Guns don´t kill people

[aztek]

Why do you want the right and legal ability to own a gun? .

why not?

it s American consent called freedom, Americans just don't like much when they are told what to do about their lives

[FLOMBIE]

There is the Patriot act, the TSA and the list goes on. Lots of your rights have been taken away from you recently, and while I know there is lots of complaint against it, it's nowhere near the "from my cold, dead hands" thingy about the guns. Guns are somehow very special to you, as if they are the cradle of democracy.

Edit: By the way, do you think we Germans simply knuckle under our Government? Are we not free without guns?

Edited August 2, 2012 by FLOMBIE

[keithisco]

Zarra, I note that you still ignore the fact that we have more crime because we have more people.

So this means that for every 300,000 people we have 2.98 killed by guns? I vote to keep them then.

You didn't read the graph correctly. It is "per 100,000 people" therefore it is proportional and also accurate (depending on the Data Source).

[keithisco]

I think the point here is that the ability to obtain guns of "Mass Destruction" i.e. fully automatic (it is not rocket science to actually convert a restricted weapon back to its original spec) is more the question.

These are not "hunting weapons" that I refer to, no "rape target" (male or female) will carry an AK7 with them to the local bar - so why make such weapons available?

Hunting Rifles, A handgun (for personal protection) I see as being reasonable - but stockpiling these other weapons is by itself a seriously disturbing affront to the intent of the 2nd Amendment (supposedly also, weapons should only be personally held in the context of being part of a properly formed Militia).

Restrict the type of weapons available(without completely removing any supposed right to personal protection),and definitely instigate some form of psychological screening before approving a License. IMO

[aztek]

Restrict the type of weapons available(without completely removing any supposed right to personal protection),and definitely instigate some form of psychological screening before approving a License. IMO

it is actually how it mostly is in usa. sometimes even worst.

full auto rifles are only legal is some states, and permit needs atf approval, i would think they do some kind of background checks.

those ar's and ak's you see are not full auto, and jail time for owing one, is sometimes longer than for rapes.

same for high cap magazines.

it is a myth that here you can walk into a gun show and walk out with full auto ak, no question asked.

in most states you can't carry gun in cities, or anywhere outside your property at all, and jail times are sometimes longer than for assault.

in some cities, like ny and la, dc... to get permit to have gun in your house, not even carry, that is a big no no, it is almost impossible. you have to go thru long process of investigation, and background checks. and pay hefty fees, sometimes even hire a lawyer.

anyone that was convicted of a felony, at any time, or had sentience of more than a year , is prohibited by law to have a gun, at all.

Edited August 2, 2012 by aztek

[RavenHawk]

There is the Patriot act,

The Patriot Act isn’t an infringement on my Rights. It deals with those that contact known terrorist entities. If it’s just a casual contact, context should be enough to dismiss it. Unfortunately there will always be the Mudds out there. That is true with anything.

the TSA and the list goes on. Lots of your rights have been taken away from you recently,

Yes they have, but not just recently. It’s been very slowly since about 1913. It’s about time to put an end to this and restore what we have lost. As Socialism has been getting bolder in our system, it has been trying to go after the more important ones recently. People notice and I think they are starting to wake up.

and while I know there is lots of complaint against it, it's nowhere near the "from my cold, dead hands" thingy about the guns.

Not yet anyway but Socialism knows this and is very clever to use our own system against us.

Guns are somehow very special to you, as if they are the cradle of democracy.

Yes, that’s right. They are a part of the cradle of democracy (even though we are not a democracy, but a Republic). The phrase still means the same.

Edit: By the way, do you think we Germans simply knuckle under our Government?

Yes I do. For being such a hardy and rugged people since at least the time of the Romans, you have faltered a bit. But considering the bad luck you’ve had since Frederick the Great, I guess it is understandable. You’ve gone from one extreme to the other. Isn’t there a middle ground?

Are we not free without guns?

No you are not! Without guns, you are no more than cattle (i.e. the Eloi). But if that is how you wish to live fine.

[Lilly]

Hmmm..."rate of gun homicide" eh? What about other forms of homicide? I mean, if other countries simply have more murders via stabbing and/or beating then perhaps such stats aren't so significant after all?

