afghans in the Soviet-Afghan war which could be even undersood by looking from the cold war mentality (during the 80s) just as it is by companies that now today sell from grenades, to mortars and infantry weapons to african nations in exchange for raw materials and economical privileges.

This thread, as predicted, has pretty much turned into a thread about gun ownership in the uSA and how americans are crazy and their silly 2nd amendment is wrong or incorrectly interpreted.

That if you could just get us bloodthirsty americans to give up our guns - our crime rate would magically disappear.

Did you not said somewhere in your first post in this thread that you did not wanted to get sucked in in the discussion anyway?

 

[jero cvmi]

Since i've never been to america, i don't understand exactly what's the issue here. Also, there's this great legal-cultural gap: As far as I know, in the USA the idea of voluntary law enforcement by individual citizens is protected, whereas in the larger part of Europe it is prohibited. Meaning, in most european countries it's illegal to try to be the hero and arrest the criminal by yourself, let alone shooting at them. You can get away with it if you claim you're in self defence, but you're still breaking the law. It's a different attitude, which explains the lack of understanding on this.
So as a completely ignorant and irrelevant foreigner, i ask:

What exactly are you pro-gun people worried that's going to happen?
Banning of weapons? Or just tighter rules?

Because complete disarmament just doesn't sound feasible, and having regulations a) only sounds reasonable as in every other aspect of life and b) can always be circumvented.

Where i live, there's a strict policy in licencing guns. Still, there are tons of illegal unregistered guns, and tons of semi-legal guns covered by licences for hunting and athletic shooting.
So i don't understand the whining of people who are afraid someone's going to come and take their toys away.

m) I do not believe in gun or ammo registration.

How does that restrict your rights other than making it more likely to get caught if you kill someone? It's the same thing with cars registration and driving licence, really.

You should secure your firearms from theft.

How can it be proved that a gun is stolen if it's not registered? Or is it OK to own a stolen gun, because the owner didn't secure it?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Meaning, in most european countries it's illegal to try to be the hero and arrest the criminal by yourself, let alone shooting at them.

Thats not completely correct. At least when it comes to Germany. Civilians definetly have the right to counteract criminals and some people have the right to secure some criminal for the case they have comitted a crime. A simple example would be people using the public transport without a ticket. Any inspector has here the right to arrest you to check your personal data OR till the police arrives for the case he cant get any data since you always have the right to refuse to tell any informations - as soon the police arrives though you HAVE to tell them who you are I had once such a issue so I know it .

A person working in the security has as well the right to arrest people when they stay in arreas they do not belong to though they have of course to transfer the people to the police. Usual civilians though have the right to secure some criminal when they have the chance to do so and wait till the police arrives. You dont have the right to shoot people of course even if you own a gun. Except in self defence. Well to say that you're of course correct that civilians have not the right to "arrest" criminals not by the meaning of it like the police.

How can it be proved that a gun is stolen if it's not registered? Or is it OK to own a stolen gun, because the owner didn't secure it?

I am not aware about all options or how it is working in details so everyone can feel free to correct me if he has better knowledge. But from what I know all legal manufactured guns get usualy a serial number stamped on it which can tell you where it was manufactured and thus eventualy you can also that way figure out to whom it was sold to. Usualy at least in Germany there are places where you can look up for the number though I dont know if the US has anything similar but I would assume it. At least here you have to record any serial number of your weapon in your gun licence as well.

 

[jero cvmi]

I'm not sure about germany, benelux & scandinavia, sure about greece, read so concerning the mediterranean and balkan countries, think it isn't so in the UK, might be wrong about whether it's the majority or not.
It's still a pretty different state of mind compared to the american attitude, no?

Also, not talking about security personnel, inspectors and the like, i'm talking about citizen's arrest, as in: Citizen violently disables suspects and delivers them to the appropriate authority. And i'm pretty sure it's illegal here, even if you're claiming to be a victim.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well letz say it taht way, even if it would be legal the last thing I would do is secure someome to get him to the police or something for the simple fact that probably no one will be calm while you secure him and as soon you hit someome it ends either bad for you or bad for him which means that in most cases he will sue you for the broken arm or teath you punched out of him

 

[DammitBoy]

One can't argue that the police or gouvernement is not protecting you.

Yes I can and easily. In the United States, in our courts, it has already been ruled repeatedly that police officers are not obligated to protect individual citizens. It is their job to apprehend people who have commited criminal acts after the fact. You know, after you have been raped, robbed, beaten, and murdered.

