Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 24. (Read 36627 times)

Describes the immortally-controlling majority of the totalitarian (including pro-"gun control") government. If not for them, there would be no safe place for mass murderers to become such, because "gun free zones" (where mass murders are committed, against legally disarmed and defenseless innocents) wouldn't exist.

Then, most likely, those from the US on this forum fit your profiles.

So why do you descend from your lofty perch to talk with us?

@Rampion
You might be surprised at how much we agree on. I despise violence. I have had the misfortune of seeing a lot of it in various wars around th world. War is when society pulls together to make great things, then smashes all those things to dust. It brings sadness and pain to all involved. I protested against the Afghan invasion when George Bush had 80% approval and the country was in a state of war fever. Nobody hates war more than those who have seen it.
I also lived in St. Louis when it was the murder capitol. I have had neighbors killed, a friend shot by a 13yr. old crack user. The day I moved into my apartment I picked up a handful of 7.62x39 casings on the sidewalk. Still, I feel compassion for those criminals. I think we can do a lot to help them make other choices that will benefit us all.
But at the end of the day, if faced with a threat of death. I would gun down anyone for attempting to kill me. It's not malice, it's a calculation. Do what you want, be who you are, but do not try to kill me. That is all I ask from people. 

I explained myself badly (sorry for my poor english). What I meant is the opposite: I don't think the US is violent because there are many guns - I think there are many guns in the US because it is an extremely violent society, and that violence is rooted in its culture. The USA has always being an imperialist power, and IMO this distinct characteristic emanates from a large part of the population being obsessed with its "god-given right" to apply violence. Yes, its always about "self defense", but you know how relative things might be... Saddam was supposed to have deadly weapons of mass destruction, so slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians was self defense; George Zimmermann killed a 17 year old unarmed teen in self-defense, and this guy (video in the link) shooting a 13 years old kid would have probably been considered self-defense too if we didn't have a video.

My point is that this is a vicious circle - obviously guns are not the core problem, but more guns won't make your society safer, on the contrary it will make it unsafer. Look at that old man who killed the 13 years old, that shit only happens in the third world AND the USA. That old guy probably felt his 4 shotguns gave him "the power" to teach a lesson to anybody who fucked with him (wow, nice feeling), and that he had a "god given right" to kill someone for breaking into his house, even if that person is an unarmed teen. That "cowboy mentality" seems pretty common in the USA, as the aberrant "stand your ground" law indicates. And I know what some of you will tell me - "stand your ground is perfectly fine, because how can someone know if an intruder is armed or unarmed? How do you know if he will try to kill you? If someone breaks into your property, you just shoot him..." Wow, nice society living in constant fear and violence, where random kids go to schools and slaughter their mates. And if not, they can always go to Iraq or whatever come next.

I think the problem is very, very deep. Everybody here is so convinced about them being "the good guys", but you seem to forget that 99% of the people (including the criminals) consider themselves "the good guys", the bad one is always the other guy. That's basic human psychology. I already made the example of the military, and how relative is who is "the bad" or "the good" guy in real life - it's not all about law abiding citizens and psychopathic serial killers, things are more complex and subtle. And there you have people arming themselves and thinking "hey, I have the balls and the means to protect my family", this mentality is deeply rooted, and at some point some idiot will be totally convinced he saw a "bad guy" who might be a threat, who could have the exact same mentality and could be armed too, so its better to shoot first just in case because hey, that's how life is.

That's sick. Human life is the most precious thing we have. I'd for one prefer to live and let live by breaking this pointless and horrendous loop.

With the exception of my CCW, my guns are not for killing. I am not a hunter and I shoot only paper targets. My guns have not "caused" me to be more violent. Guns don't do that. If they did then Montana would be the deadliest place in the U.S. and Chicago would be a peaceful utopia. In fact the opposite is true. 
It is also true that since the mid 1990's Americans have expanded their right to carry throughout the U.S. That same period has seen an unprecedented drop in violent crime. America now has less violent crime than it ever has.

What a buffoonish POV!   