[aztek]

You didn't read the graph correctly. It is "per 100,000 people" therefore it is proportional and also accurate (depending on the Data Source).

that is what bothers me, it is un data, organization, that pushes small arms treaty,

[questionmark]

Hmmm..."rate of gun homicide" eh? What about other forms of homicide? I mean, if other countries simply have more murders via stabbing and/or beating then perhaps such stats aren't so significant after all?

Guess that depends on how you want to see it

'04 '10

NorthAmerica 6.5 4.7

Europe 5.4 3.5

Source for '04

Source for '10

Naturally there are regions where the murder rate is higher than in North America, but there we are talking about places like Honduras, Mexico or South Africa where there might be gun control laws but the government is incapable of enforcing them.

Besides that, the intentional homicide statistics are little relevant as to how safe guns are, much more relevant are the total number of deaths:

SouthAfrica 74.57-- 4.57

Colombia 51.77--51.77

El Salvador 50.36 50.36

Jamaica 47.44 47.44

Honduras 46.70 46.70

Guatemala 8.52 38.52

Swaziland 37.16 37.16

Brazil 14.15 10.58

Estonia 12.74 8.07

Panama 12.92 12.92

Mexico 12.07 9.88

United States 10.27 4.14

.... (snip)

Hong Kong 0.19 0.12

Mauritius 0.19 0

Qatar 0.18 0.18

South Korea 0.13 0.04

Japan 0.07 0.02

Chile 0.06 0.06

and at the end, surprise, surprise are the countries with the strictest gun controls where in all, save Chile, there are no significant amounts of guns in the hands of civilians.

Edit, and if you think that the intentional murder rate for North America seems low that is because it includes Canada (as part of North America) that has a relatively low murder rate.

Edited August 2, 2012 by questionmark

[Amy the Mighty]

In Australia, we had a massive gun amnesty in the 90s, after the Port Arthur massacre. People were able to surrender firearms, and a large focus of the campaign was to get lots of high-powered firearms out of the community. You can have a gun as long as it's registered. I grew up on a farm, and so my experience of guns is that they are a tool to perform a task, like a shovel or a chainsaw. Australia doesn't have gun ownership enshrined in law like you do in the US. We have far fewer gun deaths, but then we don't have this belief that we need a gun for protection because everyone else is going to shoot us.

When the amnesty was in place, the political far Right really took off, and there was a lot of scaremongering that the Government was taking away people's guns so that they could control the people and turn Australia into a dictatorship. I think this suspision is what the NRA and other conservative US groups would be putting across to voters if a firearms amnesty was called. Australia never had a civil war the way the US did, and we still feel a really close tie to Britain. We never needed to protect ourselves from Britain or from our Government.

I think that the Second Amendment should be viewed in a historical context. The US is a first world nation, with schools and courts and hospitals and fresh running water. It wasn't like that when the Constitution was established. There was a desperate need to arm the public, but I don't think there is such a need now. The impression I get from US media is that guns are viewed as a status symbol rather than a tool to perform a task. They're glamorised. We don't seem to have that culture over here. We gently ridicule people who pretend at being big, gun-toting "gangstas," because they're taking themselves a bit too seriously. We tell them to get utes instead.

Make unjustified murder penalized by death. If there are witnesses or other hard evidence, screw the trial, execute them. That's what they need to do with the batman shooter. Many witnesses, absolute guilt. Why a trial? Why waste time? Kill him. Well learn nothing by "studying" him except that he's crazy. You'll never be rid of crazy people. So maybe the thought of instant death would halter some madmans plans to kill. Some crimes deserve harsh penalties. For some criminals and gangbangers jail is better than where they come from, three meals a day tons of homies to chill with. You get my point. An eye for an eye would deter many crimes.

It's a tempting suggestion that a hardline approach to deal with gun crime would work, but it doesn't. Time and again, in countries where the death penalty exists, crime statistics indicate that the rate of murder is significatly higher than in countries where the death penalty is not in use. The way to eliminate these kinds of crimes is to improve living standards. Gangs have less appeal when your life has options. Gaols are hugely expensive. It is much more economical for tax payers to keep people on the right track, rather than chucking them in gaol. People with mental health problems are not statistically more likely to kill others than people without mental health problems. And targeting people with mental health issues as more criminally inclined would be a gross injustice, not to mention unfeasibly costly. In order for a nation's laws to be respected by its citizenry, those citizens must be able to trust that the system will treat every person fairly. Due process for every citizen, even when you're pretty certain they did the crime. Due process respects your rights, because it respects every person's rights. Trust your system. The courts will either find this Colorado shooter guilty or unfit to stand trial. Either way, he's heading toward a miserable, and possibly abbreviated, life.

