Your views please

[epiphany65]

Harold, we are showing our age...that was long before any gun control. When I lived in Colorado I walked into a gun shop, plunked down my $150 and walked out with my brand new 9mm Browning High Power. I only had to show them my drivers license, which was expired and without a picture and from a different state, and my military ID, which had a picture.

I was up in the mountains that afternoon at an outdoor range popping off rounds at paper plates along with about five other people.

Those were the days.

It used to be that way here in Canada when I was younger too. Now they won't even let you hold a gun in a store or buy bullets unless you show them a Firearms Acquisition Certificate.

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold, we are showing our age...that was long before any gun control.

That was when I was 8 or 9, and if I'd had the requisite minimum deposit, I could have gotten the rifle. My Mom had to co-sign the passbook account because of my age, but the account and the incentive prize were in my name.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I've worked in tech support. I've travelled. I've participated in many international forums. I've learned that MOST people - not all, but MOST people - are idiots. Plain and simple, they're morons. And if you stick a gun in the hand of a moron, you can expect bad things to happen. It doesn't matter if that idiot is a Swede or an American or a North-Korean.

Stupid people do stupid things. And other people suffer because the stupid people do the stupid things. Sometimes, the people who suffer are criminals who get hurt while doing other stupid things. Sometimes they are innocent bystanders who get hurt instead of the criminals. Someitmes they are the children of the stupid people, who find their stupid parents' guns and do stupid thigns with these; things that make the stupid parents very sad and very sorry that they ever bought the damned guns.
Sometimes, non.-stupid people get hurt because someone stuck a gun in the hand of a stupid person.

Like I said, there are morons everywhere, in every country. But in my country, where the gun laws are so strict that you have to have a license to own a gun AND you have to go through a hunter's training to get said gun license (unless the gun in question is from before 1890 and can not be fired)... there are less gun-related homicides than in, say, USA.

There are morons everywhere. Countries that make it difficult for their citizens to get hold of guns, have less citizens dying from gunshots.

You think you'll be safer by owning a gun? You think crime rates will go DOWN if more idiots get hold of guns? That Sweden is an exception to the rule?

C'mere, kiddies, let's do this together, from the beginning, nice and slow: one apple... and one more apple... that's two apples...

 

[cloudy]

I've worked in tech support. I've travelled. I've participated in many international forums. I've learned that MOST people - not all, but MOST people - are idiots. Plain and simple, they're morons. And if you stick a gun in the hand of a moron, you can expect bad things to happen. It doesn't matter if that idiot is a Swede or an American or a North-Korean.

Stupid people do stupid things. And other people suffer because the stupid people do the stupid things. Sometimes, the people who suffer are criminals who get hurt while doing other stupid things. Sometimes they are innocent bystanders who get hurt instead of the criminals. Someitmes they are the children of the stupid people, who find their stupid parents' guns and do stupid thigns with these; things that make the stupid parents very sad and very sorry that they ever bought the damned guns.
Sometimes, non.-stupid people get hurt because someone stuck a gun in the hand of a stupid person.

Like I said, there are morons everywhere, in every country. But in my country, where the gun laws are so strict that you have to have a license to own a gun AND you have to go through a hunter's training to get said gun license (unless the gun in question is from before 1890 and can not be fired)... there are less gun-related homicides than in, say, USA.

There are morons everywhere. Countries that make it difficult for their citizens to get hold of guns, have less citizens dying from gunshots.

You think you'll be safer by owning a gun? You think crime rates will go DOWN if more idiots get hold of guns? That Sweden is an exception to the rule?

C'mere, kiddies, let's do this together, from the beginning, nice and slow: one apple... and one more apple... that's two apples...

The thing that you, and others not from the States, don't realize is that if tomorrow a ban on all gun ownership were enacted, just who do you think would have the guns?

The law-abiding people, the ones you don't need to worry about guns in their hands anyway, would turn theirs in. That leaves hundreds of thousands of guns in the hands of those who are the ones you need to worry about.

It's never as simple as y'all seem to think it is.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The thing that you, and others not from the States, don't realize is that if tomorrow a ban on all gun ownership were enacted, just who do you think would have the guns?

The law-abiding people, the ones you don't need to worry about guns in their hands anyway, would turn theirs in. That leaves hundreds of thousands of guns in the hands of those who are the ones you need to worry about.