It's America who repeatedly comes to the rescue and restores peace when the crazy, bloodthirsty Europeans and Asians get into yet another one of their regularly scheduled, historically unavoidable wars.

Of course they resent this fact greatly, and avoid the self-examination acceptance would entail by pathologizing the Rights/Freedom/Liberty Americans enjoy.   

You might be an exception.

Far most commonly, they are used to coerce rather than kill.

Even most robberies using guns do not involve them being fired.

I pretty much agree - guns are just inanimate objects (with only one purpose: to kill), and its just stupid to put the blame on inanimated objetcs - the blame is on individuals committing the crimes. The amount of privately owned guns in the US is a cause and reflection of its violent culture, dominated by fear and greed. Gun-lovers are not helping at all to change that culture, though.

And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist.  Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold.

That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns.

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen. Add to that Americans in particular don't seem to get proper training to use their firearms given how many accidents occur and it's pretty easy to see exactly why there are so many gun deaths in your country compared to the rest of the world.

I've given up trying to be polite because I'm sick of people ignoring the main issues in every problem we have on this planet preferring to blame inanimate objects instead, I also enjoy how in any gun violence debate the medical professionals who actually know what's going on are completely ignored as are the actual experts of subjects in any other debate.

Your Government is striking NON STOP. First and foremost, its slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people all over the world just because of economic interests. They are killing people, you know? Secondly, they are stripping you naked of your most basic rights, and still you say "if the government makes the first strike the people will band together and overturn them"? Seriously, what kind of strike are you expecting? Please let me know.

Maybe you mean that its OK if thousands of "foreigner" kids are slaughtered in their countries, while its not so OK if the kids in some California town are attacked? Maybe if the Federal Government "strikes" a small town in California, then all the nation will raise its arms and overturn the Government? Well, maybe they will wipe a couple more of towns with drones and the rest of the population will just STFU because they are too comfortable and they just know a rifle can do nothing against a drone or a Tomahawk. Plus, I don't see why they would need to "strike" US population in that way, they will just strip of their rights and squeeze from them all the money they can for their ventures. So, again: what kind of "strike" are you expecting to react?

Finally, there seems to be a lot of "anarchists" here - well, in my book anarchist believe in free associations, they do not believe in States, God or Nations. This is what Bakunin wrote in "The God and the State". Nations and religion are just big lies used to control people and rule over them. But still, you think that "people will band together if the Government strikes first". What people? What kind of strike? Let me know.

US soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

So why don't you use your guns to stop those killings, committed by your neighbors? Because those "bad guys" are just destroying other people's families, and not your own? Or maybe just because you know you do not stand a chance against the Federal Government and the US army?

You are delirious if you think that the most armed countries are the most peaceful - first example, the USA. It's the country in the world with more weapons (35% to 50% of all the privately owned guns in the world are in the US, while its population only amounts to aprox. 5% of the world population), while its one of the most violent countries in the world. So... the problem is you need more guns?? Really?

Then, you are repeating over and over the Switzerland example which is a blatant demonstration of how mistaken some of you are, you are just repeating meaningless clichés - Switzerland is a peaceful and neutral country, thus they do no even have an army. Because they do not have an army and are neutral in all wars, their citizens military duty is to store firearms at home, but:

- carrying a firearm in Switzerland is strictly prohibited, unless you a) are en route to practice with your unit or b) you work in security (meaning your are a policeman or similar). There's no way a regular citizen is allowed to carry a gun, there's no "special permit" or license possible. If authorities catch you carrying a pistol, you go straight to jail. Oh yes.

- the immense majority of firearms "owned" by Swiss citizens are just 3 models of weapons, the ones provided by the State - which also provide the ammo, which has always to be sealed unless there is a invasion, war, etc... And only the Gov. could say "ok we are now at war, take out your guns".

