Guns, guns, guns
- Thread starter Zaij
- Start date
then I ask my self why we have so few gun related crimes in Germany if it doesnt help in any way ...
Indeed. I mean, obviously the only relevant difference between to the US and Germany is guns, right? I mean, the societies are obviously the same in every other way.Crni Vuk said:
Did you even consider attempting to read *any* post in this thread before making this asinine post that is bordering on a troll?
Member of Khans
Vault Dweller
Uh...Crni Vuk said:
Besides what Sander said: We also have less domestic violence, less crimes involving knifes, bats, improvised weapons...
See: here
[homicide per 100,000 inhabitants
f. l. t. r.: Germany, Canada, USA, South Africa, Columbia
guns in orange, cut and thrust weapons in yellow-ish]
Every knife you can imagine (except push daggers and balisongs) can be purchased if you are over 18.
Do we need stricter knife control?
Anyway, to get myself involved:
Hypothesis: Gun control works in reducing violent deaths.
1st precondition: if it can be enforced on violent criminals owning illegal weapons, or there is only a small amount of such, or they aren't widely using said weapons in crimes
2nd precondition: if the state is able to offer the necessary protection against violent assaults to most of is citizens in a reasonable high amount of all cases
1st limitation: to a certain (small) extent
And THAT is why a reasonable level of firearms control and ownership restriction works for most parts of Europe, but wouldn't really make sense in the US (or Brazil, for that matter). Because from a Euro perspective, some portions of American culture and political system resemble a third world country.
That is also why the UK handgun ban totally failed in reducing gun deaths. Criminals don't care about laws, thus we call then "criminal".
Oh, by the way, the Greens in this county found a new hobby: rambling against IPSC and CAS, because those are obviously combat simulations and tactical training for killing sprees.
The conservatives even exceed this stupidity by trying to outlaw Paintball and FPS for the same reason.
Actualy the difference between Europe and the US isnt that big as one might think. I dont even negate the fact that there are a lot of aspects that are not the same but enough things work similar. Quite a lot of people say that Europe (or those Americans I know that have been deployed to the US military here in Germany) that its very similar to their homes in many ways. You have MC Donalds, many times the same or similar goods etc.Sander said:
Is it the same? Obviously not. But can one show certain parallels. Definetly.
That gun restrictions and gun control do not work "always" is a fact that I agree. But on the other side one can not say that it never will work in any way.
I still fail to see a reason why someome should be allowed for example to own 50cal weapons, full automatic assault rifles and machine guns. I guess some nations must have very very agressive deers and bears ... armed with light armored vehicles and such. But to be a bit more serious. Germany is very strict around weapons. And it shows its effect. I think its a myth to say that now the mentality of people plays here a very big role. Its not that different. Maslow and a few others proved already that in its basics all humans somewhat work the same way, and "safety" is a basic need by all. Now how that need for safety gets satisfied is a different question. We Germans think here different thx to a very violant history which most know.
Of course its never that easy. And many laws we have here took a long time to get so far. Could things be changed? Yes. But I dont expect it over night. Nor would a change over night be even dessired.
Member of Khans
Vault Dweller
What kind of change you are exactly talking about?
No. Because neither assertion has ever been proven in any way, as in practically every comparison there are many other differences that can cause the same problems.Crni Vuk said:
And yes, there are many similarities between the US and 'Europe'(neither of which is a useful abstraction, as there are many differences within both Europe and the USA). There are also a lot of differences. To then jump on two of a multitude of differences and proclaim that those two are obviously related is stupid.
It'd be similar to seeing 'People in the US are much fatter than they are in the Netherlands. Obviously, this is because they don't have the Indonesian and Surinam influences in their cooking the Netherlands does.
Also also, I'm repeating everything that has been said over the first 2 pages of this thread. Go read the rest of a big debate thread before making a post in it.
Look at it another way (ie the American way): why shouldn't they be allowed to these guns?Crni Vuk said:
Prove it.Crni Vuk said:
How does it show its effect, exactly, in a comparison with a Germany where gun control is very loose.