It's never as simple as y'all seem to think it is.

And Sweden isn't anywhere near as safe as they'd like to believe. At least when one of our politicians is assassinated, we can find out who did it.

 

[AchtungNight]

I'm from Texas, so of course I believe that everyone has the right to own firearms. However, I also believe that guns need to be regulated because of their deadliness. There needs to be an age limit on ownership (18 is my choice since it's also the US voting and drafting age), and it needs to apply to both guns and bullets. I support gun registration and serial numbers too. In addition, I fervently hope that before anyone buys a gun they will choose to become familiar with it through safety courses and test firing on a well-equipped range. I would accept laws enforcing this with caution. There are a lot of people out there who believe video games are adequate gun training (not always true), and some parents who like to teach their kids how to use guns (again, not always a good idea). There have been and continue to be way too many accidental gun injuries for people not to seek safe gun training. Unless of course they want to keep being idiots.

While we're on this subject, Happy National Night Out.

 

[Liar]

And Sweden isn't anywhere near as safe as they'd like to believe. At least when one of our politicians is assassinated, we can find out who did it.

We know who did it. Petterson is our OJ.

 

[SeaCat]

Okay, now this thread is going a bit off track even though everyones viewpoints are valid. I thank everyone for contributing as I'm learning a bit.

Now as I said in one of my posts here I support the licensing to carry concept. Hell I even broke it down a bit if I recall correctly. I do not support the concept of licensing to own. (I have lived in places that have this law, I had to have an owners license because I had a Flintlock Rifle hanging in my house. It could potentialy function, once but it was so old it would probably blow out the breach if I tried it.)

As for the registration of firearms. That's a bit of a sticky wicket. (Thanks Terry for putting that one in my mind.) On the one hand it does have a good premis. Register all firearms along with a test round fired through said weapon and enter this information into a national database. Then if someone is shot and the round is recovered it can be compared to all of the firearms of that caliber sold. On the other hand we don't have a national datat base for anything right now, including citizenship or Drivers Licenses. At this time I do not see the registration of firearms as a good thing and so do not support it.

I also mentioned something else above, something that I feel is more important. The enforcement of the laws that are currently on the books. All states and our nation have laws dealing with things like Assault and Battery, Illegal possesion of a firearm and of course Murder. Many states have what are laughingly called mandatory sentencing laws. Laughingly because they are rarely enforced. Maybe we need to start enforcing those laws?

Recently we had a little weasel who robbed several people. This little weasel had a criminal record as long as your arm, he also had a piece he picked up on the street. During one of these robberies he shot a woman, thankfully not fataly. Two of his armed robberies were recorded for posterity on video, including the one where the woman was shot. He was sentanced last week to five years in jail and another ten years on probation. (This in the state that has a mandatory sentancing law that says he should have received life.) This little weasel knows all about jail and five years is nothing for him. He's laughing. Maybe he should have received that life sentance?

Cat

 

[Svenskaflicka]

The thing that you, and others not from the States, don't realize is that if tomorrow a ban on all gun ownership were enacted, just who do you think would have the guns?

The law-abiding people, the ones you don't need to worry about guns in their hands anyway, would turn theirs in. That leaves hundreds of thousands of guns in the hands of those who are the ones you need to worry about.

It's never as simple as y'all seem to think it is.

Then how do you explain that most Swedes are law-abiding people (well, in that respect, anyway) who don't own a gun, licensed or not, AND there are criminals in Sweden who own guns, and STILL we have less crime than USA?

So what if only the criminals had guns? You really think they'd go on a national tour, going house to house and loot, just because no-one in the neighborhood has a gun?

Having a gun in your house gives you a false sense of security. A lot of all the shootings that occur involve home owners trying to defend themselves against robbers, ending up shooting themselves instead.

I think I feel more secure without a gun than you do with one.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

Having a gun in your house gives you a false sense of security. A lot of all the shootings that occur involve home owners trying to defend themselves against robbers, ending up shooting themselves instead.

Now that's kind of a broad generalization now, ain't it precious? What is right and true for you isn't necessarily right and true for me.