If someone is accosting you or breaking in your home - how much time will expire before the police can respond to your call for help? The average response time is 15 to 20 minutes here, sometimes much longer.

My government can't even control our borders or ports from illegal entry nor are they even trying - so how is it they are protecting me? Like I said, you can depend on others if you want, don't ask me to be that foolish.

Usualy I guess a criminal would know if his victim is armed or not thus I dont see the determent by the fact of beeing well armed as it is not the same case like with a police officers, soldier or similar personal that are visibly "armed" and thus have the effect determent on their side.

No, a criminal usually doesn't know if his victim is armed, but he does try to reduce the odds. This is why you don't hear about too many gun stores, gun shows, police stations, or military bases getting robbed.

If someone knows I own guns, they want to burglarize my home when I'm not there - thus reducing the risk of getting shot. A perfect example of this is when Florida passed a concealed carry law - criminals targeted rental cars for robbery, because they knew those tourists would not have firearms.

Other question is what you would do if a criminal is catching you by surprise maybe on the street or even in your home. I do not say that a gun gives you no opportunity to "fight back" it of course does, its a lethal tool. But I would question its practicabillity in a situation where you have someome point with a gun in your back or in your face the moment you wake up or taking your children as hostage.

How does being unarmed in those situations help me or my family? As I stated earlier, part of defending yourself is being responsible and having situational awareness as any self-defense course teaches you. I try to avoid being surprised by being aware of my surroundings, keeping doors locked, and not being is the wrong place at the right time.

What do you think the "fire arms industry" is using as "excuse" for their right to sell fire arms on a large scale to third world nations with instabile political enviroments and societies?

Commerce? Profit? I wasn't aware that corporations needed an excuse to sell their products. All they need is a buyer with cash flow. Please cite and/or post examples of the firearms/military industrial complex making excuses for selling their products to third world nations and despots.

Did you not said somewhere in your first post in this thread that you did not wanted to get sucked in in the discussion anyway?

Yup, got sucked in anyway - it's hard not to respond to the vast amounts of stupid posted in this thread. Like I said it's an emotional topic for many. While I have no problem with those who want to depend on somebody else for protection, I'll be damned if I'll allow those same sheep to tell me what I should or shouldn't be able to do.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Commerce? Profit? I wasn't aware that corporations needed an excuse to sell their products. All they need is a buyer with cash flow. Please cite and/or post examples of the firearms/military industrial complex making excuses for selling their products to third world nations and despots.

The evidence is history.

What we see happen today particularly regarding arms, economy and the US is not a new situation nor is it a new doctrine.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY[/youtube]

Eisenhower a men with vast knowledge about the military as he was part of it and helped to build it warned the american population about the pasive and active effects of a to big militarstic complex that may directly and indirectly affect the political and economical shape of the future.

After Eisenhower Kennedy warned about a similar situation regarding secracy and cencorship.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhG1oR1lnrM[/youtube]

It is a myth that the only system with a huge conection to militarism would be a oppresive and/or fascistic and communistic system. In other words a dictatorship. A democracy can just as well contain such ideology. And I think the US economy and politc fits very well in it as military decisions play a extremly big role in their politic decisions at least till now.

Quite enough of politicans in the past particularly with the end of the cold war warned about imperialistic views in relation with the military industrial complex. Its a extremly lucrative buisness.

How many times from the end of 1945 have been wars and conflicts with american involvment explained by the right to defend freedom? How many times has it proved to be the right motivation behind wars? How big is at the moment the influence directly and indirectly by lobbyists to politic and how much does it affect the live of people the thinking and the perception of the individual - particularly regarding arms ?

I have no doubt that quite enough americans have even somewhat reliable and honor motivations behind their actions particularly as individuals. But that doesnt mean its always performed in the correct fashion. Or that manipulation even today would not happen.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

I'm quite positively drunk at the moment, so I might regret posting this in the morning. But let me just state that I don't see the connection between the military industrial complex and private gun ownership.

The military industrial complex is an especially dangerous phenomenon regarding the fact that it perpetuates, or makes necessary, a constant stream of outwards wars. It is a state funded military endeavor that has so much influence on the economy, and has become such an integral part of a country, that continuous war becomes a necessity, regardless of whether there is any legitimate reason or not. Having an army of such size, and or growing, or advancing in technology continuously, can only be upheld with an (imaginary) enemy. At least, that is what this entire branch of research claims; I don't want to make any claims myself as to its validity right now.