[Babe Ruth]

When you discuss Rights, especially the 1^st and 2^nd Amendments, we don’t talk about the full spectrum. It doesn’t really register with people that Rights are just half of the equation. Along with Rights comes Responsibility. This is what is inalienable and they can never be separated. So Rights become something more than what is *granted* by government. We usually only speak of just Rights but it must be noted that both are included. If you don’t equally exercise your Responsibilities too then the government will.

When one reneges on their Responsibility, they then violate someone else’s Rights. Depending on the seriousness of the violation will elicit a protective response of equal kind. This is why one of the charges of this government is “To Establish Justice” Establishing Justice is not a blank check for the government to infringe on the Rights of the people (i.e. gun control). Their job is to see to it that those that violate other’s Rights pay the consequences, not punish those that are Responsible.

I have the Right to blow your head off. So why don’t I do that? Because I am Responsible. Most people are. Guns or access to guns is not the problem. People being stupid and irresponsible is. As another poster stated, if they can effectively curtail our 2^nd Amendment Rights, it’s not if they take away our 1^st Amendment Rights, it’s when! There are just some things that need to be done by “We The People”. Gun ownership is one of them.

The 2^nd isn’t for just protecting the Rights of hunters or for sport. Not only for home and personal defense. But the primary reason is to defend against our own government. This government must be afraid of the people and if you want to own and can maintain nuclear weapons, more power to you. However, I would think that most people will find armament a little bit less than that is adequate.

But if Obamacare stands then I can see a law requiring everyone to purchase and carry a weapon. But I don’t think that everybody needs to (or should) carry but Obamacare will make it impossible to decline. Obamacare sets a precedence. However, for those that would wish to carry, I see part of their Responsibility to be familiar with their weapons. I think they should qualify yearly and go through defensive combat training to allow them to think under fire. If people were licensed that way then the Liberal fear of mass shootouts would not occur. But then Liberals would lose their control over the people. People properly trained would be able to respond to such threats like Aurora in a professional manner. Actions like this will secure our Rights and Responsibilities. And not be enslaved by a Socialist government.

Also, parents should teach their children to respect weapons and how to handle them (like it was a few hundred years ago). Take them to a shooting range as early as possible so that they will grow up with respect and not fear.

You have the right to blow somebody's head off? I would say that's true ONLY given certain specific conditions. If you are in imminent danger of losing your life, then that condition would be met.

Otherwise, that's a pretty crazy statement.

[RavenHawk]

You have the right to blow somebody's head off? I would say that's true ONLY given certain specific conditions. If you are in imminent danger of losing your life, then that condition would be met.

Otherwise, that's a pretty crazy statement.

Try reading the full paragraph next time. It might help with context.

[aztek]

i think he meant ability to blow your head off. not right.

he has the right to protect his head from being blown off, if he has to blow yours for that, well, only if you make him.

Edited August 2, 2012 by aztek

[keithisco]

The Patriot Act isnt an infringement on my Rights. It deals with those that contact known terrorist entities. If its just a casual contact, context should be enough to dismiss it. Unfortunately there will always be the Mudds out there. That is true with anything.

Yes they have, but not just recently. Its been very slowly since about 1913. Its about time to put an end to this and restore what we have lost. As Socialism has been getting bolder in our system, it has been trying to go after the more important ones recently. People notice and I think they are starting to wake up.

Not yet anyway but Socialism knows this and is very clever to use our own system against us.

Yes, thats right. They are a part of the cradle of democracy (even though we are not a democracy, but a Republic). The phrase still means the same.

Yes I do. For being such a hardy and rugged people since at least the time of the Romans, you have faltered a bit. But considering the bad luck youve had since Frederick the Great, I guess it is understandable. Youve gone from one extreme to the other. Isnt there a middle ground?

No you are not! Without guns, you are no more than cattle (i.e. the Eloi). But if that is how you wish to live fine.