Guess what: you can't do that. Making anything you say on the subject pure speculation.
Given that World War II occurred with widespread public approval, strict gun control doesn't make a difference (and Nazi Germany was pretty strict on gun control anyway).Crni Vuk said:
In fact, one could argue that Jews owning guns would've given them at least something resembling a fighting chance.
Errr....Crni Vuk said:
What?
Gross oversimplification. Incentives, both positive and negative, do work. If owning an illegal gun carries a very heavy penalty, people will be less likely to use one, if you can extrapolate this from other violent crimes (violent crime has been shown to be reduced with higher penalties, cited in Freakonomics).Member of Khans said:
But criminal ownership of guns isn't affected much by local gun control, as they rarely use legal, locally purchased guns.
Member of Khans
Vault Dweller
Oversimplification, yes. Untrue, no. Illegal gun ownership has been indictable for a long time (duh, "illegal" pretty much implies that) and the vast majority of all armed crimes were commited with illegal weapons. Thus I'm failing to see how preventing sportsmen and hunters from legaly owning handguns significantly improves public safety in the UK. And indeed it doesn't. THAT is was what I was talking about.Sander said:
You on the other hand just stated, that the 5 years of imprisonment one can expect for illegal gun ownership on the island do a lot of good, right? If so, I agree with you.
Right.
Sander said:
Yes, because people willing to commit murder or threaten you with murder to commit a crime are worried about harsh penalties for the lesser crimes they commit.
When death or a life sentence are not enough to stop the commision of a crime, what makes you think harsh gun penalties would affect a criminals thought process?
That's just plain stupid.
You are not listening. As usual. And I thought you didn't troll in gun threads.DammitBoy said:Yes, because people willing to commit murder or threaten you with murder to commit a crime are worried about harsh penalties for the lesser crimes they commit.
When death or a life sentence are not enough to stop the commision of a crime, what makes you think harsh gun penalties would affect a criminals thought process?
That's just plain stupid.
Your strawmanning is so obvious and textbook it isn't even funny.
I am not saying that every criminal is going to stop using guns simply because penalties are higher. I am saying that on average, strict penalties do affect how people (including criminals) act, and that the penalty for gun use can be prohibitively high for criminals to use them in marginal situations, such as robberies.
No, it's not going to stop everyone, and no I can't see how many criminals it will stop, but there really is no doubt that that does stop at least a few people.
This are the reasons I see at least. Of course its just my humble oppinion.Sander said:
What is interesting for me is that those things happen under the supervision of range officers which tells me at least (as I really have no knowledge about it) from a logic thinking that they are trained a lot in "safety". Now the question still remains. Is there trully a need for automatic weapons?
I do ask my self as well how much anyone did to educated those people in "gun safety"
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhysoS2DC8M[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwLQewe4TrY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J2WJ1_hHLg&feature=related[/youtube]
some of those things look funny. But the issue with the child show to me at least that certain things do need control and regarding gun safety those things are pretty much some of the worst things I would say. But as said. Its just my oppinion.
Bank robbery with AK47? (this just found by randoom search in youtoube with the words Ak47 and bank robbery)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnEvNGFPnls[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm1PEY8F4xE[/youtube]
I cant remember when in our media was the last time a report about somea bank robbery with assault rifles. Well of course it happens sometimes that in a crime assault rifles are used but its really rare. Thing is that they are usualy a lot less spectacular and a lot less violant. The last 2 incidents I remember was when 3 people attacked a armored car for money transport. The first time was succesfull as the driver opened it in fear the window of the car might not hold back the bullet of the Ak47. The second time the attackers had to flee. The criminals are not catched yet. But I think its somewhat interesting to note that they did not tried to attack a bank on the daylight with assault rifles. Why? I dont know it. I have some idea that it might be acuse its not really that easy to get those kind of weapons in Germany (realtively speaking of course) and thus this kind of criminals which have the knowledge and budged to aquire such guns are more "cautious" in their actions and trying to avoid any unwanted attention or at least have a different mentality. Its less likely that a person with to say low mental stability (for the lack of better words) would get acsess to such a consortium which "sells" guns in illegal fashions as its proably very expensive and complicated to achieve cause of gun control (eventualy). I dont know it, its just some idea. Nothing scientic. I dont know how easy it is in all states of the US to aquire automatic weapons. But I have read somewhere that in the North Hollywood Shootout the criminals have been inspected some time before the crime with weapons in their car. I cant remember everything anymore but I am sure in some states its perfectly "legal" to transport in the back of your car automatic weapons while with gun restrctions in Germany at least you would not be allowed to have those kind of weapons in the first place. As said I just compare a similar situation happening in Germany.
