[Political] People Do.

[Joe Wordsworth]

The older I get, the more I find myself agreeing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

I can recall a time when I was moderately antiguns, but these days I'm a good deal more sympathetic to someone wanting one for protection and/or security.

 

[neonlyte]

The older I get, the more I find myself agreeing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

I can recall a time when I was moderately antiguns, but these days I'm a good deal more sympathetic to someone wanting one for protection and/or security.

I have empathy with your opinion. I'm not sure it is age, though age does reveal the underbelly. I'd be a dangerous person right now to own a gun.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This coming depression has everyone in a tizzy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The older I get, the more I find myself agreeing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

I can recall a time when I was moderately antiguns, but these days I'm a good deal more sympathetic to someone wanting one for protection and/or security.

Yep. It happens to us all, sooner or later.

You go along being a true blue liberal and then one day you get mugged, and no one does shit about it...or cares.

 

[Liar]

The older I get, the more I find myself agreeing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

And assuming that the other side thinks that "guns kill people", is of course fallacious.

They too tend to think that "people kill people". People with guns.

 

[JackLuis]

And assuming that the other side thinks that "guns kill people", is of course fallacious.

They too tend to think that "people kill people". People with guns.

Not to mention People with cars!
or

People with more power than sense

or
People with "the Word of God!

 

[ottohauser1977]

Hey, I'm pro-gun, and most people would consider me a progressive, so it is all about something other than ideology. It's more of a basic natural law right to self-defense. That's how I see it.

It's simple for me. Criminals are lawless by definition. So telling them not to use guns won't disarm them. It will just disarm me. Since the police can't be everywhere, I prefer not to be disarmed.

 

[sr71plt]

Gee, one wonders why fewer people get murdered in countries that aren't well-slathered with personal guns then. Must be just be some sort of coincidence, I guess.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Gee, one wonders why fewer people get murdered in countries that aren't well-slathered with personal guns then. Must be just be some sort of coincidence, I guess.

Well, in Germany's case, we have a certain horror of public violence. Given our history, can you blame us? I suspect that this the case with most of Europe.

Countries like Switzerland are intriguing cases. A heavily armed populace with low crime. I think that this is due to relative wealth and an orderly, rather unadventurous culture.

Russia, on the other hand, has tight gun controls to little effect.

So, in my estimation, guns are basically immaterial to crime. The basic cultural attitude toward violence is the key. When you have a society that romanticizes violence, you're going to have a more violent society. No avoiding it.

When you have responsible gun owners, guns will not increase crime. When you have irresponsible ones, they will.

Most Americans own guns and behave well. But there is a large minority that refuses to accept that with this extra freedom comes an extra obligation to respect the rights of one's fellow citizens. This is the element that needs to be kept in a database, and permanently disarmed as simply unreliable.

 

[Liar]

I recently talked about this with a friend from Finland. They have the highest number of spontaneusly owned (not mandatory as in Switzerland) guns per capita in Europe, and very low ratio of gun violence.

Because Finns are peaceful? Hell naw. Drunken brawls is the national favourite pastime. Closely followed by knife fights. And saunas. Smetimes all three at once.

But not shooting. Why? If Finns are so violent, if fighting is considered normal, maybe even romatisized, why so few gun deaths?

Because, in the traditional Finnish mindset, guns are tools for war. You kill Russians with guns. It's un-manly to kill your fellow Finn with a firearm. For violence between gentlemen you use a knife, your fists, or the nearest heavy object.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My boys, (Mr Omega and son) just came home from a gun show with a 1937 Lee Enfield. They traded several knives to get it-- including one of mine.

It's all original, all the parts have the same numbers, and it has stamps from around the world. Not exactly for self-protection, but a thing of beauty, and very firable.

 

[R. Richard]

IBecause, in the traditional Finnish mindset, guns are tools for war. You kill Russians with guns. It's un-manly to kill your fellow Finn with a firearm. For violence between gentlemen you use a knife, your fists, or the nearest heavy object.

In general true. However, in the Winter War, the Finns would often use a temporary sheath for their puukkos, instead of the customary decorated leather sheath. The most popular temporary sheath was a Russian soldier.

The Finns aren't too fond of Russians and [surprise!] Russians aren't too fond of Finns, particularly Finns with a puukko.

 

[R. Richard]

Most Americans own guns and behave well. But there is a large minority that refuses to accept that with this extra freedom comes an extra obligation to respect the rights of one's fellow citizens. This is the element that needs to be kept in a database, and permanently disarmed as simply unreliable.

I have tried to point this out to the governments where I live/have lived. There is an existing database and an effective method of permanently disarming the 'unreliable elements.' The existing database is the obituary column of the local newspapers.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of wimps in the local governments.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've always wanted a puuko knife.

These are puukos.

 

[jomar]

My boys, (Mr Omega and son) just came home from a gun show with a 1937 Lee Enfield. They traded several knives to get it-- including one of mine.