Private gun ownership might be supported as part of a lobby that is pro such a military complex, but that is an entirely different debate. Gun companies, like any other company, want their product to be bought, and thus will lobby for it like any other business. The military industrial complex functions on a state policy level, and might counter any anti-gun laws, but has absolutely no value as a argument as to whether the private person should be able to own guns or not on an ideological level. There is a market for guns, whether there is a lobby pro or not; there is a market for guns, whether there is a military industrial complex backing such companies in any way or not. And in any case, how would it influence any rational argument concerning private gun ownership?

Even if you argue that ideas such as self-defense are inspired and backed by such a military industrial complex, how does that invalidate the arguments for private gun ownership themselves? There is a difference between who or what backs an argument and the validity of the argument itself. It's like equating that whatever Himmler said must have been a bad or invalid argument simply because Himmler had bad motives behind making his argument, instead of refuting such arguments through rational or intelligent counter-arguments.

The only true flaw in Damnitboy's argument is where he places the limit on what constitutes as self-defence weaponry. Silencers and automatic weapons such as M16's seem alright, but he argues that explosives are not. Yet his arguments as to why you should be able to defend yourselves with a gun works just the same as why you should be able to defend yourselves with a hand grenade, or C4. Since he argues that crooks will get their hands on handguns and automatics anyway, the private person should be able to have recourse to such weaponry as well so as to level the playing field. So why should Iran then not have nuclear weapons, since it should have equal recourse to such 'defensive' weaponry as any other country? The crux of the argument really goes down to what you want to admit as possible weaponry of self-defence. Europe has pretty much outlawed everything except for your own hands, the US accepts pretty much everything except for explosives. A lot of arguments can be made pro and contra either side, but it all comes down to how far you want to go with people 'protecting' themselves, how consistent you want to be with those statements and how much trust you put in the nature of humans beings, both on side of the criminals and on the side of lawful citizens. I'll guess that Damnitboy's trust only goes so far as to trust people with pretty much any gun but not with explosives since they have an excruciatingly high casualty pay-off if handled carelessly. Likewise with anything stronger, like nuclear weapons. But the self-defence argument works the same on any level, and it's only the degree of your trust and the amounts of deaths on errors and accidents that make any difference as to whether what weapons you want to be outlawed or not.

I myself am not particularly against gun ownership or for it, especially since I seriously don't trust any of the highly tainted statistics from either side, who both tamper with whatever information to make the strongest case possible. But I seriously don't understand how a silencer helps you defend yourself, how a concealed weapon helps you defend yourself, how a Barret M82 sniper rifle and similar weapons are argued to possess any self-defense capabilities at all. I really wouldn't go beyond allowing handguns in that regard, backed by registration and screening. But that's just because I don't trust people with guns, because I think the majority of people are in fact incredibly stupid and utterly irresponsible for their own safety, their own lives etc. Also, equality is overrated.

Let's see when I remember I posted all this drivel.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I'm quite positively drunk at the moment, so I might regret posting this in the morning. But let me just state that I don't see the connection between the military industrial complex and private gun ownership.

Then you eventualy should listen again to Eisen's spech again where he mentions the "spirit" of the americans.

actualy to spend so much time and resources on arms is uniquie in the US history. When you have a large part of the economy working around it it is just a matter of time when it starts to affect the individual behaviour, education and believing of people till they think that its part of their culture in general. Just compare the states between each other, where some have very strong regulations regarding arms while in others you can buy amunition like it would be basic food. Where people feel fine without any regulations regarding the safety of weapons or who is actualy using them.

Even if you argue that ideas such as self-defense are inspired and backed by such a military industrial complex, how does that invalidate the arguments for private gun ownership themselves? There is a difference between who or what backs an argument and the validity of the argument itself. It's like equating that whatever Himmler said must have been a bad or invalid argument simply because Himmler had bad motives behind making his argument, instead of refuting such arguments through rational or intelligent counter-arguments..

Of course it does NOT invalidate the argument for a private ownership for weapons. Those wo WANT to own a gun should of course have a right to do so. Thats not even the point. The point is for people to be sensitive regarding what happens around them and what happens around arms. As already said people are highly deaden regarding arms, their use and who gets the most profit from it in general. Other aspects of the day get more attention there are stronger laws regarding car safety for example then with standarts regarding arms (which is just a example, its about the safety in manufacturing).

No one can tell me he feels fine with that some can sell unsafe weapons without even the need for a licence.

