Well! What do the other two guys have? I wanna know!FEOS wrote:
Oh. My. God.
I agree completely with MJ.
I see four guys on horseback coming down my street...one has a sword...another has a trumpet...
This is weird.
Malloy must go
Poll
Legalize/Ban gun ownership
| I'm in Europe and i think it should be legalised | 7% | 7% - 9 | ||||
| I'm in Europe and i think it should stay banned | 20% | 20% - 24 | ||||
| I'm in NA and i think we should keep our guns | 60% | 60% - 71 | ||||
| I'm in NA and i think guns should be banned | 4% | 4% - 5 | ||||
| Other- outline below | 7% | 7% - 9 | ||||
| Total: 118 | ||||||
Good.JoshP wrote:
Is gun ownership good or bad?
More guns, less laws.
We don't need more regulations or background checks. We need punishment for people who victimize other people. I want to be able to mail order guns like the old days.
Since Obama's election the sales of firearms and ammunition has gone up substantially. All the people purchasing guns and ammunition fearing a ban is actually helping the economy. Some dealers have sold more since the election then they have sold in years.... backorder, backorder, backorder.....
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2008-11-25 11:44:35)
max wrote:
Good thing that they'll need to do a vote on that. I don't see how the government will be able to get a majority for that, especially with the conservatives getting stronger each day. We had several votes on reforming the army in the past years and they did not only not pass, but rather get demolishedMarinejuana wrote:
I really like their system too, although I've heard there is a lot of pressure from above to reform the whole armed militia system that they have and lock up all the weapons with the military. I'm pretty sure the average Swiss citizen would not support that. No clue if it's likely, but I know they talk about it a lot. The UN would certainly prefer it.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/revolver.jpg
oh and fuck the UN. We should have stayed out of that mess
Switzerland has a relatively very low urban population. Anytime you force together large groups of people you're going to have more violence. The majority of the "gun-related homicide statistics" in the US is from these highly congested areas. NYC has a population density of 27,147 per square mile. That's insane. I'm sure we've got a higher death by waffle iron rate as well. Patting someone on the back for having a low crime rate in a city with a low population density is like congratulating someone for winning first place in the special Olympics. You'll get a trophy just for showing up.Braddock wrote:
Great country... I like how you guys do business! You have pretty damn respectable gun-related homicide statistics too which could suggest that your attitude towards firearms is a healthy one, one more in tune with Nationalist pride and National defence rather than crime and fear of attack from criminals.max wrote:
That's rightBraddock wrote:
Is it true you guys have to keep weapons and a certain amount of ammo in the house and do a few weeks military service every year?
some people actually don't get ammo anymore, not that it changes anything since I can just go to a hardware store, show my ID (just to prove that I am a Swiss citizen) and get as much (government subsidized ) ammo as I want
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Its really funny to watch this, a lot of Americans who most likely own guns would like to or are just interested in them want to keep them legal, while most Europeans who most likely do not own guns want them to stay illegal. We are both happy with our own gun regulations so why change them?
I'm curious how many people had guns and had to give them up. I bet most of those people want their guns back. A lot of people who think guns should stay banned, probably never owned their own and likely never shot one either. Shooting at ranges is not the same as shooting out in the desert or forest.specops10-4 wrote:
Its really funny to watch this, a lot of Americans who most likely own guns would like to or are just interested in them want to keep them legal, while most Europeans who most likely do not own guns want them to stay illegal. We are both happy with our own gun regulations so why change them?
Can guns be used productively?
Yes, as a hobby, self defense etc.
Can widespread gun ownership be harmful?
Yes, huge increases in availability of guns for criminals and increased need for them to carry one results in higher homicide rates.
While in many European countries that have traditionally had little interest in gun ownership, banning guns tended to have overwhelming popular support and was easily implimented, there were few guns to get rid of. In the US the sheer number of firearms out there both legal and illegal means that a ban on guns would likely remove the possitive aspects of gun ownership but fail to bring the benefits that are seen in many European countries and therefore would be pointless.
Switzerland may not have any massively overpopulated regions such as NY, but the urban population percentage is actually quite similar to that of the US.
Yes, as a hobby, self defense etc.
Can widespread gun ownership be harmful?
Yes, huge increases in availability of guns for criminals and increased need for them to carry one results in higher homicide rates.
While in many European countries that have traditionally had little interest in gun ownership, banning guns tended to have overwhelming popular support and was easily implimented, there were few guns to get rid of. In the US the sheer number of firearms out there both legal and illegal means that a ban on guns would likely remove the possitive aspects of gun ownership but fail to bring the benefits that are seen in many European countries and therefore would be pointless.
Switzerland may not have any massively overpopulated regions such as NY, but the urban population percentage is actually quite similar to that of the US.