I do not say everything fitts 100%. But somehow I have to measure it with my knowledge, the only experience I can work with. German ones. That it probably is not absolutely correct is something I have to deal with. But I think it also has not to be always correct. Its not about to see whos "right" or whos "wrong" and convince someome from his view. Its more about beeing able to share oppinions and trying to see one point from different angles instead of "extremes". Scientific reasearch, professional oppinions, statistics. They all can only tell so much. But important is that you can also sometimes step out from your own point of view trying to understand the argument from the other side of the fence. I am at least "trying" to understand the "american way of life" and the point people make when they try to argue about "heavy weapons" in the hands of civilians. The issue is just how would people that defend today automatic guns feel if their child would have been killed by their own weapon? Was it some accident? The users fault? Not right training? Even with best training. Best safety. Something always can go wrong. And soon things look different. Or are seen from a different point of view.
What I meant with changes was regarding heavy weapons and automatic weapons. In certain states people are so used with those weapons that you can not even if you would have the power to set such a law do it over night. It would cause a lot of issues. Thats what I meant when I said it cant be in the interest of anyone and changes have to come with small steps. From both directions. Sorry of that might sound "liberal" for some. But you cant always only deal with absolutes.
Its to make it more difficult for criminals to aquire weapons which are one reason behind restrictions and laws with weapons.DammitBoy said:...
Yes, because people willing to commit murder or threaten you with murder to commit a crime are worried about harsh penalties for the lesser crimes they commit.
When death or a life sentence are not enough to stop the commision of a crime, what makes you think harsh gun penalties would affect a criminals thought process?
That's just plain stupid.
And I can only go with examples I know from Germany. I am sorry that its a bit hard for me to argument differently as this is pretty much (next to Serbia) the only "way of life" I pretty much know frmo own experience but I still try though to see it from different angles as good as I can. And the strict control of weapons we have here work for us Germans at least. Some criminals defiently do reconsider certain crimes if they are thinking about how hard or complicated it could (eventualy) be to aquire weapons. Of course probably not many criminals think that way. But since they are not all the same kind of person I am sure some are affected by laws.
Hell if I am honest there have been a few critical situations where I was thinking about "drugs". but they are rather difficult to get for a person without any real knowledge where to get those cause of the laws and heavy restrictions and I feared the heavy penality for the case you ever get arested with it. At some point you get a sobber mind again when you had enough time to think about it. But in those critical moments. Who knows what might have happend. Of course its not the same situation. But I think a few criminals might have thought the same way eventualy regarding a robbery or other things.
Anecdotal incidents aren't relevant as a major argument. The impact of those incidents is minute, and the amount of gun-related accidents in the US is really low.
The fact that there are retards that allow 8-year olds to fire an Uzi doesn't say much one way or the other.
Most of your arguments pertaining to ease of procuring weapons for criminals assume that gun control makes it harder for criminals to procure weapons. There's no real proof for that, and most criminals use illegal weapons in any case.
The fact that there are retards that allow 8-year olds to fire an Uzi doesn't say much one way or the other.
Most of your arguments pertaining to ease of procuring weapons for criminals assume that gun control makes it harder for criminals to procure weapons. There's no real proof for that, and most criminals use illegal weapons in any case.
But you don't (and can't) know if it would work better without those laws.Crni Vuk said:
[PCE]el_Prez
Vault Fossil
Crni Vuk said:
How many people do dumb ass shit in automobiles that lead to people being hurt or killed. Just because some people are terrible drivers doesn't mean we make cars illegal.