The Patriot Act effectively repealed habeaus Corpus, the most fundamental right ever established from 1215ad. But you let it go because it was a Rep that enforced this!!

The western world (USA not included) has moved on from armed conflict between it's neighbours so personal weapon ownership is redacted in favour of the real Armed Forces to protect our nations, and ourselves.

Hunting weapons are allowed, as are recreational weapons (gun clubs etc) fully licensed, but be seen in an Urban area with these weapons not secured and you are off to prison. That is how it should be.

Military Assault weapons have no place in Society, nor do the people who are drooling to own them!!

[+OverSword]

No problem, I have heard all that before. Those Germans are Nazis jokes never get old, right?

Why do you want the right and legal ability to own a gun? Really, what for, as it definitely doesn't make your country or you safer.

To answer that unfortunately I have to refer to an interview I saw on television a couple of years ago. The interview was a Jewish man who's entire family died in concentration camps in Poland. He lamented that if people had not simply just conformed to the nazis orders and made it a risk to round people up that they may not have demanded they be relocated to "labor camps". He may have been wrong, but he may not, and I would rather die than be put in a camp. If you think it can't happen I will just point out that within my lifetime the United States military has fired at and killed peacful protesters. Kent State University, Ohio, USA. Also it is well documented (seen it with my own eyes) FEMA does have empty concentration camps with razor wire fences pointed inward. They may never use them but I'll tell you one thing, for sure they won't get me in there alive.

edit for: I'm sure those jokes do get old that's why I apologized.

Edited August 2, 2012 by OverSword

[aztek]

The Patriot Act effectively repealed habeaus Corpus, the most fundamental right ever established from 1215ad. But you let it go because it was a Rep that enforced this!!

such as????

The western world (USA not included) has moved on from armed conflict between it's neighbours so personal weapon ownership is redacted in favour of the real Armed Forces to protect our nations, and ourselves.

you either don't get what the beef is about, or .....

we never had armed conflict between neighbors, may be you did, we have criminals, braking into our homes, and rapists\assailants walking on the street, that is when we citizens want our guns be with us,

neighborhood shootings, don't happen here often, and when they do, it is usually shootings in high crime area, where shooters are absolutely do not have guns legally. name one country where real army protects you on the street, and in your home against criminal element.??

Hunting weapons are allowed, as are recreational weapons (gun clubs etc) fully licensed, but be seen in an Urban area with these weapons not secured and you are off to prison. That is how it should be.

not sure what your point is here?? here ppl usually carry pistols\revolvers on them persons, not ak's , don't believe media too much. thou it is legal in some places to carry rifles in the city, those citys have a lot les shootings, than where guns baned altogether.

Military Assault weapons have no place in Society, nor do the people who are drooling to own them!!

whatever you say mr Hitler, so now you decided if i want a rifle, i have no place in society???? whose society???? so what are you suggest to do?, round up and send ppl like that to camps?? even more reasons to have guns. i remember it was done in ww2, someone there also didn't think certain ppl had no place in society, i learned the lesson, i'll stick to my guns.

[RavenHawk]

i think he meant ability to blow your head off. not right.

he has the right to protect his head from being blown off, if he has to blow yours for that, well, only if you make him.

I didn’t say anything about the ability to. I said I had the right to (just as everyone else does).

Then you both missed the point. All human action has consequences. Most of the time, those consequences are small and insignificant. Sometimes they are very serious. Most people have the ability to recognize what the consequences of their actions bring and are able to govern themselves. They are responsible for themselves. They can make the right decision. So ultimately, we all have the right to do anything we please. We don’t need a government to tell us what we can do or not do. This is the way it should be. Now I guess for those that believe that the government is both mother and father, I guess this is alien to you. That’s ok.

[F3SS]

Hunting weapons are allowed, as are recreational weapons (gun clubs etc) fully licensed, but be seen in an Urban area with these weapons not secured and you are off to prison. That is how it should be.

Military Assault weapons have no place in Society, nor do the people who are drooling to own them!!

You ever think that many people who own guns just like to shoot them for no other reason than it's fun and in America they can. This country isn't full of Yosemitie Sam's carelessly brandishing and firing guns all day. I think this clip below pretty much sums up the way some of you foreigners view gun ownership in this country. I wish I could provide the whole episode. It's hilarious and a total caricature of an irresponsible gun owner.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Is it for real

[aztek]

I didn't say anything about the ability to. I said I had the right to (just as everyone else does).