Yes, it is true that gun violence can rise outside of major cities. But it's not even remotely close when compared to where the majority of gun violence takes place. DC, Detroit, LA, NY .. these are noticeable hotspots and there is no swiss comparison at all. Most of us enjoy a relatively uneventful world free from the threat of gun violence. It's not newsworthy so I can imagine why you would have your slanted view. If you ever came to visit us I'm confident that I could talk you out from under your desk.PureFodder wrote:
Switzerland may not have any massively overpopulated regions such as NY, but the urban population percentage is actually quite similar to that of the US.
Americans have deemed it an acceptable risk. You are still looking at an extremely low likelihood of being a victim. That to us is worth protecting our rights. Too much coddling of the societal tit can also rob life.. of it's vitality.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
QFTKmarion wrote:
Yes, it is true that gun violence can rise outside of major cities. But it's not even remotely close when compared to where the majority of gun violence takes place. DC, Detroit, LA, NY .. these are noticeable hotspots and there is no swiss comparison at all. Most of us enjoy a relatively uneventful world free from the threat of gun violence. It's not newsworthy so I can imagine why you would have your slanted view. If you ever came to visit us I'm confident that I could talk you out from under your desk.
Americans have deemed it an acceptable risk. You are still looking at an extremely low likelihood of being a victim. That to us is worth protecting our rights. Too much coddling of the societal tit can also rob life.. of it's vitality.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-11-25 17:14:10)
Nice one, consider my previous karma for this as well.Kmarion wrote:
Too much coddling of the societal tit can also rob life.. of it's vitality.
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
I had to hand in my guns in the UK, first large caliber, then .22.West-Phoenix-AZ wrote:
I'm curious how many people had guns and had to give them up.
At the time everyone knew it would achieve precisely zero, and thats how it turned out.
After handing in my 5 shot .22 target pistols I used the compensation money to buy a 10 shot 7.62mm sniper rifle - all legal, as a one man personal protest.
Most people are wholly ignorant about guns and why people have them.
Its always fun to take a 'badass' to a shooting range and see just how bad they are.
'You missed 10 times at 10 metres? Now watch me put them all through the same hole. Still feel tough?'
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-25 23:29:49)
Fuck Israel
It's generally not something you walk into. People who have never shot a gun don't understand that. Especially if it's a large caliber. I remember the first time I shot my Dads 357. I got worse everytime I missed because I would tense up even more . Now my buddies 9mm glock is a different story .Dilbert_X wrote:
I had to hand in my guns in the UK, first large caliber, then .22.West-Phoenix-AZ wrote:
I'm curious how many people had guns and had to give them up.
At the time everyone knew it would achieve precisely zero, and thats how it turned out.
After handing in my 5 shot .22 target pistols I used the compensation money to buy a 10 shot 7.62mm sniper rifle - all legal, as a one man personal protest.
Most people are wholly ignorant about guns and why people have them.
Its always fun to take a 'badass' to a shooting range and see just how bad they are.
'You missed 10 times at 10 metres? Now watch me put them all through the same hole. Still feel tough?'
Xbone Stormsurgezz
But its so easy on TV, and they're big and tough, how can they fail?People who have never shot a gun don't understand that.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-25 23:42:26)
Fuck Israel
because the "big guys" think you need to tightly grip the gun.Dilbert_X wrote:
But its so easy on TV, and they're big and tough, how can they fail?People who have never shot a gun don't understand that.
They don't know that the tiny movements can offset the aim.
I usually try to let the recoil "surprise" me a little.
Eh?west-phoenix-az wrote:
Good.JoshP wrote:
Is gun ownership good or bad?
More guns, less laws.
We don't need more regulations or background checks. We need punishment for people who victimize other people. I want to be able to mail order guns like the old days.
Since Obama's election the sales of firearms and ammunition has gone up substantially. All the people purchasing guns and ammunition fearing a ban is actually helping the economy. Some dealers have sold more since the election then they have sold in years.... backorder, backorder, backorder.....
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123 … _Today.jpg
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123 … ars/ak.jpg
Surely you don't want guns in the hands of psychopaths, criminals or potential terrorists?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Background checks are not going to stop criminals or terrorists from obtaining firearms. If they want them, they will get them.Spark wrote:
Eh?
Surely you don't want guns in the hands of psychopaths, criminals or potential terrorists?