It's all original, all the parts have the same numbers, and it has stamps from around the world. Not exactly for self-protection, but a thing of beauty, and very firable.

Ah, my teen son was just today firing an Enfield. Call of Duty is both great and terrible.

I have a Mossberg .22 and a .410 shotgun. If I ever feel threatened by skateboarding hooligans while mowing the lawn I will scramble to the attic to retrieve and clean them while the SO rushes to Dick's for ammo. Though I suspect ample food would be sufficient to keep the teens at bay.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

Most Americans own guns and behave well. But there is a large minority that refuses to accept that with this extra freedom comes an extra obligation to respect the rights of one's fellow citizens. This is the element that needs to be kept in a database, and permanently disarmed as simply unreliable.

You have stated in the past that you suffered under governmental repression and you now have the audacity to suggest something like that here?

To me, people who propose "databases" of "undesirables" are the ones we need to keep an eye on. Your suggestion smacks of nothing short of "Police State" fascism.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Most Americans own guns and behave well. But there is a large minority that refuses to accept that with this extra freedom comes an extra obligation to respect the rights of one's fellow citizens. This is the element that needs to be kept in a database, and permanently disarmed as simply unreliable.

Such a database already exists. Any cop who wants to can look up the names of people on parole, probation, in prison or with records of criminal violence. Such persons are usually barred from owning fireams. Of course, since they are criminals, many of them break those laws.

 

[ottohauser1977]

You have stated in the past that you suffered under governmental repression and you now have the audacity to suggest something like that here?

To me, people who propose "databases" of "undesirables" are the ones we need to keep an eye on. Your suggestion smacks of nothing short of "Police State" fascism.

I was referring to the Instachek system. Not sure what happened to it. Not repressive. Trust me. I know what is repressive. I'm referring to something with a list of convicted felons, much like the registry of sex offenders, for instance.

I suppose that I was too vague. I hope that this clears things up. I didn't mean a list of subversives or a "death list". I mean something high-tech and limited strictly to violent criminals, such as rapists, murderers, etc. Though, admittedly, it would be better if such fellows were never released at all.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Such a database already exists. Any cop who wants to can look up the names of people on parole, probation, in prison or with records of criminal violence. Such persons are usually barred from owning fireams. Of course, since they are criminals, many of them break those laws.

That is the sort of thing which I meant. Not a Gestapo or Stasi list of subversive types.

 

[ottohauser1977]

I find it interesting that most gun-control arguments originated with racist attempts to disarm black Americans. Which gives a rather sinister twist on the whole idea.

Even though it failed, I'm glad that the Warsaw Uprising happened, because lightly armed Jews took on their oppressors and held out for a while. If they had been armed sooner and better, they might have won.

 

[JackLuis]

I find it interesting that most gun-control arguments originated with racist attempts to disarm black Americans. Which gives a rather sinister twist on the whole idea.

Even though it failed, I'm glad that the Warsaw Uprising happened, because lightly armed Jews took on their oppressors and held out for a while. If they had been armed sooner and better, they might have won.

That's hardly likely, but they could have taken a lot more Nazi's with them before the Germans brought in the heavy guns to hammer the whole getto.

Having a gun for self defense is a double edged problem. If you are too eager to use it you can get in trouble and if you don't have it loaded and ready it does no good and can even be used against you.

My dad said that if you pull a gun you had better be ready to shot it and if you aren't ready to shoot then keep it in your holster. So many states say if you have a gun you have to keep it locked up and unloaded, whic make it hard to be law abiding and ready for trouble.

Of course the gangbangers could care less and may be too ready to pop a cap in your ass. So the law abiding citizen is always at the mercy of the lawless.

 

[DesertPirate]

I think you will find it's anyone who leans towards a totalitarian regime that wants gun control, that way it's harder to rebel.
In the US it's the left that always pushes it, they are afraid of the population standing up and saying NO!

Just got another shotgun myself

 

[ottohauser1977]

I think you will find it's anyone who leans towards a totalitarian regime that wants gun control, that way it's harder to rebel.
In the US it's the left that always pushes it, they are afraid of the population standing up and saying NO!

Just got another shotgun myself

Well, speaking as a leftist, I guess that I'm an exception.

Not as extreme as the Black Panthers, of course, but I find it interesting that it was racists who wanted to disarm them.

 

[JackLuis]

Well, speaking as a leftist, I guess that I'm an exception.

Not as extreme as the Black Panthers, of course, but I find it interesting that it was racists who wanted to disarm them.

And yet it was MLK that made the change in the mood of the country not the Panthers.

Guns have very little to contribut to politics in the constructive sense. It is unfortunatly true that they are emplements of distruction and they can not decied who is right about an issue only who's left.

I keep mine to make sure I'm the one who is left.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I find it interesting that most gun-control arguments originated with racist attempts to disarm black Americans. Which gives a rather sinister twist on the whole idea.

(snip)

.

Ae you sure of that? I'm not saying they didn't, but I have never heard of it. I always thought it was an attempt by some large cities to keep guns fom criminals.