I feel and AM much safer with a gun in my house. My neighbors are much safer with a gun in my house. In the town that I live in I'd dare say the majority of the people here have guns in their houses and the majority know how to use them VERY well. It all has to do with the competency of the individual. I'm very competent. My wife is very competent. A burglar is either very fast or very perforated. Thems the facts, sweetness.

 

[rgraham666]

And what's right and true here in Canada is we don't need guns to keep us safe from out fellow citizens.

 

[NoJo]

Yes, there are plenty of beer glasses if it comes to a fight

 

[Sandy_Fox]

And what's right and true here in Canada is we don't need guns to keep us safe from out fellow citizens.

Okay, I'll buy off on that. It's like I said. You can't generalize. (although ALL of Canada is pushing it a smidge! )

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Same in Sweden. And I don't believe Americans would, eother, but since they've gione together and persuaded each other that they do, and no-one wants to be the first to put their guns away, they'll be forever in what I believe is called a stand-down?

Tell me, Sandy sweetness, don't you think there MIGHT be a risk that an armed burglar will be provoked into shooting if he runs into an armed home owner? He might shoot you just to stop you from shooting - which I suppose you and your neighbors will do too, namely shoot him before he can shoot you?
Whereas if you're unarmed, he doesn't feel threatened, and there's a chance he might not shoot you - unless you're really unlucky and he's on drugs and suddenly thinks you're a gigantic rat or something.

I know it sounds like a pathetic, wishy-washy cliche, but violence really DOES breed violence.

 

[Liar]

Then how do you explain that most Swedes are law-abiding people (well, in that respect, anyway) who don't own a gun, licensed or not, AND there are criminals in Sweden who own guns, and STILL we have less crime than USA?

I think guns or no guns is irrelevant to this.

There are armed societies that have very little armed crime. From the top of my head, Switzerland and Finland. (Recent Finnish school shootings excepted, they're spectacular but statistically insignificant.) And there are armed societies that have more armed crime. Same thing with unarmed societies.

The factor is something else. Most likely poverty. How much of it is there? Where is it? How does it manifest? If you have places where whole generations are born into systemartic unemployment, a career in drug dealing will begin to look not so bad. The poverty rates in western Europe are not much different than in the States, if you look at a national average. But it's more fragmented here, poor is more integrated mixed with middle class, going to the same schools, riding the same subways, et cetera. There are much fewer places where a culture (for the lack of a better word) of crime, and violent crime in it's wake, can flourish.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

There are two types of criminals, I think. Those who commit crimes out of financial need or because they've slipped into drug abuse; and those who are stupid teenagers who think being a criminal and destroying for others and behaving like a shithead is somehow cool.

I understand and pity the first group, I loath the second.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

Same in Sweden. And I don't believe Americans would, eother, but since they've gione together and persuaded each other that they do, and no-one wants to be the first to put their guns away, they'll be forever in what I believe is called a stand-down?

Tell me, Sandy sweetness, don't you think there MIGHT be a risk that an armed burglar will be provoked into shooting if he runs into an armed home owner? He might shoot you just to stop you from shooting - which I suppose you and your neighbors will do too, namely shoot him before he can shoot you?
Whereas if you're unarmed, he doesn't feel threatened, and there's a chance he might not shoot you - unless you're really unlucky and he's on drugs and suddenly thinks you're a gigantic rat or something.

I know it sounds like a pathetic, wishy-washy cliche, but violence really DOES breed violence.

Well Sven, you're right - that does sound like a pathetic, wishy-washy cliché because it is. Other than your opinion, what basis do you have to say "violence really DOES breed violence?"

My experience tells me that violence, applied properly and in an expedient manner, reduces further violence. You see the point is I WANT him to feel threatened. I want him to feel so threatened he wouldn't consider entering my house.

BTW, yes. I would shoot him before he shot me. I prefer that to "trusting" in the goodness of the burglar who broke into my house! (did you REALLY mean to say that I SHOULDN'T shoot somebody before the shoot me?).

 

[fieryjen]

Well Sven,

*ducks and covers ears, prepares for imminent explosion*




(you might want to edit that to include her full name, if you were planning on being polite)

 

[SeaCat]

Then how do you explain that most Swedes are law-abiding people (well, in that respect, anyway) who don't own a gun, licensed or not, AND there are criminals in Sweden who own guns, and STILL we have less crime than USA?

So what if only the criminals had guns? You really think they'd go on a national tour, going house to house and loot, just because no-one in the neighborhood has a gun?