What is a "potential terrorist"? Anyone of us can be a "potential terrorist". Who makes that decision? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
The background system is flawed in many ways and was also used as an illegal form of "registration" by the feds. Once you are in the system, its difficult to get out of, even if its a mistake. Just being arrested for a domestic dispute, even with the charges dropped, can stop you from purchasing a firearm. You don't even have to be found guilty. If someone can convince a judge to get a restraining order against you, you cannot possess firearms. You may be completely innocent. This happens a lot in divorce cases. Women will often claim that the husband was abusive, to back up that claim they cry to the judge to get a restraining order, which helps their case to get more money and or possessions. Peoples rights are being denied for things they were never found guilty of. There are many other problems that arise. The point is the system doesn't solve the problem and it is wrongly punishing many innocent people.... ohh I'm sorry I forgot this is to keep us safe, it's for our own good
A crime that may be a felony is one state, may not be in another. Some crimes do not warrant the felon status in my opinion. All felons, unless their firearm rights have been restored, are not allowed to own or possess firearms. I do not think that should be the case. It should be judged on a case-by-case basis. This can also be a very scary way to do it though and I may live to regret that thought.
Just because you have mental problems does not mean that you are going to harm someone else. Once again you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. If someone is that much of a threat to society, they should be removed from society all together.
We have way more gun laws than we need. Some of the laws and or restrictions are ridiculous. They really are surprisingly stupid and make no sense. Those not concerned with keeping their firearm rights really don't understand some of the laws being proposed or passed. They hear things like "gun show loop hole" and "assault weapon" and think the laws are good. They are fooling you. The so called "gun show loophole" is actually a private firearm transaction between citizens. In other words its one citizen selling a firearm to another. Federally licensed firearm dealers must still complete the required forms and background checks at gun shows. Some of the "assault weapon" lists include firearms like, bolt-action rifles, lever action rifles, pump shotguns and handguns. How many people really consider those assault weapons? They pick "scary" features to categorize firearms, many of these features are cosmetic or actually a safety feature for the shooter.
The lack of penalties for the people who victimize other people is our real problem, not the guns. It's really sad when you call the police and they don't show up, yet they can track someone down and arrest them for a petty drug offense, or traffic tickets. The police often don't think its worth their time or effort to fingerprint your house after a burglary, even if a witness saw the crime in progress, noticed no gloves, and can tell the police what the suspect touched. It really comes down to making money for the system, not serving or protecting us. Anyone who depends on the police to come save their life is naive. Be responsible for protecting yourself and your family and hope the police can arrive in time to assist you.
Gun control is not about guns, its about control.
Here is a video about the Second Amendment.
http://www.jpfo.org/media-vid/2a-full.wmv
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2008-11-27 01:19:32)
They will get them if they are widely available - as they are in the US.If they want them, they will get them.
In other parts of the world its a lot harder, not impossible but certainly harder.
I don't have a problem with people who know each other trading guns, or people buying through registered dealers. I do have a problem with people rolling up to gun shows and buying guns from strangers no questions or background checks.The so called "gun show loophole" is actually a private firearm transaction between citizens.
Most countries require a license and registration of some kind and I don't have a problem with it, any more than I do getting a driving license and registering my car.
Fuck Israel
Even if we had stricter gun control it would still be possible for criminals to steal them from peoples homes or cars. Right now it is not uncommon for firearms to be transferred back and forth from Mexico. I believe we would see in increase of firearms coming from the south and an increase is gun shop burglaries and robberies. Certainly wouldn't solve our problem.Dilbert_X wrote:
They will get them if they are widely available - as they are in the US.If they want them, they will get them.
In other parts of the world its a lot harder, not impossible but certainly harder.
If they closed this so called "gun show loophole" you would not be able to buy, sale or trade with people you know without going through a registered dealer. This includes your brother, sister, parent, child, cousin and best friend. How would they regulate selling to friends and strangers? It just can't be done. They and you would never be able to prove how well you knew someone. So all transferred would be required to go through big brothers system.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't have a problem with people who know each other trading guns, or people buying through registered dealers. I do have a problem with people rolling up to gun shows and buying guns from strangers no questions or background checks.The so called "gun show loophole" is actually a private firearm transaction between citizens.
The way the law is now, you cannot sell a firearm to a known prohibited possessor. If you have reason to believe the person is a prohibited possessor it is illegal for you to sell them the firearm. If they are a stranger all you can do is ask and make your best judgment call. Now I have lawfully purchased and traded firearms with other people. Sometimes with people I know well, sometimes with people I found through someone I know and sometimes to a complete stranger. One of the firearms I sold to a stranger did end up in the wrong hands. What was the penalty for the man doing illegal gun trading and transferring (across state lines and out of the country)? He received a few months in jail. A friend of mine with personal use drug possession spent more time than that. That's where the problem is in my opinion. I really do not want to see all firearm transfers go through dealers with background checks. It will add additional hassle and cost to us owning, buying and trading firearms lawfully. I really don't think we should have to jump through these hoops and pay additional money to lawfully trade our firearms.