So ultimately, we all have the right to do anything we please.

than we have a problem, no one has a right to blow my head off. we only have right to do anything we want as long as it isn't affecting other with their right to do what they want. and blowing someones head off does affect his right to live a bit.

if you shoot me while i'm trying to kill you (really trying to kill you, not just say it, and i really for investigation after any shooting, to make sure you didn't shoot me just cuz you had a right.) than you had to do it to survive, no charges, but if not, you go in a gas chamber, so others think twice before killing, even thou they have guns.

i agree with you on responsibility part, thou. that makes me wonder more, why you think it is your right to blow my head off.

by the same logic your neighbor has aright to rape your wife.

[rashore]

I think military assault weapons are a bit of overkill. But that's just me personally. I own a couple shotguns and those are kind of overkill- I pretty much can only use them with clay pigeons, some finer marksmanship with them is sort of like swatting a fly with an elephant. On the flip side, my blowgun is probably one of the more precise marksmanship tools I own.

No matter what weapon it is, responsibility is a major factor on how that weapon can be used. I'm HUGE into responsibility and safety no matter what the weapon is. So are a lot of other gun owners. You just don't hear as many news reports about people being responsible with guns as you do people being irresponsible with guns.

[F3SS]

Here's yet another reason that gun wielding Americans aren't giving up their heat. In a no-gun zone these thieves would've robbed her blind and did who ows what else to her and the stores patrons. Guns deter crime. Period. Proof below.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/granny-get-your-gun-65-year-old-woman-thwarts-robbery-using-her-handgun/

A 65-year-old woman fired two rounds from a handgun at five masked men after they attempted to rob her jewelry store in Garden Grove, Calif. on Sunday. Her shots sent the men fleeing in such a panic that they literally tripped over each other trying to exit the store, KTLA reports.

[Michelle]

Here's yet another reason that gun wielding Americans aren't giving up their heat. In a no-gun zone these thieves would've robbed her blind and did who ows what else to her and the stores patrons. Guns deter crime. Period. Proof below.

http://www.theblaze....ng-her-handgun/

A 65-year-old woman fired two rounds from a handgun at five masked men after they attempted to rob her jewelry store in Garden Grove, Calif. on Sunday. Her shots sent the men fleeing in such a panic that they literally tripped over each other trying to exit the store, KTLA reports.

You go girl!!!

I'm not too worried about it at at home, but I am concerned at our business. It isn't in a great area and three places have been robbed, within a few blocks, the last couple of months. The older man that owns a catering company across the street from us was surprised early one morning, while he was there alone, and shot in the face. It's a miracle he lived.

I'm often at the shop alone, when all of the guys are out on a job, and I keep a gun near me, if not on me, at all times.

[Michelle]

I think military assault weapons are a bit of overkill. But that's just me personally. I own a couple shotguns and those are kind of overkill- I pretty much can only use them with clay pigeons, some finer marksmanship with them is sort of like swatting a fly with an elephant. On the flip side, my blowgun is probably one of the more precise marksmanship tools I own.

No matter what weapon it is, responsibility is a major factor on how that weapon can be used. I'm HUGE into responsibility and safety no matter what the weapon is. So are a lot of other gun owners. You just don't hear as many news reports about people being responsible with guns as you do people being irresponsible with guns.

Exactly!

Military assault weapons are overkill, but I had the opportunity to fire one once and I have to admit it was a blast.

[FLOMBIE]

You can be in a shooting club here as well. Actually shooting clubs (Schützenvereine) are a very old German tradition and quite popular - especially in the countryside. Guns are not banned here, it's ownership that is strictly regulated: You usually leave your guns at the club, where they are stored in a safe-like storeroom.

You can obtain permits to carry them as well. Bodyguards have that, for example, or the security personnel in a jewelry store. And of course do we give out hunting licences as well, but you have to take a full course on that (60 hours theory, 60 hours praxis, and then several final tests).

Edited August 2, 2012 by FLOMBIE

[FLOMBIE]

double post.

Edited August 2, 2012 by FLOMBIE