So, this is what you want for the US? You want to store weapons because your Government forces you to (military training is mandatory and the "swiss militia" soldiers are conscripts), but you cannot carry/use those guns unless the Government specifically allows you to because there is some kind of war or invasion? Really? I don't think so, Switzerland is one of the most regulated countries in the world, and is quite the opposite of what you would like for the US. The fact some of you keep repeating over and over the same example of Switzerland demonstrate you know nothing about the reality of their policies, you seem to ignore no one carries firearms, no one is EVER allowed to fire their guns unless they are practicing with their unit, they cannot even use their guns for self defense (if you shot a thief armed with a knife that broke into your house and you kill him, you go to jail for life unless you have an excellent defense that can prove that the thief's intention was not just to steal from you, but to outright kill you... Which is very difficult to prove unless he injured you)... And you still say Switzerland is an example you like? Wow, genius.

What I will have to agree with most in here, is that guns are just tools - evil tools, but just objects nevertheless. People kills, not necessarily guns. As Switzerland (or Finland) demonstrates, there can be a lot of guns in people's houses and very little crime. That's a fact. Do you know why? Because it is a matter of CULTURE. No one in Switzerland thinks carrying a firearm is their "god given right". They are just forced to store them because they have no army. They cannot use them, but nevertheless no one really wishes to carry them. Which is a very different approach than "people can only be free if they have guns, and BTW if I see someone in my property I will blow his brain off because it is my god-given right"... See, the problem in the US is that you have this cult for violence, you think there are a lot of "bad guys" (both inside and outside the US) who are waiting to gang rape your family, so your only chance to survive is to master violence...  Well, this "cowboy mentality" is reflected and executed by the US Government too in its foreign policy.

exactly. The FIRST requisite of liberty is universal armament. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, even if you want to. Guns have existed for the better part of six centuries, and the knowledge to make them, from crude to amazingly precise, is easy to come by. The most common rifle in the world was designed to be able to be built by a blacksmith if necessary, albeit at significant cost to accuracy and longevity.

If only the rulers have guns, then you have a populace of slaves. Contra what some keep spouting, all the stats I've been able to find over many years show exactly the opposite. The most armed places are the least violent.

Consider, since school shootings are ALWAYS the "disarm everyone but the criminals" groups' main focus, that it is illegal for ANYONE to have firearms in a school, now. Wasn't true in my youth, and we didn't go around shooting each other either. But I digress. ALL of these mass shootings happen where it is illegal to defend yourself. And no, to you liberals, cowering in a corner waiting to be shot doesn't count as defense. These shooters KNOW they face no opposition, and they have a field day. One man with a handgun would have stopped them cold in just about every one of those shootings.

Also, think on heavily armed societies such as Switzerland. They do not have much of a violent crime problem, and it is required that their male citizens have a military rifle on hand. Not the "badass lookin'" semis that Americans get so upset about, either, but the real deal. Full auto at the flick of a switch. The criminal element is well aware of this, and so does NOT invade the home of a man that is likely to shoot them dead.

This is my stance on gun control, I don't feel any more comfortable seeing a police officer with a gun than a crazed maniac, what if the cop decides to lose their cool as we've seen so many times in protests? We're lucky they only tend to carry batons and riot shields for now but you have cases where even with those grenade launchers for tear gas etc. they manage to get people badly hurt. The problem with taking the pacifist side is it really isn't realistic, guns are what is holding people back no matter what people say, someones going to have to take that stuff away and if the only people who are there to do it are unarmed then they're just going to end up getting killed instead.

I think what pisses me off most however, isn't the arguments that people make for gun control but it's the fact that the people who argue for the most ridiculous gun control laws ( politicians etc. ) are people who are being guarded by armed police or armed forces and they get shuttled around in cars with police escorts, especially the top politicians on to lecture the next group of people who would dare to question them. When they get rid of all that security then they can come and lecture me about how I should be giving up forms of self-defence.

I think one of the worst cases I can think of is when this taxi driver turned into a psychopath quite recently and got a shotgun, while this guy was going around killing people he was apparently being followed by the police, when asked why they didn't do anything the police force shrugged it off and said they couldn't really do anything because they were unarmed, so that just goes to show you how stupid gun control laws can be.

I'm most likely to be hit by a stray bullet while in a city, that any other projectile, if guns/bullets were not present. Also a gun is easier to conceal, and is much more deadly.