I also don't think we should have to pay (permits or registration) to exercise our rights, which in many states you do. In order to obtain a concealed weapons permit in some states you have to take a course. This course costs money and time. Money and time some people do not have and shouldn't have to have. Once the course is complete you must now send your paperwork off to the state for approval and issue, this costs more money. Some people just can't justify the effort and money required to obtain these permits even though they wish to possess a firearm. These can be anyone from single mothers, or fathers, raising multiple kids alone, elderly people and people with medical conditions. These laws and regulations are making it more and more difficult for people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, and that is wrong!
Gun safety is really not that complicated. Anyone who can read and comprehend can learn gun safety from the included owners manual. They can also get free instruction from a family member, friend or neighbor. I'd much rather have people spending their money practicing their shot placement, than on big brother's paperwork.
...and honestly all this gun shit is already too expensive.
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2008-11-27 10:05:57)
Are you talking about gun show dealers? Because, here in Texas, the gun show dealers have to follow the exact same rules as normal gun shop owners; same paperwork, and same background checks. My state has just made it easy with a direct phone number to call to the state for an insant backgound check of the driver's license.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't have a problem with people who know each other trading guns, or people buying through registered dealers. I do have a problem with people rolling up to gun shows and buying guns from strangers no questions or background checks.
Or are you talking about a person at the gun show selling a gun to just another person attending the gun show? Yes, there is no record, since it is individual to individual... now please explain to me how them meeting each other at a gun show is different from meeting on craig's list and agreeing to meet in a random parking lot to work the trade?
MJ and West-Phoenix bring up a lot of good points.
I like the Swiss system, as it is described, as well.
From your original statement, I did not realize you already knew about the NFA/GCA regulations currently in place.
I like the Swiss system, as it is described, as well.
Most "street-level" discussions rely on emotional appeals, sadly. Most people I meet have no idea what the statistical effects are, or even what the current laws are. Once you get into the groups which actually understand the issue, there are a lot of statistical and legal arguments to be heard. (www.guncite.com for one example of a well cited argument)Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I know that. I'm simply stating what my opinion is.RAIMIUS wrote:
Maybe you should do some research. Full auto firearms ARE heavily restricted. You need an extra background check, the approval of your local chief law enforcement officer, and a $200 stamp.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
In all seriousness I wouldn't mind a handgun ban and heavy restrictions on fully automatic weapons.
Also like I joked to, I would like a little update to our constitution. Too frigging vague.
For those who advocate banning firearms, what effect do you expect to see? Prohibition (of anything common in society) doesn't work very well. (See alcohol, drugs)
Handguns aren't banned.
Edit: And when do research and gun control/ownership debates go hand in hand? It's always "you'll take my gun from my cold dead hand!" vs. "guns kill people"
From your original statement, I did not realize you already knew about the NFA/GCA regulations currently in place.
Umm...some_random_panda wrote:
In Australia, and think guns should stay illegal/highly regulated.
It works fine right now, why change it?
Highly regulated WAT?
Come to the NT, you can chill at my house and shoot our .22/.22 magnum/.303...
Pity we had to ditch the .410 and the .308. All legal and registered firearms. Pistols aren't too hard to get either m8.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I plan on owning a gun in the future, so keep them.
I don't see that as a terrible problem.West_Phoenix_AZ wrote:
If they closed this so called "gun show loophole" you would not be able to buy, sale or trade with people you know without going through a registered dealer. This includes your brother, sister, parent, child, cousin and best friend. How would they regulate selling to friends and strangers? It just can't be done. They and you would never be able to prove how well you knew someone. So all transferred would be required to go through big brothers system.
If it stops people buying guns and selling them on to scumbags then sorry but a little paperwork is a price worth paying.
Here it all goes through the Police or a dealer, and you must attend a Police station, with your firearm, to register that its in your possession.
Aus is a good deal more regulated than the US.Flecco wrote:
Umm...
Highly regulated WAT?
The Police keep a record of who owns what, and there are restrictions on what you can have, how you can store them etc.
Fuck Israel
I live in a house with a gunsafe and 3 working rifles. I'm aware of how things work here.Dilbert_X wrote:
Aus is a good deal more regulated than the US.Flecco wrote:
Umm...
Highly regulated WAT?
The Police keep a record of who owns what, and there are restrictions on what you can have, how you can store them etc.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
The problem is it is not likely to work, and would cost millions. Do you really think drug dealers/gang members care if their firearm transactions are required to go through an FFL? They will ignore the law (just like they do now).Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see that as a terrible problem.West_Phoenix_AZ wrote:
If they closed this so called "gun show loophole" you would not be able to buy, sale or trade with people you know without going through a registered dealer. This includes your brother, sister, parent, child, cousin and best friend. How would they regulate selling to friends and strangers? It just can't be done. They and you would never be able to prove how well you knew someone. So all transferred would be required to go through big brothers system.
If it stops people buying guns and selling them on to scumbags then sorry but a little paperwork is a price worth paying.