Having a gun in your house gives you a false sense of security. A lot of all the shootings that occur involve home owners trying to defend themselves against robbers, ending up shooting themselves instead.

I think I feel more secure without a gun than you do with one.

Svenskaflicka,

As I have mentioned I am a gun owner, a highly trained one by the way. I can shoot and shoot well in high tension situations. I also have many other weapons in my place. Things like swords and knives hanging on the walls or in cases. All of these I am trained to use.

That being said the weapon I am most likely to grab if someone were to break into my place would be the lowly T-Ball Bat.

On the same note we have had several murders in my area in the past month. Ten of them as a matter of fact. Of these murders only one has been by firearm. The rest have been by knife, Blunt Object and in one case drowning.

The world loves to look upon America with disdain because we believe in the right to own firearms. They hold up the number of gun related deaths as proof how this idea is wrong and yet they don't also show the number of people killed in other ways in America each day. They also don't show who is shooting who or why.

Cat

 

[ishtat]

An armed citizen is a citizen. An unarmed citizen is a slave.

Possibly the armed citizen is also a slave - to his/her gun ??

 

[Svenskaflicka]

So if you shoot him, it will stop the violence, will it? Or will his gang buddies load up real good before they go and take their revenge on you?

And if he's desperate enough, he'll break in and try to rob you even if you keep a eff-ing tank in your yard. The only thing you'll accomplish is increasing the risk of violence.

Never mind, you're not open to listen to my pov, so why should I waste my time on you? Good luck, and I hope you'll be lucky enough to get to shoot a person one day. Judging from your words, it seems like you'd enjoy that.








Oh, and why do I use such a cliche? Because I've experienced it in real life. Have you?

 

[rgraham666]

He's a Marine, so I gather.

So he probably has.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Svenskaflicka,

As I have mentioned I am a gun owner, a highly trained one by the way. I can shoot and shoot well in high tension situations. I also have many other weapons in my place. Things like swords and knives hanging on the walls or in cases. All of these I am trained to use.

That being said the weapon I am most likely to grab if someone were to break into my place would be the lowly T-Ball Bat.

On the same note we have had several murders in my area in the past month. Ten of them as a matter of fact. Of these murders only one has been by firearm. The rest have been by knife, Blunt Object and in one case drowning.

The world loves to look upon America with disdain because we believe in the right to own firearms. They hold up the number of gun related deaths as proof how this idea is wrong and yet they don't also show the number of people killed in other ways in America each day. They also don't show who is shooting who or why.

Cat

Yes, there are other types of weapons, true. The reason why I focus on guns is because their sole purpose is to kill another living being. A knife is a tool in the right hands, a weapon in the wrong ones. And so are baseball bats, walking canes, whathaveya. We COULD include all that in this debate, but I chose to focus on firearms, since they can't be anything but weapons. (And possibly odd decore items.)

I suppose the problem is that you Americans see owning weapons as part of a tradition and part of freedom. To me, tradition and freedom are pretty words but not holy cows. Tradition is just another word for habit, and habits may be bad. Freedom as in the right to own firearms, or freedom as in the right to be living in a place where no-one can kill me without going into close combat with me?

I'm leaving this thread. To me, violence is always wrong, no matter what. Self-defence, you cry? Yeah, I would defend myself, too, but not with a weapon. A lesser evil is still evil.

Still fond of you, Cat, dsepite our disagreeing.

 

[epiphany65]

The world loves to look upon America with disdain because we believe in the right to own firearms. They hold up the number of gun related deaths as proof how this idea is wrong and yet they don't also show the number of people killed in other ways in America each day. They also don't show who is shooting who or why.
Cat

When it comes to the firearms issue I don't think the rest of the world holds you guys in disdain because of the right to bear arms, but rather for the indiscriminate use of them against innocent people.

Showing the number of people killed in other ways has no bearing on the gun issue. Just because X-amount of people may die in car accidents or from cancer each day, month, or year says nothing about the gun debate.

I'd really like to see the numbers on who is shooting who. It seems to me that far too many innocent people are dying because of guns.

 

[SeaCat]

Whoa, now wait a minute people.

Let's at least try to be civil. We all have our viewpoints on this subject but we don't have to be attacking each other over them.

Cat