Crni Vuk said:
Hmm. I bet if there was a private citizen that had a .50 caliber rifle was on the scene, those robbery shootouts would have been a lot shorter.
the_cpl
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Burning AK47 - I think the guy just testing his old AK. He can be injured, but if he loves the danger, that's the way. He can hurt himself, not other people.
50 Cal Ricochet - shooting at a massive flat steel plate is fail. But there is almos zero chance this happens to him. He was kind of lucky and unlucky too.
Skinny Girl Owned by Desert Eagle - You are right, she is stupid, just like the guys with her
gun kick breaks chick nose - Not the woman failed. The guy did behind her. Why the hell did he do that? It means the stupid people should be banned, not the women with rifles.
But [PCE]el_Prez is right. What about the crazy drivers?
Bank Robbery. Yes, I guess the robbers uses AKs and AR15s for robbery, but they prefer more little pistols high cap magazines. (Easy to hide.)
50 Cal Ricochet - shooting at a massive flat steel plate is fail. But there is almos zero chance this happens to him. He was kind of lucky and unlucky too.
Skinny Girl Owned by Desert Eagle - You are right, she is stupid, just like the guys with her
gun kick breaks chick nose - Not the woman failed. The guy did behind her. Why the hell did he do that? It means the stupid people should be banned, not the women with rifles.
But [PCE]el_Prez is right. What about the crazy drivers?
Bank Robbery. Yes, I guess the robbers uses AKs and AR15s for robbery, but they prefer more little pistols high cap magazines. (Easy to hide.)
I dont know why its so far fetched. I agree that its a bit exagerated. By the way you asked me about reasons. This are the one that I think with "my" oppinion are the most important ones.Sander said:
I have no clue actualy if Germany would do better without gun laws or heavy limitations regarding weapons in civlian hands. All I know is just that we dont face that many issues regarding firearms as many others do (not just the US ). Illegal trading ... or letz say "legal" trading of firearms is also a lot smaller from Germany in relation with certain third world nations its just not a that big market here well not with small arms and the nations that usualy buy weapon systems from Germany are most of the time at least western nations that have not really many wars. I am not surprised actualy that certain organisations mention their right to buy firearms in the same time with the right to sell them to who ever wants to buy them. Its really not just only limited to the US. Its a question from where many of the African nations get their weapons from ... which include nations like France, Britain, China, Russia and not surpringly the US.
One might argue that weapons might make something a safer place. That for sure. You have always arguments vs arguments. And many of them have a value. But I personaly just doubt that "firearms" are the solution to "firearms". I mean I still miss the war that will end all wars. I admit that my view is somewhat limited by a German (European) outlook though. But so is it with most other people.
Its not about making cars "illegal" as whole just as it is not to make all kind of weapons inherently illegal only cause they are guns. Thats beyont the point. It is about a responsible restriction and handling of firearms. Beeing aware that its a very dangerous thing even when its fun to shoot with a 12 gauge shootgun some pellets on a wooden target.[PCE said:
I am sure in the US they have limitations regarding cars. Like speed, requirement of driver licences, limit in use of acohol, and proabbly a few other more or less ridiculous limitations and laws where some make sense and others dont.
When you have those with cars. Would it be that wrong to have those with guns? Or regarding their safety? How comes people respect their car and the safety around it more then guns. How comes people feel fine with it to let their children with the age of 8 fire Uzis and other weapons but not to let them drive and drink some bottle of boze (I know I know, its exagerated, but its just to make a point!).
Its about the way how fire arms are treated in general and to me it just seems (I might be wrong here) that there is a very big lack of respect or I dont know how to describe it else.
Firearms have a pretty clear purpose, to kill something. Thats what they are designed for. You really cant say the same about cars. Though people see in cars somehow a biger danger then with firearms. How comes?
the_cpl
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
There are many laws on guns too. You can't buy a rifle if you are not 18. You can't buy a handgun if you are not 21, yet. There are many safety rules. Buildings, places has special gun laws. The drinking is banned at the shooting ranges. Driving and shooting are the same.