EDIT: My main beef with any gun holder - why should he have said advantage over anyone else?

If he goes berserk - he will inflict a lot of harm. If someone tries to rob him, he will inflict more harm, than it is worth. If I am in some heated dispute with a person carrying a gun, he will have a psychological advantage, a confidence boost. If he feels threatened, he will take that gun out as an extra argument on his side. You do not even need to take it out, just open your jacket a little, so they can see your holster as intimidating sign. These examples sure are dumb, but you get the idea.

Either it's noone having those guns, or everyone having one. Older citizens, kids, whatever.

Considering the military will never, ever give up their firearms for the sake of peace, there will always be violent crime; as you point out above, soldiers are still people and are still capable of crime, and have done so innumerable times in our history, which is especially easy against an unarmed populace; to disarm a people is to create a society of slaves.  You can blame the blacksmith for arming his peers with swords, but if it were not for his peers wanting the swords, the blacksmith wouldn't need to make any more swords; he would go out of business.  We cannot blame deaths on the fact the technology of firearms exist; if people want guns, they want them for two reasons: to kill in offense, or to kill in defense.  We can pretend we're a civilized species with no need for guns, but removing the guns from the equation does not result in peace.  Imagine a world without guns:


--These fellows know how to resolve conflict without gun violence.

If a society wants guns, it's not because we were any more peaceful without them.  To assume that, without guns, we would all get along, is naive.  To assume that, with guns, we would all kill each other for being unable to handle that power in our hands, is also naive, born from one who assumes that because he has no self control, nobody can have it--but if you believe in either, you would do better first questioning what a gun in the hand of a soldier is doing to him, and why he's any different from the individual; it makes no sense to disarm one and not the other, and yet that's not what anti-gun proponents fight for.  What's more dangerous: a military, or the individual?  The military, I believe, for they're organized, experienced, and capable of destruction far beyond what any citizen is capable of.  If one wants to fight guns under the belief that any power will lead to pure corruption, why must we always start with the citizens?  Because fighting the military's use of deadly force is asinine, and when our political beliefs play two dissonant keys, we ignore the greater evil and go for the next best thing, merely to get our way.

The truth is thus: we're not safe.  We're not safe from ourselves, not safe from our government, not safe from other nations with other governments, nor are we safe from disease, or meteors falling, or anything else; there's no guarantee in life, and anti-meteor legislation will not save you, but the men who actually work to stop the meteor to begin with.  There will be a moment when someone who does not share your anti-gun views uses their gun against you, and there is no law on the face of the Earth which will stop a bullet.  Even if we were so tight on gun control that no gun was allowed in the nation at all, you would still fear those who knew how to create guns; to stop these people, and to stop people in the future, we would have to censor both the Internet and libraries, and monitor all calls and texts and post rewards for turning in people who know about guns to ensure nobody was talking about how to make guns so anyone who didn't already know couldn't know, and we would also need to monitor the types of packages people get and the purchases they make, and keep a record of every receipt and movement--or better yet, ban all the materials required to create the gun and ammunition; it may be inconvenient, but at least the only thing you'll have to worry about is getting your neck slit open or having the back of your skull smashed into concrete, but don't worry, we can always pass laws to ban sharp things and hard things; and why stop there?--lets ban balled fist, mean glares, and anyone 6 inches taller than you.

Though, you are correct to say it's disturbing and sick that we must use firearms to resolve our differences, it's important to note that wishing for a future without the need for guns is not equivalent to removing guns from modern society and expecting the same result; again, this is naive, and results from a failure to understand human beings at all.  To get to the point where we no longer need guns to resolve conflict is what we must work for; the guns are simply a stepping stone to that advanced society, of which we are not, and, if we wanted, would resort to simpler methods of violence if no gun was present; and in the future, we may still be using laser cannons and plasma rifles to resolve our differences, and there will still be people who believe that banning laser cannons and plasma rifles will lead to a brighter, more peaceful society, without giving a thought as to why anyone would possibly want those man-killers (outside of believing those people are stupid and uncivilized, of course.)