 

[NyquilAddict]

Guns are tools used for either attempting to fight crime or commit crime. That and "sporting" purposes and hobbies. It's not a culture, there is no "firearms culture"... they are either tools or toys.

 

[Sander]

Guns are tools used for either attempting to fight crime or commit crime. That and "sporting" purposes and hobbies. It's not a culture, there is no "firearms culture"... they are either tools or toys.

How exactly are you defining culture, then?

 

[NyquilAddict]

Well I say that because there are a lot of liberals and criminals with guns.

 

[Sander]

Eh, huh? There are people with guns, and hence there is no gun culture?

The presence of a gun culture isn't predicated on only one sort of person owning guns.

 

[Ah-Teen]

Guns are tools used for either attempting to fight crime or commit crime. That and "sporting" purposes and hobbies. It's not a culture, there is no "firearms culture"... they are either tools or toys.

Yeah, cause someone who spends his life around chain saws is not going to act differently from someone who has never seen one.

Brittan has never had a gun culture. They just never really used them widely. The US has it deeply rooted from the revolutionary war where citizens took up their own arms against the king to mountain men to cowboys. The farmer has a gun on his wall and the businessman has a peril handled pocket pistol in his pocket.

A little romantic but thats what we mean when we say, gun culture.

England and other countries don't have that same vision of gun ownership. From what I've been told from soldiers who've been to the middle east. Iraqi's and Afghans respect/fear a handgun more so than a rifle. A handgun means something more in their "gun culture" than a rifle.

Its not the same as a furry culture or a sci-fi culture.

 

[Blakut]

From what I've been told from soldiers who've been to the middle east. Iraqi's and Afghans respect/fear a handgun more so than a rifle. A handgun means something more in their "gun culture" than a rifle.

INteresting, how so? Why does it happen?

 

[Ah-Teen]

From what I've been told from soldiers who've been to the middle east. Iraqi's and Afghans respect/fear a handgun more so than a rifle. A handgun means something more in their "gun culture" than a rifle.

INteresting, how so? Why does it happen?

Why are Americans afraid of getting naked? Culture != reason. Sometimes it just happens.

Lots of stories I've been told are, they keep mobbing the hummers for stuff and they ether pump their shotgun or hold up a handgun to get them away from the convoy.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Why are Americans afraid of getting naked?

Simple. Cause everyone knows niples and naked bodies burn your eys out of the skull and let it explode in the end.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Guns are tools used for either attempting to fight crime or commit crime. That and "sporting" purposes and hobbies. It's not a culture, there is no "firearms culture"... they are either tools or toys.

Of course there can be a culture around it. If even 50 years in the past presidents and politicans that are seen as rather inteligent people with knowledge mention it then it should give someome a reason to think about it (Or does anyone want to argue Eisenhower did not knew about the military he was part of and comanding during WW2 and the potential it has in the future?). And already those people warned about the influence to every indidiual from weapons and military in general.

Weapons have always been part of every culture. Not just the US. Its not important if you look down to the times when pilgrims started to settle down in north america or the colonialisation of africa and australia. Where ever danger was present people would have and use weapons.

But interesting is that weapons in those times have been not seen as weaons but more as tools. Frankly most guns even lacked the accuracy to shoot something on medium distances. It was just as defence most of the time from animals.

Never ever though in the history of the united states the industry around arms was so closely tied to the individual and society in general. Just compare the productions of arms from today which are "relatievly" peacefully times to situations like the Vietnam war where the US was directly in a confrontation for many years. And we do today produce more weapons then ever, for the use in military and civilan areas (world wide). I dont see a reason to take away arms from those that want to own but I also think just like Eisenhower that a nation regardless wich one should not even give a cent more on defence then it really has to. The way how people see arms has a lot to do with how close it is tied to the s ociety, how many jobs are dependant on it. How many politicans and senators directly and indirectly have a conection with it.

Its always a question how many interests are present. Peoople with a voice for their state sure will not go against weapons or arms if their state has a large industry around it. Today weapons do not get manufacturse just in one factors or one state, usualy many systems get developed across the whole nation in many states with optics or wires and what ever else is needed. Actualy the way how many missinformations are out there and almost no acurate sources for neither "pro" gun or "anti" gun people is a clear sign how far things already went and how complicated the issue has become.

How should a "usual" citizen form some oppinion or make a decision when he has big issues to even get reliable sources for informations regarding the topic. What ever if its for or against it.

 

[the_cpl]

Just a video I made, yesterday

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N33J9_agb7Y[/youtube]