That story about the 8 years old child is really old, it happened maybe 1-2-3 years ago. That was not the gun's faul, that was the father's fault. I bet if he gives a knife to the child, or he let his child drive his truck, the same accident happens. When the mother leaves the pills around the house, and a baby eats it, is that the pills fault or the mother's fault?
If a father really cares about his son, he is there when the boy shooting and he is really safe. I see shooting videos, where the fathers teach their sons shooting. They are always safe. If the parents are stupid, that is not a gun/car/pills fault.
Yes, target shooting. Do you think the 80-100million legal gun owners all around the US killing people day-by-day? Many of them just visit the shooting range and shooting at paper targets, then they go back to home and lock their guns in a safe. That's what I did with my gun. And when I buy a new gun, I do the same.
Sander said:
I'm not trolling and you constantly whining about something not happening is a troll device. Please stick to the subject at hand.
There is plenty of doubt. You have no evidence whatsoever that harsh penalties will restrict any kind of criminal activity.
Criminals don't expect to be caught. The video I posted showed several convicts still in jail flat out stating they don't care what the law says, they will carry a gun. This might be a hint as to why they are criminals and convicts.
They don't care what the law says or what you think. I don't see how any reasonable, thinking, logical individual would expect a criminal to be concerned about laws. Their only concern is not getting caught.
I cited Freakonomics as a source.DammitBoy said:
And yet again you cannot even pretend to be listening.DammitBoy said:
*Yet again* I am not pretending that every criminal will be stopped. There will be (and are) many that do not care.
But you pretending that every single criminal acts the same exact way is ludicrous.
Of course. And I am not even meaning the guns in this situation in particularly. It is always about the people, officers and authority present. And exactly that is what I am talking about. No one would get the idea to give a boy with the age of 8 a licence to drive a car but also no police officers would let a car passing by with a 8 year old driver as those are illegal. But people feel fine with 8 year olds and even younger people using guns. Its less about who owns them but more how they get perceive in general which I see as issue somehow. Its a general lack of respect where it seems that people have a higher respect regarding cars and other objects like tobaco or alcohol for example - which in the case of alcohol you cant even cosume anywhere before the age of 21 but its completely fine to shoot a weapon as child - when actualy a part of respect should be present with all of those things. The child should not have got access on that gun fare to a weapon in the first place in my oppinion. What ever if its the fathers fault or the officers that was present isnt so much the point.the_cpl said:
For example, people threat cars and alcohol differently cause there are certain laws with it and restrictions that are always present. You can be arrested if you drive around without a drivers licence or if you are to young and you also can be arrested if you drink before the age of 21 in any case you will face some trouble with the authority. This kind of restrictions give people a different view regarding alcohol and cars in general. It doesnt mean of course you dont have dump people doing stupid things even with the best laws it will still happen. But you will not have a car fare where some officer will feel fine with 8 year old children driving around or in a store for spirits drinking a glass of wiskey or wine cause he exactly knows that it could cost him a lot and that its not a save thing by the way. People dont expect the same with weapons. They see it differently and feel "fine" with it.
What ever if it was dump to let some 8 year old shoot a uzi or not. It should not be possible in the first place. If anything it should be a convention for adults. With right restrictions in such stiuations you would have someome that is legally liable for it and that changes the view on things a lot.
Its less about the parents actualy or the safety. Even with perfect safety you still can have accidents happen. And I just think for the same reason why you have restrictions in learning when to drive a car the same should count for weapons.the_cpl said:
I sure will not be screaming around if a father is teaching his 12 year on his farm or in the woods to use a shoot gun/rifle. But its more about "official places", gun fares, all that kind of things. I heard that you have to be at least 16 years old to drive a car but certain situations (dont know if its still true) you can be 14 if the school is very far away.
As said its just my oppinion.
the_cpl
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Crni Vuk said:
That is not right. Much teach the children about it, if there is a gun in the house, but let them shoot alone with an UZI is just idiotism.
Well, to teach an 8 years old to shoot a .22 rifle is ok, I think. But not a full-auto gun. So I think we agree.